Page 2 of 4 FirstFirst 1234 LastLast
Results 21 to 40 of 74

Thread: Indiana legalizes shooting cops

  1. #21
    Veteran
    Join Date
    Apr 2010
    Posts
    1,039
    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]

    I'm not familer with the AZ shooting, so forgive me as i try and understand your concern.

    Did the police act outside thier scope? (sounds like they didn't given your claims of video evidence)

    Assuming they didn't, was the legal defense of the shooting centered around the claim they did?

    If the law on Indiana were on the books in Arizona, do you believe it would've offered protection to the shooter despite video evidence indicating the police had acting lawfully in accordance with their duties?


    I just don't understand the criticism of the law to be quite honest. It seems to me you are assuming a jury will so grossly misunderstand the law that they will allow someone who killed a cop in cold blood to go free. While that's not impossible, if you legislate based on an assumption of extreme judicial incompetence, you would have very few laws.

  2. #22
    Jets Insider VIP
    Join Date
    Jan 2005
    Posts
    14,794
    Post Thanks / Like
    [QUOTE=Winstonbiggs;4490387]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?[/QUOTE]


    Paranoid generalizations.

  3. #23
    Jets Insider VIP
    Join Date
    Jan 2005
    Posts
    14,794
    Post Thanks / Like
    I am assuming the already paranoid will not be affected by this law and criminals will use it to shoot first and play dumb later.

    [QUOTE=Axil;4490391]I'm not familer with the AZ shooting, so forgive me as i try and understand your concern.

    Did the police act outside thier scope? (sounds like they didn't given your claims of video evidence)

    Assuming they didn't, was the legal defense of the shooting centered around the claim they did?

    If the law on Indiana were on the books in Arizona, do you believe it would've offered protection to the shooter despite video evidence indicating the police had acting lawfully in accordance with their duties?


    I just don't understand the criticism of the law to be quite honest. It seems to me you are assuming a jury will so grossly misunderstand the law that they will allow someone who killed a cop in cold blood to go free. While that's not impossible, if you legislate based on an assumption of extreme judicial incompetence, you would have very few laws.[/QUOTE]

  4. #24
    Jets Insider VIP
    Join Date
    Jan 2005
    Posts
    14,794
    Post Thanks / Like
    [QUOTE=Winstonbiggs;4490389]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.[/QUOTE]

    If you want to feel better come down to 13th and Filbert in Philadelphia. Repeat offenders walk out everyday.

  5. #25
    Veteran
    Join Date
    Apr 2010
    Posts
    1,039
    Post Thanks / Like
    [QUOTE=cr726;4490394]I am assuming the already paranoid will not be affected by this law and criminals will use it to shoot first and play dumb later.[/QUOTE]

    Who are the "already paranoid"? In what way ought they be affected?

    I agree criminals will shoot first and (i assume this is what you mean by play dumb) try to work the law into their legal defense. However i believe it's extremely unlikely that they will be successful in defending themselves legally in cases where they shot at officers who were operating lawfully.

    Incidentally do you have an issue with a law officer intruding into a home illegally, without a warrant or valid cause of any kind being shot and killed by the home owner?

    In other words. Let's assume for the sake of argument that this law were applied properly 100% of the time.. is it still a bad law?

  6. #26
    Jets Insider VIP
    Join Date
    Aug 2005
    Posts
    13,179
    Post Thanks / Like
    [QUOTE=cr726;4490393]Paranoid generalizations.[/QUOTE]


    That's the argument of a little b**ch that deserves to have the crap slapped out of him.

    Your entire argument is based on creating a danger that you haven't shown any evidence exists.

  7. #27
    Jets Insider VIP
    Join Date
    Jan 2005
    Posts
    14,794
    Post Thanks / Like
    This law helps criminals and one dead or hurt cop because of this law is one too many.

    [QUOTE=Axil;4490400]Who are the "already paranoid"? In what way ought they be affected?

    I agree criminals will shoot first and (i assume this is what you mean by play dumb) try to work the law into their legal defense. However i believe it's extremely unlikely that they will be successful in defending themselves legally in cases where they shot at officers who were operating lawfully.

    Incidentally do you have an issue with a law officer intruding into a home illegally, without a warrant or valid cause of any kind being shot and killed by the home owner?

    In other words. Let's assume for the sake of argument that this law were applied properly 100% of the time.. is it still a bad law?[/QUOTE]

  8. #28
    Veteran
    Join Date
    Apr 2010
    Posts
    1,039
    Post Thanks / Like
    [QUOTE=cr726;4490402]This law helps criminals[/quote]
    You keep saying that but shy away from details or specifics as to how the law helps criminals. It's easy to make scary proclamations (often known as fear mongering), it's difficult to back them up with reasoned argument.

    [QUOTE=cr726;4490402]and one dead or hurt cop because of this law is one too many.[/QUOTE]

    Even if the cop was killed or injured during an unlawful home invasion?

  9. #29
    Jets Insider VIP
    Join Date
    Aug 2005
    Posts
    13,179
    Post Thanks / Like
    [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]

    Correct especially when you consider this law was essentially enacted in response to the Indiana Courts insane decision that essentially allows the police to enter peoples home for any reason.

  10. #30
    Jets Insider VIP
    Join Date
    Jan 2005
    Posts
    14,794
    Post Thanks / Like
    911 call comes in and the officer is given the wrong address for person being raped in a home. The officer rushes in and is shot because the resident believed the officer was there illegally. And on and on and on. Cops have a difficult job and now they have to worry when they respond to a call or serve a search warrant there is a criminal lying in wait for them because now they have a law that supports their "belief". I have yet executed a search warrant where the persons inside the house state "Yup you got me this is the right house and I am a criminal". I have executed hundreds of search and arrest warrants.


    [QUOTE=Axil;4490407]You keep saying that but shy away from details or specifics as to how the law helps criminals. It's easy to make scary proclamations (often known as fear mongering), it's difficult to back them up with reasoned argument.



    Even if the cop was killed or injured during an unlawful home invasion?[/QUOTE]

  11. #31
    All Pro
    Join Date
    Aug 2004
    Posts
    7,452
    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, [B]he's wrong 99% [/B]of the time.

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

    Now I am being called a 1%:D

  12. #32
    All League
    Join Date
    Apr 2009
    Posts
    4,850
    Post Thanks / Like
    [QUOTE=Winstonbiggs;4490387]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?[/QUOTE]


    I am a very big fan of people rotting in prison. That takes them off the street where they are a danger to society.
    At a trial, it is far more likely that a guilty person gets off than an innocent one is convicted. You're not getting tried unless there is something amiss.
    Money make adifference? Sure, more for the guilty rich than the guilty poor.
    BUT, they are still guilty.

  13. #33
    Hall Of Fame
    Join Date
    Sep 2005
    Location
    New York, NY
    Posts
    13,554
    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]

    Agree with the premise, but can't police adjust to the law? i.e. change protocol of entry onto a person's property in order to ensure their own safety? Obviously you're the expert, but I'd think given enough police presence surrounding a home, legal entry and notification that owner is not protected under the scope of this law in the event of retaliation could be anounced prior? Or something along those lines?
    Last edited by JetPotato; 06-13-2012 at 09:22 AM.

  14. #34
    Jets Insider VIP
    Join Date
    Aug 2005
    Posts
    13,179
    Post Thanks / Like
    [QUOTE=palmetto defender;4490420]I am a very big fan of people rotting in prison. That takes them off the street where they are a danger to society.
    At a trial, it is far more likely that a guilty person gets off than an innocent one is convicted. You're not getting tried unless there is something amiss.
    Money make adifference? Sure, more for the guilty rich than the guilty poor.
    BUT, they are still guilty.[/QUOTE]

    I'm a huge fan of violent criminals spending long times in jail. I'm not a huge fan of the police state this country has become.

  15. #35
    All League
    Join Date
    Apr 2009
    Posts
    4,850
    Post Thanks / Like
    [QUOTE=Winstonbiggs;4490435]I'm a huge fan of violent criminals spending long times in jail. I'm not a huge fan of the police state this country has become.[/QUOTE]


    Thank liberal policies for the deterioration of values. And the escalation of crime.
    Escalation, that is, until tougher law enforcement procedures are enacted.
    Lots of places condone illegal activities. Some profile and put the hammer on criminals. Anytime you hear the NAACP complain, you KNOW that law enforcement is working.

  16. #36
    Board Moderator
    Jets Insider VIP
    JetsInsider.com Legend

    Join Date
    Sep 2005
    Location
    The depths of Despair.
    Posts
    39,886
    Post Thanks / Like
    [QUOTE=JetPotato;4490421]Agree with the premise, but can't police adjust to the law? i.e. change protocol of entry onto a person's property in order to ensure their own safety? Obviously you're the expert, but I'd think given enough police presence surrounding a home, legal entry and notification that owner is not protected under the scope of this law in the event of retaliation could be anounced prior? Or something along those lines?[/QUOTE]

    In a perfect world where you know what you are dealing with prior to each encounter, sure.

    For example, I would cite the Mass. cop killed last week during a domestic.

    In hindsite, he should have arrived with a SWAT team and a hostage negotiator, but the realities of small town policing, minimum manning and the fact that virtually every encounter is rife with unknowns... sealed his fate. ( I realize it wasnt the perps "home", I use this example of the unknowns inherant in so many poleez encounters)

    Now, had the perp. survived the encounter, some posters in this thread would be satisfied that a jury would find that he wasnt entitled to kill the cop in this particular situation, thus justifying the law.

    Bottom line here, whether a jury decides, after the fact whether a cop killing was justified, there will be more cops and more civilians killed because of this law, which to me...... is hardly worth the "individual liberties" it purportedly champions.


    -

  17. #37
    Jets Insider VIP
    Join Date
    Aug 2005
    Posts
    13,179
    Post Thanks / Like
    [QUOTE=palmetto defender;4490446]Thank liberal policies for the deterioration of values. And the escalation of crime.
    Escalation, that is, until tougher law enforcement procedures are enacted.
    Lots of places condone illegal activities. Some profile and put the hammer on criminals. Anytime you hear the NAACP complain, you KNOW that law enforcement is working.[/QUOTE]

    Violent crime is tied to the demographics of 18 to 35 year old men. So much of the BS spouted about crime stats, policing and lock up are pure nonesense.

    When the male population of in your prime hormonal retards drops crime drops, when it goes up it goes up.

  18. #38
    Hall Of Fame
    Join Date
    Feb 2005
    Posts
    14,483
    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]

    Agreed. That said, entry with a warrant will always be lawful, even if the warrant was unlawfully obtained.

  19. #39
    Hall Of Fame
    Join Date
    Sep 2005
    Location
    New York, NY
    Posts
    13,554
    Post Thanks / Like
    [QUOTE=32green;4490468]In a perfect world where you know what you are dealing with prior to each encounter, sure.

    For example, I would cite the Mass. cop killed last week during a domestic.

    In hindsite, he should have arrived with a SWAT team and a hostage negotiator, but the realities of small town policing, minimum manning and the fact that virtually every encounter is rife with unknowns... sealed his fate. ( I realize it wasnt the perps "home", I use this example of the unknowns inherant in so many poleez encounters)

    Now, had the perp. survived the encounter, some posters in this thread would be satisfied that a jury would find that he wasnt entitled to kill the cop in this particular situation, thus justifying the law.

    Bottom line here, whether a jury decides, after the fact whether a cop killing was justified, there will be more cops and more civilians killed because of this law, which to me...... is hardly worth the "individual liberties" it purportedly champions.


    -[/QUOTE]

    Agreed, but this is where the term "freedom isn't free" actually fits.

    This law does make sense to me, but only if accompanied by proper provisions to provide the police with safe methods. If this law is what the people of Indiana want, and it means police budgets need to increase by "X" to ensure they can execute their jobs safely, then that has to be understood and provided for (which it doesn't appear to be in this case).

    It's a perfect example of what govermnet exists to do - protect the individual liberties of all - homeowners and police alike. And despite what we hear from many here, even the most ardent Libertarians around can support common-sense government. In this case, even if it does mean more in taxes.

  20. #40
    Board Moderator
    Jets Insider VIP
    JetsInsider.com Legend

    Join Date
    Sep 2005
    Location
    The depths of Despair.
    Posts
    39,886
    Post Thanks / Like
    [QUOTE=JetPotato;4490503]This law does make sense to me, but only if accompanied by proper provisions to provide the police with safe methods. If this law is what the people of Indiana want, and it means police budgets need to increase by "X" to ensure they can execute their jobs safely, then that has to be understood and provided for (which it doesn't appear to be in this case).

    [/QUOTE]

    Precisley.

    And honestly, no matter how much money you throw into hiring and training cops...the bottom line is that most of the encounters covered by this law will involve 1 or two cops arriving lawfully at the doorstep of some loon intent on protecting his castle at all costs (unbeknownst to them)....and believing the law is on his side.

    You cant have a SWAT team dispatched for the millions of encounters that happen in this country every year.... nor will the poleez routinely have (or require) a search warrant in many cases.

    Its a recipe for disaster where the negatives vastly outweigh the positives.

    -

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