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.”
[That could be the first step in ending the “War on Drugs(TM)”.... ]
The war on drugs has been a constitutionally undeclared war on the people’s 1st, 2nd, 4th, 5th and several other amendment rights. It has been used to justify the restriction of arms rights, the restriction of peoples freedom to associate, the freedom to carry as much “physcial money” as you want to, search and seizure and self incrimination.
It has done as much to screw up the rights of the people as the progressive have.
HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA OK, that's the funniest thing I've read all day. Thanks I needed that.
freerepublic bride groom sean bell ~ do a google.com search for those 5 words.
Wow. You have to look back to December of 2006 to find a post where you didn't support the state with a typical knee-jerk response. Impressive.
Anyone can browse your posting history, if they can stand wading through it and see exactly what side of the police state you're firmly entrenched hehind.
I also take the part of postal workers ~ particularly when there's a dog involved, or when they have a toilet emergency. Folks who have to run out immediately and take a picture are all perverts in my book.
That hardly makes me a statist. In fact, it makes me a hard core right wing original intent Constitutionalist.
BTW, your political position seems to be one of utter confusion. You'd make everybody happy by making sure you vote on Wednesdays in the future.
Talk about a bunch of Leftwingtard politics ~ you got 'em in spades.
In America, unlike most other societies, that which is not prohibited is allowed.
I am not prohibited from calling the cops therefore I have a right, under the 10th Amendment to call the cops ~
That's in addition to the First Amendment that tells me the same thing the Magna Carta told King John and the Nobles ~ they could "petition" him for "redress of grievance" ~ and you can interpret petition however you wish ~ I find it a rather technology free word since in its day it meant beseach, intreat, call upon, write a letter to, etc. And, "redress of grievance" is just a high falooting way of saying "solve my problem".
You guys who don't want agree, please don't bother calling the cops. You don't believe you have a constitutional right to do so, so just don't, and don't bother me about it, and keep your kids and dogs off my lawn. It's mine, not yours. Don't even look this way ~ you're gettin' in my business and I don't like that eh.
The Warsaw Ghetto Act of 2012.
Well then, let's look at what you actually said...
Actually, you notice nothing whatsoever. I remember most of you from the Bridegroom Killing in New York.
Again, it is fairly funny that you had to go all the way back to 2006 to find a post where you supported someone against the police. However, if you'd looked, you will find that I was not a poster to that thread. You would have known that had you even bothered to look at the thread. I seriously doubt I ever saw it, as I'd have likely posted to it if I had.
I was on the side of the guy who got shot ~ you all supported the NYPD blindly.
Again "you all" wouldn't have included me.
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.
Prove it.
I also take the part of postal workers ~ particularly when there's a dog involved, or when they have a toilet emergency. Folks who have to run out immediately and take a picture are all perverts in my book.
It's not surprising that you'd support your brethren in the postal service.
However, it has been my experience on this site that you consistantly support the jackbooted thugs over citizens. Doubtless others as well.
HAND
You’ll go a long way to find me supporting a jack booted thug. On the other hand you have posted under more than one name ~ which is why you got included in my “you”.
prove that moron.
I've used zeugma as an alias for literally decades.
Your point #2 will allow an expansion, leading the way to unwarranted searches/surveillance by airborne drones, which are now un-touchable by civilian technology...
Must have struck a nerve eh.
BTW this article offers little detail about the details of the case and the law. I reserve judgment until I track down more details.
“It just puts a bounty on our heads.”
Ridiculous. Nobody is going to get any benefits now from shooting a cop. There are still going to be all sorts of complications, even it the shooting was in full compliance with this law, since they will surely have to go through some judicial rigamarole to demonstrate that the shooting was copacetic. Plus, the law does nothing to stop police from harassing a justified shooter in any of the myriad ways they can dream up and get away with. All this does is help protect a citizen from frivolous prosecution for exercising their right of self defense if the attacker is a rogue cop.
That would be the lesson, but they are more worried about justifying continued militarization of the police forces than they are about not killing the citizenry.
Except for the urbanized areas, a county swat team should be more than sufficient for the times they really need it. Better to have it at that level anyway, since it would be controlled by the Sheriff, and if abused, he would be have to answer directly to the citizens he is abusing at the polling place.
Right. It’s better for 1000 drug dealers to walk because they flushed their stash than for 1 innocent person, cop or citizen, to lose their lives due to overzealous use of SWAT tactics.
I tend to think you’re right.
Such a twisted interpretation of the tenth amendment finds that one has a “right” to health care and a “right” to a tuition paid college education.
The Constitution does not acknowledge a separate and specific “right” to call the cops.
There is no “right to call the cops” mentioned in the Constitution, and the Founders would not have conceived of such a “right” because Robert Peel founded the modern police force in 1829.
One interprets the words of the Constitution in keeping with the intent and meaning of the founders, not however one “wishes” to interpret them. The latter “method of interpretation” is the one in vogue with liberals.
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.