Indiana First State to Allow Citizens to Shoot Law Enforcement Officers

AllGov ^ | June 11, 2012 | Noel Brinkerhoff

[D-fendr]

For reference:

(i) A person is justified in using reasonable force against a public servant if the person reasonably believes the force is necessary to:
(1) protect the person or a third person from what the person reasonably believes to be the imminent use of unlawful force;
(2) prevent or terminate the public servant’s unlawful entry of or attack on the person’s dwelling, curtilage, or occupied motor vehicle; or
(3) prevent or terminate the public servant’s unlawful trespass on or criminal interference with property lawfully in the person’s possession, lawfully in possession of a member of the person’s immediate family, or belonging to a person whose property the person has authority to protect.
(j) Notwithstanding subsection (i), a person is not justified in using force against a public servant if:
(1) the person is committing or is escaping after the commission of a crime;
(2) the person provokes action by the public servant with intent to cause bodily injury to the public servant;
(3) the person has entered into combat with the public servant or is the initial aggressor, unless the person withdraws from the encounter and communicates to the public servant the intent to do so and the public servant nevertheless continues
or threatens to continue unlawful action; or
(4) the person reasonably believes the public servant is:
(A) acting lawfully; or
(B) engaged in the lawful execution of the public servant’s official duties.
(k) A person is not justified in using deadly force against a public servant whom the person knows or reasonably should know is a public servant unless:
(1) the person reasonably believes that the public servant is:
(A) acting unlawfully; or
(B) not engaged in the execution of the public servant’s official duties; and
(2) the force is reasonably necessary to prevent serious bodily injury to the person or a third person.

[Altariel]

No, that isn’t my argument. It is quite clear that you failed to understand my actual argument.

[Altariel]

You failed to understand my post.

You said “Peel is dead”—no one claimed that he was not.

I spoke correctly; there is no “right to call the cops” in the Constitution. That phrase is never included.

You have repeatedly distorted what the tenth amendment actually reads. Read it again. Neither the word “right” or “rights” appear in the tenth amendment. The Founders wrote it that way for a reason.

You are cheapening what the Constitution actually reads by basing your argument around a non-existent “constitutional right”. Read what the Constitution actually states.

My observation—that your anachronistic “right” is partly in error because it flaunts ignorance of the timing of the ratification of the Constitution in comparison to the founding of the modern police force—is spot on.

Read what was actually written, not what you would have liked me to have written, and do your homework.

[muawiyah]

YOu reveal yourself as a leftwingtard in your reading of the 10th. If you want to reject the use of synonymns you will never understand anything ~ I have the power to do what i want when I want unless prohibited by law or the Constitution. That means exactly the same thing as I HAVE RIGHTS.

[muawiyah]

YOu reveal yourself as a leftwingtard in your reading of the 10th. If you want to reject the use of synonymns you will never understand anything ~ I have the power to do what i want when I want unless prohibited by law or the Constitution. That means exactly the same thing as I HAVE RIGHTS.

[muawiyah]

come on, you can do it ~ now go to the next part "when there is a domestic dispute' and tell us what the law says.

Hey, it doesn't say!

Well, so much for that law.

[Altariel]

A power is not equivalent to a right. You cheapen what the 10th amendment actually reads. There is a reason the Founders did not use the word “right” in the 10th amendment.

Have you done your homework to figure out why, yet?

[D-fendr]

>> go to the next part

Am I right in concluding from your post that there should be something more in the law concerning domestic disputes?

What and why so?

[muawiyah]

Because, simply following the history of this event, any questions arise out of a domestic dispute.

Only an Islamic Court would have ignored that fact.

[D-fendr]

The supporters of the legislation say the law is to address a court ruling that citizens have “no right to reasonably resist unlawful entry by police officers.” IOW, irrespective of whatever case or reason for the ruling - as the ruling effects all cases.

If the reason for the legislation does not concern any particular case or situation, why should the legislation?

Are you saying the law *should* have some sections or provisions specifically for domestic disputes that isn’t covered in some other law?

[muawiyah]

The history of this particular law is INESCAPABLE and will show up in almost any defense argument ~ and what would that be perhaps? Well, that the cops were called and they didn't show up and he beat her to death or she shot him and if they'd gotten there it'd all been good so I want $100000000 from the taxpayers because the cops didn't show up.

The cops will defend themselves quite well against any charge that they could have shown up. Obviously the law doesn't require them to get involved. But the history takes things beyond that and tells us that THEY'D BEST NOT!

[D-fendr]

The cops will defend themselves quite well against any charge that they could have shown up.

How does this law affect this? Do you see anything in the law that addresses this? Or changes it? Is there anything in the law that would help the cops defend themselves against any charge that they could have shown up

I'm focusing on the law. What part of it do you object to? What in it makes you think it's legal to shoot cops for unlawful entry, if that is your view? What part of it justifies cops not performing their legal duties just as before the law?

[D-fendr]

I can probably help by being more specific.

I believe you are saying the case will or can be used to defend the cops not showing up.

How specifically would a defense do this? What would be their argument?

[muawiyah]

That when we look at the history of this particular law it arose out of a concern raised in a case called Barnes v. Indiana (etc).

That started as a domestic dispute where one party (his soon to be exwife) called the cops.

There, that's all you need to know.

Calling the cops in a domestic dispute can and did lead to a new law saying ~ WHAT?

Actually laws aren't passed in a vacuum. There are meanings and lessons in them extending well beyond the mere words. None of them are ever, in the hands of skillful lawyers, considered separate and apart from their history.

A lawyer can turn "yes" into "no", and an "approval" into a "disapproval". You watched the Supeme Court turn a right to privacy into a right to kill your baby and get away with it.

What more do I need to say. A skilled lawyer will get the cops off the hook who don't show up ~ every single time.

[muawiyah]

Here's an example of how lawyers use and misuse laws. Two years ago we had this big oil spill going on in the Gulf. There's a law on the books that authorizes communities along the coast to ask for a federal zone where boaters are not allowed to drop trou and defecate or urinate in the water. The whole idea is to remove from sight the toilet habits of folks on small boats who might be in distress, or fishing, or both.

This thing passed with almost 100% votes in both Houses of Congress.

OK, so there's an oil spill and this law.

Well, the law initially dealt with a seashore situation where there was a 3 mile boundry so folks in their little boats could simply pull off shore 3 miles and there'd be no problem.

Then, one day, somebody decided we had a 200 mile economic zone, so this little seashore tourist focused law became a more serious matter. The EPA response was to write a rule with the Coast Guard that REQUIRED permanent toilets on boats ~ however small ~ and they had to meet certain requirements, including LEAKAGE OF OILS. BTW, people have had their boats seized because they didn't have a permanent toilet ~ a portapotty on your dingy no longer counts!

Hmm. There was this oil spill in the Gulf.

Well, anyway, the EPA and Coast Guard went further and came up with rules concerning skullery oils and slops from large boats, and next thing you know they were preparing some rules to regulate all oil emissions in all regulated waterways ~ Houston Ship Channel to Miami Beach out to 200 miles!

Throughout this whole period NOBODY bothered to come up with some clear-cut enabling legislation so that EPA and Coast Guard could regulate oil!

So, there you have it. The guys who came along with oil skimmers found they were NOT allowed to use their equipment because they were going to be pumping water with a minor amount of oil back into the ocean.

That's all so some tourist won't be offended by some fisherman 2.9 miles away dropping trou and defecating over the side of his boat!

I may have missed a few pieces here and there but I did most of the research while mostly blind ~ you can use a two foot screen to enlarge the letters enough so you can read things on the net.

Point of all this is that you may think you passed a law to prohibit X and what you did was create a rebuttable defense to the absence of Y, which used to be a requirement.

Or, the bureaucrats will just make up stuff and there you are with your boat impounded and oil all over the place anyway.

[muawiyah]

Remember all those famous lawsuits against nonresponsive 911 call centers?

I'd think that sort of thing will be successfully beaten down in Indiana ~ because, after all, if the cops don't need to show up, then the 911 clerks don't need to tell them about it either.

[D-fendr]

What more do I need to say.

What would be the lawyer's argument? Assuming, in your scenario, the cop is saying he didn't have to respond in conformance of his duty because of this new law. What's his lawyer's argument here?

A skilled lawyer will get the cops off the hook who don't show up ~ every single time.

That's a broad statement. My question is: how so for this specific law?

[muawiyah]

It’s too new. Just a matter of time. I don’t want to be the first person to get hurt as a consequence of the inherent contradictions involved in this one ~ so I’ll just take my guns and drive through Kaintucky to get to Illinois (where I’ll hide them in that otherwise unused whiskey tank in the fenders).

[muawiyah]

It’s too new. Just a matter of time. I don’t want to be the first person to get hurt as a consequence of the inherent contradictions involved in this one ~ so I’ll just take my guns and drive through Kaintucky to get to Illinois (where I’ll hide them in that otherwise unused whiskey tank in the fenders).

[D-fendr]

I don’t see it, nothing in the bill or defense of cops not performing their duty arising from the bill.. If you see it, please sketch it out.

Is there anything in the bill itself that you object to?