Posted on 06/12/2012 4:31:20 AM PDT by Rennes Templar
Police officers in Indiana are upset over a new law allowing residents to use deadly force against public servants, including law enforcement officers, who unlawfully enter their homes. It was signed by Republican Governor Mitch Daniels in March.
The first of its kind in the United States, the law was adopted after the state Supreme Court went too far in one of its rulings last year, according to supporters. The case in question involved a man who assaulted an officer during a domestic violence call. The court ruled that there was “no right to reasonably resist unlawful entry by police officers.”
The National Rifle Association lobbied for the new law, arguing that the court decision had legalized police to commit unjustified entries.
Tim Downs, president of the Indiana State Fraternal Order of Police, which opposed the legislation, said the law could open the way for people who are under the influence or emotionally distressed to attack officers in their homes.
“It’s just a recipe for disaster,” Downs told Bloomberg. “It just puts a bounty on our heads.”
Yes it was a terrible case.
You really have to go back to first causes ~ why the cops are there. They are there because they were called by a citizen who is otherwise lawfully possessing her abode and she said she wanted help.
Br'r Barnes had no right to interfere with her right of access to the cops. He had no right whatsoever to demand the cops leave.
That's the whole issue. That issue will be brought up every time there's the slightest challenge in court to the application of this particular law (the one just passed).
It is expedient for the police to render assistance to citizens in distress. It is their right to arrest you for interfering.
Now that all depends on the nature of the distress, doesn't it? Not to mention the nature of the "interference."
Knowing that it's clear that it has suddenly become very dangerous for police to make a call in a lawful manner or an unlawful manner.
They will make fewer calls.
In Texas you can use deadly force if you feel yourself, your family or your property is in danger. So, why couldn’t you shoot a cop if he shoots your dog?
Now, just who are you to doubt my assertion that an Arab American is, in fact, an Arab American well known by nearly everyone meaningful to be an Arab American!
Not only did these pigs enter the wrong house, they falsified information to get the search warrant.
Also: Officer Jarrod Shivers was shot and killed while executing a search warrant in Cheseapeake, Virginia Thursday night. http://www.theagitator.com/2008/01/19/virginia-cop-killed-in-drug-raid-suspect-says-he-was-defending-his-home/
And another: POLICE AS HOME INVADERS:“The family of that girl who shot at a SWAT officer during a pre-dawn raid on her home is saying she thought it was a burglar and not police. Hard not to give that claim some credence. When police start using the same tactics as violent home invaders, how do you tell the difference?”http://frontburner.dmagazine.com/2007/10/19/friday-morning-rant-police-as-home-invaders/
You don't know about it. You are lying there half awake in front of the TV catching the last of the game in LA ~ wearing your holster ~ ready to go.
The cop knocks at the door ~ the door swings in ~ somebody forgot to close it all the way.
You lurch around and pull your piece ~
Rarely someone will drop in a motion about considering the Constitutionality of the law governing the case.
Even though that law may have been endlessly debated, the entire exegesis will probably be appended to the motion, and with something new and previously unconsidered ~ e.g. the woman in the very first case that led to the passage of this law to undo a state supreme court decision did so and so and her rights were not addressed, and "your honor, my case is EXACTLY the same and we cannot proceed unless the woman in this cases is given her rights".
Well, there you have it.
Sometimes a judge will say "well, OK, let's do it'. Most of the time he'll deny the motion ~ which means you will need to take that to an appellate court. So, how rich are you. The answer is somebody is rich enough out there to do that someday.
That's why I'm sticking to the legal history. Doorbusting thug cops weren't part of this one ~ just two guys on a call from a citizen.
This law didn't fix the problem. Rather, it's just a ruse to fool the rubes into thinking Mitch Daniels cares.
If he cared he'd got his buddy removed from the state supreme court first!
I wonder how many of these situations we never hear about...too bad, lots of cops have to die before it changes, or they might risk prison time...and the biggie can we say personal law suits against the rogues...something has to put a little fear in such actions...then they will stop....
I really don't understand where we get so many Freepers from who are afraid of removing judges. What are you, dhimmis?
The cops were wrong and the Supreme Court was wrong. The legislature corrected the court mistake.
You, on the other hand, are more intent on the abusive "ex".
Can you tell us why you think the former husband (who has moved out) Has rights superior to his former wife?
You keep ignoring the cop's introduction to the scene. It started with HER calling the cops. The key officer in the case stopped by on a quite ordinary call. Barnes said he was moved out. But, he made an attempt to prevent the officer from seeing the person (the woman) who called.
I believe he pushed the officer.
That's a real serious "Who struck john".
>> Your right to request assistance from the cops just disappeared. <<
Not sure that is a right, ie - life, liberty, pursuit of happiness... Just sayin.
>> The cops won’t be helping you anymore. <<
They aren’t helping me now. Only thing I’ve ever gotten from cops is a ticket and an attitude.
The Legislature decided to pass a law instead of removal.
There was no crime in progress when the cops arrived on the scene.
I was on the side of the guy who got shot ~ you all supported the NYPD blindly. Then there was the guy who pulled ID as directed and the cops unloaded on him. I was on his side and you all sided with the cops.
I'm siding with the woman in this case, and the right of the people of Indiana to not have the principles of Sharia law imposed on them.
Maybe ~ check your state’s statutes and precedental court judgments.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.