Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

NRA-Backed Law Spells Out When Indianans May Open Fire on Police
sfgate.com ^ | 5 June, 2012 | Mark Niquette

Posted on 06/06/2012 5:12:04 AM PDT by marktwain

June 5 (Bloomberg) -- Every time police Sergeant Joseph Hubbard stops a speeder or serves a search warrant, he says he worries suspects assume they can open fire -- without breaking the law.

Hubbard, a 17-year veteran of the police department in Jeffersonville, Indiana, says his apprehension stems from a state law approved this year that allows residents to use deadly force in response to the "unlawful intrusion" by a "public servant" to protect themselves and others, or their property.

"If I pull over a car and I walk up to it and the guy shoots me, he's going to say, 'Well, he was trying to illegally enter my property,'" said Hubbard, 40, who is president of Jeffersonville Fraternal Order of Police Lodge 100. "Somebody is going get away with killing a cop because of this law."

Indiana is the first U.S. state to specifically allow force against officers, according to the Association of Prosecuting Attorneys in Washington, which represents and supports prosecutors. The National Rifle Association pushed for the law, saying an unfavorable court decision made the need clear and that it would allow homeowners to defend themselves during a violent, unjustified attack. Police lobbied against it.

(Excerpt) Read more at sfgate.com ...


TOPICS: Constitution/Conservatism; Crime/Corruption; News/Current Events; US: Indiana
KEYWORDS: banglist; defense; in; police
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-5051-55 next last
It the attack is violent and unjustified, then of course you should be able to defend against it.

The ability to defend yourself against unjustified government attack is at the very core of American philosophy.

1 posted on 06/06/2012 5:12:16 AM PDT by marktwain
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | View Replies]

To: marktwain

Break into my home in the dead of the night and there will be No question that I will open fire.

Better to be tried by twelve than carried by six any day.


2 posted on 06/06/2012 5:17:01 AM PDT by puppypusher (The World is going to the dogs.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: marktwain

Sherman, set the Wayback Machine for 2005, New Orleans, after Katrina.

Cops looting, confiscating property, including guns, intent on disarming the population.


3 posted on 06/06/2012 5:20:05 AM PDT by Old Sarge (RIP FReeper Skyraider (1930-2011) - You Are Missed)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: marktwain

Ups the ante on ‘Swatting’.


4 posted on 06/06/2012 5:24:32 AM PDT by tbpiper
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: marktwain
"Every time police Sergeant Joseph Hubbard stops a speeder or serves a search warrant, he says he worries suspects assume they can open fire -- without breaking the law. "

Good. I want you worried; maybe you'll follow the law.

You are a servant of the public, not the state and should be afraid of us.


5 posted on 06/06/2012 5:24:59 AM PDT by ex91B10 (We've tried the Soap Box,the Ballot Box and the Jury Box; one box left.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: marktwain; Joe Brower

6 posted on 06/06/2012 5:25:12 AM PDT by Travis McGee (www.EnemiesForeignAndDomestic.com)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: marktwain

Good law, long time in coming. Any cop who is worried should a) examine how he goes about his job of “protecting and serving,” or b) find another line of work. Seldom a day goes by here on FR that you don’t read about some sort of abuse of authority by police ( can you say Aurora, CO?). It’s long past time when cops should be able to get away with murder unchallenged. For that matter, they should all start obeying the same laws they are sworn to enforce against the rest of us. Our useless former Chief of Police told me that he routinely used waving his gun at other motorists whom he felt were driving too close behind him. Here in California, for the rest of us that’s a felony!


7 posted on 06/06/2012 5:27:33 AM PDT by vette6387
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: marktwain

Hubbard is a drama queen, spreading falsehood. The law allows force vs. force, resistance. It does not allow deadly force, unless the person is reasonably in fear of death or serious injury, and a traffic stop does not produce a reasonable fear of serious injury.


8 posted on 06/06/2012 5:28:59 AM PDT by Cboldt
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Old Sarge
"If I pull over a car and I walk up to it and the guy shoots me, he's going to say, 'Well, he was trying to illegally enter my property,'..."Somebody is going get away with killing a cop because of this law.""

Oh, poor little piggie; how does it feel to have the shoe on the other foot?


9 posted on 06/06/2012 5:29:33 AM PDT by ex91B10 (We've tried the Soap Box,the Ballot Box and the Jury Box; one box left.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 3 | View Replies]

To: marktwain

We need to remind the writer of this article that we are not Indianans; we are Hoosiers.


10 posted on 06/06/2012 5:31:35 AM PDT by raisincane (I'm an optimist...I think most people are half full of crap - Maxine)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: vette6387
-- Good law, long time in coming. --

This is the second time Indiana passed it. The first one was struck down by a petulant Indiana Supreme Court, without mentioning the statutory right to use force to resist unlawful entry.

11 posted on 06/06/2012 5:31:46 AM PDT by Cboldt
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 7 | View Replies]

To: puppypusher

If a SWAT team breaks down your door in the middle of the night, I doubt you’d have time to open fire let alone even get to your gun before they invade your bedroom. And if you do manage to get your weapon, opening fire on a SWAT team will guarantee that you’ll be carried by six, regardless of whether or not SWAT had the right house.

This is the problem I have, overall. While homeowners may be justified in opening fire against a LEO abusing his/her power, backup is just a radio call away, and if you make it out of your house with both legs unbroken, the chances of making it out of the courtroom with your freedom are somewhere between slim and none.


12 posted on 06/06/2012 5:32:59 AM PDT by rarestia (It's time to water the Tree of Liberty.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: ex91B10

If you want to serve a warrant,
walk up to the door with your sidearm holstered,
warrant in hand.

If you don’t want to do it this way, find another line of work.


13 posted on 06/06/2012 5:33:32 AM PDT by MrB (The difference between a Humanist and a Satanist - the latter knows whom he's working for)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 5 | View Replies]

To: harpseal; TexasCowboy; nunya bidness; AAABEST; Travis McGee; Squantos; wku man; SLB; ...
This appears to be a direct response to a long-standing pattern of abuses on the part of law enforcement. I guess it's too much to ask that LEOs follow the law.

A shame, really, since most do. But once again we see that "a few bad apples spoil the whole bunch".

Click the Gadsden flag for pro-gun resources!

14 posted on 06/06/2012 5:34:22 AM PDT by Joe Brower (Sheep have three speeds: "graze", "stampede" and "cower".)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: marktwain

Need a law to protect dogs.

Right now if an officer feels threatened they can shoot the dog.

Yeah, that 17 1/2 pound dog was a real threat.

“Law enforcement officers have nonlethal options for dealing with threatening pets”

http://fayobserver.com/articles/2012/06/04/1181457


15 posted on 06/06/2012 5:45:03 AM PDT by PeteB570 ( Islam is the sea in which the Terrorist Shark swims. The deeper the sea the larger the shark.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Joe Brower
This appears to be a direct response to a long-standing pattern of abuses on the part of law enforcement. I guess it's too much to ask that LEOs follow the law.

A shame, really, since most do. But once again we see that "a few bad apples spoil the whole bunch".


That's my whole problem with the police.

I generally support law enforcement and am inclined to give them the benefit of the doubt given the dregs of society some have to deal with on a regular basis.

But it's apparent that, in many places and for many reasons, the police, as a group, can't/won't police themselves.

Given the increasing amount of power they have, this is a very dangerous situation for them and for the rest of us. The onus is on these armed professionals with the power of the state behind them to fix the situation, or they may not like how it gets fixed for them.
16 posted on 06/06/2012 5:45:25 AM PDT by chrisser (Starve the Monkeys!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 14 | View Replies]

To: marktwain
Every time police Sergeant Joseph Hubbard stops a speeder or serves a search warrant, he says he worries suspects assume they can open fire -- without breaking the law.

Welcome to our world, law-boy. Sucks, doesn't it? Don't forget to bring the dog.

17 posted on 06/06/2012 5:46:02 AM PDT by Still Thinking (Freedom is NOT a loophole!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: rarestia
Recently there have been home invasions where the perp impersonates a mail carrier or UPS delivery person and forces entry when the door is answered. Sometimes (if no answer) they assume the house is empty and break in. We've also had LEO-type cars (Crown Vics, Grand Marquis) with blue lights pulling people over at night and robbing them. Sorry, but the cops can't (and aren't capable of) protecting us in all situations, and even become the aggressor at times (as shown).

No one should have to roll over and be abused in their own home. I would rather be carried by 6 rather than be assaulted in my own home, in my own bedroom. I will defend myself, my wife, and my property in any way possible, even bare-handed. My children will at least know I went down fighting doing what I felt was right, rather than being subjugated by someone on a power trip/adrenalin rush, or under the influence of drugs or worse.

Enough is enough. I have drawn the line...

18 posted on 06/06/2012 5:48:09 AM PDT by Dubh_Ghlase (Therefore, send not to know For whom the bell tolls, It tolls for thee.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 12 | View Replies]

To: marktwain
"If I pull over a car and I walk up to it and the guy shoots me, he's going to say, 'Well, he was trying to illegally enter my property,'" said Hubbard, 40, who is president of Jeffersonville Fraternal Order of Police Lodge 100.

Oh, horse hockey, Hubbard. Your statement is absurd on its face.

19 posted on 06/06/2012 5:49:16 AM PDT by NonValueAdded (I can see November from Wisconsin)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Joe Brower

I don’t know if this would be a full solution, but I think it’d be a start.

First, codify the absolute right of people to record, both audio and video, any official act of an officer of the law. There is absolutely no reason they should object to being recorded while performing their duties.

Second, require LEO’s to carry, and personally pay for, malpractice insurance, just like a doctor. Any cruddy doctor will eventually be unable to afford the insurance and will find another line of work.
Along with this, any individual malpractice protections that LEO’s currently have need to be pierced, so that the insuring entity is exposed to the actions of the officer.


20 posted on 06/06/2012 5:51:57 AM PDT by MrB (The difference between a Humanist and a Satanist - the latter knows whom he's working for)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 14 | View Replies]

To: Dubh_Ghlase

And the DFW area every so often has people in unmarked cars and fake uniforms trying to rob or rape. Yes, the police should be careful, but clearly identify who they are. And they should also be careful because that may be a bad guy behind the wheel. Tis law is clearly a response to very questionable LEO actions.


21 posted on 06/06/2012 5:53:49 AM PDT by rstrahan
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 18 | View Replies]

To: marktwain
"Somebody is going get away with killing a cop because of this law."

I'm pretty sure that's the point, asshat. Since the law only applies when the LEO is breaking the law, is it actually your position that even if a LEO is breaking the law, his life shouldn't be at risk -- just because he's a LEO??? Are there so many LEO's out there breaking the law with such frequency that this law will be problematic? And if there are, you think the LAW's the problem??? "If you aren't breaking the law, you have nothing to worry about." -- that's what the statists always say. Reminds me of all the people trashing SYG even though it doesn't apply in the scenario they're complaining about.

The National Rifle Association pushed for the law, saying an unfavorable court decision made the need clear and that it would allow homeowners to defend themselves during a violent, unjustified attack. Police lobbied against it.

"The poorest man may in his cottage bid defiance to all the forces of the Crown. It may be frail—its roof may shake—the wind may blow through it—the storm may enter—the rain may enter—but the King of England cannot enter!—all his forces dare not cross the threshold of the ruined tenement!" -- Pitt the Elder

22 posted on 06/06/2012 5:56:19 AM PDT by Still Thinking (Freedom is NOT a loophole!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: puppypusher

I came close to having to kill a cop.

He was stoned out of his gourd.

If he had started shooting he wouldn’t have stopped with me, he would have shot everyone in sight.

I’m like you. I didn’t even consider the uniform.

Luckily my almost breaking his arm was enough to stop him from pulling his gun.


23 posted on 06/06/2012 6:00:27 AM PDT by IMR 4350
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: marktwain

It’s somewhat germane to the thread that Anders Brievik killed scores of people while dressed as a cop.

We must never allow ourselves to develop instinctive deference to uniforms.


24 posted on 06/06/2012 6:09:47 AM PDT by agere_contra
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: marktwain

Lawless government agents should be worried. That was the intent


25 posted on 06/06/2012 6:13:35 AM PDT by paul51 (11 September 2001 - Never forget)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: marktwain

Since our police have been nationalized in training by the same people who have declared Americans domestic terrorists and thereby violate our constitutional rights and molest, kill, beat and torture us (and our pets), all of us have been worrying whether we will survive an encounter with police officers and other armed agents of the government.

So now everyone can worry in equality and maybe no one will have to worry as much anymore. A polite society is a safe society.


26 posted on 06/06/2012 6:21:19 AM PDT by SaraJohnson
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Dubh_Ghlase

We’re completely on the same page, Dubh, so please don’t misunderstand. People should NOT be afraid of public servants, even LEOs, and I think this law is acceptable but sad that it had to even be catalogued.

I agree that the police have become militant in their enforcement, making seat belt laws a primary offense, DUI checkpoints, the whole nine. I’ve learned that the police are NOT your friend and would rather close a case with a potential suspect than do the work to find the actual perpetrator. I would never consent to searches and would never open my door for a LEO if they asked.

As far as UPS delivery and mail carrier impersonators, light em up! If perps want to try this route of attack, they’re going to find it less than advantageous as more people open fire on presumed delivery people.

I don’t know about you, but I track everything that’s ever delivered to my home. If I get a knock or a ring at my door and I’m not expecting someone, I will grab my shotgun before answering the door, and I live in a VERY vanilla part of my county.

And as far as your saying “It’s better to be judged by 12 than carried by six,” let me offer another thought on that. I’ve had to use a firearm twice to defend my life, and my lawyer explained it to me a different way:

When you use a firearm to defend yourself, your life is on the line three times: during the initial event, in defense of it; during the incident review with law enforcement, recalling it; and during a jury trial (if it gets to this point), being judged on it. These three things don’t cross the minds of most people, but you have to defend yourself a lot when you defend yourself with deadly force. Just look at Zimmerman.


27 posted on 06/06/2012 6:29:29 AM PDT by rarestia (It's time to water the Tree of Liberty.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 18 | View Replies]

To: marktwain

This law is in direct response to your fellow brothers continually crossing the line between “Protect and Serve” and being Jack Booted Thugs.

Hate to say it but you guys have become more militant over the years and take way to many “Roids”.


28 posted on 06/06/2012 6:29:52 AM PDT by Vendome (Don't take life so seriously, you won't live athrough it anyway)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: marktwain
Now that about 1/3 of the cops in Atlanta have criminal records, time for Georgia to pass a similar law.
Who guards the guards?
29 posted on 06/06/2012 6:30:10 AM PDT by Dick Bachert (NOVEMBER 6th: THE END OF AN ERROR! Let us pray it's not the start of another!*)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: PeteB570

Yes, we do need a law to protect pets.

We need a Federal law defining domestic terrorist as Islamic jihadists ONLY. We need a law banning Federalized training of local and state police and we need constitutional standards taught to local and state police. We need to make sure the elitists obey the law and do not involve the US military in domestic law enforcement. We need to have our borders protected and stem the flow of foreign invaders.


30 posted on 06/06/2012 6:32:39 AM PDT by SaraJohnson
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 15 | View Replies]

To: marktwain
Every time police Sergeant Joseph Hubbard stops a speeder or serves a search warrant, he says he worries suspects assume they can open fire -- without breaking the law.

As opposed to the citizens worrying about being the police randomly arresting citizenss without sufficient cause http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/2891732/posts

"When the government fears the citizens this is freedom. When the citizens fear the government this is tyranny."

31 posted on 06/06/2012 6:45:04 AM PDT by from occupied ga (Your government is your most dangerous enemy)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: rarestia

If someone breaks into your home and identifies himself as a police officer your actually going to place the lives of your family on the line.

It seems,I recall a number of times where people who identified themselves as police broke into the homes of people during the night and killed the families there.

If the Law Enforcement Community wants to stop this they will go in marked vehicles and in uniform and make sure they raid the right property.Its called research.

The police cannot afford to screw up because it’s not only their safety that matters.Its also the safety of the public.


32 posted on 06/06/2012 6:50:21 AM PDT by puppypusher (The World is going to the dogs.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 12 | View Replies]

To: marktwain
Every time police Sergeant Joseph Hubbard stops a speeder or serves a search warrant, he says he worries suspects assume they can open fire -- without breaking the law.

Unless he's a thug with a gun and a badge, I don't see why Sgt. Hubbard would be worried. Perhaps he's just pissy because he missed out on the opportunity to beat up old ladies and take their guns during the Hurricane Katrina aftermath.

...or maybe it's been a while since he shot a vicious Pomeranian.

33 posted on 06/06/2012 6:57:17 AM PDT by Redcloak (Mitt Romney: Puttin' the "Country club" back in "Republican".)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: puppypusher

We agree on those points, pups. Unfortunately the courts side with law enforcement in an overwhelming subset of incidents. If a ne’er-do-well cop breaks down your door outside of protocol because they suspect illegal activity, they’re fired upon by the occupants, and they kill those occupants, regardless of the actual situation, those cops are sworn and thus trusted by the State to tell the truth. They’ll talk with their law enforcement buddies who respond, get a good cover story established, and if it ever goes to court, the “record” will speak for the events.


34 posted on 06/06/2012 6:58:14 AM PDT by rarestia (It's time to water the Tree of Liberty.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 32 | View Replies]

To: marktwain
a state law approved this year that allows residents to use deadly force in response to the "unlawful intrusion" by a "public servant" to protect themselves and others, or their property.

Forcibly entering an occupied residence used to be a capital offense in several states. This should be universal common law. A person's home is their castle.

Of course, surviving invaders of such incursions should be provided affirmative defense in cases where active gunfire is coming from such invaded premises.

Otherwise, anyone forcibly entering an occupied residence is subject to instant termination, without regard to their attire or paperwork.

35 posted on 06/06/2012 6:58:54 AM PDT by meadsjn (Sarah 2012, or sooner)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: ex91B10
"Every time police Sergeant Joseph Hubbard stops a speeder or serves a search warrant, he says he worries suspects assume they can open fire -- without breaking the law. "

Good. I want you worried; maybe you'll follow the law.

You are a servant of the public, not the state and should be afraid of us.

Amen. If they can't knock on the door and wait for a response like civilized people, they need to seek another line of work. 

36 posted on 06/06/2012 7:04:20 AM PDT by zeugma (Those of us who work for a living are outnumbered by those who vote for a living.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 5 | View Replies]

To: rarestia
Unfortunately the courts side with law enforcement in an overwhelming subset of incidents.

Fortunately, many people have come to the conclusion that the police are not their friends, and that 'testilying' is SOP these days. If I were on a jury the tesimony of any police officer without video to back it up will be sharply discounted to the point of being almost worthless. 

37 posted on 06/06/2012 7:21:57 AM PDT by zeugma (Those of us who work for a living are outnumbered by those who vote for a living.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 34 | View Replies]

To: Cboldt
It does not allow deadly force, unless the person is reasonably in fear of death or serious injury, and a traffic stop does not produce a reasonable fear of serious injury.

Hm, have you seen footage of police abuses of late? It's disgusting, also note that not all injuries are physical; case in point: the TSA. Thanks to them we now have a huge precedence to not only warrantless searches but to searches without even probable cause. Such is extremely injurous precisely because it erodes Constitutionally guaranteed rights, sending the government from a law-based organization to a might-based organization. (Though they cover that last bit up with legal sounding language and dances.)

38 posted on 06/06/2012 8:14:37 AM PDT by OneWingedShark (Q: Why am I here? A: To do Justly, to love mercy, and to walk humbly with my God.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 8 | View Replies]

To: vette6387
An oink oink here and an oink oink there..

39 posted on 06/06/2012 10:41:22 AM PDT by I see my hands (It's time to.. KICK OUT THE JAMS, Mhttp://www.policemisconduct.net/OTHER FREEPERS!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 7 | View Replies]

To: marktwain
Two jems from the article:

"It's not clear under the law whether an officer acting in good faith could be legally shot for mistakenly kicking down the wrong door to serve a warrant, said state Senator Tim Lanane, the assistant Democratic leader and an attorney."

If the police knew this, they might check the address 2 or 3 times before they kicked in a door, or maybe just knock first. This is not a new issue - the prevelance of "Castle laws" make this inevitable.

In Clay County, Indiana, outside Terre Haute, the Sheriff's Department changed its procedures because of the law. Detectives in plain clothes and unmarked cars now must be accompanied by a uniformed officer on calls to homes, Sheriff Michael Heaton said.

Ahhhhh .... an intended consequence of the law.

40 posted on 06/06/2012 11:51:58 AM PDT by Mack the knife
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: marktwain
It the attack is violent and unjustified, then of course you should be able to defend against it.

Indiana recognizes the right to defend against a police officer's use of excessive force. Plummer v. State, 135 Ind. 308, 34 N.E. 968 (1893) (if officer uses excessive force in making an arrest, the person can repel force by force in the reasonable exercise of self-defense); Casselman v. State, 472 N.E.2d 1310 (Ind.App.1985); City of Indianapolis v. Ervin, 405 N.E.2d 55 (Ind.App.1980); Williams v. State, 311 N.E.2d 619 (Ind.App.1974). This privilege exists "not because its use is necessary to protect him from an unlawful arrest, but because it is the only way in which he can protect himself from death or serious bodily harm." Restatement (Second) of Torts Sec. 65, comment f (1977).

Plummer v. State, 135 Ind. 308, 34 N.E. 968 Ind. 1893:

“Citizens may resist unlawful arrest to the point of taking an arresting officer's life if necessary.”

41 posted on 06/06/2012 12:42:09 PM PDT by archy (I'd give my right arm to be ambidextrous!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Dick Bachert

“Now that about 1/3 of the cops in Atlanta have criminal records, time for Georgia to pass a similar law.”

Where did you get that info? Not doubting it but I’m very curious. It makes no sense.


42 posted on 06/06/2012 1:12:41 PM PDT by Mears (Alcohol. Tobacco. Firearms. What's not to like?)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 29 | View Replies]

To: Joe Brower
This appears to be a direct response to a long-standing pattern of abuses on the part of law enforcement. I guess it's too much to ask that LEOs follow the law.

A shame, really, since most do. But once again we see that "a few bad apples spoil the whole bunch".

Well, no. Since 1893, Indiana had a section of state law [*Indiana Code*] based on a state supreme court decision that made it clear that Indiana citizens had the right to resist unlawful force by a police officer during false arrest, as when the officer is committing Official misconduct [any felony or misdemeanor crime commited during the performance of a public servant's duty] or when the arresting officer is drunk or under the influence of narcotic drugs.

About 15 years ago, the *pro-law enforcement* crowd got the state statute based on the Plummer v State decision tossed out, leading to the present abuses.

Plummer v. State, 135 Ind. 308, 34 N.E. 968 Ind. 1893

Your Right of Defense Against Unlawful Arrest

“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.”

“An arrest made with a defective warrant, or one issued without affidavit, or one that fails to allege a crime is within jurisdiction, and one who is being arrested, may resist arrest and break away. lf the arresting officer is killed by one who is so resisting, the killing will be no more than an involuntary manslaughter.” Housh v. People, 75 111. 491; reaffirmed and quoted in State v. Leach, 7 Conn. 452; State v. Gleason, 32 Kan. 245; Ballard v. State, 43 Ohio 349; State v Rousseau, 241 P. 2d 447; State v. Spaulding, 34 Minn. 3621.

“When a person, being without fault, is in a place where he has a right to be, is violently assaulted, he may, without retreating, repel by force, and if, in the reasonable exercise of his right of self defense, his assailant is killed, he is justified.” Runyan v. State, 57 Ind. 80; Miller v. State, 74 Ind. 1.

“These principles apply as well to an officer attempting to make an arrest, who abuses his authority and transcends the bounds thereof by the use of unnecessary force and violence, as they do to a private individual who unlawfully uses such force and violence.” Jones v. State, 26 Tex. App. I; Beaverts v. State, 4 Tex. App. 1 75; Skidmore v. State, 43 Tex. 93, 903.

“An illegal arrest is an assault and battery. The person so attempted to be restrained of his liberty has the same right to use force in defending himself as he would in repelling any other assault and battery.” (State v. Robinson, 145 ME. 77, 72 ATL. 260).

“Each person has the right to resist an unlawful arrest. In such a case, the person attempting the arrest stands in the position of a wrongdoer and may be resisted by the use of force, as in self- defense.” (State v. Mobley, 240 N.C. 476, 83 S.E. 2d 100).

“One may come to the aid of another being unlawfully arrested, just as he may where one is being assaulted, molested, raped or kidnapped. Thus it is not an offense to liberate one from the unlawful custody of an officer, even though he may have submitted to such custody, without resistance.” (Adams v. State, 121 Ga. 16, 48 S.E. 910).

“Story affirmed the right of self-defense by persons held illegally. In his own writings, he had admitted that ‘a situation could arise in which the checks-and-balances principle ceased to work and the various branches of government concurred in a gross usurpation.’ There would be no usual remedy by changing the law or passing an amendment to the Constitution, should the oppressed party be a minority. Story concluded, ‘If there be any remedy at all ... it is a remedy never provided for by human institutions.’ That was the ‘ultimate right of all human beings in extreme cases to resist oppression, and to apply force against ruinous injustice.’” (From Mutiny on the Amistad by Howard Jones, Oxford University Press, 1987, an account of the reading of the decision in the case by Justice Joseph Story of the Supreme Court.

As for grounds for arrest: “The carrying of arms in a quiet, peaceable, and orderly manner, concealed on or about the person, is not a breach of the peace. Nor does such an act of itself, lead to a breach of the peace.” (Wharton’s Criminal and Civil Procedure, 12th Ed., Vol.2: Judy v. Lashley, 5 W. Va. 628, 41 S.E. 197)

43 posted on 06/06/2012 1:14:36 PM PDT by archy (I'd give my right arm to be ambidextrous!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 14 | View Replies]

To: Mack the knife

“Ahhhhh .... an intended consequence of the law. “

Might create some overtime for the guys in uniform.

.


44 posted on 06/06/2012 1:15:11 PM PDT by Mears (Alcohol. Tobacco. Firearms. What's not to like?)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 40 | View Replies]

To: Travis McGee

45 posted on 06/06/2012 1:20:08 PM PDT by archy (I'd give my right arm to be ambidextrous!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 6 | View Replies]

To: archy
Thanks as always for the clarification, archy.

I was hearing just the other day about someplace, Colorado I think, where the police just rounded up everyone in an area because of a robbery in the area. One wonders how that would play out if CO had a law like this...

46 posted on 06/06/2012 1:28:10 PM PDT by Joe Brower (Sheep have three speeds: "graze", "stampede" and "cower".)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 43 | View Replies]

To: rarestia
If a SWAT team breaks down your door in the middle of the night, I doubt you’d have time to open fire let alone even get to your gun before they invade your bedroom.

That may be true if it's a real "Special Weapons And Tactics" team. On the other hand, if it's a "Swat Wannabee And Thug" team, resistance may sometimes enhance one's chance of survival. For example, after Ryan Frederick shot an AR-15 wielding robber who was with a team battering their way through his front door, the robbers realized they should start acting like cops and identify themselves as such (previously they had, by their own admission, deliberately parked all marked police vehicles out of sight of Mr. Frederick's house, and made a verbal "announcement" that was so feeble that some team members, who were listening for it as a cue to invade the garage, didn't hear it). Once the police identified themselves, Mr. Frederick made clear that he would cooperate with lawful police action and he was taken into custody. Had he not shot the robbers, though, it seems likely that one of the robbers with an AR-15 might have shot him on sight.

(BTW, I think Mr. Frederick's lawyer decided to punt for a 'manslaughter' conviction, arguing that Mr. Frederick really had no way of knowing who he was shooting at. I would have thought a better argument would have been that while Mr. Frederick didn't know the precise identity of the people breaking into his home, he had an objectively reasonable beliefs, which were also factually correct, that (1) his home was being broken into, loudly, by people who knew he was home; (2) such conduct is very rare by invaders who do not intend to subdue the occupants of the dwelling they're invading; (3) the invaders did intend to subdue him or worse, and the only way to prevent that would be to shoot them before they could enter more completely; (4) the invaders were not acting like police officers who were reasonably serving a warrant [note that "unreasonable" warrant service is, by 4th Amendment definition, illegitimate].

47 posted on 06/06/2012 3:35:41 PM PDT by supercat (Renounce Covetousness.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 12 | View Replies]

To: marktwain
If I were writing such a statute, it would read something like this:
  1. A person who forcibly and unlawfully breaks into the dwelling of another, for the purpose of assaulting any person or persons who may be therein is a robber.
  2. Persons who are in the employ of police agencies, and/or wear the uniforms thereof, shall not be exempt from such definition.
  3. Unconstitutional actions are, by definition, unlawful. Likewise, unlawful acts can by definition form no part of a government agent's legitimate duties.
  4. Someone who legitimately occupies a dwelling shall be entitled to use deadly force against people who are, in fact, robbers, without having to identify any basis for believing the invaders to be such.
  5. Someone who legitimately occupies a dwelling shall also be entitled to use deadly force against people whom he reasonably believes to be robbers, but may be called upon to demonstrate that his belief was objectively reasonable.
  6. Persons (other than robbers) who break into dwellings for any reason have a duty to demonstrate that they are not robbers. Any person who fails in such duty shall bear full responsibility for any harm resulting from such failure.
When cops act like cops performing legitimate duties, they should be regarded as such. But if they act like robbers, they should be treated like robbers.
48 posted on 06/06/2012 3:48:59 PM PDT by supercat (Renounce Covetousness.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: MrB
If you want to serve a warrant, walk up to the door with your sidearm holstered, warrant in hand.

That's the only way it should ever be done.

49 posted on 06/06/2012 5:07:53 PM PDT by wastedyears ("God? I didn't know he was signed onto the system.")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 13 | View Replies]

To: Mears

I’m pretty sure I heard it on the Boortz show. He has some pretty deep sources in the Atlanta/Fulton County system.
And I might have the 1/3 too high but 1/10 would be too high from my POV.


50 posted on 06/06/2012 7:50:14 PM PDT by Dick Bachert (NOVEMBER 6th: THE END OF AN ERROR! Let us pray it's not the start of another!*)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 42 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-5051-55 next last

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.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson