I missed this when I scanned before, so let me go back.
“We have people here arguing that unless an officer comes with a warrant in all circumstances the new Indiana law allows somebody to shoot the officer.”
I’ve been thinking you were under this misapprehension, and I think I may have already addressed it. But let me reiterate: this is about unlawful entry, not unwarranted entry. Just because the cops lack a warrant does not make their actions unlawful. Or, at least, not according to legal precedent. No one thinks you can shoot cops just because they have no warrant. Cops can lawfully enter your property without a warrant.
The exceptions to the need for a warrant are well known and easy to demonstrate. All cops have to do is show probable cause, and that can be done along with a litany of other ways by saying they heard a “plaintive call” or some other evidence of imminent danger of bodily harm or death to someone at the scene.
“’exigent circumstances’ ~ are you trying to lecture me or what?”
No, it’s a common legal term, like “probable cause” or “reasonable suspicion.”
“The cops were called by the resident. That’s how this whole case started. Exigent circumstances necessarily includes the possibility that a citizen asks an officer for help.”
No, someone calling you does not by itself make the situation exigent. If you called saying someone was in the process of murdering you, yes, that would be exigent. Or if the cops showed up and heard screams from the back room, then they’d be able to rush right in. But there has to be some danger of imminent harm, some emergency, and it must go above and beyond what merely gets officers to respond. They are not allowed to break in just because someone called them.
“My point is a simple one ~ in any future debate before the Indiana Supreme court, or the federal courts, the history of the legislation is going to be entered as evidence.”
Only so as to establish what it means. And even then at most what you could say is that the legislature disagreed with the court’s assertion that individuals have no right to assert self-defense against the unlawful entry of police officers. The circumstances of the case which occasioned the court’s decision would be irrelevant. Nothing about that case could possibly tie the right to self-defense to what the husband or cops in that particular situation did, nor to Sharia law.
“That legislation starts in response to a court decision that deals with a specific case where a citizen called the cops for help.”
So what? The most you could do is record it as a historical curiosity. It would in no case control what the law means. It couldn’t possibly mean under that law cops can’t respond to a citizen’s call without fear of being shot. All it means is that they have to be sure they have a warrant or probable cause to enter someone’s home. That was supposed to be the case prior to the law, too. Only now they can be legally shot if they don’t.
Again, the cops in the previous case either had probable cause or not to enter that man’s home. If they didn’t, under this law he can shoot them. If they did, this law changes nothing and he can’t shoot anyone.
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.