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.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.