06-20-2012, 08:27 PM
Part II
Next, has it occurred to people to wonder why this bill even came into being? I've yet to see anyone raise, let alone answer the question, although this clearly is not the normal election year pandering to the voter kind of bill. Even in that hotbed of radicalism Indiana. I will take this opportunity to note that the bill was favored by Republicans and opposed by Democrats.
The answer: The new law reverses a state Supreme Court ruling that homeowners do not have the right to use force against law enforcement officials who they believe are illegally entering their homes. According to the Evansville Courier Press, an Evansville resident fought a police officer who followed him into his house during a domestic dispute call. “The state Supreme Court found that officers sometimes enter homes without warrants for reasons protected by the law, such as pursuing suspects or preventing the destruction of evidence. In these situations, we find it unwise to allow a homeowner to adjudge the legality of police conduct in the heat of the moment,” the court said. “As we decline to recognize a right to resist unlawful police entry into a home, we decline to recognize a right to batter a police officer as a part of that resistance.”
Some commentary from a site called reddit that I found interesting:
"This is a response to a supreme court ruling last year that declared Indiana residents do not have the right to resist unlawful police entry. Indiana also has Castle Doctrine that says residents can use appropriate force against intruders, including the use of deadly force in the threat of serious bodily harm. Basically, under this law residents can now rightfully resist unlawful entry by police officers - applying the doctrine to illegal police action, which the supreme court recently ruled did not apply to law enforcement officers.
So I believe this law is just to clear up any grey area and state that a police officer who is entering a home illegally can be treated the same as any other criminal home invader. The ruling by the state supreme court was ambiguous to the point that residents did not have the legal ability to resist any unlawful action by police - even if, for example, a police officer was raping your wife. Ruling that a citizens only recourse was through the court system, with no legal grounds to resist police action regardless of what it constituted. [Anyone remember what Lenny Bruce said about "In the Halls of Justice ...." Anyone? Disciple]
The Indiana Supreme Court took things to a ridiculous level... so much so that Gov. Daniels even spoke out against it. The legislature and Governor stepped in to remedy a precedent set by the state courts that opened the door for a host of potential abuse.
Now here is a question, how would this effect no knock entry situations? I have always been a little confused as to what happens in these situations if somehow you do A. shoot and kill an officer during one, and B. manage to not get killed yourself.
The serving of a no-knock warrant would be a lawful entry... and therefore an individual would not be justified in using force. It should be understood that "no-knock" does not mean that police do not announce their presence.
Effectively, the issue would arise if they were serving a no-knock warrant and they entered the wrong house [Donovan - please take note. Disciple]. It would protect the individual who, if they were not reasonably aware that it was the police, defended himself against the intruders. Once again though, police announcing their presence makes this a rare coinsurance [sic - Disciple].
The law was specifically written to rein in an ambiguous precedent set by the state court, which as stated before, effectively ruled that law enforcement officers were immune from any resistance so long as they are on duty or in uniform. Such a policy was seen by most in the state as being excessively vague and ripe for potential abuse.
This law wasn't written primarily for the purpose of resisting unlawful entry by uniformed police officers in unwarranted searches, but that is a benefit to it the way it is written. It was primarily written in response to an incident where a police officer was moonlighting as a home invader, stealing televisions and other electronics equipment from homes where he had responded to calls. As previously written, the law did not allow for individuals to shoot this police officer even though he was off duty, out of uniform, and committing home intrusion, circumstances under which any other person could be legally shot." End of quote.
Thirty years ago, the people in my neck of the woods knew that the surest way to have your house burglarized was to tell the City police that you were going on vacation. They were right. It took a couple of years (mainly because of the failure of the Chief of Police to believe that an of his little lambs would do anything like THAT) but eventially they caught the fucker - a sergeant.
Let's look at the big picture. One of the major precipitating events of the American Revolution was the actions of the British, especially the military, in conducting unlawful searches, illegally seizing people and property and forcing citizens to billet British soldiers in private homes (where they acted like lords). This is the reason the Fourth Amendment to the US Constitution was enacted.
Now look at today. Unless you've had your head up your ass the last eleven years, you've noticed that our civil liberties are not only disappearing, they are being DEVOURED by our Federal government. The bigger picture is that the government is no longer the entity in control - it is just the wheels that make things happen. The real control is held by big business, especially the banking industry. We don't live in a democracy, it's a CORPORATOCRACY. This national and international attempt to consolidate power is insideous yet easy to see, as demonstrated by the banking fiasco that resulted in the American people, in debt up to their nostrils and just getting by, bailing out some of the largest banks in the world.
The 21st Century will be the time of war between those who seek to consolidate power in the hands of the few versus those who are willing to fight for individual liberty.
The people in Indiana have drawn a line in the dirt.
Let (s)he who has ears, hear.
The rest of you sheep just move along and keep the bleating down. Your masters don't like it.
Next, has it occurred to people to wonder why this bill even came into being? I've yet to see anyone raise, let alone answer the question, although this clearly is not the normal election year pandering to the voter kind of bill. Even in that hotbed of radicalism Indiana. I will take this opportunity to note that the bill was favored by Republicans and opposed by Democrats.
The answer: The new law reverses a state Supreme Court ruling that homeowners do not have the right to use force against law enforcement officials who they believe are illegally entering their homes. According to the Evansville Courier Press, an Evansville resident fought a police officer who followed him into his house during a domestic dispute call. “The state Supreme Court found that officers sometimes enter homes without warrants for reasons protected by the law, such as pursuing suspects or preventing the destruction of evidence. In these situations, we find it unwise to allow a homeowner to adjudge the legality of police conduct in the heat of the moment,” the court said. “As we decline to recognize a right to resist unlawful police entry into a home, we decline to recognize a right to batter a police officer as a part of that resistance.”
Some commentary from a site called reddit that I found interesting:
"This is a response to a supreme court ruling last year that declared Indiana residents do not have the right to resist unlawful police entry. Indiana also has Castle Doctrine that says residents can use appropriate force against intruders, including the use of deadly force in the threat of serious bodily harm. Basically, under this law residents can now rightfully resist unlawful entry by police officers - applying the doctrine to illegal police action, which the supreme court recently ruled did not apply to law enforcement officers.
So I believe this law is just to clear up any grey area and state that a police officer who is entering a home illegally can be treated the same as any other criminal home invader. The ruling by the state supreme court was ambiguous to the point that residents did not have the legal ability to resist any unlawful action by police - even if, for example, a police officer was raping your wife. Ruling that a citizens only recourse was through the court system, with no legal grounds to resist police action regardless of what it constituted. [Anyone remember what Lenny Bruce said about "In the Halls of Justice ...." Anyone? Disciple]
The Indiana Supreme Court took things to a ridiculous level... so much so that Gov. Daniels even spoke out against it. The legislature and Governor stepped in to remedy a precedent set by the state courts that opened the door for a host of potential abuse.
Now here is a question, how would this effect no knock entry situations? I have always been a little confused as to what happens in these situations if somehow you do A. shoot and kill an officer during one, and B. manage to not get killed yourself.
The serving of a no-knock warrant would be a lawful entry... and therefore an individual would not be justified in using force. It should be understood that "no-knock" does not mean that police do not announce their presence.
Effectively, the issue would arise if they were serving a no-knock warrant and they entered the wrong house [Donovan - please take note. Disciple]. It would protect the individual who, if they were not reasonably aware that it was the police, defended himself against the intruders. Once again though, police announcing their presence makes this a rare coinsurance [sic - Disciple].
The law was specifically written to rein in an ambiguous precedent set by the state court, which as stated before, effectively ruled that law enforcement officers were immune from any resistance so long as they are on duty or in uniform. Such a policy was seen by most in the state as being excessively vague and ripe for potential abuse.
This law wasn't written primarily for the purpose of resisting unlawful entry by uniformed police officers in unwarranted searches, but that is a benefit to it the way it is written. It was primarily written in response to an incident where a police officer was moonlighting as a home invader, stealing televisions and other electronics equipment from homes where he had responded to calls. As previously written, the law did not allow for individuals to shoot this police officer even though he was off duty, out of uniform, and committing home intrusion, circumstances under which any other person could be legally shot." End of quote.
Thirty years ago, the people in my neck of the woods knew that the surest way to have your house burglarized was to tell the City police that you were going on vacation. They were right. It took a couple of years (mainly because of the failure of the Chief of Police to believe that an of his little lambs would do anything like THAT) but eventially they caught the fucker - a sergeant.
Let's look at the big picture. One of the major precipitating events of the American Revolution was the actions of the British, especially the military, in conducting unlawful searches, illegally seizing people and property and forcing citizens to billet British soldiers in private homes (where they acted like lords). This is the reason the Fourth Amendment to the US Constitution was enacted.
Now look at today. Unless you've had your head up your ass the last eleven years, you've noticed that our civil liberties are not only disappearing, they are being DEVOURED by our Federal government. The bigger picture is that the government is no longer the entity in control - it is just the wheels that make things happen. The real control is held by big business, especially the banking industry. We don't live in a democracy, it's a CORPORATOCRACY. This national and international attempt to consolidate power is insideous yet easy to see, as demonstrated by the banking fiasco that resulted in the American people, in debt up to their nostrils and just getting by, bailing out some of the largest banks in the world.
The 21st Century will be the time of war between those who seek to consolidate power in the hands of the few versus those who are willing to fight for individual liberty.
The people in Indiana have drawn a line in the dirt.
Let (s)he who has ears, hear.
The rest of you sheep just move along and keep the bleating down. Your masters don't like it.