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.”
It’s about time someone finally caught up with Texas on the subject. Someone tell ABC they’re wrong.
People who are 'under the influence or emotionally distressed' will attack an Officer of the Law anyways.
“It’s just a recipe for disaster,” Downs told Bloomberg. “It just puts a bounty on our heads.”
An easy fix ...simply ensure you double check that the address you are about to perform a 'dynamic entry' into is the correct address. It may even save you a couple Dollars that might have been spent replacing bullets used to shoot the family dog. We all know it requires a fusillade of bullets to put down an angry vicious man-eating Labrador. Particularly the ones that stick their tongues out!
He sounds like a gun-control nut - same reasoning.
However - although no one should ever be in favor of shooting at any law enforcement this will do two things.
1. The police will do a little more research for the correct address before they come crashing through someone’s door.
2. Or - (what I’m afraid of) the police will step up their overreaction and use of excessive force all in the name of “officer safety”.
Just watch a “SWAT” show on TV - they love to destroy a structure to apprehend the suspect who’s sleeping on the couch.
Exactly. Texas law allows the same, but you better be absolutely sure the LEO is in violation of the law if you do so. However, it does keep everyone honest.
Second state. See post 19.
The logical solution was to simply remove the Justices who made the stupid decision in the first place; replace them, and then re-run the case with more rational people on the bench.
What Indiana has done instead is write a law that supplants the court decision.
The facts are that the original case had none of the elements the court said it did nor does the new law address any of the troublesome elements of the original case.
As we all recall the wife and her husband were calling it quits. He's got a truck and is moving 'his stuff' out.
He starts tossing "her stuff' and she called the cops.
They came over and he became belligerent.
For many people the case focuses on how the cops dealt with the guy. For others the case focuses on the way the court so casually dismissed the woman's rights ~ actually the court totally ignored the woman treating her like you would under Sharia Law.
For others of us who recognized that fact the whole case is about the insertion of Sharia standards of evidence into Indiana courts by a Justice who'd formerly been chief counsel for the GITMO detainees for something like 8 years. He'd been appointed by Governor Daniels and this was his first chance to write a major decision for the court majority.
Obviously the Justice shouldn't have been sitting on an American court, and obviously the other Justices who went along with him shouldn't have been there either.
I'm not sure shooting the cops is the way to handle judicial misconduct, and this law does nothing to give relief to any woman who calls the cops to come over and supervise her probably soon ex-husband's exit from what had formerly been their joint residence.
And, worse, it does nothing to excise Sharia law standards from the repertoire of the Indiana Supreme Court!
Ordinarily I'd let that slide on by because it's a really minor issue in comparison to other Sharia law problems in America, but Mitch Daniels is Arab American, and this really does mean something ~ now I like Mitch, but he was as meek and mild in the face of this Middle Eastern legal intrustion as any dhimmi resident in a Syrian village waiting on the AlQaida to come around and chop off his head.
So, what is it? Is this hereditary ~ that the Moslems can beat you up for a thousand years and you automatically cave to their BS, or what? I think we need an answer to that first!
I don’t see how it “puts a bounty on their heads”.
When you have a warrant to serve, walk up to the door with your sidearm holstered, knock, serve the warrant, and walk away.
I’ve been trying to remember the last time I heard of a Texas SWAT unit pulling a “whoops, wrong house, we meant to raid the house down the block” screwup, and I don’t think I’ve heard of one in the last ten years. I’m pretty sure 9.31 and 9.32 are why.
Absolutely!
It's always good to take a look at the facts of the case that precipitates this sort of thing and kind of work from there.
This was a domestic dispute.
48. See post 19. Nice of Indiana to catch up with us here in Texas.
IMO, the only reason to make a "dynamic entry" is if someone seen entering a home and once inside is being threatened and in eminent danger. That being the case, any LEO entering will face the same threats whether this law is in place or not. Suspicion of drug dealing, prostitution, whatever, is not a reason to SWAT a home. If they are doing something illegal inside the home, surveil and catch them outside; then go in with a warrant.
No applause for Mitch.
More like it gives them a drug test, and a restraining order ;o)
You think it was tough getting the cops to deal with crime before, now there's no reason whatsoever for them to do so.
This creates a third world situation for law enforcement, and for private citizens who are left to deal with someone else's criminal behavior on their own!
people who are under the influence or emotionally distressed will not refrain from violence just because of a law. The court decision immunized police from accountability for invading homes without warrant.
Totally agree with you, I feel like most cops anymore are itching to put the hurt on citizens. They shoot dogs for the hell of it even when they are leashed, and they flat out enjoy beating the S%%t out of people just because they can. This law, at the least, will make them think twice before they go kicking in someone’s door for fun and games on a Saturday night. I’m sorry but I used to respect law enforcement but I have absolutely zero now. They don’t keep you safe, they always show up after the crime has been committed and then they treat you like the perp. We live in a society where you must protect yourself, because no one else is going too.
Got it.
I'm good with that.
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.