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.”
Should be ringing your door bell any minute now.
Actually, the vocabulary of those men was quite extensive.
They did not confuse “thing” and “think”, for instance; nor did they casually substitute “power” for “right”, as you suggest.
They understood that words have meanings, and that one selects precisely the right word for the occasion, particularly when one is writing the highest law of the land.
I see you have not yet researched why the tenth amendment was worded the way the Founders worded it.
It's obvious to everyone else outside of the Leftwingtard literary mainstream that "or the people" clearly reiterates that THE PEOPLE are the ultimate authority from whom all "Powers" are taken and to whom all "Rights" are given by God.
Please learn to use synonymns. I did. They are wonderful things.
I’m very well aware of how the tenth reads. The Founders wrote it very precisely. They were *extremely* careful as to how they worded the Constitution.
“Right” and “power” are not legally or constitutionally equivalent. Claiming that they are is flaunting Constitutional and legal ignorance.
Nw, it keeps the leftwingtards at bay. Sometimes, as we’ve found out after two centuries of practice, we find the Constitution reads a bit fuzzy. Requires a lot of historical research to determine the original intent, not just a book on grammar and a dictionary.
A person is justified in using reasonable force against a cop simply when a cop acts unlawfully?
What??
In cases and situations where a person is justified in using reasonable force against a non-public servant as well.
Law puts a public servant acting unlawfully in the same category as another citizen, rather than immune.
k) A person is not justified in using deadly force against a public servant whom the person knows or reasonably should know is a public servant unless: (1) the person reasonably believes that the public servant is: (A) acting unlawfully;
A person is justified in using deadly force against a cop simply when a cop acts unlawfully?
What??
Read the whole thing. It’s pretty clear.
Reasonable/deadly.. etc. are the same as usual with non-public servants. Difference in this law is in whether the citizen can be prosecuted if used against public servant acting unlawfully.
Just unlawful is not enough, regular restrictions on reasonable and deadly apply.
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.