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.”
” The lesson of WACO is to pick up the person of interest in public instead of SWATing their house (or getting the address wrong).”
Folks, we have a WINNER
I’ll bet 90% of SWAT entries are overkill.
Hey just do do not go postal on me.
My position is always on the side of the weak, innocent, helpless or just unaware. I'd be on your side because you've missed so terribly much by spending the last decade in a coma or something. Maybe you spent it in a comma (Bwahahahahaha!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!)
“She said he tossed her stuff. The cops had every right to make a housecall without a warrant. He had no right to attack the cops.”
Which is totally irrelevant to how the Legislature responded to the court ruling. The court did not isolate their ruling to this one case saying that the man in question had no right to resist, they went farther and said that no one had a right to resist an illegal action by law enforcement. Apparently both you and the dumb bastards on the Indiana Supreme Court failed to grasp the keener points of the Declaration of Independence.
In short, if a government endorses illegal activity by its agents and then holds itself above the law then that government should and must be overthrown and replaced.
The Legislature acted appropriately to maintain law and order in the face of a statist ruling that threatens the stability of both the State of Indiana and the nation as a whole.
Cops are not above the law and anyone who thinks otherwise is an enemy of the Constitution and overthrowing such people is an act of patriotism.
They did get the right address at WACO ~ hard to miss it in fact ~ may well have been the only thing they did right though.
You have to solve the problem ~ not play with it.
I remember that court ruling very well and was wondering what body of foreign law the robes were reading. Glad to see Mitch and company catch up with “the code of the west “. If police have a valid warrant they need to spit it out loud and proud-——if they don’t they need to take cover anywhere in my neighborhood.
I think the reasoning behind having so many SWAT units per state is for immediate heavy-capability response, probably for things such as hostage situations and bomb threats. Though things like terrorist acts I feel would happen and be over before a good enough response can be mounted.
And that is just one reason why every state needs to be neutered as far as being able to limit our God-given right to self-defense.
I don’t see it either. Unless, it is the blue eyes. ;)
Woooooo Hoooo!!!
I know I’m late to the thread, but the US Supreme Court ruled that law enforcement is under no legal obligation to protect you.
You may kiss the boots of thugs with badges, but Indiana for me just because the number one state to move to when I’m able to leave NYC.
Yeah : )
Not to play devil’s advocate, but a tank is a heavily armored vehicle with significant offensive capabilities; an armored personnel carrier is designed with defensive capabilities in mind to get people from one place to another quickly and safely.
I'd suspect that's not a hypothetical with you.
It's not a hypothetical. Why are you acting like a hysterical Liberal on this thread? Do you have police in your family? Is that why?
I frankly think this is a racist intrusion into the thread.
And yes, I am quite cognizant of how "racism" is misused as a term by the left.
I'm not gonna run whining to any moderator, but this just does not sit right by ne.
What percentage of any jurisdiction’s police are militarized SWAT types. I’m guessing 5 to 10%. Most cops don’t go to work with M4s or HKs, dressed like storm troopers. So I don’t buy the militarized police. There’s been a member of my family of the NYPD continuously since 1951 and military is hardly how I would describe them. As far as this law, when you start shooting at the cops then you’ve put your whole family in the crosshairs, because there is one true thing about all cops. they leave home each day determined to do whatever it takes to get home at end of shift.
Maybe you should think twice before raiding someones home and shooting their dogs.
What percentage of any jurisdiction’s police are militarized SWAT types. I’m guessing 5 to 10%. Most cops don’t go to work with M4s or HKs, dressed like storm troopers. So I don’t buy the militarized police. There’s been a member of my family on the NYPD continuously since 1951 and military is hardly how I would describe them. As far as this law, when you start shooting at the cops then you’ve put your whole family in the crosshairs, because there is one true thing about all cops. they leave home each day determined to do whatever it takes to get home at end of shift.
“Then throw it back in the judges’ faces by REMOVING THEM FROM THE BENCH”
We can do that, too. Denying the people’s right to self-defense ought to be grounds for impeachment. What’s the matter in the meantime with passing a clarifying law in case the next guy gets any bright ideas?
Well, I've never been pro-WoD, because I've always seen it as insanely destructive and counter-productive to its stated ends. What i find to be funny is that I'm a lot more peace officer friendly now than I used to be. Note, there is a distinct difference between a "peace officer" and a "law enforcement officer". While they both wear badges, they are completely different animals. I actually like most of the cops in the immediate town where I live. I know most of them, and am friends with the chief who goes to the same church I do. I can tell you that the tenor of the department comes directly from the chief. He's all about the community, and how they can be of service to it. We've had officers that were more interested in writing tickets than anything else, and if they can't take direction from above they are encouraged to find employment with any of the other departments in our area that are satisfied with being largely tax collectors for the police state.
They must, though be bound by the law, and recognise that our rights as free citizens are of primary importance, and must be respected. Any "LEO" who does not respect me and my rights as a citizen is an enemy of the people in my not so very humble opinion, and don't deserve slack or respect.
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.