Skip to comments.Indiana First State to Allow Citizens to Shoot Law Enforcement Officers
Posted on 06/12/2012 4:31:20 AM PDT by Rennes Templar
Police officers in Indiana are upset over a new law allowing residents to use deadly force against public servants, including law enforcement officers, who unlawfully enter their homes. It was signed by Republican Governor Mitch Daniels in March.
The first of its kind in the United States, the law was adopted after the state Supreme Court went too far in one of its rulings last year, according to supporters. The case in question involved a man who assaulted an officer during a domestic violence call. The court ruled that there was no right to reasonably resist unlawful entry by police officers.
The National Rifle Association lobbied for the new law, arguing that the court decision had legalized police to commit unjustified entries.
Tim Downs, president of the Indiana State Fraternal Order of Police, which opposed the legislation, said the law could open the way for people who are under the influence or emotionally distressed to attack officers in their homes.
Its just a recipe for disaster, Downs told Bloomberg. It just puts a bounty on our heads.
And we have a right to be secure on our persons, and we don't lose our Constitutional rights simply because the invades works for the government. Odd how you ignore those facts so completely.
(Spell-check doesn't always help LOL)
“Your wife or child calls the cops ~ you shoot them because they didn’t come with a warrant.
I”d suspect that’s not a hypothetical with you.”
Yes, that is a hypothetical, and a stupid one. This is about unlawful entry, not unwarranted enty. All the cops would have to do is prove exigent circumstances. They do so now, ridiculously, by arguing they had to knock down the door so as to stop evidence from being destroyed. Certainly they’d have no compunction about arguing someone’s life was in danger.
Judges would still give them the benefit of the doubt, being fellow members of the government club, just as they do with everything from shootings to traffic tickets. Just as, also, they almost certainly will with every type of potentially unlawful entry to pop up under this law.
“they don’t lose their constitutional rights simply because they work for the government”
I don’t lose my rights just because the other guy is wearing a badge.
FReepmail me to subscribe to or unsubscribe from the 50-state Supreme Court ping list.
I'll back you up but go a little further: anybody saying that their community, or county, needs paramilitary SWAT training and weapons needs to go back ten years and list the episodes that lead to that conclusion. That will put an end to that BS.
Thanks for taking on muwaiyah. I do not understand why he cannot concede that the LEO establishment often exceeds their mission and authority and abuses the people.
Like muir_redwoods, at one time I was a big supporter of the police. Now, I fear and abhor them. They often appear to me to be outside the American way of life. Many are the common jack-booted thugs we despise. And they don’t seem to care that we feel the way we do about them.
If cops don’t want to get shot, they they should get rid of no-knock warrants and SWAT teams. There is zero need for a competent police force to have a SWAT team.
SWAT is nothing more than a bunch of good ole boys with guns, flak vests and a shared Wyatt Earp complex.
That assumes that the desire at Waco was for a non-violent encounter, an assumption without much evidence behind it.
If it is “probable cause,” it better be worth killing or dying over before they act that way.
Otherwise, I won’t be very upset when somebody feeds the cop a few pills.
I'd throw in many prosecutors and my local City Attorney. (Also these days the EPA, Just-Us Dept, Forest Service and many others).
I grew up in a LEO household many decades ago. Lots of officers stopped by for coffee, BS and to horsetrade guns and knives with my granddad, who was a firefighter and a huge weapons collector. I never met a bad one. These guys didn't bat an eye when a kid ran right up to them when they got out of the patrol car to show them his new 16-guage shotgun, or a moment later demonstrating it by smoking a passing crow. (As I recall I got a compliment on my shooting.) It was a different situation back then.
The new LEOs frankly scare me. It's us versus them now. Everybody is a suspect, even if there was no crime.
An old school acquaintence of mine is on the local force. He has the nickname "Crazy Cop" because of his tendency to esalate every encounter. He recently put himself in the hospital doing a kick-in at a residence on a "disturbance" call. You guessed it-wrong house. There was an elderly woman inside who could not hear the cop pounding on the door, so he drew his weapon and performed an unsupported dynamic entry. Had he not shattered his leg in the attempt it could have gone very badly for an innocent woman. In the end there was no disturbance to be found, and the whole incident was written off as kids playing. I'm still trying to figure out what sort of "probably cause" the injured officer was operating under.
That was a heck of a kick to shatter his own leg. He needs lay off the steroids...
There are times when I think that cops watch too much TV and try to make their job just like it is on the boob-tube (or was, before I stopped watching...).
The cops were called by the resident. That's how this whole case started. Exigent circumstances necessarily includes the possibility that a citizen asks an officer for help.
We have people here arguing that unless an officer comes with a warrant in all circumstances the new Indiana law allows somebody to shoot the officer.
Are you really arguing on their behalf?
My point is a simple one ~ in any future debate before the Indiana Supreme court, or the federal courts, the history of the legislation is going to be entered as evidence. That legislation starts in response to a court decision that deals with a specific case where a citizen called the cops for help.
You cannot escape that happening once this ever gets brought before the appellate courts.
It is pretty clear that the legislation ALSO reduces the privilege of a citizen to call on the cops for help.
That's all you need to know to begin discussing the "Who struck John's.
The legislation misses the target entirely ~ the target is political ~ an inadequate Justice and his two misguided buddies.
They needed to be removed.
The legislation that resulted from this degrades the rights of ordinary citizens ~ you and I ~ to request police assistance.
The law just changed. You will tire of it.
I think I have a better suggestion. How about simply serving the warrant with a knock on the door like civilized folk?
Right up to that point everything was kosher ~ the cops were in the right, the resident in the right, and the soon to be ex-husband in the right.
He made a wrong move. Imagining this as some sort of home invasion is equally wrong. The woman's rights, and the fact of the call for help, have to be totally ignored to deal with the man in any other way.
The legislation does not repair the error made by the Supreme Court!
Makes Mitch Daniels look good to some Conservatives, but there is a downside. Cops will be leary of responding to calls for help.
Now you're just being contentious.
In fact, I doubled my loadout after 9/11.
What makes you think HE wasn’t a “resident?”
It’s not the cop’s job to take sides in a property dispute.
And “the call” I was referring to was the case of the woman that called 911 because her local McDonalds ran out of Chicken McNuggets. Rush talked about it for weeks.
I hope never to be in this situation, but I consider it reasonable to assume that any illegal entry into a home is not done by genuine law enforcement officials acting in their official capacity. It is reasonable to assume that anyone conducting that illegal entry is (1) not really law enforcement, and (2) intending immediate harm to the residents of the home. It is reasonable to resist that threat with deadly force, and I’m grateful for a law that permits that action . . . dangerous as it is for the family.
That wasn’t ‘wrong house, meant to go to the neighbor’s instead’. They actually had the correct house based on the information they had. It wasn’t good information and the raid was poorly conducted, but it certainly wasn’t ‘whoops, wrong house.’
Article on passage and signing from March 23:
In the Conservative Cave, there was some of the same back and forth as here, including these survival rules for police:
Just don't try to arrest people in their own homes. Wait till they come out.
If you have to go in:
Knock or ring the doorbell;
Ask permission to enter;
If you have a warrant, show it and permit the citizen to read it;
If the dog is on a chain, don't shoot it;
If the dog isn't on a chain or otherwise secured, offer the citizen the opportunity to secure it before you think of shooting it;
Once inside, don't deliberately wreck the place while conducting the search;
If you think the coke's in the couch cushions, let your K-9 partner take a whiff before cutting them open;
If you don't find what you're looking for, help the citizen put back anything you moved, apologize, and leave;
And last but not least,
Double-check to make sure you got the right house before knocking.
In this way, shootings of and by police will be greatly reduced.
I don’t remember the total case, but a few years back some swat team entered the wrong house and granny took out 3 before they killed her. One of them died....
Common sense says that a police officer who forces entry into a home without (1) a warrant or (2) probable cause that a crime is in progress is a home invader, and his possession of a sidearm makes him an armed home invader.
The 95 percent of good police officers should have no more problem with this concept than the 95 percent of us who are not thieves should have with the fact that our neighbors have locks on their doors. The locks (and police) are not there for the honest majority.
Spot on about the ‘roids. He’d been doing them since high school, which is forever ago. The busted femur took him out of action for 6 months. He seems a bit more mellow now.
Re: “She said he tossed her stuff. The cops had every right to make a housecall without a warrant. He had no right to attack the cops.”
If the police were called, then they DID have probable cause to enter the residence and the occupant therefore had no right to attack them.
That's pretty much what I've observed. It must really chap their asses that over time, the number of blind supporters has decreased dramatically. I've watched the trend on this site, and it is definitely a lot less blindly cop friendly than it was a decade ago. There are a small number that will continue to beat dead horses and straw men all day long, but thankfully, they are a minority. You'll notice it on this thread.
Buff and overly aggressive - it sounded a bit like “roid-rage.”
He couldn’t work out, so he couldn’t take the steroids - or that’s my guess. That might be what be what mellowed him out.
Best wishes to him. No matter how much I hate abuse by law enforcement, I still wouldn’t have a cop’s job and respect them for trying do it.
That was in the Atlanta area, the cops were corrupt and they were tried in court and went to jail.
Officer Jason Henry arrived on the scene and observed that Barnes was very agitated and was yelling. Barnes continued to yell, loudly and did not lower his voice until Reed warned that he would be arrested for disorderly conduct. Barnes retorted, if you lock me up for Disorderly Conduct, youre going to be sitting right next to me in a jail cell. Mary came onto the parking lot, threw a black duffle bag in Barness direction, told him to take the rest of his stuff, and returned to the apartment. Reed and Henry followed Barnes back to the apartment. Mary entered the apartment, followed by Barnes, who then turned around and blocked the doorway. Barnes told the officers that they could not enter the apartment and denied Reeds requests to enter and investigate. Mary did not explicitly invite the officers in, but she told Barnes several times, dont do this and just let them in. Reed attempted to enter the apartment, and Barnes shoved him against the wall. A struggle ensued, and the officers used a choke hold and a taser to subdue and arrest Barnes. Barnes suffered an adverse reaction to the taser and was taken to the hospital. From the court record
The police did not have permission to enter and did not have probable cause either. If they had probable cause then they could have arrested Mr. Barnes in the parking lot.
I noted that too, it was signed Mar. 23. It is a significant law, but of course no MSM coverage.
That depends entirely on how the cop comported himself after determining whether a crime was being committed.
If no, but he decided to stay and play arbiter of what the man could or could not do with his own property, then the attack may have been justified.
Thanks for the info....they sure deserve prison...
Here in the sate of Florida we now have the DEMON-Rats wanting our SYG law rescinded.
They believe when you are under attack you are supposed to submit to what ever threat comes at you. If the perp wants to beat you, rape you or family, burn your house down you just roll over.
Sorry about that RATS because I do not believe in that S—t!
The Constitution of the United States of America and Samuel Colt made me equal!
The total number of days between Tuesday, June 12th, 2012 and Tuesday, November 6th, 2012 is 147 days. Et Tu, Barack!
Yes it was a terrible case.
You really have to go back to first causes ~ why the cops are there. They are there because they were called by a citizen who is otherwise lawfully possessing her abode and she said she wanted help.
Br'r Barnes had no right to interfere with her right of access to the cops. He had no right whatsoever to demand the cops leave.
That's the whole issue. That issue will be brought up every time there's the slightest challenge in court to the application of this particular law (the one just passed).
It is expedient for the police to render assistance to citizens in distress. It is their right to arrest you for interfering.
Now that all depends on the nature of the distress, doesn't it? Not to mention the nature of the "interference."
Knowing that it's clear that it has suddenly become very dangerous for police to make a call in a lawful manner or an unlawful manner.
They will make fewer calls.
In Texas you can use deadly force if you feel yourself, your family or your property is in danger. So, why couldn’t you shoot a cop if he shoots your dog?
Now, just who are you to doubt my assertion that an Arab American is, in fact, an Arab American well known by nearly everyone meaningful to be an Arab American!
Not only did these pigs enter the wrong house, they falsified information to get the search warrant.
Also: Officer Jarrod Shivers was shot and killed while executing a search warrant in Cheseapeake, Virginia Thursday night. http://www.theagitator.com/2008/01/19/virginia-cop-killed-in-drug-raid-suspect-says-he-was-defending-his-home/
And another: POLICE AS HOME INVADERS:The family of that girl who shot at a SWAT officer during a pre-dawn raid on her home is saying she thought it was a burglar and not police. Hard not to give that claim some credence. When police start using the same tactics as violent home invaders, how do you tell the difference?http://frontburner.dmagazine.com/2007/10/19/friday-morning-rant-police-as-home-invaders/
You don't know about it. You are lying there half awake in front of the TV catching the last of the game in LA ~ wearing your holster ~ ready to go.
The cop knocks at the door ~ the door swings in ~ somebody forgot to close it all the way.
You lurch around and pull your piece ~
Rarely someone will drop in a motion about considering the Constitutionality of the law governing the case.
Even though that law may have been endlessly debated, the entire exegesis will probably be appended to the motion, and with something new and previously unconsidered ~ e.g. the woman in the very first case that led to the passage of this law to undo a state supreme court decision did so and so and her rights were not addressed, and "your honor, my case is EXACTLY the same and we cannot proceed unless the woman in this cases is given her rights".
Well, there you have it.
Sometimes a judge will say "well, OK, let's do it'. Most of the time he'll deny the motion ~ which means you will need to take that to an appellate court. So, how rich are you. The answer is somebody is rich enough out there to do that someday.
That's why I'm sticking to the legal history. Doorbusting thug cops weren't part of this one ~ just two guys on a call from a citizen.
This law didn't fix the problem. Rather, it's just a ruse to fool the rubes into thinking Mitch Daniels cares.
If he cared he'd got his buddy removed from the state supreme court first!