People in Indiana can legally shoot cops!

[alucard0822]

The Indiana Supreme Court is ultimately to blame for this, by overruling the Constitution (and common sense) and ruling that homeowners had no right to defend themselves against police illegally entering their homes. The very sort of abuse of power that triggered our revolution, and led to the creation of the Fourth Amendment, in the first place.

Sorry, but you can't have it both ways - you can't have freedom, AND give government the authority to ignore fundamental rights each and every time it "seems like a good idea".

Everyone needs to read the bill (IN Sb1 SE1 as enacted), and the included changes to IN's self defense statutes. This bill really does nothing other than re-affirm centuries worh of common and case law that recognizes a citizen's right to resist unlawful arrest or intrusion by those in authority, and of course to resist, reasonable force may be used up to and including deadly force. This is not a "new and never before seen" law, or the first of it's kind, forms of it date back hundreds of years, are prevelent in the law of LOTS of states (including MD suprisingly), and was an influence for our own bill of rights.

This bill is very limited, and very specific, it allows for reasonable force to defend a home aggainst UNLAWFUL entry by police uniformed or not, or people impersonating police officers. It clarifies many of the situations that would be lawful entry or unlawful entry to mirror current law. I am not suprised at all the ignorant fear and hype around a "new" law that has been around in most states since their founding, "blood in the streets", "officers mowed down just doing their job", "license to kill", "Indiana allowing people to kill officers" and etc. are basically the same unfounded and unsubstatntiated headlines that are printed with most concealed carry, castle doctrine or AWB bills.

The law literally changes nothing, basically recognizing a fundemental right of citizens that the Indiana SC just happened to shat on recently. I doubt any criminal will decide to shoot at police when they would have peacefully surrendered before, or that it will make "normal" law abiding citizens shoot any officer that steps foot on their lawn. If anything it is a tiny consolation to those who have suffered from bad raids or illegal entry into their homes, the list is relatively small, and more likely than not shooting at police in ANY circumstance, legal or not is a good way to become "dead right". IMO police that don't support this common law premise(perhaps not the specific wording of this specific bill) need to re-evaluate what they swear to uphold and protect, and what inherent constitutional responsibilities come with their authority. Citizens who think this gives them the right to kill police need a trip to the padded room at the local nervous hospital, along with the authors of about 90% of the ridiculous Op-eds and articles about this law. THe NRA was right to support this, along with the Indiana politicians who support and affirm this relatively unpleasant, but vital freedom and right of the people.

 

[Sportstud4891]

I'm not sure why there needs to be a law that allows the shooting of a LEO. If you enter my house without my knowledge or consent, I'm going to shoot. It's really that simple. I know for a fact that neither I or my family have committed a crime that warrants an invasion. Doesn't the law already protect me here or am I wrong?

If the law doesn't currently protect me in this manner, meaning if LE enters my home illegally and I am still punished for firing a weapon at them, then I think that maybe the law, depending on how it is worded is necessary.

My logic is easy to understand. I would rather defend myself from a possible criminal and take the risk that it is LEO than give a criminal the chance to attack my family because I thought it was LE. Yes I understand that if I open fire on LEO's I most likely will not survive the encounter. That is why LE needs to understand fully the ramifications of serving warrants and kicking doors in and there can be no mistakes.

 

[lasher9999]

Unfortunately a wreckless disregard for collateral damage to civvies and their rights has led to this. I think it is time to rethink this enforcer class thing and just get back to keeping the peace.

 

[Kiev88cm]

I'm not sure why there needs to be a law that allows the shooting of a LEO. If you enter my house without my knowledge or consent, I'm going to shoot. It's really that simple. I know for a fact that neither I or my family have committed a crime that warrants an invasion. Doesn't the law already protect me here or am I wrong?

If the law doesn't currently protect me in this manner, meaning if LE enters my home illegally and I am still punished for firing a weapon at them, then I think that maybe the law, depending on how it is worded is necessary.

My logic is easy to understand. I would rather defend myself from a possible criminal and take the risk that it is LEO than give a criminal the chance to attack my family because I thought it was LE. Yes I understand that if I open fire on LEO's I most likely will not survive the encounter. That is why LE needs to understand fully the ramifications of serving warrants and kicking doors in and there can be no mistakes.

Exactly

 

[Kiev88cm]

 

[BondJamesBond]

This is going to chap some people in the wrong way. I have to say it, though... it will likely make police DOUBLY sure they go to the right house:

http://www.infowars.com/indiana-first-state-to-allow-citizens-to-shoot-law-enforcement-officers-2/

HOWEVER...this is a matter for the people of Indiana.

 

[diesel-man]

Unfortunately a wreckless disregard for collateral damage to civvies and their rights has led to this. I think it is time to rethink this enforcer class thing and just get back to keeping the peace.

I think that you should use the Ron White Avatar from Splitter. There is just way too much common sense here to have been "buried" on page one.

 

[gtodave]

As usual, Jeremy hits it out of the park.

The argument about "meth labs using this as defense" is moot...that is a LAWFUL entry (as the law is written now).

 

[Bigdtc]

Everyone needs to read the bill (IN Sb1 SE1 as enacted), and the included changes to IN's self defense statutes. This bill really does nothing other than re-affirm centuries worh of common and case law that recognizes a citizen's right to resist unlawful arrest or intrusion by those in authority, and of course to resist, reasonable force may be used up to and including deadly force. This is not a "new and never before seen" law, or the first of it's kind, forms of it date back hundreds of years, are prevelent in the law of LOTS of states (including MD suprisingly), and was an influence for our own bill of rights.

This bill is very limited, and very specific, it allows for reasonable force to defend a home aggainst UNLAWFUL entry by police uniformed or not, or people impersonating police officers. It clarifies many of the situations that would be lawful entry or unlawful entry to mirror current law. I am not suprised at all the ignorant fear and hype around a "new" law that has been around in most states since their founding, "blood in the streets", "officers mowed down just doing their job", "license to kill", "Indiana allowing people to kill officers" and etc. are basically the same unfounded and unsubstatntiated headlines that are printed with most concealed carry, castle doctrine or AWB bills.

The law literally changes nothing, basically recognizing a fundemental right of citizens that the Indiana SC just happened to shat on recently. I doubt any criminal will decide to shoot at police when they would have peacefully surrendered before, or that it will make "normal" law abiding citizens shoot any officer that steps foot on their lawn. If anything it is a tiny consolation to those who have suffered from bad raids or illegal entry into their homes, the list is relatively small, and more likely than not shooting at police in ANY circumstance, legal or not is a good way to become "dead right". IMO police that don't support this common law premise(perhaps not the specific wording of this specific bill) need to re-evaluate what they swear to uphold and protect, and what inherent constitutional responsibilities come with their authority. Citizens who think this gives them the right to kill police need a trip to the padded room at the local nervous hospital, along with the authors of about 90% of the ridiculous Op-eds and articles about this law. THe NRA was right to support this, along with the Indiana politicians who support and affirm this relatively unpleasant, but vital freedom and right of the people.

Nailed it again, buddy. Thanks for your clarity..

 

[Bolts Rock]

Sorry gentlemen but I don't see this as a win for the 2a community. I don't think that when this law is implemented it will be for what it's intended. I see some meth head attempting to utilize this defense and it failing then antis calling for more gun control. The first news related story will not, I guarantee it, be of a lawful citizen protecting himself from a botched warrant. And from what I have seen there are to many holes in this poorly written law.

If the gun community wants a real W in their colum they need to attack domestic violence laws as that directly effects 2a. Not to mention its 1000000xs more of a problem then botched warrants. I can remove your 2a because your wife said that you hit her. Now that's way more a possibility and realiy then a botched warrant.

We can go with this law and look at is a monumental case (which doesn't effect me so I could care less if it's an active law or not, I'm not debating it's validity) but in actuality the biggest detriment to your constitutional rights is that lovely lady who sleeps next to you, with the ways the law is written.

The DV law issue is one of the few things I agree with you on. There is little if any due process involved. The Indiana law is however a general win for the BoR and that does count for something these days.

 

[Bolts Rock]

What he is alluding to is the fact that 99% of citizens don't actually know their rights......although they think they do and with the law going into effect citizens not actually knowing there rights could be a danger to officers. I don't see it as that much of a problem because if you read my other post I don't see this law really as super danger but more a detriment to the 2a.

But this is what he is talking about and he's right 99% of citizens don't know these.

http://www.caselaw4cops.net/articles/exceptions.html

Some of us actually do know about them in general if not in detail and any reasonable LEO not in hot pursuit of a fleeing felon should (god I hate that ambiguous word) freely explain such when asked on the scene.

 

[StantonCree]

Some of us actually do know about them in general if not in detail and any reasonable LEO not in hot pursuit of a fleeing felon should (god I hate that ambiguous word) freely explain such when asked on the scene.

Some of us, i'll agree with that and I do believe the consensus in a MDS poll would be that members here would know their rights better than most individuals.

HOWEVER sir I can say without a doubt that 99% of citizens don't know their rights or even how the constitution actually applies to them.

I'm at work and can't embed any youtube vidoes but there are multiple videos of citizens not knowing who the current president is but being able to sing the big mac song. Trust me when I say the average individual thinks they have the right to say whatever they want whenever they want cuz they have free speech right??? WRONG!!!!

Look up D.C. Disorderly Laws.

Also I'll gladly explain someone their rights if asked in a respectful manner when the situation allows for me to take the time to do so. I'm by no means above explaining the law.

 

[Dogabutila]

John Bad Elk v. US

 

[Bolts Rock]

Some of us, i'll agree with that and I do believe the consensus in a MDS poll would be that members here would know their rights better than most individuals.

HOWEVER sir I can say without a doubt that 99% of citizens don't know their rights or even how the constitution actually applies to them.

I'm at work and can't embed any youtube vidoes but there are multiple videos of citizens not knowing who the current president is but being able to sing the big mac song. Trust me when I say the average individual thinks they have the right to say whatever they want whenever they want cuz they have free speech right??? WRONG!!!!

Look up D.C. Disorderly Laws.

Also I'll gladly explain someone their rights if asked in a respectful manner when the situation allows for me to take the time to do so. I'm by no means above explaining the law.

I must hang with smarter than average bears then or I just can't stand to hang out with dumbasses because most people I know or work with have a clue. I'll grant you at least 80% don't know it however. I think most people know there are limits to free speech but a good 30% think they can say something as stupid as, "I think the President needs to be shot," and it's protected speech. It isn't but you can freely say he should be impeached or you hope the SOB dies of a stroke tonight.

 

[alucard0822]

Some of us, i'll agree with that and I do believe the consensus in a MDS poll would be that members here would know their rights better than most individuals.

HOWEVER sir I can say without a doubt that 99% of citizens don't know their rights or even how the constitution actually applies to them.

I'm at work and can't embed any youtube vidoes but there are multiple videos of citizens not knowing who the current president is but being able to sing the big mac song. Trust me when I say the average individual thinks they have the right to say whatever they want whenever they want cuz they have free speech right??? WRONG!!!!

Look up D.C. Disorderly Laws.

Also I'll gladly explain someone their rights if asked in a respectful manner when the situation allows for me to take the time to do so. I'm by no means above explaining the law.

So because people don't know and don't understand their rights they shouldn't have rights at all, or have officers bestow upon them rights deemed appropriate at that time?

There are plenty of idiots out there, don't get me wrong, but you don't pass or veto a law based upon the fear of people with complete ignorance of the law doing something unlawful, that is madness. Ignorance of the law is not an excuse for breaking it, and ignorance of a right is not an excuse for the government to infringe upon it. It would be insane to try to charge people only with laws they completely understand, but that is what is basically advocated, to only pass laws that a majority of citizens understand. You pass the law based on it's merits and debate of opponents/proponents while ensuring the law itself is constitutional and legal, which SB1 meets all of these criteria. In all likelyhood if a person actually belives they can shoot police for any reason, this law won't change that, and they will be just as dangerously insane reguardless. This law merely provides some practical accountability for police misconduct based on common law that has been integral to protecting the rights of citizens for hundreds of years. The IN SC ruling aggainst legal self defense from unlawful arrest was the incident that falls outside reason, freedom, and history as we understand it, it was the anomaly in law, not the passage of SB1, that is right in line. I do agree some of the wording is poor, instead of the numerous references to defense in a home, it should have mirrored SYG laws, where the law recognizes and both civily and criminally protects the simple right of a person acting lawfully to use force to defend himself/herself from a person attacking or intruding on them unlawfully, citizen or officer, white or black, man, or woman, this is the core principal of protecting the right of self defense. You say the law went too far, I say the law doesn't go too far enough. You do have a good point about the abusive infringements imposed on people for "domestic violence" without due process, altyhough I don't see why we can't support both the 2nd and the 4th ammendments in both these cases at the same time

 

[StantonCree]

So because people don't know and don't understand their rights they shouldn't have rights at all, or have officers bestow upon them rights deemed appropriate at that time?

There are plenty of idiots out there, don't get me wrong, but you don't pass or veto a law based upon the fear of people with complete ignorance of the law doing something unlawful, that is madness. Ignorance of the law is not an excuse for breaking it, and ignorance of a right is not an excuse for the government to infringe upon it. It would be insane to try to charge people only with laws they completely understand, but that is what is basically advocated, to only pass laws that a majority of citizens understand. You pass the law based on it's merits and debate of opponents/proponents while ensuring the law itself is constitutional and legal, which SB1 meets all of these criteria. In all likelyhood if a person actually belives they can shoot police for any reason, this law won't change that, and they will be just as dangerously insane reguardless. This law merely provides some practical accountability for police misconduct based on common law that has been integral to protecting the rights of citizens for hundreds of years. The IN SC ruling aggainst legal self defense from unlawful arrest was the incident that falls outside reason, freedom, and history as we understand it, it was the anomaly in law, not the passage of SB1, that is right in line. I do agree some of the wording is poor, instead of the numerous references to defense in a home, it should have mirrored SYG laws, where the law recognizes and both civily and criminally protects the simple right of a person acting lawfully to use force to defend himself/herself from a person attacking or intruding on them unlawfully, citizen or officer, white or black, man, or woman, this is the core principal of protecting the right of self defense. You say the law went too far, I say the law doesn't go too far enough. You do have a good point about the abusive infringements imposed on people for "domestic violence" without due process, altyhough I don't see why we can't support both the 2nd and the 4th ammendments in both these cases at the same time

I'm not Even remotely saying what your talking about in your first sentence. You'll see from my posts I'm not for or against this law because it doesn't effect me and to be honest once it's actually utilized I will see it as a fail for reasons I previously stated.

The only real detriment I see is citizens not understanding their rights and harming officers who in actuality are legally entering their home.

With the above comment out of the way I really don't even see that coming into play either. I'm not playing off the blood in the streets argument. I don't see this law changing much at all until it gets wrongly utilized by some meth head idiot, then the antis will use the dead cop for stricter gun control laws hindering our cause.

Basically I see this law not changing a thing.

 

[Bigdtc]

If a cop is dong nothing illegal, they have nothing to worry about with this law...
Sound familiar?

 

[Indiana Jones]

If a cop is dong nothing illegal, they have nothing to worry about with this law...
Sound familiar?

Except for trigger happy tin foil hatters who know the warrant IS for them...

 

[gmhowell]

If a cop is dong nothing illegal, they have nothing to worry about with this law...
Sound familiar?

What's an 'illegal dong'? Ron Jeremy sufficient, or do we have to step up to John Holmes?

 

[Inigoes]

If a cop is dong nothing illegal, they have nothing to worry about with this law...
Sound familiar?

Except for trigger happy tin foil hatters who know the warrant IS for them...

That's illegal under the bill, if you had read it