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.”
You are twisting thoughts though. Medical care is something to be paid for. The practitioners have a right to be paid to deliver the service.
The 10th amendment says we have those rights ~ everything that is not prohited or reserved to the government is a right we each have whether you like it or not.
But as I advised earlier if you don't think you have a right to call the cops, don't. If you don't think you have a right to seek medical attention, then don't. Frankly I really could care less if I tried just a teensy weensy bit more, but that'd be work.
These are among the natural rights of men ~ to self defense, to call for help, to drink water, to breathe the air ..... and you want to claim that none of us have any of those rights because they are not mentioned in the text of the US constitution.
You are mistaken~!
Do you realize what you said?
Did he immediately run, or did you make contact and give him a bum's rush across the room?
This is not without risk of course, but did you feel trapped with no choice?
We've had some extensive discussions of this concept ~ of an unarmed man rushing an armed man and there are a lot of Freepers who think that's just not a rational explanation for the behavior of an unarmed man.
Like your comments on that part.
It’s not a matter of what rights one thinks one has, but what rights are enumerated in the Constitution.
The tenth amendment actually reads:
“The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.”
Read what the Founders actually wrote; they chose to word it this way for a reason.
The founders would not have specifically enumerated a “right to call” modern police because the founder of the modern police force was not even born with the Constitution was ratified.
No, I’m not mistaken; the Father of Modern Policing is Robert Peel, who was born in 1788.
The modern police force, as we know it today, did not exist at the time of the founders.
The Metropolitan Police Force in London was not established until 1829.
Inventing a modern police force doesn't mean you invented cops!
There is a distinction between methods of peacekeeping used before Robert Peel established the Metropolitan Police Force and the modern police force as we know and understand it today.
Your ignorance of Robert Peel, the Father of Modern Policing and how his principles changed and influenced policing and peacekeeping does not do away with the distinction.
I suggest you do your homework.
How does this law have any legal bearing on you calling the cops?
Read the entire thread and get back to me next week.
NOTE: Carrying a cellphone today does not change the nature of the police powers of any state. Same old cops. Same old same old.
Why you should think Peel's methods changed our fundamental laws is strange. He changed nothing in the Constitution.
BTW, individuals have all the rights unless we give those rights to the gub'mnt. That's the American theory of government.
ALL ~ and they don't need to be named unless they are assigned elsewhere.
Do you speak English as a native language?
Thanks for your reply.
I have read the entire thread. If you’d like to take a week to answer, that’s your option.
You’ve spent much of the thread on your “a right to call the cops.” I do not see how this law prevents you from calling the cops.
I think it is a simple question. I can rephrase it: How does this law prevent or hinder what you see as your right to call the cops?
A “better” solution would be to back out that disastrous court decision by means of a state constitutional amendment. But I don’t know how long that takes, and this is the best stop gap that Mitch Daniels and the legislature could come up with. Anyhow, this should get the blue boys on the side of such a constitutional amendment.
He was on the outside of the door, trying to hack his way in. So I had very little risk of personal danger to myself.
He had no way of actually getting to me to hurt me.
He was not expecting someone to rush him, dropped his crowbar and ran like heck. I went out checked to be sure there was no one else, and called the cops.
I actually had the landlady kick me out - she blamed me for the break in, despite the fact that if I hadn’t been there, she would have lost quite a bit of stuff.
No good deed goes unpunished.
Probably fears that the police won’t enter a home any more without a lot of legal folderol. Let’s wait to see if that happens. This sure stuck a hot potato on the Indiana Screams’ lap.
Oh, go buy some Depends.
If so, that’s still doesn’t prevent or hinder “a right to call the cops.”
Who claimed he was not?
By the way, the term is “Peelian principles”, not “Peelian methods”.
Methods are not principles. Principles are timeless, and his principles did revolutionize peacekeeping, which is why he is known as the Father of Modern Policing.
Clearly, you have not studied his principles, which is why you are trying to invent arguments for me.
That argument is too full of holes to garner respect.
http://www.etymonline.com/index.php?search=police Try checking on the history of the word first next time. I got that sucker back to the 1400s without raising a sweat. But notice a synonymn ~ CONSTABLE ~ that one goes way, way, way back!
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.