Posted on 03/28/2012 2:49:42 PM PDT by marktwain
Tuesday night, Indiana Gov. Mitch Daniels signed a bill that would protect citizens who reasonably believe force is necessary to protect themselves, someone else or their own property from unlawful actions by a public servant.
While supports believe the proposal strengthens the legal rights of people against public servants or government agents illegally entering their home, police groups are worried that many will use it as justification for attacking officers or will not understand the law fully.
"For those who don't take the time to read the law, it is going to be devastating for someone to think they have a right to resist if they only think an officers is acting illegally," said William Owensby, president of the Indiana chapter of the Fraternal Order of Police.
Daniels stood by his decision in a written statement, "Contrary to some impressions, the bill strengthens the protection of Indiana law enforcement officers by narrowing the situations in which someone would be justified in using force against them," But, he added: "What is troubling to law enforcement officers, and to me, is the chance that citizens hearing reports of change will misunderstand what the law says."
You cannot use force against an officer with a warrant. Never could.
This was started by the Indiana Supreme Court that said citizens are not allowed to resist Police, even during an illegal entry. This bill (now law) is a good reminder that we are not a Police State.
Perhaps Indiana isn’t a police state, but there are a lot of others that are...
More states need to adopt this law.
More states need to adopt this law.
Mitch Daniels for Prez.
Your right Indiana would do well to spell that out clearly and concisely so that everyone understands it.
Warrant = legal entry
Then they need to make sure that every one of their officers gets & presents a warrant.
I'd have impeached the entire lot of them for ignoring the legislation.
“This was started by the Indiana Supreme Court that said citizens are not allowed to resist Police, even during an illegal entry”
The idea that legislation was needed to counteract this notion makes my brain hurt. Police are not police anymore if they enter my property illegally. They are tresspassers or worse. They are, in short, criminals, just like any other criminal.
“police groups are worried that many will use it as justification for attacking officers or will not understand the law fully”
Cops are always worried about people thinking they have rights, along with everything else that makes their jobs more difficult.
A bunch of other states are following Indiana’s lead on this.
Currently, 40 other states do not recognize a common law right to resist an *unlawful* police entry. Hopefully this number will be strongly reduced, as more legislators discover what the situation is.
Great!
Great!
Great!
Is there a link to which states recognize or don’t recognize the right?
“It would be good to have details about this.”
Yes, I noticed that this article and some other sources don’t bother to give us the bill number, just the quote...”For those who don’t take the time to read the law, it is going to be devastating...”
It is Senate Bill 0001 or SB 1
The final text is this...Senate Enrolled Act No. 1 (SEA 1)...
HTML
http://www.in.gov/legislative/bills/2012/SE/SE0001.1.html
PDF
http://www.in.gov/legislative/bills/2012/PDF/SE/SE0001.1.pdf
I looked around for that, or for the states that do recognize the common law doctrine and I couldn’t find it.
It is kind of muddled up with the “castle doctrine”, though they are effectively different things. And there was so much outrage at the Indiana supreme court that there was just too much noise to sort through.
Thanks.
I hope to eventually get up to speed on the differences and applicable laws for “castle doctrine” — “stand your ground” — “make my day” (heard that one from a Colorado resident) — and “right to resist”.
Now if he could only get that toll road back that he, essentially, gave away to a foreign company, he might be national material.
Until then, yawn....
This statutory provision essentially restates what the common law right had been in Indiana prior to the Supreme Court decision. There was no statutory provision before the Decision; there didn’t need to be. This right existed at the common law from the very dawn of English history.
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.