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

Skip to comments.

Indiana First State to Allow Citizens to Shoot Law Enforcement Officers
AllGov ^ | June 11, 2012 | Noel Brinkerhoff

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.

“It’s just a recipe for disaster,” Downs told Bloomberg. “It just puts a bounty on our heads.”


TOPICS: Breaking News; Front Page News; Government; News/Current Events; US: Indiana
KEYWORDS: 2012; banglist; donttreadonme; donutwatch; homeascastle; indiana; lawenforcement; leo; mitchdaniel; mitchdaniels; nra; swat; swatabuse
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-50 ... 201-250251-300301-350 ... 401-429 next last
To: muawiyah

“The right to call the government ~ so it’s by telephone rather than written with a quill pen on parchment ~ the meaning is clear ~ to wit: citizens have the right to call upon or ask the government for help (redress of grievance)”

Firstly, redress of grievances does not translate to “ask for help,” and I think the idea was that your grievance was against the government, not other private citizens, though that’s not specified. Also, SCOTUS has been pretty clear and I agree that the government is under no obligation to listen to your petition, or in this case your telephone call. They just can’t outlaw petitions/phone calls/emails/whatever.

“This is different than your right to a fair trial, but it is a fundamental right.”

It is different, in that the right to due process actually exists and is in the Bill of Rights, whereas the right to call the cops to your house was made up by you.

“There have been times in history where a citizen’s attempt to consult with an officer of the government might mean execution.”

Okay.


251 posted on 06/12/2012 2:39:18 PM PDT by Tublecane
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 245 | View Replies]

To: wastedyears
Well, look at him if you want.

There are several terms you need to learn to deal with ~ residence, residency, domicile, and depending on what you're talking about ~ taxes, voting, buying, selling, marriage, running for office, etc ~ the meaning of each may change in subtle ways. These things are not as absolute as you might imagine.

252 posted on 06/12/2012 2:41:22 PM PDT by muawiyah
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 249 | View Replies]

To: Rennes Templar

I left Indiana in 79 and vowed never to go back.

Luger gets tossed and now this, I am getting homesick.


253 posted on 06/12/2012 2:44:24 PM PDT by hadaclueonce (you are paying 12% more for fuel because of Ethanol. Smile big Corn Lobby,)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: xkaydet65

Ten years ago I would have agreed with you. Today, they’ve become a dog-shooting bs d of thugs that couldn’t card less when they off a grandmother instead of the drug dealer at the correct address they were too lazy or incompetent to verify.

How many cops are militarized? The same percentage that would Wang yo be on the SWAT teams; i.e. most of them. Even if I accept your 5% figure for SWAT teams, that doesn’t consider the wannabes on every force.

Young cops are largely thuggish and indistinguishable from gang member often. They are disrespectful of the public and people I wouldn’t want my daughters to marry. I’m not alone in this snd the growing public view is based on direct observation; camera phones make it possible to see lots of official criminal behavior. I’m sorry to say these things and worrier to believe them. They weren’t true ten years ago and certainly not true twenty years ago.


254 posted on 06/12/2012 2:44:24 PM PDT by muir_redwoods (I like Obamacare because Granny signed the will and I need the cash)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 218 | View Replies]

To: muawiyah

I am responding to your post 118 in which you think that I simply do not understand the issue here. I do understand it completely and I maintain that there is no situation in which I would want police assistance. I can take care of myself very well, thank you.

And I don’t want them around or in my house. Or my dogs.


255 posted on 06/12/2012 2:47:02 PM PDT by OldPossum
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 118 | View Replies]

To: Tublecane

Tuble, then, look at this way. i believe i have a right to call the cops. At the same time you don’t believe you have a right to call the cops. Whatever you want.


256 posted on 06/12/2012 2:49:17 PM PDT by muawiyah
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 251 | View Replies]

To: muawiyah

“When they were getting ready to bury William the Conqueror the man who owned the land approached the officials in charge and said ‘I must be paid first’ ~ so, supposedly, they paid him since, after all, he had a right to approach the government agents and demand his privilege (payment).

There’s always been someone in authority somewhere. In general government recognizes the right of citizens, subjects, even prisoners to approach its officers in some manner and ask for assistance.”

Being approachable, perhaps, falls within the “redress of grievances” umbrella, but where you fall down is on this äsk for assistance” business. As I said, the courts have been clear and I agree that the authorities do not have to pay heed to your petition. So even if the first amendment makes it so that cops, being government, have to be open in whatever limited way to your phone calls, it still does not mean you have the right to ask them for help, let alone get them to help you.

You want it to be so that the husband was standing in the way of the wife’s right to have the cops come in the house. But no such right exists. The cops responded to her call, obviously. But on the basis of her supposed right and that call they did not have the authority to force the husband to stand down and to enter the property. The cops would easily have the authority had they probable cause, and they could easily assert PC and have it cursorily checked off by a judge had they argued with a minimum of evidence exigent circumstances based on their uncertainty as to the safety of the caller.

For what it’s worth, even if the right to ask cops for help exists you can’t get directly to point B): the cops legal entry on the husband and wife’s property from point A): the right to petition the government for redress of grievances. The cops were open to her call, obviously, so there isn’t even any question on the matter. As to in what matter they responded, that was a different matter altogether.


257 posted on 06/12/2012 2:50:08 PM PDT by Tublecane
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 248 | View Replies]

To: 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.

First codified in Indiana in 1893 under the Plummer decision regarding false arrest by Indiana police and other "Public Servants," 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.”

-more- on Plummer *here* [page 308]

258 posted on 06/12/2012 2:50:08 PM PDT by archy (I'd give my right arm to be ambidextrous!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: muawiyah
Nobody seems to want to come to grips with the fact this poor cop was there to defend a woman at her request.

The way I see it the real issue is nothing to do with the case per se, but rather the Supreme Court. If they are allowed to decree, as they did, that the State does not recognize the legitimacy of using violence against illegal police entry (essentially voiding the State Constitution's copy of the 4th Amendment), then there is nothing that the IN Supreme Court cannot do as they are not bound by the very constitution which instituted their office.

This does not excuse their failure, as you said, to consider the woman; but it does move things into an entirely new arena: the implementation of sharia (while detestible) does not strip everyone of their rights -- the acquiescence of the execuitive and legislative to the IN SC however creates a Kritarch in which the judges are not bound by God or Man and nobody has any right (save them).

259 posted on 06/12/2012 2:54:06 PM 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 250 | View Replies]

To: muawiyah

“In general government recognizes the right of citizens, subjects, even prisoners to approach its officers in some manner and ask for assistance.”

I feel compelled to emphasize that be that as it may,asking for help is not asking for “redress of grievances.”


260 posted on 06/12/2012 2:55:21 PM PDT by Tublecane
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 248 | View Replies]

To: muawiyah

“As to in what matter they responded”

matter = manner


261 posted on 06/12/2012 3:01:26 PM PDT by Tublecane
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 256 | View Replies]

To: jboot
Great rules. But the sideshow-worthy flexibility of "probabaly cause" makes all of them moot.

Amendment IV

The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.
Wait, what's that?
no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation,
So, probable cause is what's used to get a warrant?
And that probable cause needs to be recorded and attested to?
Wow, you'd think that these guys wanted to hold government officials accountable for what they did, or something... almost like people "searching with a warrant" was heavily abused.
262 posted on 06/12/2012 3:05:52 PM 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 79 | View Replies]

To: archy

So did the SCOTUS ruling nullify Plummers?


263 posted on 06/12/2012 3:10:30 PM PDT by Rennes Templar (No matter how cynical you get, it's never enough to keep up.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 258 | View Replies]

To: muawiyah

That does NOT include unlawful entry, by means of breaking down doors. You do sort of sound like a liberal siding with the cops on this.


264 posted on 06/12/2012 3:11:39 PM PDT by Blue Highway
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 229 | View Replies]

To: jboot
The new LEOs frankly scare me. It's us versus them now. Everybody is a suspect, even especially if there was no crime.

Fixed.

265 posted on 06/12/2012 3:12:51 PM 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 114 | View Replies]

To: muawiyah; Tublecane
Exigent circumstances necessarily includes the possibility that a citizen asks an officer for help.

No, it doesn't:

exigent (adjective)
1. requiring immediate action or aid; urgent; pressing.
2. requiring a great deal, or more than is reasonable.
As you can see, "exigent circumstances" is just an excuse from having to comply with the 4th Amendment; likewise if a policeman is invited in, there can be no expectation that his search is unwarranted: he is there at your own request.
266 posted on 06/12/2012 3:18:13 PM 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 117 | View Replies]

To: muawiyah

you yourself mentioned that situation where the sewer company was illegally working past the hours they were expected to work within. Where were the cops? Deliquient right? Good for the citizens for taking the matters into their won hands for the lack of said police force, by shooting at the transformer and hopefully shutting down their work schedule at all hours of the night.


267 posted on 06/12/2012 3:28:06 PM PDT by Blue Highway
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 250 | View Replies]

To: Rennes Templar
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.

Sorry Tim, but your argument falls flat. People who are under the influence, or other wise under distress, are NOT going to be more likely to attack police, who enter their homes, because of this law. In fact, people under the influence or under distress are going to be more likely to attack police regardless of this law.

268 posted on 06/12/2012 3:46:45 PM PDT by SoldierDad (Proud dad of an Army Soldier who has survived 24 months of Combat deployment.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: muawiyah

I missed this when I scanned before, so let me go back.

“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.”

I’ve been thinking you were under this misapprehension, and I think I may have already addressed it. But let me reiterate: this is about unlawful entry, not unwarranted entry. Just because the cops lack a warrant does not make their actions unlawful. Or, at least, not according to legal precedent. No one thinks you can shoot cops just because they have no warrant. Cops can lawfully enter your property without a warrant.

The exceptions to the need for a warrant are well known and easy to demonstrate. All cops have to do is show probable cause, and that can be done along with a litany of other ways by saying they heard a “plaintive call” or some other evidence of imminent danger of bodily harm or death to someone at the scene.

“’exigent circumstances’ ~ are you trying to lecture me or what?”

No, it’s a common legal term, like “probable cause” or “reasonable suspicion.”

“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.”

No, someone calling you does not by itself make the situation exigent. If you called saying someone was in the process of murdering you, yes, that would be exigent. Or if the cops showed up and heard screams from the back room, then they’d be able to rush right in. But there has to be some danger of imminent harm, some emergency, and it must go above and beyond what merely gets officers to respond. They are not allowed to break in just because someone called them.

“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.”

Only so as to establish what it means. And even then at most what you could say is that the legislature disagreed with the court’s assertion that individuals have no right to assert self-defense against the unlawful entry of police officers. The circumstances of the case which occasioned the court’s decision would be irrelevant. Nothing about that case could possibly tie the right to self-defense to what the husband or cops in that particular situation did, nor to Sharia law.

“That legislation starts in response to a court decision that deals with a specific case where a citizen called the cops for help.”

So what? The most you could do is record it as a historical curiosity. It would in no case control what the law means. It couldn’t possibly mean under that law cops can’t respond to a citizen’s call without fear of being shot. All it means is that they have to be sure they have a warrant or probable cause to enter someone’s home. That was supposed to be the case prior to the law, too. Only now they can be legally shot if they don’t.

Again, the cops in the previous case either had probable cause or not to enter that man’s home. If they didn’t, under this law he can shoot them. If they did, this law changes nothing and he can’t shoot anyone.


269 posted on 06/12/2012 3:50:24 PM PDT by Tublecane
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 117 | View Replies]

To: muawiyah

“It is pretty clear that the legislation ALSO reduces the privilege of a citizen to call on the cops for help.”

That is not clear whatsoever. Your ability if not your right—since I don’t think there is such s right—to call on the cops for help is in no way hindered. It may deter cops from breaking the law to help you. Such situations exist, no doubt, but whether or not the cops can be shot because of it they’re not supposed to be doing it. This law in no way prevents cops from getting a warrant or ascertaining and being able to later prove probable cause, which is what they’re supposed to do anyway.

It’s just now they might die if they don’t.


270 posted on 06/12/2012 3:54:43 PM PDT by Tublecane
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 117 | View Replies]

To: OneWingedShark

“As you can see, ‘exigent circumstances’ is just an excuse from having to comply with the 4th Amendment”

Yes, but unl;ike the travesties they get away with during traffic stops, at the airport, and when they think they hear you flushing evidence down the toilet, it is a reasonable one, sorta like the yelling fire in a crowded theater exception to amendment one. If any kind of probable cause doesn’t need a warrant it’s an emergency wherein someone’s in danger of death or great bodily harm.

Not that I go around looking for exceptions. We’d probably be better off without them, including the “Fire!” ones.


271 posted on 06/12/2012 4:03:40 PM PDT by Tublecane
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 266 | View Replies]

To: Rennes Templar

I’ve never thought it very smart to pull a gun on a cop - or cops.


272 posted on 06/12/2012 4:18:18 PM PDT by popdonnelly (Socialism isn't going to work this time, either.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: popdonnelly

If they are attacking your home and shooting up your family smart doesn’t enter into the picture. Self-defense becomes the only order of the day.


273 posted on 06/12/2012 4:30:57 PM PDT by jboot (Emperor: "How will this end?" Kosh: "In fire.")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 272 | View Replies]

To: Rennes Templar

““It’s just a recipe for disaster,” Downs told Bloomberg. “It just puts a bounty on our heads.””

Here’s an idea, Downs, don’t UNLAWFULLY enter our homes.

Signed,

The Law Abiding Citizens of Indiana


274 posted on 06/12/2012 4:34:32 PM PDT by Altariel ("Curse your sudden but inevitable betrayal!")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: zeugma
Note, there is a distinct difference between a "peace officer" and a "law enforcement officer".

Indeed, there is. The blurring of the distinction between the roles has worked to the great detriment of both.

275 posted on 06/12/2012 4:35:22 PM PDT by supercat (Renounce Covetousness.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 220 | View Replies]

To: Tublecane
sorta like the yelling fire in a crowded theater exception to amendment one.

You just pushed my RANT button:
The "crowded theater" example is so horrendously wrong that its originator should have been laughed out of office in disgrace. There is obviously one case where the person can, and should, yell 'Fire!' and that is when there is a fire; an in like vein, when he perceives a fire he has the responsibility to alert the others.

The correct ruling would have been: The first amendment is clear: congress shall make no law abridging speech. That, however, does not indemnify someone who, with malicious intent, lies so to the public from civil accountability for injury and damages.

Not that I go around looking for exceptions. We’d probably be better off without them, including the “Fire!” ones.

I agree; I absolutely loathe that decision and its line of reasoning.

276 posted on 06/12/2012 4:35:55 PM 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 271 | View Replies]

To: Spktyr

Good to know.

I’m glad Texas gets that right.


277 posted on 06/12/2012 4:37:09 PM PDT by Altariel ("Curse your sudden but inevitable betrayal!")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 19 | View Replies]

To: jboot
If they are attacking your home and shooting up your family smart doesn’t enter into the picture. Self-defense becomes the only order of the day.

Well said.

278 posted on 06/12/2012 4:38:49 PM 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 273 | View Replies]

To: Spktyr

I’ve been trying to remember the last time I heard of a Texas SWAT unit pulling a “whoops, wrong house, we meant to raid the house down the block” screwup, and I don’t think I’ve heard of one in the last ten years. I’m pretty sure 9.31 and 9.32 are why.

*****

So, all Freepers need to move to Texas, displace the fleeing liberals, and call it Texas, The Freeping State of America?

;-)


279 posted on 06/12/2012 4:40:32 PM PDT by Altariel ("Curse your sudden but inevitable betrayal!")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 28 | View Replies]

To: popdonnelly

If a burglar enters your house, you protect yourself, right? What if a cop enters illegally? The law gives you the right to resist, not necessarily to shoot them.


280 posted on 06/12/2012 4:40:58 PM PDT by Rennes Templar (No matter how cynical you get, it's never enough to keep up.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 272 | View Replies]

To: muawiyah
Your right to request assistance from the cops just disappeared.

Where I live...if I rely on the cops to help me...is stupid. They are 5-20 min's away...

You ought to drive around where I live.........

281 posted on 06/12/2012 4:49:44 PM PDT by Osage Orange (God is my Co-Pilot.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 41 | View Replies]

To: OneWingedShark
So, probable cause is what's used to get a warrant? And that probable cause needs to be recorded and attested to?

I wish courts would recognize that judgments of whether "probable cause" exists, or whether something is "reasonable", generally entail judgments about whether certain factual claims are true. As such, the defendant's rights to have factual claims evaluated by a jury should extend to them. While defendants have the right to have evidence suppressed if it was obtained in patently unreasonable fashion, they also have the (unfortunately generally unacknowledged) right to argue that a search was conducted illegitimately; a jury that agrees with the defendant that a search was illegitimate should not construe any evidence from such a search in a manner detrimental to the defendant.

To be sure, many jurors would probably not discount illegitimate evidence to the extent they should, but if e.g. the defense successfully convinced a jury that a cop who got a search warrant did not really believe the claims made in the warrant application, the jury might decide that the defendant posed less of a danger to society than a lying cop.

282 posted on 06/12/2012 4:51:20 PM PDT by supercat (Renounce Covetousness.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 262 | View Replies]

To: muawiyah

Are you a cop? Just asking.


283 posted on 06/12/2012 4:57:28 PM PDT by Quickgun (Second Amendment. The only one you can put your hands on.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 117 | View Replies]

To: muawiyah

“This creates a third world situation for law enforcement, and for private citizens who are left to deal with someone else’s criminal behavior on their own!”

I’m sorry to ave to be so blunt, but that’s bull...

If your spouse is crazy and seems threatening, get the hell out. It may put you in a bad position from a finical standpoint, but the criminal justice system is not there to support you in that regard. Get a good civil lawyer...


284 posted on 06/12/2012 4:58:52 PM PDT by babygene (Figures don't lie, but liars can figure...)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 35 | View Replies]

To: babygene
If you have SYG law, you have no obligation whatsoever to retreat. i don't think Barnes ever claimed his wife was crazy but he certainly did show us he might have an anger management problem.

And you?

285 posted on 06/12/2012 5:00:53 PM PDT by muawiyah
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 284 | View Replies]

To: Quickgun

of course not, are you?


286 posted on 06/12/2012 5:01:41 PM PDT by muawiyah
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 283 | View Replies]

To: Osage Orange

like they say, when seconds count the cops are only minutes away.


287 posted on 06/12/2012 5:03:33 PM PDT by muawiyah
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 281 | View Replies]

To: muawiyah

“The cops won’t be helping you anymore. “

When did the cops ever help anyone? It’s all about them...


288 posted on 06/12/2012 5:07:23 PM PDT by babygene (Figures don't lie, but liars can figure...)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 44 | View Replies]

To: Altariel

I’m down with that.

Need a job, and for my wife not to recoil with horror at the notion of temperatures over 80.


289 posted on 06/12/2012 5:07:44 PM PDT by ExGeeEye (Romney Sucks. Mutiny Now, or something.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 279 | View Replies]

To: OneWingedShark; Tublecane
It's: "The most stringent protection of free speech would not protect a man in falsely shouting fire in a theatre and causing a panic".

This was wartime and the main point of the ruling was the establishment of the "clear and present danger" test.

If the theater were on fire, of course it would be wrong to NOT shout "fire"!

290 posted on 06/12/2012 5:09:13 PM PDT by muawiyah
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 276 | View Replies]

To: muawiyah

Nope


291 posted on 06/12/2012 5:09:31 PM PDT by Quickgun (Second Amendment. The only one you can put your hands on.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 286 | View Replies]

To: Tublecane
It's good that the cops and firemen don't need to get a warrant to enter your burning home to save your babies.

Maybe we could carve out an exception though ~ a big sign "Fourth Amendment Absolutist" and no matter what happens NO ONE even steps on your lawn.

292 posted on 06/12/2012 5:13:18 PM PDT by muawiyah
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 271 | View Replies]

To: Tublecane
Sharia law clearly provides that the testimony or witness of a woman is worth half that of a man.

You must read the supreme court decision with that in mind to understand the particular legal holes they left.

It's the very reason the justice who wrote it and the others who concurred MUST BE REMOVED ~ and possibly punished.

293 posted on 06/12/2012 5:16:42 PM PDT by muawiyah
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 269 | View Replies]

To: Tublecane
Sharia law clearly provides that the testimony or witness of a woman is worth half that of a man.

You must read the supreme court decision with that in mind to understand the particular legal holes they left.

It's the very reason the justice who wrote it and the others who concurred MUST BE REMOVED ~ and possibly punished.

Now, back to this case, no needs to be screaming in the background under American law ~ she can have simply asked for police assistance demurely and politely over the telephone. She has her rights, equal to yours, irrespective of her vocal qualities.

294 posted on 06/12/2012 5:19:37 PM PDT by muawiyah
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 269 | View Replies]

To: muawiyah
You seem to be asserting that the police in Indiana will never respond to calls from citizens anymore. Do I have that right?

Can you back that up? Because I don't see it. I don't see how the law will protect anybody who shoots a police office who is lawfully doing his duty. I don't buy the argument that the police need total carte blanche to do their job.

And police know that responding to a domestic disturbance is already one of the most dangerous things they do, even without this law.

295 posted on 06/12/2012 5:20:52 PM PDT by hitkicker (The only thing worse than a politician is a child molester)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 35 | View Replies]

To: Blue Highway
And day as well.

What was so amazing is that the contractor figured out immediately what it was that enraged the citizens. No doubt he knew that before he decided to keep them awake.

BTW, the cops had been called to enforce the county's noise ordinance ~ dozens of people called them. After the shooting they probably thought it was just more people complaining about noise.

296 posted on 06/12/2012 5:22:59 PM PDT by muawiyah
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 267 | View Replies]

To: Blue Highway

Breaking down doors? This whole thing started with an OPEN DOOR!


297 posted on 06/12/2012 5:25:14 PM PDT by muawiyah
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 264 | View Replies]

To: OneWingedShark
"against unreasonable searches and seizures" ~ UNREASONABLE. You are secure against UNREASONABLE searches and seizures ~ unless they get a warrant ~ which logically means that if the cops want to do an unreasonable search they need a warrant. Otherwise (a reasonable search) they don't.

So, what would be a "reasonable search"? Perhaps you are a cop and a citizen has invited you over to help. Well, just darned, that sounds absolutely "reasonable".

298 posted on 06/12/2012 5:28:53 PM PDT by muawiyah
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 262 | View Replies]

To: Tublecane

You write a letter to your congresscritter. What is your right to do so?


299 posted on 06/12/2012 5:30:53 PM PDT by muawiyah
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 260 | View Replies]

To: muawiyah

I agree with your analysis.

I think the Indiana law is just using the court decision as an excuse to draw a line in the sand against what looks like, to many, cops increasingly getting out of control.

Which, as you point out, does not address the equally big problem of the USA gradually adopting Shari’a law! Like all the military and FBI training manuals now being scrubbed of anything that might look like a possible insult to Islam.


300 posted on 06/12/2012 5:33:43 PM PDT by DBrow
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 26 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-50 ... 201-250251-300301-350 ... 401-429 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