Skip to comments.Law Enforcement Weighs In On Right To Resist Bill
Posted on 02/24/2012 6:46:48 AM PST by Abathar
INDIANAPOLIS -- A bill that would allow property owners to use deadly force to resist police is facing increasing resistance of its own.
The proposed legislation would provide property owners the right to use deadly force to stop an illegal entry by law enforcement officers.
Current Indiana law gives homeowners the right to use whatever force they deem necessary to defend themselves and their property against unlawful entry. However, Senate Bill No. 1 is aimed directly at the police and would give property owners the same authority to use deadly force against officers perceived to have made unlawful entry.
The Marion County Prosecutor's Office opposes that bill, RTV6's Jack Rinehart reported.
(Excerpt) Read more at theindychannel.com ...
The biggest downside to this will be exactly what this guy is saying unfortunately.
whereas the cops can shoot anyone and the worst that happens is they sit at a desk for a couple months.
The downside to not passing it may be that the police will feel more empowered to do illegal entries with increased levels of violence.
You think you have a right to resist?
Think again, comrades.
Well, if existing Indiana law allows the homeowner to use deadly force against an illegal entry, why would someone under the new law have to say they didn't know it was the police? It sounds like the key factor is if it is an illegal entry.
Exactly Frog - it is already too late for bill like this.
I don't see any good coming from this, but the morons brought it on themselves.
When law enforcement doesn't take the time and trouble to be absolutely sure they are breaking into the right house, they're asking for trouble.
From the stories that commonly come to light, they barely bother - and then an innocent party is at best paying for the damages, and at worst getting buried.
Top this off with the possibility of a real bad guy-intruder busting in screaming "Police!" as a ruse - if I've done nothing wrong and someone comes in that way, I've already decided to shoot first and ask to see a badge afterwords.
It may get me killed in their returned fire, but I'll be damned if I'm going to let someone do harm to me and mine without defense unless I damn well know they're the law.
Since I’m not a criminal the chances of being robbed are most likely higher than being raided by the police.
Exactly - so it's a lose-lose for the cops. The real criminals are going to shoot back anyway to prevent getting caught, and us normal people are going to shoot back because we know there's no reason for anyone to forcibly enter our homes.
The only way around it is to disarm the normal people and then it's safe to burst in, guns blazing.
“The biggest downside to this will be exactly what this guy is saying unfortunately.”
What you say is possibly true, however the pendulum has swung so far the other way that it’s necessary at this point.
Perhaps it will curb some of this no-knock search BS, which is the only place where it might be an issue...
I would say, at least from my observation, there are a lot more innocent people killed by cops than the other way around.
I'd like to get their perspective...
Right you are. This bill is a TERRIBLE idea.
There's a big difference between a felon entering your house unlawfully, and a cop doing the same. The felon has evil on his mind, the cop does not.
But you raise some very good points. If a citizen is subject to an unlawful police entry, he should be compensated for this. Big money, thousands of dollars.
And the instant the cops hit a house, they should be required to TURN ON THEIR CAR SIRENS, FULL BLAST. Let folks know it's really the police.
As you said, anyone can break into my house yelling "police". Those folks could get hurt, unless I hear sirens.
The thing is, most people don’t stay holed up in their houses all the time.
A little surveillance will tell you when a suspect goes out and where you can find him, usually. Seems to me like it would be safer to conduct a search of a premises while you knew the suspect wasn’t there.
Heck, the ATF had multiple opportunities to nail David Koresh when he went out and about on his regular rounds in town, but passed them up. Maybe they preferred the “shock and awe” of an assault. It has been speculated that had they arrested him in town, you’d might never have heard about David Koresh.
My question is, before all these “home invasion” type of arrests, how did police officers do their job?
I’d guess if police thought there was a chance they’d be met with deadly force if they didn’t do things by the book, then maybe these “home invasion” types of arrests would be a little less common, as they should be.
But, if you have all that SWAT gear lying around, you have to justify it somehow I guess...
That did not result in an illegal entry.
A later court decision unfortunately written by a guy steeped in Shariah Law, ignored that part and went on to simply rule that no one had a right to resist a police entry.
Instead of taking direct action and REMOVING the justices who signed onto that mistaken ruling from the Indiana supreme Court, the legislature has gotten itself all balled up on a non-existent question ~ to wit ~ that if cops make an illegal entry can a homeowner shoot them dead..
One of the reasons cops wear uniforms is so you know who they are and won't shoot them unless you want them to shoot back.
I am sure there's more than one legislator here who is asking himself what would happen if the cops make a legal entry and the homeowner thinks it's an illegal entry and he shoots at the cops, and they then shoot back at him, and so on and so forth until they are all dead ~ and the only question was why the guy's front door was unlocked and standing wide open at 3 AM like his house was being robbed.
This is like arguing how many angels can dance on the head of a pin ~ and as meaningful.
Still, if cops with warrants arrive at homes where homeowners can judge whether or not an entry is lawful (by their own standards) I suspect many more warrants will be delivered by tactical units armed with automatic weapons ~
“There’s a big difference between a felon entering your house unlawfully, and a cop doing the same. The felon has evil on his mind, the cop does not.”
How is it any different for a felon to enter you house unlawfully than for a cop to enter your house unlawfully?
Mathe you should have a cup of coffee before you post...
You hit the nail on the head. My wife (the daughter of a retired LEO) is against the bill (as am I but for different reasons).
A prosecutor should have dropped charges immediately and paid for repairs in the home. Common Sense, an apology and acceptance of a mistake would have put this to rest. Instead, they pressed the issue and a judge had to follow a legal interpretation. So legislators had to get involved and all of us are scratching our head, "Why do we have to define when it is ok to shoot at cops?"
The bill does not give homeowners a "right" to resist. It gives citizens a "way out" or a "defense" if they resist and were wrongfully targeted.
Our legal system is suppose to be objective. It's why it includes judges. The prosecutor could have used objective judgment and stopped this.
Most people are not arrested or ticketed for driving through a red light to get out of the way of an ambulance with lights and sirens on. Kids should not be expelled from school for sharing aspirin or Tylenol. I wish the media would do better on some of the reporting.
Uh, did you read the rest of my post? It's all about intent. The felon intends to do me harm; he is there for evil purposes. The cop is there (hopefully) as an agent of justice.
And the felon has picked my house on purpose. The cop is there by accident.
The case that precipitated this legislative action involved a woman in a house calling 911 for the cops to come to her house and help her.
There was no illegal entry. The man of the house, who was moving out anyway, and in fact loading up his truck out front (attesting to that fact), was busting up her property on his way out.
She had every legal right to let the cops in. The guy thought she didn't and tried to push the cops out.
This was a domestic dispute and had NOTHING to do with the cops even needing a warrant.
Passage of the law would have given the upper hand to the man and he'd been allowed to bust up all his wife's stuff without repurcussion.
Those who advocate for the principles of Sharia Law side with the man against the woman.
So why would the Prosecutor need to pay her for the broken property? That just doesn't link.
So if a cop enters your home unlawfully and shoots you for pointing a gun at him, are you any less dead?
the no-knock raids are out of control. There are no repercussions to the cops for mistakes. Its time to stop.
But they don't, do they.
Not the ones who execute these types or forced entries...
They wear black suits and ski masks!
Screw that. Uniformed officer gets my straight up respect and cooperation.
A man in a black suit and ski mask gets a magazine full of .45 hollow-points, or until he shoots me dead.
You really need to get up to speed here. You're talking about one thing and the facts are a totally different situation.
The cops were responding to a 911 call and were invited in by the victim. The perp tried to stop the cops.
“Uh, did you read the rest of my post?”
I was responding to what you said, which was not that well thought out. Read your first paragraph again...
There's only one side to this case and the State Supreme Court GOT EVERYTHING WRONG.
I agree 100% with all of that. As I mentioned above, anyone who's a victim of an unlawful police raid should be compensated with big money. Really big money. Unlawful raids violate your constitutional rights and should not be tolerated.
And police should be required to turn on their lights and sirens the instant they bust through the door. Let everyone inside immediately know that it's the police.
The problem of police forced entry into the wrong house are too many to ignore, and the scope of this discussion has moved from that incident to generalities.
Sorry, I’m not following you. I guess we’ll just have to agree to disagree.
If the guy was still living there, then he has rights as well.
Don’t go postal on us now with your sharia law connections.
But that’s not what this is about ~ this is a legislative initiative to make sure the Indiana Supreme Court does not in the future misconstrue this body of law ~ like it did in the case that started with a domestic dispute.
They should name this bill after the fellow that was gunned down by a SWAT Team in his home near Tucson a year or so ago.
“The question was not the lawfulness of the entry, but the homeowner’s perception of the lawfulness.”
The question was not about anything of the sort. The question is about a cop entering your house unlawfully.
It would be my contention that if you randomly selected 100 cops and 100 average citizens, the number of dangerous criminals in the cop group would be three times that of the citizen group. Maybe more...
You should have already known that.
The guy was moving out. His stuff was in a truck out front. He was busting up her stuff ~ she was staying with the house/apartment/condo or whatever. It was HER residence ~ not his.
She should have asked the officers to shoot him. They'd been in the clear and she wouldn't have to pay for a divorce.
INDIANAPOLIS -- A bill that would allow property owners to use deadly force to resist police is facing increasing resistance of its own. The proposed legislation would provide property owners the right to use deadly force to stop an illegal entry by law enforcement officers. Current Indiana law gives homeowners the right to use whatever force they deem necessary to defend themselves and their property against unlawful entry. However, Senate Bill No. 1 is aimed directly at the police and would give property owners the same authority to use deadly force against officers perceived to have made unlawful entry. The Marion County Prosecutor's Office opposes that bill, RTV6's Jack Rinehart reported.
And no, I did not follow the links... but you have to admit this text sends the thoughts a certain direction...
The discussion must logically take place within the historic framework to make any sense. The other concerns you raise are irrelevant. It's not about stopping a cop entering a home unlawfully, but whether or not you can stop a cop entering a home lawfully by shooting him. That's what it started with ~ an attempt at a lawful entry!
return to sender dude
We are to the point where the residents perception is at issue and it looks like folks are beginning to understand why they don't need this law. NO ONE has the right to refuse a lawful entry, and this case starts with a lawful entry.
The solution is to FIX the State Supreme Court ~ that's called "Get those Idiots Out Of There"
I was 17 and driving my parents full sized Ford van home at about 12:30 AM one Saturday morning. I was not drinking, no drugs, no speeding no driving violations, nothing illegal.
I was pulled over by a county LEO. The officer, via loud speaker had me place my hands outside the window and leave them there. 4 (maybe more) more squad cars showed up. I was finally approached after about 15 minutes and asked for license and registration and insurance. I asked why I had been pulled over. “Just sit tight with your hands outside the vehicle.” I even asked to get out because it was painful to sit like that.
After about 40 minutes. I was given my stuff back and told I could leave. They never checked the van, never questioned me and never told me what “mistake” must have been made. It infuriated me. I was too young and scared to get an LEO name for my father. But he did file a complaint.
I never blamed the officers for “detaining me” for the 40 to 45 minutes. But I was super pissed that after the time and discomfort an officer didn't at least give me a reason, apologize for the inconvenience and send me on my way. I always suspected they were looking for a perp that fit either my description or that of the van I was driving. They may have even gotten a witness to the scene (I couldn't see crap with all the lights in my eyes). I expect they were “doing their job.”
A simple gesture to acknowledge the situation like, “Sorry kid. Wrong guy.” would have gone a long way with me.
Why? The issue in this piece of legislation in Indiana started with a 911 call for help.
Good post. Your story should be required reading during police academy training, with emphasis on the last paragraph.
Well, I guess if you're an Indiana cop and you don't like this law, you shouldn't have gone to the Indiana Supremes and claimed homeowners had no right to resist you even if you were entering illegally (the court AGREED!!!!). Best be careful what you wish for. D'oh!
“Citizens may resist unlawful arrest to the point of taking an arresting officer’s life if necessary. Plummer v. State, 136 Ind. 306. This premise was upheld by the Supreme Court of the United States in the case: John Bad Elk v. U.S., 177 U.S. 529. The Court stated: Where the officer is killed in the course of the disorder which naturally accompanies an attempted arrest that is resisted, the law looks with very different eyes upon the transaction, when the officer had the right to make the arrest, from what it does if the officer had no right. What may be murder in the first case might be nothing more than manslaughter in the other, or the facts might show that no offense had been committed.”
If cops would stop doing no knock raids on the wrong address then this wouldn’t be an issue.
Given the frequency with which they get the wrong house not being a criminal doesn’t mean anything. Let’s not even get into the problems if you have allergies, could be you are a criminal and don’t know it.
“You don’t understand why this legislative initiative is in the legislature.”
It’s you who doesn’t understand. The reason the legislature took the initiative was because the SC came down with a stupid ruling that was wrong and could cause widespread problems. The only place to correct it was in the legislature.
It really had nothing to do with the case you sited.
I still don’t understand why the police don’t arrest more people outside of their homes instead of seeking potential confrontations inside structures that could house all sorts of surprises.
The court ruling that homeowners have no right to resist police entry at any time is what started the outcry .
All police need do is return to the good old days of only fully uniformed,identifiable officers who loudly and cleasrly identify themselves as police before attempting entry,and who attempt entry only with carefully vetted warrants unless immediate entry is necessary to prevent,not cause, the death or serious injury of a person.
Police SWAT units should be reviewed and procedures changed to eliminate the ninja military sniper mindset.
Most no-knock raids should never happen; they are just a chance for certain rogue cops to “play Army”.We know how that turned out at Ruby Ridge and Waco.
And if one of these (suspects) gets wind that they may have a defense saying, I didn’t know it was a police officer, and can kill him, we don’t have any ramifications there.
Maybe if they dropped perceived from the wording? It would cause the police to make darn sure they had the correct address. I am tired of police getting the wrong address and shooting people, pets yada. Once is too many times and I’ve read or watched news reports of this all too much.
Maybe that would be bad law but something needs to change because the police are getting it wrong too much. That isn’t acceptable.