Indiana Law: Citizens Now Allowed to Shoot Law Enforcement During Unlawful Entry

The Intell Hub ^ | July 10, 2012 | Shepard Ambellas

[Kevmo]

Best answered while the adrenalin is pumping?
***Well, it is a bit weird that the kidnapper in that scenario would have the right to shoot at cops. But so many other things are weird these days that it’s just another one to chalk up.

[jessduntno]

Only problem is how many ‘illegal dynamic entries” do the poleese count as ‘crimes’?

You sure are fond of that phrase...too bad it has NOTHING to do with this bogus amendment.

[jessduntno]

“THE ONLY “transactions” to which this rider applies is P-O-L-I-C-E executing forcible entry into a residence.”

REALLY?

Where does it say that? Anyone?

What it says is that they can start shooting if they THINK there is a threat of violence. Are you stupid, is that why this doesn’t make sense to you? If there were that many crimes REPORTED, there were many more committed (a number your cohorts thought to be inflated) so...just imagine how many home visits (forced or otherwise) are made each year. And these are the ones that are called in. How many of those will dictate how many chances there will be for the random set-up, inadvertent call, wrong address, high as a kite respondent and, yes, the cowboy cop who is already expecting the worst or shouldn’t be out there. There are millions of opportunities and the best anyone could come up with was a ten year mish mash of things that was, I dare to say it, TINY compared to the opportunities that something real wrong could down. As for embarrassing myself, the only embarrassment I feel is that I thought you had a a little better comprehension level. Sorry.

[zeugma]

You forgot #6. Bad guy sees cops at door and flushes contraband and down toilet while police wait outside.

If the "contraban" is small enough that it can be so easily flushed, then my answer is "who the hell cares"?

If the police were competent, they could guard against this by putting traps between the street and home or elsewhere to 'catch' the forbidden item.

Of course, dead citizens are just the price we have to pay for the "war on drugs".

[dznutz]

If the police were competent, they could guard against this by putting traps between the street and home or elsewhere to 'catch' the forbidden item.

So now police have to be licensed plumbers too?

[ExGeeEye]

Yep.

Thing about it is, in this country, if enough people who have the same viewpoint get together, stuff gets changed.

For an example of this, see the the title of this thread.

[Balding_Eagle]

This is just the first state to pass such a law, and it’s begining to make more sense every year.

I don’t know when it happened, but it seems as though it’s been in the last 5 or 10 years that the police decided that it’s ‘us vs. them’, with ‘them’ being the average law abiding citizen.

More and more of us law abiding citizens are beginning to notice this dangerous change, and realize that we have to do something to protect ourselves from ‘the gang in blue’.

This is a reasonable first step. I hope we don’t need to take too many more steps.

[Rebelbase]

“Maybe now the cops will start thinking before they kick doors in. Heck, maybe a few of them will discover these new fangled thingies called MapQuest or Google Earth.”

I use google maps and Mapquest every day. They are both as likely to be wrong as they are right when it comes to addresses.

[dznutz]

Yep, that’s what democracy is all about./s

[zeugma]

Wow. Words fail me. HAND.

[dznutz]

Wow. Words fail me. HAND.

This coming from the genius who wants police to put traps on criminals drains.

[Lurker]

Just maybe they could check County records. Ya think?

[ex91B10]

The Kenyan must go.

[papertyger]

Sorry, my mistake. I was actually referring to the report itself: not the map.

I had been looking for the Cato report when I saw post #43, and neglected to properly qualify what I meant once I saw the reference.

[Phlyer]

two guys . . . wearing ski masks with 'FBI' jackets trying to . . . kick in his door.

I think it's both interesting (in a horrifying way) and criminal that there was not even a search warrant on the premises when the raid on the Branch Davidian compound began. There is no indication that the cultists would have refused to honor the search warrant, and in fact no contraband weapons (the claimed reason for the invasion) were found after the fire.

If a responsible agent would have walked up to the front door and knocked, a lot of lives would have been saved. If the agents were truly afraid they would be shot through the door, then they could have used a bullhorn from behind their car to 'serve' the warrant - or at least to announce that they had one.

On the other hand, when armed assailants who are clearly acting in an unConstitutional manner with no attempt to serve a warrant start kicking in doors or shooting at me . . .

I think Koresh et. al. were doing some bad things to the kids in that compound, and I think it was wrong to continue the standoff once the 'siege' began and the agents were properly and unambiguously identified. But the initial assault was nothing less than a criminal attack under the color of law.

And shooting Randy Weaver's wife (at Ruby Ridge) when she had a baby in her arms is flat out murder . . . in another case where no search or arrest warrant were ever announced to those under attack.

There are a lot of people in these discussions who say tough things about what they would do if the government ever came for their weapons. I pray to God that I will never have to face that decision. But one step to keep that from happening is to hold the government accountable when government agents violate the Constitution.