Page 1 of 4 123 ... LastLast
Results 1 to 20 of 74

Thread: Indiana legalizes shooting cops

  1. #1
    All Pro
    Join Date
    Aug 2004
    Posts
    7,280
    Post Thanks / Like

    Indiana legalizes shooting cops

    [QUOTE]Hold onto your holsters, folks: shooting a cop dead is now legal in the state of Indiana.

    Governor Mitch Daniels, a Republican, has authorized changes to a 2006 legislation that legalizes the use of deadly force on a public servant — including an officer of the law — in cases of “unlawful intrusion.” Proponents of both the Second and Fourth Amendments — those that allow for the ownership of firearms and the security against unlawful searches, respectively — are celebrating the update by saying it ensures that residents are protected from authorities that abuse the powers of the badge.

    Others, however, fear that the alleged threat of a police state emergence will be replaced by an all-out warzone in Indiana.

    Under the latest changes of the so-called Castle Doctrine, state lawmakers agree “people have a right to defend themselves and third parties from physical harm and crime.” Rather than excluding officers of the law, however, any public servant is now subject to be met with deadly force if they unlawfully enter private property without clear justification.

    “In enacting this section, the general assembly finds and declares that it is the policy of this state to recognize the unique character of a citizen's home and to ensure that a citizen feels secure in his or her own home against unlawful intrusion by another individual or a public servant,” reads the legislation.

    Although critics have been quick to condemn the law for opening the door for assaults on police officers, supporters say that it is necessary to implement the ideals brought by America’s forefathers. Especially, argue some, since the Indiana Supreme Court almost eliminated the Fourth Amendment entirely last year.

    During the 2011 case of Barnes v. State of Indiana, the court ruled that a man who assaulted an officer dispatched to his house had broken the law before there was “no right to reasonably resist unlawful entry by police officers.” In turn, the National Rifle Association lobbied for an amendment to the Castle Doctrine to ensure that residents were protected from officers that abuse the law to grant themselves entry into private space.

    “There are bad legislators,” the law’s author, State Senator R. Michael Young (R) tells Bloomberg News. “There are bad clergy, bad doctors, bad teachers, and it’s these officers that we’re concerned about that when they act outside their scope and duty that the individual ought to have a right to protect themselves.”

    Governor Daniels agrees with the senator in a statement offered through his office, and notes that the law is only being established to cover rare incidents of police abuse that can escape the system without reprimand for officers or other persons that break the law to gain entry.

    “In the real world, there will almost never be a situation in which these extremely narrow conditions are met,” Daniels says. “This law is not an invitation to use violence or force against law enforcement officers.”

    Officers in Indiana aren’t necessarily on the same page, though. “If I pull over a car and I walk up to it and the guy shoots me, he’s going to say, ‘Well, he was trying to illegally enter my property,’” Sergeant Joseph Hubbard tells Bloomberg. “Somebody is going get away with killing a cop because of this law.”

    “It’s just a recipe for disaster,” Indiana State Fraternal Order of Police President Tim Downs adds. “It just puts a bounty on our heads.”[/QUOTE]


    [url]http://rt.com/usa/news/indiana-shooting-law-state-591/[/url]

  2. #2
    All Pro
    Join Date
    Dec 2008
    Posts
    7,949
    Post Thanks / Like
    When I read this story earlier I chuckled only because I knew you'd be the one to post it.

  3. #3
    Jets Insider VIP
    Join Date
    Jan 2005
    Posts
    14,739
    Post Thanks / Like
    Stupid f'n law.

  4. #4
    Jets Insider VIP
    Join Date
    Aug 2005
    Posts
    13,179
    Post Thanks / Like
    I'm a firm beliver in gun control in the public square. I also believe your home is not the public square. Anyone who enters your home illegally is fair game.

  5. #5
    All Pro
    Join Date
    Aug 2004
    Posts
    7,280
    Post Thanks / Like
    [QUOTE=cr726;4490175]Stupid f'n law.[/QUOTE]



    [QUOTE]Governor Mitch Daniels, a Republican[/QUOTE]

    GOP VP candidate?????

    [url]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LoSmWK_-x4g[/url]

  6. #6
    JetsInsider.com Legend
    Join Date
    Mar 2005
    Posts
    49,999
    Post Thanks / Like
    If the cop is carrying Skittles then clearly he's up to no good.

  7. #7
    All League
    Join Date
    Nov 2004
    Posts
    3,565
    Post Thanks / Like
    [QUOTE=FF2®;4490215]If the cop is carrying Skittles then clearly he's up to no good.[/QUOTE]

    Especially if they're known to be a thug.
    Yu ain't tell me you swung on a bus driver," Martin's cousin wrote to him on Feb. 21. The same week, Martin was suspended for 10 days

  8. #8
    Jets Insider VIP
    Join Date
    Jan 2005
    Posts
    14,739
    Post Thanks / Like
    [QUOTE=Winstonbiggs;4490199]I'm a firm beliver in gun control in the public square. I also believe your home is not the public square. Anyone who enters your home illegally is fair game.[/QUOTE]

    Knock and announce search warrants just became a lot more dangerous in Indiana.

    It's a stupid f'n law.

  9. #9
    Board Moderator
    Jets Insider VIP
    JetsInsider.com Legend

    Join Date
    Sep 2005
    Location
    The depths of Despair.
    Posts
    39,867
    Post Thanks / Like
    [QUOTE=Winstonbiggs;4490199] Anyone who enters your home illegally is fair game.[/QUOTE]

    Problem is, if we let criminals decide what "legal entry" by law enforcement is, we are going to end up with alot more dead civilians and cops.

    I know a little bit about this subject, and many would be surprised how many stone cold "wrong" civilians...actually believe they are right at the time of arrest.... or summonsing.

    Its a truism of law enforcement.

    I dont deny there are bad cops, bad poleez depts etc....but stupidity on their part can often be addressed through the courts, civilly and otherwise.

    Now, many of these encounters may never get that far.

    Call the Coroner.


    This ruling will only serve to add to the body count.

  10. #10
    All Pro
    Join Date
    Aug 2004
    Posts
    7,280
    Post Thanks / Like
    [QUOTE=cr726;4490226]Knock and announce search warrants just became a lot more dangerous in Indiana.

    It's a stupid f'n law.[/QUOTE]

    The NRA lobbied (bribed) the law makers of Indiana. The corporatocrazy rules!!!!

  11. #11
    Jets Insider VIP
    Join Date
    Aug 2005
    Posts
    13,179
    Post Thanks / Like
    [QUOTE=32green;4490248]Problem is, if we let criminals decide what "legal entry" by law enforcement is, we are going to end up with alot more dead civilians and cops.

    I know a little bit about this subject, and many would be surprised how many stone cold "wrong" civilians...actually believe they are right at the time of arrest.... or summonsing.

    Its a truism of law enforcement.

    I dont deny there are bad cops, bad poleez depts etc....but stupidity on their part can often be addressed through the courts, civilly and otherwise.

    Now, many of these encounters may never get that far.

    Call the Coroner.


    This ruling will only serve to add to the body count.[/QUOTE]

    Cops have a tough job they have to be very careful when they pull someone over or enter a home. The way I read this rule the only real change is they are subject to the homeowners right of protecting themselves from criminal entry into their home. It doesn't change the fact that people are stupid or will shoot cops who are legally doing their job.

    I'm personally for very strict gun control in the public square. Your home is not the public square. If a cop enters your home illegally it's reasonable to assume they are also armed and dangerous. While the court can decide later cops should not be entering peoples home illegally.

    If society wants to prosecute cops for illegal entry with very tough penalties as an alternative I'm all for it.
    Last edited by Winstonbiggs; 06-13-2012 at 06:47 AM.

  12. #12
    Jets Insider VIP
    Join Date
    Jan 2005
    Posts
    14,739
    Post Thanks / Like
    This law enforces criminals playing "I thought I was being robbed" card. Look at the AZ police shooting that occurred last year. The police sounded their sirens then knock and announced (all on video) and people were still questioning when the bad guy pointed a gun at police during the execution of the search warrant.

    Just look at Jetdawgs interpretations of the constitution, he's wrong 99% of the time.

    It's a bad law and will only add fuel to the fire.


    [QUOTE=Winstonbiggs;4490344]Cops have a tough job they have to be very careful when they pull someone over or enter a home. The way I read this rule the only real change is they are subject to the homeowners right of protecting themselves from criminal entry into their home. It doesn't change the fact that people are stupid or will shoot cops who are legally doing their job.

    I'm personally for very strict gun control in the public square. Your home is not the public square. If a cop enters your home illegally it's reasonable to assume they are also armed and dangerous. While the court can decide later cops should not be entering peoples home illegally.

    If society wants to prosecute cops for illegal entry with very tough penalties as an alternative I'm all for it.[/QUOTE]

  13. #13
    All League
    Join Date
    Apr 2009
    Posts
    4,850
    Post Thanks / Like
    This is a major boon for criminals and drug dealers. Even with a warrant, there are denied entries by criminals - "Hey, I din see no warrant".
    It will also result in the police coming in more heavily armed. Lots of flash grenades - hey why not frags.
    Stupid. What is the incidence of improper police entry. It happens sure but at what percent.

  14. #14
    Jets Insider VIP
    Join Date
    Jan 2005
    Posts
    14,739
    Post Thanks / Like
    [QUOTE=palmetto defender;4490355]This is a major boon for criminals and drug dealers. Even with a warrant, there are denied entries by criminals - "Hey, I din see no warrant".
    It will also result in the police coming in more heavily armed. Lots of flash grenades - hey why not frags.
    Stupid. What is the incidence of improper police entry. It happens sure but at what percent.[/QUOTE]

    +1

  15. #15
    Veteran
    Join Date
    Apr 2010
    Posts
    1,001
    Post Thanks / Like
    [QUOTE=cr726;4490351]This law enforces criminals playing "I thought I was being robbed" card. Look at the AZ police shooting that occurred last year. The police sounded their sirens then knock and announced (all on video) and people were still questioning when the bad guy pointed a gun at police during the execution of the search warrant.

    Just look at Jetdawgs interpretations of the constitution, he's wrong 99% of the time.

    It's a bad law and will only add fuel to the fire.[/QUOTE]

    It's unfair to interpret a law based on the premise that it will be incorrectly applied. The law authorizes the use of deadly force against home invaders. Any home invaders. Does AZ have another version of this law on the books? If not the example you're citing, only indicates that lawfully performing your duties as a cop is dangerous. I do not believe this law will make that job appreciably more dangerous. I also do not believe that a law enforcement officer performing an illegal act deserves any additional or special protections.

    Now I do believe that this law will be brought up as a justification or legal defense for the shooting of cops in situations where they are lawfully performing their jobs. However just because it's brought up in a legal defense doesn't mean the shooting wouldn't have occurred had the law not been enacted.

  16. #16
    Jets Insider VIP
    Join Date
    Aug 2005
    Posts
    13,179
    Post Thanks / Like
    [QUOTE=palmetto defender;4490355]This is a major boon for criminals and drug dealers. Even with a warrant, there are denied entries by criminals - "Hey, I din see no warrant".
    It will also result in the police coming in more heavily armed. Lots of flash grenades - hey why not frags.
    Stupid. What is the incidence of improper police entry. It happens sure but at what percent.[/QUOTE]

    Major boon? We have the highest per capita prison population in the world. We have the lowest crime rate in 40 years. Prosecutors through mandatory sentencing laws have virtually eliminated the right to trial. There is no need for "Illegal" entry into people's homes by anyone.

  17. #17
    Jets Insider VIP
    Join Date
    Jan 2005
    Posts
    14,739
    Post Thanks / Like
    I brought the AZ shooting because citizens were screaming from the rooftops that police acted outside their scope. Add this law anywhere and it makes those citizens feel emboldened.


    [QUOTE=Axil;4490374]It's unfair to interpret a law based on the premise that it will be incorrectly applied. The law authorizes the use of deadly force against home invaders. Any home invaders. Does AZ have another version of this law on the books? If not the example you're citing, only indicates that lawfully performing your duties as a cop is dangerous. I do not believe this law will make that job appreciably more dangerous. I also do not believe that a law enforcement officer performing an illegal act deserves any additional or special protections.

    Now I do believe that this law will be brought up as a justification or legal defense for the shooting of cops in situations where they are lawfully performing their jobs. However just because it's brought up in a legal defense doesn't mean the shooting wouldn't have occurred had the law not been enacted.[/QUOTE]

  18. #18
    Jets Insider VIP
    Join Date
    Jan 2005
    Posts
    14,739
    Post Thanks / Like
    [QUOTE=Winstonbiggs;4490380]Major boon? We have the highest per capita prison population in the world. We have the lowest crime rate in 40 years. Prosecutors through mandatory sentencing laws have virtually eliminated the right to trial. There is no need for "Illegal" entry into people's homes by anyone.[/QUOTE]

    How have mandatory sentencing law virtually eliminate the right to trial? If you are innocent, why would that matter?

  19. #19
    Jets Insider VIP
    Join Date
    Aug 2005
    Posts
    13,179
    Post Thanks / Like
    [QUOTE=cr726;4490383]I brought the AZ shooting because citizens were screaming from the rooftops that police acted outside their scope. Add this law anywhere and it makes those citizens feel emboldened.[/QUOTE]

    We have more people rooting in prison than at any time in my life, the lowest crime rate at any time in my life. We have our movement watched in the public square, our internet searches monitored, phone calls in and out of the country monitored, the President assassinating people by his decree, the FBI and the IRS able to take any person in this country and destroy their life with virtually no oversight. Jury trials becoming a thing of the past as prosecutors use harsh mandatory sentencing rules to push the innocent to plea out.

    Embolden? How emboldened should the State be to knock down your door?

  20. #20
    Jets Insider VIP
    Join Date
    Aug 2005
    Posts
    13,179
    Post Thanks / Like
    [QUOTE=cr726;4490385]How have mandatory sentencing law virtually eliminate the right to trial? If you are innocent, why would that matter?[/QUOTE]

    Why because unless you are filthy stinking rich you are going to get masacred in the court room and go to jail for 5 to 10 years for a minor crime that you may not have committed. The State holds virtually all the cards in prosecutions unless the defendant has the monetary means to put a defense.

Tags for this Thread

Bookmarks

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •  

Follow Us