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.”
“As to in what matter they responded”
matter = manner
Amendment IVWait, what's that?
The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.
no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation,So, probable cause is what's used to get a warrant?
So did the SCOTUS ruling nullify Plummers?
That does NOT include unlawful entry, by means of breaking down doors. You do sort of sound like a liberal siding with the cops on this.
Fixed.
No, it doesn't:
exigent (adjective) 1. requiring immediate action or aid; urgent; pressing. 2. requiring a great deal, or more than is reasonable.As you can see, "exigent circumstances" is just an excuse from having to comply with the 4th Amendment; likewise if a policeman is invited in, there can be no expectation that his search is unwarranted: he is there at your own request.
you yourself mentioned that situation where the sewer company was illegally working past the hours they were expected to work within. Where were the cops? Deliquient right? Good for the citizens for taking the matters into their won hands for the lack of said police force, by shooting at the transformer and hopefully shutting down their work schedule at all hours of the night.
Sorry Tim, but your argument falls flat. People who are under the influence, or other wise under distress, are NOT going to be more likely to attack police, who enter their homes, because of this law. In fact, people under the influence or under distress are going to be more likely to attack police regardless of this law.
I missed this when I scanned before, so let me go back.
“We have people here arguing that unless an officer comes with a warrant in all circumstances the new Indiana law allows somebody to shoot the officer.”
I’ve been thinking you were under this misapprehension, and I think I may have already addressed it. But let me reiterate: this is about unlawful entry, not unwarranted entry. Just because the cops lack a warrant does not make their actions unlawful. Or, at least, not according to legal precedent. No one thinks you can shoot cops just because they have no warrant. Cops can lawfully enter your property without a warrant.
The exceptions to the need for a warrant are well known and easy to demonstrate. All cops have to do is show probable cause, and that can be done along with a litany of other ways by saying they heard a “plaintive call” or some other evidence of imminent danger of bodily harm or death to someone at the scene.
“’exigent circumstances’ ~ are you trying to lecture me or what?”
No, it’s a common legal term, like “probable cause” or “reasonable suspicion.”
“The cops were called by the resident. That’s how this whole case started. Exigent circumstances necessarily includes the possibility that a citizen asks an officer for help.”
No, someone calling you does not by itself make the situation exigent. If you called saying someone was in the process of murdering you, yes, that would be exigent. Or if the cops showed up and heard screams from the back room, then they’d be able to rush right in. But there has to be some danger of imminent harm, some emergency, and it must go above and beyond what merely gets officers to respond. They are not allowed to break in just because someone called them.
“My point is a simple one ~ in any future debate before the Indiana Supreme court, or the federal courts, the history of the legislation is going to be entered as evidence.”
Only so as to establish what it means. And even then at most what you could say is that the legislature disagreed with the court’s assertion that individuals have no right to assert self-defense against the unlawful entry of police officers. The circumstances of the case which occasioned the court’s decision would be irrelevant. Nothing about that case could possibly tie the right to self-defense to what the husband or cops in that particular situation did, nor to Sharia law.
“That legislation starts in response to a court decision that deals with a specific case where a citizen called the cops for help.”
So what? The most you could do is record it as a historical curiosity. It would in no case control what the law means. It couldn’t possibly mean under that law cops can’t respond to a citizen’s call without fear of being shot. All it means is that they have to be sure they have a warrant or probable cause to enter someone’s home. That was supposed to be the case prior to the law, too. Only now they can be legally shot if they don’t.
Again, the cops in the previous case either had probable cause or not to enter that man’s home. If they didn’t, under this law he can shoot them. If they did, this law changes nothing and he can’t shoot anyone.
“It is pretty clear that the legislation ALSO reduces the privilege of a citizen to call on the cops for help.”
That is not clear whatsoever. Your ability if not your right—since I don’t think there is such s right—to call on the cops for help is in no way hindered. It may deter cops from breaking the law to help you. Such situations exist, no doubt, but whether or not the cops can be shot because of it they’re not supposed to be doing it. This law in no way prevents cops from getting a warrant or ascertaining and being able to later prove probable cause, which is what they’re supposed to do anyway.
It’s just now they might die if they don’t.
“As you can see, ‘exigent circumstances’ is just an excuse from having to comply with the 4th Amendment”
Yes, but unl;ike the travesties they get away with during traffic stops, at the airport, and when they think they hear you flushing evidence down the toilet, it is a reasonable one, sorta like the yelling fire in a crowded theater exception to amendment one. If any kind of probable cause doesn’t need a warrant it’s an emergency wherein someone’s in danger of death or great bodily harm.
Not that I go around looking for exceptions. We’d probably be better off without them, including the “Fire!” ones.
I’ve never thought it very smart to pull a gun on a cop - or cops.
If they are attacking your home and shooting up your family smart doesn’t enter into the picture. Self-defense becomes the only order of the day.
““It’s just a recipe for disaster,” Downs told Bloomberg. “It just puts a bounty on our heads.””
Here’s an idea, Downs, don’t UNLAWFULLY enter our homes.
Signed,
The Law Abiding Citizens of Indiana
Indeed, there is. The blurring of the distinction between the roles has worked to the great detriment of both.
You just pushed my RANT button:
The "crowded theater" example is so horrendously wrong that its originator should have been laughed out of office in disgrace. There is obviously one case where the person can, and should, yell 'Fire!' and that is when there is a fire; an in like vein, when he perceives a fire he has the responsibility to alert the others.
The correct ruling would have been: The first amendment is clear: congress shall make no law abridging speech. That, however, does not indemnify someone who, with malicious intent, lies so to the public from civil accountability for injury and damages.
Not that I go around looking for exceptions. We’d probably be better off without them, including the “Fire!” ones.
I agree; I absolutely loathe that decision and its line of reasoning.
Good to know.
I’m glad Texas gets that right.
Well said.
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.
*****
So, all Freepers need to move to Texas, displace the fleeing liberals, and call it Texas, The Freeping State of America?
;-)
If a burglar enters your house, you protect yourself, right? What if a cop enters illegally? The law gives you the right to resist, not necessarily to shoot them.
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.