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.”
Where I live...if I rely on the cops to help me...is stupid. They are 5-20 min's away...
You ought to drive around where I live.........
I wish courts would recognize that judgments of whether "probable cause" exists, or whether something is "reasonable", generally entail judgments about whether certain factual claims are true. As such, the defendant's rights to have factual claims evaluated by a jury should extend to them. While defendants have the right to have evidence suppressed if it was obtained in patently unreasonable fashion, they also have the (unfortunately generally unacknowledged) right to argue that a search was conducted illegitimately; a jury that agrees with the defendant that a search was illegitimate should not construe any evidence from such a search in a manner detrimental to the defendant.
To be sure, many jurors would probably not discount illegitimate evidence to the extent they should, but if e.g. the defense successfully convinced a jury that a cop who got a search warrant did not really believe the claims made in the warrant application, the jury might decide that the defendant posed less of a danger to society than a lying cop.
Are you a cop? Just asking.
“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!”
I’m sorry to ave to be so blunt, but that’s bull...
If your spouse is crazy and seems threatening, get the hell out. It may put you in a bad position from a finical standpoint, but the criminal justice system is not there to support you in that regard. Get a good civil lawyer...
And you?
of course not, are you?
like they say, when seconds count the cops are only minutes away.
“The cops won’t be helping you anymore. “
When did the cops ever help anyone? It’s all about them...
I’m down with that.
Need a job, and for my wife not to recoil with horror at the notion of temperatures over 80.
This was wartime and the main point of the ruling was the establishment of the "clear and present danger" test.
If the theater were on fire, of course it would be wrong to NOT shout "fire"!
Nope
Maybe we could carve out an exception though ~ a big sign "Fourth Amendment Absolutist" and no matter what happens NO ONE even steps on your lawn.
You must read the supreme court decision with that in mind to understand the particular legal holes they left.
It's the very reason the justice who wrote it and the others who concurred MUST BE REMOVED ~ and possibly punished.
You must read the supreme court decision with that in mind to understand the particular legal holes they left.
It's the very reason the justice who wrote it and the others who concurred MUST BE REMOVED ~ and possibly punished.
Now, back to this case, no needs to be screaming in the background under American law ~ she can have simply asked for police assistance demurely and politely over the telephone. She has her rights, equal to yours, irrespective of her vocal qualities.
Can you back that up? Because I don't see it. I don't see how the law will protect anybody who shoots a police office who is lawfully doing his duty. I don't buy the argument that the police need total carte blanche to do their job.
And police know that responding to a domestic disturbance is already one of the most dangerous things they do, even without this law.
What was so amazing is that the contractor figured out immediately what it was that enraged the citizens. No doubt he knew that before he decided to keep them awake.
BTW, the cops had been called to enforce the county's noise ordinance ~ dozens of people called them. After the shooting they probably thought it was just more people complaining about noise.
Breaking down doors? This whole thing started with an OPEN DOOR!
So, what would be a "reasonable search"? Perhaps you are a cop and a citizen has invited you over to help. Well, just darned, that sounds absolutely "reasonable".
You write a letter to your congresscritter. What is your right to do so?
I agree with your analysis.
I think the Indiana law is just using the court decision as an excuse to draw a line in the sand against what looks like, to many, cops increasingly getting out of control.
Which, as you point out, does not address the equally big problem of the USA gradually adopting Shari’a law! Like all the military and FBI training manuals now being scrubbed of anything that might look like a possible insult to Islam.
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.