deadly force authorized against police in Indiana

[cladking]

That's not true, clad. You can't blame the schools then preach individual rights in the same post. You have to work at becoming educated, it doesn't just get poured in your head while you are sitting there...

Everyone has individual rights but the rights of children are subordinate to their parent's and those appointed by their parents. Teachers can teach even without the cooperation of parents though perhaps not with interference.

Children naturally love to learn and this predisposition is supposed to be encouraged and fed. Instead kids now days are taught to hate school and hate learning. If they don't get encouragement or incentive at home they are likely to fail. Some schools are so bad that even motivated students have a hard time. Kids in the inner city aren't even allowed to succeed since the media excuses gang recruitment murders in advance by pretending they are accidental.

Too many children don't get an education and even if they can stay out of prison they usually can't become good citizens. They are political pawns. Destroying the fabric and structure of American society through this means and the importation of workers from Mexico is part of the status quo. It benefits republocrats and keeps prices low while assuring a steady stream of cheap labor. This cheap labor is fine except it's so cheap it is virtual slavery.

The same thing is going on all over the first world; it is being swallowed up by outsiders. The benefit is questionable since essentially it just keeps prices artificially low and immigrants living in poverty.

[Disciple]

Don't we have the right to resist an illegal arrest? Combine that with the right to self defense and the law almost seems redundant.

[Lady Cop]

Don't we have the right to resist an illegal arrest? Combine that with the right to self defense and the law almost seems redundant.

the judge will decide if the arrest was illegal.

[Disciple]

Don't we have the right to resist an illegal arrest? Combine that with the right to self defense and the law almost seems redundant.

the judge will decide if the arrest was illegal.

I repeat my question.

Or are you saying that, no matter the circumstances, I have to submit to the police and cannot defend myself?

[Lady Cop]

Don't we have the right to resist an illegal arrest? Combine that with the right to self defense and the law almost seems redundant.

the judge will decide if the arrest was illegal.

I repeat my question.

Or are you saying that, no matter the circumstances, I have to submit to the police and cannot defend myself?

if you know it's the police you best comply with lawful orders.

[Disciple]

Don't we have the right to resist an illegal arrest? Combine that with the right to self defense and the law almost seems redundant.

the judge will decide if the arrest was illegal.

I repeat my question.

Or are you saying that, no matter the circumstances, I have to submit to the police and cannot defend myself?

if you know it's the police you best comply with lawful orders.

My AK-47 and I shall take it under advisement.

[Lady Cop]

[Disciple]

OUCH!!!

So much for freedom of speech ......

[Lady Cop]

some people might benefit from reading the Officer Down thread...all 17 pages of Police murdered while performing their lawful duties:

http://mockforums.net/thread-4007.html

[Disciple]

some people might benefit from reading the Officer Down thread...all 17 pages of Police murdered while performing their lawful duties:

http://mockforums.net/thread-4007.html

LC,, isn't that rather a tear jerking low blow, as we were discussion.g ILLEGAL police action?

[Lady Cop]

i don't think it has been established in this thread that it is OK to shoot police for what someone THINKS is an "illegal police action". as i said, only the judge can make that call.

edit to add:

and if i came to a door with a warrant and someone pointed an AK-47 at me, they would be dead before they hit the floor.

[Disciple]

i don't think it has been established in this thread that it is OK to shoot police for what someone THINKS is an "illegal police action". as i said, only the judge can make that call.

edit to add:

and if i came to a door with a warrant and someone pointed an AK-47 at me, they would be dead before they hit the floor.

If you had a warrant, it probably wouldn't be illegal, LC.

[Donovan]

I'm firmly in LC's corner on this one even though most of my family tree falls squarely on the, uh...shadier side of the fence. Shootings as a defense against police intrusion would be so rare that adding specific language to the law is gonna cause way more damage than good. No criminal WANTS cops coming to the door, and no mainstream citizen really has anything to fear from rampaging groups of homicidal boys in blue. Those things are scare stories.

I'll give a personal example in this case although I usually don't try to go there. As it happens a couple years ago I had a police "invasion" at my apartment in the middle of the night that was a mistake. My boy and I were dead asleep, it was about three am, when I heard, FROM INSIDE MY PITCHBLACK APARTMENT, a voice yelling "Where are you! Tell me where you are!" I could see a flashlight beam as I leaped out of bed to face whatever intruder it was. Keep in mind I'm in shorts and without contacts: can't see a goddamn thing even if it wasn't dark. If I had a gun at that point it would have been in my hand. Meanwhile, the voice calls out again and I shout back and the beam comes around the corner and blinds me. But not before I see he's got a hand on his gunbutt.

Turns out it was a cop who'd been called out on a medical emergency from some old lady, and had somehow been given the wrong address. He entered my house trying to save some woman, and coincidentally I'd forgotten to lock up so he just waltzed right in. Both of us were pretty fucking surprised to see each other. From his view I was some wild-eyed longhair in skivvies popping out of a dark room.

Was he there without a warrant? Yes. With my permission? No. But in the confusion, if I came out swinging or armed, one of us would have been dead, me defending my house and son or him defending himself. No one to blame, just pisspoor luck and a gun or two.

That's why this is a stupid law. Cops do a thankless job that nobody else really wants, and the last thing they need is another way people can take potshots at them while they're trying to do that thankless job.

[Cracker]

That's why this is a stupid law. Cops do a thankless job that nobody else really wants, and the last thing they need is another way people can take potshots at them while they're trying to do that thankless job.

That's true. Good post.

There are a bunch of militia-type people, illegals, and other groups who don't feel they are ruled by the same laws that govern the rest of us (American Indian tribes and religious communes, for instance). While they don't ascribe to the law of the land, they will enjoy the loophole.

Freaks me out when someone shoots at my brother. Somebody is going to hit the big sumbitch one of these days.

[cladking]

The bottom line is it just doesn't happen. Police don't just go wandering into peoples' houses very often and on the rare occassion they do it's very rare someone is going to kill them. People don't want dead cops, wwe want live ones. That's how the law has been on the books for eight centuries without any trouble until the Indiana legislature thought they should fix it.

But the fact is that peoples' homes are their own and cops have no control and no say whatsoever in those homes unless there is a crime in progress. Truth to tell I find many police practices now days very handed and very offensive. But this doesn't mean I have the desire to shoot them or anyone else. Cops have a right and a duty to do their jobs but this doesn't make them anyone's boss and they often seem to forget this. I blame television more than anything. People see how things go on on fiction and they come to expect it in real life and now we have it. I am not anti-police. 99.9% of the time they are efficient, competent, and fair and anyone who doesn't cooperate the other .1% of the time is in error.

They have no rights inside my home unless they are investigating a crime or responding to one in progress. This is the law. If the police don't obey the law then who will?

[Disciple]

I'm addressing this again because of concern that, because of my brevity, I may have led people to erroneous conclusions about my take on this law.

Part I

First, I have the greatest respect for the police as a whole and even call a fair number of them friends. As for those who have fallen in the line of duty, I, like others, join in mourning and honoring them. It is a difficult job, one that few of us (myself included) would have the balls to do day in and day out. In short, my stance is not motivated in any way by lack of respect for police in general.

Second, I am no wild eyed, bomb throwing anarchist. I am, I believe, a respected and respectable member of the community.

Third, I am also intelligent, very welll educated, a student of history, a naturally combative Irishman and clearly able to see the direction this country is headed.

To begin, have any of you complainers even READ the law?

Here it is (sorry, some deletions were not removed):

AN ACT to amend the Indiana Code concerning criminal law and procedure.


Be it enacted by the General Assembly of the State of Indiana:




SECTION 1. IC 35-41-3-2, AS AMENDED BY P.L.189-2006, SECTION 1, IS AMENDED TO READ AS FOLLOWS [EFFECTIVE UPON PASSAGE]: Sec. 2. (a) 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. By reaffirming the long standing right of a citizen to protect his or her home against unlawful intrusion, however, the general assembly does not intend to diminish in any way the other robust self defense rights that citizens of this state have always enjoyed. Accordingly, the general assembly also finds and declares that it is the policy of this state that people have a right to defend themselves and third parties from physical harm and crime. The purpose of this section is to provide the citizens of this state with a lawful means of carrying out this policy.
(b) As used in this section, "public servant" means a person described in IC 35-41-1-17, IC 35-31.5-2-129, or IC 35-31.5-2-185.
© A person is justified in using reasonable force against another any other person to protect the person or a third person from what the person reasonably believes to be the imminent use of unlawful force.
However, a person:
(1) is justified in using deadly force; and
(2) does not have a duty to retreat;
if the person reasonably believes that that force is necessary to prevent serious bodily injury to the person or a third person or the commission of a forcible felony. No person in this state shall be placed in legal jeopardy of any kind whatsoever for protecting the person or a third person by reasonable means necessary.
(b) (d) A person:
(1) is justified in using reasonable force, including deadly force, against another any other person; and
(2) does not have a duty to retreat;
if the person reasonably believes that the force is necessary to prevent or terminate the other person's unlawful entry of or attack on the person's dwelling, curtilage, or occupied motor vehicle.
© (e) With respect to property other than a dwelling, curtilage, or an occupied motor vehicle, a person is justified in using reasonable force against another any other person if the person reasonably believes that the force is necessary to immediately prevent or terminate the other person's trespass on or criminal interference with property lawfully in the person's possession, lawfully in possession of a member of the person's immediate family, or belonging to a person whose property the person has authority to protect. However, a person:
(1) is justified in using deadly force; and
(2) does not have a duty to retreat;
only if that force is justified under subsection (a). ©.
(d) (f) A person is justified in using reasonable force, including deadly force, against another any other person and does not have a duty to retreat if the person reasonably believes that the force is necessary to prevent or stop the other person from hijacking, attempting to hijack, or otherwise seizing or attempting to seize unlawful control of an aircraft in flight. For purposes of this subsection, an aircraft is considered to be in flight while the aircraft is:
(1) on the ground in Indiana:
(A) after the doors of the aircraft are closed for takeoff; and
(B) until the aircraft takes off;
(2) in the airspace above Indiana; or
(3) on the ground in Indiana:
(A) after the aircraft lands; and
(B) before the doors of the aircraft are opened after landing.
(e) (g) Notwithstanding subsections (a), (b) and ©, © through (e), a person is not justified in using force if:


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
(1) the person is committing or is escaping after the commission of a crime;
(2) the person provokes unlawful action by another person with intent to cause bodily injury to the other person; or
(3) the person has entered into combat with another person or is the initial aggressor unless the person withdraws from the encounter and communicates to the other person the intent to do so and the other person nevertheless continues or threatens to continue unlawful action.
(f) (h) Notwithstanding subsection (d), (f), a person is not justified in using force if the person:
(1) is committing, or is escaping after the commission of, a crime;
(2) provokes unlawful action by another person, with intent to cause bodily injury to the other person; or
(3) continues to combat another person after the other person withdraws from the encounter and communicates the other person's intent to stop hijacking, attempting to hijack, or otherwise seizing or attempting to seize unlawful control of an aircraft in flight.
(i) A person is justified in using reasonable force against a public servant if the person reasonably believes the force is necessary to:
(1) protect the person or a third person from what the person reasonably believes to be the imminent use of unlawful force;
(2) prevent or terminate the public servant's unlawful entry of or attack on the person's dwelling, curtilage, or occupied motor vehicle; or
(3) prevent or terminate the public servant's unlawful trespass on or criminal interference with property lawfully in the person's possession, lawfully in possession of a member of the person's immediate family, or belonging to a person whose property the person has authority to protect.
(j) Notwithstanding subsection (i), a person is not justified in using force against a public servant if:
(1) the person is committing or is escaping after the commission of a crime;
(2) the person provokes action by the public servant with intent to cause bodily injury to the public servant;
(3) the person has entered into combat with the public servant or is the initial aggressor, unless the person withdraws from the encounter and communicates to the public servant the intent to do so and the public servant nevertheless continues
or threatens to continue unlawful action; or
(4) the person reasonably believes the public servant is:
(A) acting lawfully; or
(B) engaged in the lawful execution of the public servant's official duties.
(k) A person is not justified in using deadly force against a public servant whom the person knows or reasonably should know is a public servant unless:
(1) the person reasonably believes that the public servant is:
(A) acting unlawfully; or
(B) not engaged in the execution of the public servant's official duties; and
(2) the force is reasonably necessary to prevent serious bodily injury to the person or a third person.
SECTION 2. An emergency is declared for this act.

[Disciple]

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 21^st 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.

[crash]

tl;dr

Bullet points?

[cladking]

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.

It's not so much civil liberties disappearing as individual god given rights. They are disappearing to apopease the babks and wall street which are enjoying an orgy of greed now that they are too big to fail. The Taliban and old Afghani government were inseparable just as Morgan Stanley and the US government are one and the same. At least they are in bed together and the government is taking it. We're getting sold down the river as MS sucks the last of the wealth that used to be the US economy. The government protects them from competition so they can pay no interest and loan money at 15%. The government stands by toi bail them out when their gambling losses get to huge. Meanwhile the amount they have on the table as bets approached a quadrillion dollars according to some estimates. That's $1,000,000,000,000,000.00, and it's also a thousands times larger than the entire US economy. It's hundreds of times larger than the entire world economy. When they win even a little they all get million dollar bonuses and whenm they lose a little tiny bit the US tax-payer is on the hook. God only knows what happens when they lose a lot. MS doesn't know and the suckers who bet against them don't know. My guess is we'll either all starve to death except MS or we'll get martial law and the end of the little freedom we have left.

Rather than reducing the influence of banks the government is at the party. They are getting wined and dined and assured they'll always be the one true love but these leeches will desert ship and run abroad at the first sign of trouble. Rather than forcing the banks to reduce their totally reckless gambling the government just gets increasingly dependent on it. In only the last few years DC has gone from the poorest city in the country to the richest as all money now flows to wall street and Washington. The jobs are gone and soon the money will be as well.

[Disciple]

tl;dr

Bullet points?

You can either wait for the Cliff Notes version.

Or you can develop an attention span greater than that of a 3 year old in a toy store.

Jesus! Can anyone point me to an INTELLIGENT opinion forum?