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.”
You’re welcome!
End the damn WOD that spawned these travesties of justice
You sir, are totally correct. End the War on Drugs and end the so-called War on terror. The BIGGEST losers in those two efforts have been the citizens of the United States.
Lucky none of them have been shot or killed by some homeowner protecting their family.
Lucky none of them have been shot or killed by some homeowner protecting their family.
That is the first time I have ever heard that - where does that come from? Why do you say that?
What would really cut down on the "oopsies" would be Attorney Generals willing to charge police with Negligent Homicide if they shoot somebody due to showing up at the wrong address.
“the law could open the way for people who are under the influence or emotionally distressed to attack officers in their homes”
Good.
What is this mindset, anyway, that would let cops commit crimes and leave people defenseless just because they might be depressed or something? Guess what, coppers, you can no longer go about assuming everyone’s a criminal until proven otherwise.
Great grandparents came from Syria.
It’s a pretty tenuous connection.
Kind of like saying I’m an Irish American because my Dad’s grandparents came from Ireland.
“It just puts a bounty on our heads.”
I don’t even understand what he’s saying here. Does he know what the word “bounty” means? The point is to imply it’ll make Indiana the wild, wild west. But if that’s the case, it’s because the cops are acting like they’re in the wild west. If that’s so, the other side should get to act the same; it’s only fair. What is it they always tell us? So long as they aren’t breaking the law they have nothing to fear.
But I can't help but think that a couple of decisive 10-00s on wrong house no-knock raids might cause a much-needed policy review. And maybe weed out a few hotheads.
If they break in from unlawful entry then yes. They would not get shot for a misunderstanding though.
Here in Virginia there is but a slight chance of successful legislation whatwith the influx of liberals in the northern part of the state. I also have a place in Pennsylvania; there's more of a chance there.
Don’t forget Ruby Ridge..
This is not new. If you check your history, the northern New York State area, in the Prohibition Era was the scene of bootlegging and liquor smuggling from Canada into the U.S.
During that time the Revenooers were always here looking for hidden hooch stills and secret staches of smuggled liquor here in the mountain caves etc. There are records here in the local papers and tales from my family, especially my mother, who was a part-time hooch driver for her landlady, for smuggling it down the lake and on to NY City. My great uncle was also involved- he had a mountain cave full of Canadian smuggled liquor on the lake and would load boats at night to head south. It is well known here that the Revenoors in their quest to find the hidden liquor would go into people`s houses searching sometimes without warrants. But they made the really big mistake when they attempted to enter the mountain top farms here, coz every farm had a still. They were promptly driven out by our neighbors up a little higher by bursts of shotgun rocksalt. This went on for many years and it was never contested by the government that the hillbillies here had a right to shoot at any armed federal or govt officer trespassing on their property.
We live the Constitution up here and practice for over 225 years no illegal search and seizures allowed and we back it up with rocksalt.
This practice was also recently inadvisably renewed by the State EPA here who were sued by a farmer a few years back. Now no State EPA is allowed to come onto any farmland without permission from the farm owner, warrant or no warrant due to the precedeent of non-suit by the Feds during Prohibition./.
Sure you do. He's offering a Red Herring. You and I won't buy it, but the cringing bedwetters in the MSM will.
Never. And never forget the mighty M2 round, the final guarantor of freedom when all else is gone. It served Kevin Harris well.
Odd how you’re the only one focused on the case, when the article and the thread are all concentrated on the law. There is a ton of support for the law, no matter what the facts and history of that domestic dispute are. You might as well argue against the abolition of slavery because you didn’t like the personal background of President Buchanan or the Justices on the Court in the Dred Scott case.
“The cops in the instant case were responding to a citizens lawful request for help.”
You keep repeating this, but I don’t see the relevance. Just because they had a reason to be there doesn’t mean they didn’t go on to break the law. But nevermind. Whatever else the case was about, the decision asserted falsely that citizens do not have the right to defend themselves against unlawful entry by the cops. That is wrong and needs to be thrown back in the judges’ faces, no matter whether the cops were justified or not in that particular case.
“In this case no one shot the dog, the cops were there at the invitation of the resident, there was no dynamic entry,...”
So? You’re not arguing such never happens, are you? Well, when it does, we retain the right to defend ourselves.
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.