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.”
No one here claimed that Robert Peel invented or coined the word “police”.
You fail to understand both “Father of Modern Policing” and “Peelian principles”, it would seem.
That's why it's in there ~ if you don't like it get in your time machine and go back and tell her "Lady, don't call the cops because....." and give her a fanciful story about how that's just going to make her ex angry and he'll stop moving out ~ whatever you want.
Be quick about it, get back here and tell us her reaction.
She might be surprised that he's so terribly famous now.
That's why it's in there ~ if you don't like it get in your time machine and go back and tell her "Lady, don't call the cops because....." and give her a fanciful story about how that's just going to make her ex angry and he'll stop moving out ~ whatever you want.
Be quick about it, get back here and tell us her reaction.
She might be surprised that he's so terribly famous now.
Again, you arguing that a right of the people does not exist unless its stated in the Constitution ~ and that's just wrong. Our Constitution is open ended. The people have all the rights, even rights undreamed of, unless the Constitution provides that the government has the right or privilege in question.
That's one of the implications the cops belive is in this new law ~ I simply traced the law back to its first causes.
Another poster wanted to argue over whether the Founding Fathers knew what police powers were, only he didn't really understand the term ~ he thinks it means uniformed paramilitary city militia.
Frankly, the first incident where somebody does get hurt this thing will be right back on the grind on its way to a federal district court, and so on ~ and the examination is going to begin with the woman calling the cops.
I know there are a lot of people who want the story to start with a cop kicking in a door or getting the wrong address, but that's simply not the way THIS tale began.
Until the state legislature removes the offending judges from the bench this law will continue to be knocked down by them as Unconstitutional. I am, to say the least, distressed that we have so many Freepers who want to keep the judges on the bench to continue harming the public and distorting the Constitution.
Does this law protect or encourage the murder of cops?
How?
My question is about the law, and it's very simple:
How does this law prevent or hinder what you see as your right to call the cops?
Quite true. It in fact seems to show a bit of the liberalesque confusion between the right to ask for something and the right to get it on demand.
The blood is on your hands.
How does this law make the cop think that?
and
Should we do away with warrants all together to avoid blood on our hands?
Here we are leaving it to a homeowner (presumably, maybe a drunk guy at a party) to decide for himself whether or not a cop has entered the home lawfully or unlawfully.
Let me tell you how this comes down ~ DC is pretty strict with the cops. The same criminal class that does all the crime also gets all the politicians elected, so they require the cops to toe the line closely.
A buddy of mine working for the DC police had to do the Kabuki dance they require for a raid ~ he had to HOLD the warrant in his hand and open the door ~ simultaneously ~ without a drawn weapon.
So, he's a big guy and he could usually do that and then the rest of the cops would barrel in on the raid.
One day he did it and a woman kind of behind the door, crouching down, grabbed his pistol and began pulling it out of his holster while he's busy busting down the door, barrelling through and holding the warrent in his other hand.
He reach down to grab his pistol and she pulled the trigger which severely injured his trigger finger putting him out of the DC detective business and into the used car lots as a retiree.
Your taxes at work.
The criminals who run DC government demand this of their cops so that they DO NOT EVER do an unlawful entry ~ their theory is the crooks should freeze in place as they go in with one of their number leading the way holding the warrant in his hand!
The crooks don't do that. They shoot cops.
An alternative scenario has a couple in a domestic dispute and he's gathering up his stuff and moving out.
Let's say he busts up some of her stuff while doing that ~ or maybe hits her ~ something minor. Maybe he just yelled at her for an hour or two. Really minor.
She calls the cops to come to the home because he's out of line.
I"ve noticed most of the critics of starting the story with a domestic dispute (which happened in real life in the case that resulted in this legislation) seem to be totally blind to the rights of women ~ which are, essentially, the same as the rights of men ~ in all these property and domestic disputes.
The situation is when either party calls the cops and the cops arrive they are going to have to investigate the situation to the satisfaction of the general public who hire them. You can't just jump the cops ~ or kill them. They didn't make an unlawful entry ~ they responded to your husband's call for assistance, or presence.
The sooner you get your emotions under control the sooner they'll leave. Screaming and hollering like a wildcat just doesn't cut it. In fact, that just gives them probable cause ~ and that can happen so quickly, and so unassumingly that you probably think they are breaking in your home.
Sure, the law says you can resist only if they are breaking the law, but when you're running around screaming your head off, bluffing, blustering and tossing stuff, are you fit to decide that the cop your husband called is there unlawfully?
The cops said they believed it encouraged the murder of cops. As long as they believe that you get the consequences of having your local cops believe that.
What are you babbling about?
>>>we are leaving it to a homeowner (presumably, maybe a drunk guy at a party) to decide for himself whether or not a cop has entered the home lawfully or unlawfully.
No matter what the judgement of the citizen is, does the law allow him to shoot a cop solely because of unlawful entry?
Read the law.
You know. Don’t be coy.
As I read it, I believe the answer is no.
Do you disagree?
The cops disagree and as long as they have a belief they will act on it. You’ll end up with the same result even if the law doesn’t say you can shoot cops in your living room.
I think you mean the crooks disagree, correct?
Maybe you do mean the cops disagree?
No matter who disagrees, who is correct?
Does the law does the law allow a citizen to shoot a cop solely because of unlawful entry?
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.