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
click here to read article
I wonder how many of these situations we never hear about...too bad, lots of cops have to die before it changes, or they might risk prison time...and the biggie can we say personal law suits against the rogues...something has to put a little fear in such actions...then they will stop....
I really don't understand where we get so many Freepers from who are afraid of removing judges. What are you, dhimmis?
The cops were wrong and the Supreme Court was wrong. The legislature corrected the court mistake.
You, on the other hand, are more intent on the abusive "ex".
Can you tell us why you think the former husband (who has moved out) Has rights superior to his former wife?
You keep ignoring the cop's introduction to the scene. It started with HER calling the cops. The key officer in the case stopped by on a quite ordinary call. Barnes said he was moved out. But, he made an attempt to prevent the officer from seeing the person (the woman) who called.
I believe he pushed the officer.
That's a real serious "Who struck john".
>> Your right to request assistance from the cops just disappeared. <<
Not sure that is a right, ie - life, liberty, pursuit of happiness... Just sayin.
>> The cops won’t be helping you anymore. <<
They aren’t helping me now. Only thing I’ve ever gotten from cops is a ticket and an attitude.
The Legislature decided to pass a law instead of removal.
There was no crime in progress when the cops arrived on the scene.
I was on the side of the guy who got shot ~ you all supported the NYPD blindly. Then there was the guy who pulled ID as directed and the cops unloaded on him. I was on his side and you all sided with the cops.
I'm siding with the woman in this case, and the right of the people of Indiana to not have the principles of Sharia law imposed on them.
Maybe ~ check your state’s statutes and precedental court judgments.
The cops never made it to the door unmolested by Barnes ~ who’d told the officer on the scene in the parking lot that he’d left.
Wrong. It would have been trespassing if he was not the lawful resident, or robbery if there was no property dispute.
That he was in the process of leaving his wife was irrelevant.
That right there is unlawful entry. If they do not identify themselves and then still decide to storm in through the door, in any homeowners view, they are a intruder and can legally be shot.
Exactly my point. "Damsel in distress" is not a legitimate infraction of the legal code.
The guy didn't live there. He'd announced his intention. His stuff was out, and if it wasn't out he was entitled to his day in court to make his claim and in most places even have the Sheriff HELP HIM remove it.
The woman asked the cops to come to her place ~ and her right is paramount in this case. Don't ignore her right. The police actions follow directly from it.
No, assault and battery by Barnes. The cop was there at the request of the woman who was by that moment the sole lawful occupant of the apartment.
That’s still wrong the cops are there in the first place. Guy did nothing wrong and yet has to stand down in his own house? That’s the strong arm thuggery tactics that this law will prevent which is a good idea other states could learn from.
I used to be one of the biggest pro-WoD cop boosters here. My mind changed a while back based on watching trends in the news and my own personal experiences with LEOs, both official and casual (listening to LEOs talk shop when they think no one is listening is eye-opening). I think a lot of folks have had similar epiphanies.
The cops came. A guy jumped them at the door.
He was certainly not trying to defend her!
Wasn’t his house. He’d already said that to the cop in the parking lot.
The woman asked the cops to come to her place But she did not give them permission to enter the apartment when they asked.
There is literally no reason whatsoever for Barnes to have returned to the apartment and pushed a cop.
Barnes struck first ~ always a bad move. This law doesn't change that ~ in fact, when Barnes struck the officer he had probable cause to do a lot of things. He didn't do everything he could have.
75 years ago Barnes would have gone to the hospital next.
He never said that, he said he was getting his stuff and leaving.
Right, the cops bullied their way in to the apartment. They have no business in doing so. No search warrant, no consent. They should be considered intruders once they cross that threshold in this circumstance.
Putting all your stuff in a truck does not terminate your residency.
As I said, it would have been trespassing if he had no right to be there.
Actualy Barnes was in the doorway, for the officer to enter he had to touch Barnes and Barnes responded.
Perhaps this will make them check addresses more carefully?
Look, guys, I don't really care if you beat your women, but keep it at home, behind closed doors, and with plenty of soundproofing. You go running around in the parking lot making noise I will find my peaceable use of my own property endangered and will call the cops.
I lived in a highrise once where the local sewer authority decided to drill a tunnel through solid rock immediately below my window. They were given from 7 AM to 7 PM To do the job. Once or twice they carried on until 10 PM. Then came the day when they kept it up until the wee hours of the morning.
There were numerous people who fired on the transformer that provided them the power to run their drills and the cooler that kept their beer cold, and the portapotty.
Wasn't me BTW, but I was really surprised how many rounds were involved ~ a regular range party Fur Shur.
The cops didn't respond until the next day. That's one of the few times I thought they did a really good job.
Oh, they didn't even interview people but, of course, nobody had seen or heard a thing.
Oh, ok. Thanks for the info. I had never heard that before.
I'm sorry, that bad boy was outta' there.
Again, no reason to be there at all ~ and he touched the officer.
Yes and the trial court would not let him use as a jury instruction in his defense. The Court of Appeals said that he should have been able to use it and that it was not harmless error. The Supreme Court just ignored the common-law right to reasonably resist unlawful entry by police officers. They concluded that public policy disfavors any such right.
He did not prevent her from leaving the home.
Doesn't reaching up your poop chute that much, hurt?
You are applying standards not found everywhere. Some of the state laws don’t care who opened the door, nor even if the intruder is there lawfully.
Also were you saying good job to the cops or the people that were firing at the transformer that the sewer company was doing late night construction? My praise would be to the people firing at the transformer, not the cops. Hell the cops should have been there for the multiple violations and yet somehow where were they?
There never has seemed to be a actual reason for them to deal with crime. They are very good at writing reports.
So I move that we fire the lot of them since according to you they are a bunch of whinny little girls.
(Apologies to all the whinny little girls I offended with that remark.)
your response makes no sense. An intruder by definition is someone there unlawfully or illegally. How can you have a lawful intruder?
Someone did post it. It isn't a very close relationship.
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!
Now, don't get your shorts in a wad! :) I have no doubt that I am not a meaningful person, but I have paid some attention to Daniels and had never heard him called an Arab American before. I also know a very solid Christian young man who works for him, who I know would not work for a Muslim sympathizer. So, to see that you hint that Daniels is a Muslim sympathizer because he is an Arab American, I was curious as to why you said 1) that he was an Arab American, and 2) that you hinted that he was a closet Muslim sympathizer because of that "fact". I was curious (still am) as to why you make those claims and what proof you have to back it up. I really don't care who knows what. That is one thing I have always liked about FR - you can't say anything absurb without someone asking you to back it up with facts. That is all I was doing - asking you for your facts to back up your statement. Why should I believe anything without the facts? Why should anyone?
Doesn't matter. You do not give up rights to your residence without formal process.
Key point. Cops no longer exist to protect and serve, they exist to enforce. If there is nothing to enforce, and they become sufficiently interested in you, they will FIND something. You interact with them at your peril.
Look, guys, I don't really care if you beat your women, but keep it at home Stop projecting you own actions on others.
In the final analysis, the only real function of the police is to keep society from killing off its deviants.
It's hardly my projection.
Keep it down in there and stay off my grass! Your noisy kids too.