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.”
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.
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".
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.
Just keep those animals off my lawn. Kids too.
They are violating the law and threatening my life. Fair game, right?
Hmmmm, I have been told I am “complex”.
A secret weapon....., uhhhh, never mind.
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.
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.
You can't. It's an oxymoron.
People complain about them all the time ~ neighborhood drunk falls in the door, guy gets right number wrong street, ...... sometimes they shoot them too!
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?
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.?
The Indiana Constitution itself has it's own Free Speech clauses ~
We see that problem several times in the First (written by Leland and Madison ~ and some argue, Mason).
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.
“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.
Alma, take your foul mouth and addled mind to your little friends in DU.
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.
Not seeing that as a bad idea...
Dangit. Another candidate for a good tagline.
You make it hard to decide which to choose....
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.