Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

Indiana First State to Allow Citizens to Shoot Law Enforcement Officers
AllGov ^ | June 11, 2012 | Noel Brinkerhoff

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.”


TOPICS: Breaking News; Front Page News; Government; News/Current Events; US: Indiana
KEYWORDS: 2012; banglist; donttreadonme; donutwatch; homeascastle; indiana; lawenforcement; leo; mitchdaniel; mitchdaniels; nra; swat; swatabuse
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-20 ... 281-300301-320321-340 ... 421-429 next last
To: Rennes Templar
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.

Simple solution. Respect the Constitution. Don't unlawfully enter someone's home.

Any LEO who is in a person's home lawfully is in no more danger than they were without the law.

301 posted on 06/12/2012 5:34:32 PM PDT by metmom (For freedom Christ has set us free; stand firm therefore & do not submit again to a yoke of slavery)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Tublecane
A restriction on asking for help would be a priori suppression of speech. So that's a nullcase. The First is pretty comprehensive. Whether or not the cops are going to help you is an entirely different issue, and that's going to be dealt with through the "republican form of government" your state must provide you.

Remember, the cops are agents of the state. They are there for something.

BTW, one of the places you have to fear asking a cop for help is London. The cops aren't there for conversations ~ so I was told ~ by a cop! Although they look like police they operate differently than real police in the US. They can and do bust people for "interrupting".

302 posted on 06/12/2012 5:36:40 PM PDT by muawiyah
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 257 | View Replies]

To: muawiyah
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!

Fine. Then citizens can just shoot the intruders and crime will go down by attrition.

Either the criminals will all be shot and their numbers reduced that way. Or the up and coming ones will learn that it's not worth the risk and not even bother trying.

It's a win/win situation.

303 posted on 06/12/2012 5:37:41 PM PDT by metmom (For freedom Christ has set us free; stand firm therefore & do not submit again to a yoke of slavery)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 35 | View Replies]

To: OldPossum

Just keep those animals off my lawn. Kids too.


304 posted on 06/12/2012 5:38:08 PM PDT by muawiyah
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 255 | View Replies]

To: metmom
Those pushy women who try to cut in front to get a better parking spot at the supermarket?

They are violating the law and threatening my life. Fair game, right?

305 posted on 06/12/2012 5:39:59 PM PDT by muawiyah
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 303 | View Replies]

To: muawiyah

Hmmmm, I have been told I am “complex”.

A secret weapon....., uhhhh, never mind.


306 posted on 06/12/2012 5:49:04 PM PDT by NoGrayZone (For evil to triumph it is only necessary for good men to do nothing.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 247 | View Replies]

To: muawiyah
The officer responds to a call for help ~ from your house.

You don't know about it. You are lying there half awake in front of the TV catching the last of the game in LA ~ wearing your holster ~ ready to go.

The cop knocks at the door ~ the door swings in ~ somebody forgot to close it all the way.

You lurch around and pull your piece ~

Yup. that's going to happen every day from now on.

You're an idiot.

First of all, the half asleep citizen isn't going to know that that was a cop to begin with, so the LEO is not in any more danger than if the law hadn't been passed. The citizen is reacting to a threat presuming it would be a criminal, like he would if the law hadn't been passed.

If the door swings open, it doesn't mean the LEO stepped INTO the house. All he has to do is stay outside and said half asleep citizen CANNOT legally shoot anyone anyway. So again, the LEO is no no more danger than if the law hadn't been passed.

307 posted on 06/12/2012 6:13:25 PM PDT by metmom (For freedom Christ has set us free; stand firm therefore & do not submit again to a yoke of slavery)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 149 | View Replies]

To: muawiyah

I kept score on this thread as best I could. I think you lost just about every argument.

At first I thought you were just a prostitute, but now I see you’re really nothing but an attention whore.


308 posted on 06/12/2012 6:16:14 PM PDT by AlmaKing
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 305 | View Replies]

To: Blue Highway; muawiyah
How can you have a lawful intruder?

You can't. It's an oxymoron.

309 posted on 06/12/2012 6:19:34 PM PDT by metmom (For freedom Christ has set us free; stand firm therefore & do not submit again to a yoke of slavery)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 189 | View Replies]

To: metmom

People complain about them all the time ~ neighborhood drunk falls in the door, guy gets right number wrong street, ...... sometimes they shoot them too!


310 posted on 06/12/2012 6:22:52 PM PDT by muawiyah
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 309 | View Replies]

To: muawiyah
It's: "The most stringent protection of free speech would not protect a man in falsely shouting fire in a theatre and causing a panic".

So? It's used to justify not the protection of people but the abridgement of rights by allowing that which is not lawful; like I said the injured parties have recourse under *civil*[/common] law (and perhaps state law) as the 1st amendment prohibits Congress* from making speech-laws. Period.

This was wartime and the main point of the ruling was the establishment of the "clear and present danger" test.

I still don't care; the matter of 'wartime' or 'peacetime' is irreverent: the first amendment is not contingent upon the state of war.

If the theater were on fire, of course it would be wrong to NOT shout "fire"!

So we agree there.

* I hate the 'incorporation' of the first amendment because it applies some 'magic' such that the explicit term "Congress" suddenly means "legislative-body"... if that can happen, then what other 'magic' is allowed?

311 posted on 06/12/2012 6:23:17 PM PDT by OneWingedShark (Q: Why am I here? A: To do Justly, to love mercy, and to walk humbly with my God.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 290 | View Replies]

To: muawiyah
Okay; so it would be a little clearer if they'd included a full-stop. But is
The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated. 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.
of a substantially different meaning than
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.
?
312 posted on 06/12/2012 6:27:15 PM PDT by OneWingedShark (Q: Why am I here? A: To do Justly, to love mercy, and to walk humbly with my God.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 298 | View Replies]

To: OneWingedShark
You'll need to take that issue up with the guys who wrote the 14th amendment. I didn't do that.

The Indiana Constitution itself has it's own Free Speech clauses ~

313 posted on 06/12/2012 6:27:58 PM PDT by muawiyah
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 311 | View Replies]

To: OneWingedShark
English doesn't allow a double negative ~ and back in the day they enforced the code by making people write in stilted fashion.

We see that problem several times in the First (written by Leland and Madison ~ and some argue, Mason).

314 posted on 06/12/2012 6:30:52 PM PDT by muawiyah
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 312 | View Replies]

To: Rennes Templar

I am pro Police, and don’t think they are intrinsically bad.
However, I believe that there are bad ones in the lot, and more and more “police state” tactics are being used with specious justification. If a police officer wrongfully enters a home without properly serving a warrant to do so (I don’t see the necessity of “no-knock” warrants) then I believe an occupant is justified in using deadly force to despel an “unlawful” invader...even IF they know them to be law enforcement personnel. Having to take a police officer’s life would be horrific tradigy. However, there comes a time when a line must be drawn. BTW - I’m NOT a libertarian. Police exist to “keep the peace” and “protect the public.” The term “peace officer” should become more used again to describe their function.


315 posted on 06/12/2012 6:46:11 PM PDT by Sola Veritas (Trying to speak truth - not always with the best grammar or spelling)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: spetznaz; All

“An easy fix ...simply ensure you double check that the address you are about to perform a ‘dynamic entry’ into is the correct address.”

Better yet. Stop doing “dynamic entries.” They aren’t about protecting police, they are about getting evidence before it is destroyed. They put police and the public at risk and need to end. Only in the MOST extreme of circumstances should they be used.


316 posted on 06/12/2012 6:52:24 PM PDT by Sola Veritas (Trying to speak truth - not always with the best grammar or spelling)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 22 | View Replies]

To: AlmaKing

Alma, take your foul mouth and addled mind to your little friends in DU.


317 posted on 06/12/2012 7:02:18 PM PDT by muawiyah
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 308 | View Replies]

To: Paladin2

The lesson of WACO is to pick up the person of interest in public instead of SWATing their house (or getting the address wrong).

I thought the lesson of Waco was that law enforcement officers could get away with murdering women and children.


318 posted on 06/12/2012 7:08:44 PM PDT by freedomfiter2 (Brutal acts of commission and yawning acts of omission both strengthen the hand of the devil.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 11 | View Replies]

To: Altariel

Not seeing that as a bad idea...


319 posted on 06/12/2012 7:14:10 PM PDT by Spktyr (Overwhelmingly superior firepower and the willingness to use it is the only proven peace solution.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 279 | View Replies]

To: ex91B10

Dangit. Another candidate for a good tagline.

You make it hard to decide which to choose....


320 posted on 06/12/2012 7:17:37 PM PDT by Altariel ("Curse your sudden but inevitable betrayal!")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 49 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-20 ... 281-300301-320321-340 ... 421-429 next last

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.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson