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

Skip to comments.

Indiana Governor Signs Bill Allowing Citizens to Protect Themselves Against Police Actions
guns.com ^ | 22 March, 2012 | Shelley_Rae

Posted on 03/28/2012 2:49:42 PM PDT by marktwain

Tuesday night, Indiana Gov. Mitch Daniels signed a bill that would protect citizens who reasonably believe force is necessary to protect themselves, someone else or their own property from unlawful actions by a public servant.

While supports believe the proposal strengthens the legal rights of people against public servants or government agents illegally entering their home, police groups are worried that many will use it as justification for attacking officers or will not understand the law fully.

"For those who don't take the time to read the law, it is going to be devastating for someone to think they have a right to resist if they only think an officers is acting illegally," said William Owensby, president of the Indiana chapter of the Fraternal Order of Police.

Daniels stood by his decision in a written statement, "Contrary to some impressions, the bill strengthens the protection of Indiana law enforcement officers by narrowing the situations in which someone would be justified in using force against them," But, he added: "What is troubling to law enforcement officers, and to me, is the chance that citizens hearing reports of change will misunderstand what the law says."


TOPICS: Constitution/Conservatism; Government; News/Current Events; US: Indiana
KEYWORDS: banglist; blackkk; defense; florida; georgezimmerman; in; indiana; mitchdaniels; noknock; police; trayvonmartin; warrants
It would be good to have details about this. A nice provision would be that force could not be used aginst officers if a legal warrant was served before officers broke into a house.
1 posted on 03/28/2012 2:49:58 PM PDT by marktwain
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | View Replies]

To: marktwain

You cannot use force against an officer with a warrant. Never could.

This was started by the Indiana Supreme Court that said citizens are not allowed to resist Police, even during an illegal entry. This bill (now law) is a good reminder that we are not a Police State.


2 posted on 03/28/2012 3:01:41 PM PDT by Azeem (There are four boxes to be used in the defense of liberty: soap, ballot, jury and ammo.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Azeem

Perhaps Indiana isn’t a police state, but there are a lot of others that are...


3 posted on 03/28/2012 3:10:14 PM PDT by jonascord (Ask any Democrat. He's firmly convinced that he's brighter than you.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: Azeem

More states need to adopt this law.


4 posted on 03/28/2012 3:10:38 PM PDT by Red in Blue PA (Read SCOTUS Castle Rock vs Gonzales before dialing 911!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: Azeem

More states need to adopt this law.


5 posted on 03/28/2012 3:10:52 PM PDT by Red in Blue PA (Read SCOTUS Castle Rock vs Gonzales before dialing 911!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: marktwain

Mitch Daniels for Prez.


6 posted on 03/28/2012 3:20:00 PM PDT by what's up
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: marktwain

Your right Indiana would do well to spell that out clearly and concisely so that everyone understands it.

Warrant = legal entry

Then they need to make sure that every one of their officers gets & presents a warrant.


7 posted on 03/28/2012 3:36:41 PM PDT by Monorprise
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: marktwain
Kinda funny the legislature had to pass "the same" law twice. The first one was totally ignored by the Indiana Supreme Court - as in not even mentioned in its first opinion on the subject. Then, called out to render an opinion in light of the legislation they ignored the first time, the Indiana Supreme Court put out some double-speak mumbo jumbo that said the same thing as the first opinion.

I'd have impeached the entire lot of them for ignoring the legislation.

8 posted on 03/28/2012 3:40:50 PM PDT by Cboldt
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Azeem

“This was started by the Indiana Supreme Court that said citizens are not allowed to resist Police, even during an illegal entry”

The idea that legislation was needed to counteract this notion makes my brain hurt. Police are not police anymore if they enter my property illegally. They are tresspassers or worse. They are, in short, criminals, just like any other criminal.


9 posted on 03/28/2012 3:46:50 PM PDT by Tublecane
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: marktwain

“police groups are worried that many will use it as justification for attacking officers or will not understand the law fully”

Cops are always worried about people thinking they have rights, along with everything else that makes their jobs more difficult.


10 posted on 03/28/2012 3:48:24 PM PDT by Tublecane
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: marktwain

A bunch of other states are following Indiana’s lead on this.

Currently, 40 other states do not recognize a common law right to resist an *unlawful* police entry. Hopefully this number will be strongly reduced, as more legislators discover what the situation is.


11 posted on 03/28/2012 3:52:16 PM PDT by yefragetuwrabrumuy ("Be Brave! Fear is just the opposite of Nar!")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: marktwain

Great!


12 posted on 03/28/2012 4:16:29 PM PDT by Yashcheritsiy
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: marktwain

Great!


13 posted on 03/28/2012 4:16:49 PM PDT by Yashcheritsiy
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: marktwain

Great!


14 posted on 03/28/2012 4:17:09 PM PDT by Yashcheritsiy
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: yefragetuwrabrumuy

Is there a link to which states recognize or don’t recognize the right?


15 posted on 03/28/2012 4:20:09 PM PDT by deks ("...the battle of our time is the battle of liberty against the overreach of the federal government")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 11 | View Replies]

To: marktwain

“It would be good to have details about this.”

Yes, I noticed that this article and some other sources don’t bother to give us the bill number, just the quote...”For those who don’t take the time to read the law, it is going to be devastating...”

It is Senate Bill 0001 or SB 1

http://www.in.gov/apps/lsa/session/billwatch/billinfo?year=2012&session=1&request=getBill&docno=0001&doctype=SB#latest_info

The final text is this...Senate Enrolled Act No. 1 (SEA 1)...

HTML
http://www.in.gov/legislative/bills/2012/SE/SE0001.1.html

PDF
http://www.in.gov/legislative/bills/2012/PDF/SE/SE0001.1.pdf


16 posted on 03/28/2012 4:33:24 PM PDT by deks ("...the battle of our time is the battle of liberty against the overreach of the federal government")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: deks

I looked around for that, or for the states that do recognize the common law doctrine and I couldn’t find it.

It is kind of muddled up with the “castle doctrine”, though they are effectively different things. And there was so much outrage at the Indiana supreme court that there was just too much noise to sort through.


17 posted on 03/28/2012 4:37:59 PM PDT by yefragetuwrabrumuy ("Be Brave! Fear is just the opposite of Nar!")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 15 | View Replies]

To: yefragetuwrabrumuy

Thanks.

I hope to eventually get up to speed on the differences and applicable laws for “castle doctrine” — “stand your ground” — “make my day” (heard that one from a Colorado resident) — and “right to resist”.


18 posted on 03/28/2012 5:29:08 PM PDT by deks ("...the battle of our time is the battle of liberty against the overreach of the federal government")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 17 | View Replies]

To: marktwain

Now if he could only get that toll road back that he, essentially, gave away to a foreign company, he might be national material.

Until then, yawn....


19 posted on 03/28/2012 5:37:58 PM PDT by BobL (I don't care about his past - Santorum will BRING THE FIGHT to Obama)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Cboldt

This statutory provision essentially restates what the common law right had been in Indiana prior to the Supreme Court decision. There was no statutory provision before the Decision; there didn’t need to be. This right existed at the common law from the very dawn of English history.


20 posted on 03/29/2012 1:48:19 PM PDT by Mr. Lucky
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 8 | View Replies]

To: marktwain

So, I guess your surviving relatives could sue under this law
after you resisted unlawful police action
and got ventilated for your trouble?


21 posted on 03/29/2012 1:53:22 PM PDT by MrB (The difference between a Humanist and a Satanist - the latter knows whom he's working for)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: BobL
Those of us who actually live in Indiana don't much get too upset when folks who don't live here suggest that Indiana taxpayers have some sort of obligation to pay for roadways that provide essentially no local benefits.

Making traffic which uses the toll road pay for it is one of the things we like about Daniels.

22 posted on 03/29/2012 2:05:29 PM PDT by Mr. Lucky
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 19 | View Replies]

To: Mr. Lucky
-- There was no statutory provision before the Decision --

Yes, there was.

See the Indiana Supreme Court Barnes decision from September 20, 2011, which refers to section 35-41-3-2(b) of Indiana Code. This is the castle doctrine statute of Indiana, in force at the time of the rehearing, and at the time the Barnes decision was originally handed down by the Indiana Supreme Court.

See too, FR thread from May 2011, "Indiana Sheriff wants random house searches."

There is additional discussion at 40 Out of 50 Indiana State Senators Sign Amicus Brief Supporting Right to Use Force to Resist Unlawful Police Entry - Volokh Conspiracy - June 8, 2011.

The reason I recall this is that it was very strange for a state Supreme Court to -NOT- mention an applicable statute, in a decision that effectively struck the statute. The defendant in the case wanted a castle doctrine affirmative defense, and the decision said he could not have one, no matter what. But the decision did not mention, at all, the rights defendant had under an existing castle doctrine statute.

23 posted on 03/29/2012 2:45:36 PM PDT by Cboldt
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 20 | View Replies]

To: Red in Blue PA
"More states need to adopt this law."

Actually there was already one in place. Its called the Constitution and the Bill of Rights. Which gives us the 2nd Amendment and the 4th Amendment.

24 posted on 03/29/2012 2:51:29 PM PDT by Mad Dawgg (If you're going to deny my 1st Amendment rights then I must proceed to the 2nd one...)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 4 | View Replies]

To: Mr. Lucky

“Making traffic which uses the toll road pay for it is one of the things we like about Daniels. “

If it were that he wouldn’t have sold out the road for a HUGE pile of cash. The road more than paid for itself ALREADY.

Instead, he wants (and now has) that cash to pay for his WELFARE programs in Indy and the other big cities, so he doesn’t have to raise taxes or tell black leaders to shove it.

Yea, that’s real leadership. LOL.


25 posted on 03/29/2012 2:56:29 PM PDT by BobL (I don't care about his past - Santorum will BRING THE FIGHT to Obama)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 22 | View Replies]

To: Cboldt
Excuse me, but you should actually read the case.

The defendant did not raise a statutory defense because the statute was clearly inapposite to the facts of this case. Take a look at IC 35-41-3-2 (e). The Defendant instead asserted his common law right which the Court acknowledged but then overruled.

26 posted on 03/29/2012 3:03:48 PM PDT by Mr. Lucky
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 23 | View Replies]

To: BobL

Uninformed rants are the birthright of every Freeper, but you might want to know that Democrats opposed the sale (actually lease) of the toll road because the proceeds were going to be used to pay for state infrstructure improvement and not for welfare projects.


27 posted on 03/29/2012 3:12:16 PM PDT by Mr. Lucky
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 25 | View Replies]

To: Mr. Lucky
-- Excuse me, but you should actually read the case. --

I did, back then. The only reason the Indiana Supreme Court reheard the case, was to address the fact that it hadn't mentioned the effect of its ruling on the statutory provision.

-- The defendant did not raise a statutory defense because the statute was clearly inapposite to the facts of this case. --

That's a different discussion from your assertion that there was NO statutory provision when the Barnes decision was first handed down.

By striking the common law right, but not discussion the statutory right, the original Barnes decision left a question about the statutory right.

28 posted on 03/29/2012 3:12:23 PM PDT by Cboldt
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 26 | View Replies]

To: Mr. Lucky

“Uninformed rants are the birthright of every Freeper, but you might want to know that Democrats opposed the sale (actually lease) of the toll road because the proceeds were going to be used to pay for state infrstructure improvement and not for welfare projects.”

How about you, Einstein, answer why should an independent trucker driving along the toll road (in the very north of the state), should not only pay for his travel (through the existing toll), but should also have to keep his kids out of college so that Daniels can extent I-69 in the south of the state?

Thanks, I didn’t think you had an answer.


29 posted on 03/29/2012 3:17:31 PM PDT by BobL (I don't care about his past - Santorum will BRING THE FIGHT to Obama)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 27 | View Replies]

To: BobL

The out of state trucker didn’t build and doesn’t own the highway, the State of Indiana built the road without federal money before the formation of the Interstate system. If the Trucker wants to use one of the free roads crossing the state, great; he doesn’t have a right to demand that the resources of the State of Indiana be applied for his benefit.


30 posted on 03/29/2012 3:23:40 PM PDT by Mr. Lucky
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 29 | View Replies]

To: Mr. Lucky

Einstein, I’m talking about the need for the trucker to pay for HIS TRAVEL through the state. I’m talking about whether he should pay to build highways elsewhere...beyond what he is ALREADY PAYING for in the state gas tax.

As yourself this question: How would Governor Beauty-Queen react if Ohio started taxes electrical power delivered to Indiana 5 cents per kWh...just because they could.

That may be your version of utopia, but I’d rather live in a country without HIGHWAY ROBBERY (or power line robbery).


31 posted on 03/29/2012 3:29:41 PM PDT by BobL (I don't care about his past - Santorum will BRING THE FIGHT to Obama)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 30 | View Replies]

To: Cboldt
Barnes didn't assert a statutory right because the statute clearly didn't apply to him IC 35-41-3-2 (e) provides that the use of force is not justified when "the person has entered into combat with another person or is the initial aggressor...". Barnes did not dispute that he was the initial aggressor.

Unlike the self defense statute, the common law right to repel an illegal arrest doesn't prohibit the individual from initiating the violence. That is the right asserted by Barnes, that is the right the Supreme Court decided in the May 12, 2011, case that it would no longer recognize and that is the right the State Legislature has restored.

32 posted on 03/29/2012 3:36:45 PM PDT by Mr. Lucky
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 28 | View Replies]

To: BobL
Now if he could only get that toll road back that he, essentially, gave away

Gave away? Gave away for $3.85 billion in cash. But who's counting? Oh, right, the people of Indiana are. After all, they leased a money losing asset to some chumps from overseas who are, incidentally, losing their shirts on the deal.

33 posted on 03/29/2012 3:39:12 PM PDT by Publius Valerius
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 19 | View Replies]

To: BobL
Instead, he wants (and now has) that cash to pay for his WELFARE programs in Indy and the other big cities, so he doesn’t have to raise taxes or tell black leaders to shove it.

Have you forgotten your meds? The money from the toll road lease funded Major Moves.

34 posted on 03/29/2012 3:41:04 PM PDT by Publius Valerius
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 25 | View Replies]

To: BobL
Actually, Indiana is an exporter of electric power. If your local service provider is unhappy with the cost of electricity generated by Indiana companies, it should source its power elsewhere. Similarly, if you're unhappy with the cost of traveling the Indiana toll road, don't travel on it. You didn't pay to build it and if you think the rent (toll) for using it is excessive, take your business elsewhere.

The Indiana Toll Road never gets more than 10 miles from the Michigan state line. On your next trip east, travel between Illinois and Ohio on one of Michigan's nice free highways. Providing all sorts of stuff for free is what has made Michigan the economic powerhouse it is today.

35 posted on 03/29/2012 3:45:54 PM PDT by Mr. Lucky
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 31 | View Replies]

To: Publius Valerius

“Have you forgotten your meds? The money from the toll road lease funded Major Moves. “

It went to the GENERAL FUND (and you know it). Any governor can move money around in that fund ANY WAY he chooses.

We had the same problem here in Texas, with our governor. He didn’t want to raise the gas tax, so he started selling off our highways and now people pay 20+ cents per mile to drive on them (equivalent to $8.00 gasoline). This is nothing new to us Texans, believe me.


36 posted on 03/29/2012 3:47:19 PM PDT by BobL (I don't care about his past - Santorum will BRING THE FIGHT to Obama)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 34 | View Replies]

To: Mr. Lucky

You’re welcome to take that crappy attitude right to the Republican Convention or wherever, but some of us have a problem with HIGHWAY ROBBERY - sorry if that bugs you.


37 posted on 03/29/2012 3:49:53 PM PDT by BobL (I don't care about his past - Santorum will BRING THE FIGHT to Obama)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 35 | View Replies]

To: Mr. Lucky
-- Barnes didn't assert a statutory right because ... --

That's not responsive to or supportive of your contention that there was no statute in existence when the ruling was handed down.

The ruling went beyond the facts of the Barnes encounter, and did more than remove the common law right. By its plain language, the ruling undid any and all right, e.g., in a future case where the statute would apply. The ruling didn't say there is no common law right, it said there is NO right, and the affirmative defense would no longer be available.

But in making that ruling, removing ALL (not removing the common law right, removing ALL right to resist unlawful entry), the court never mentioned that there was a statutory right to resist unlawful entry.

I don't disagree that Barnes didn't assert a statutory right - that's a diversion from my point. My point is simply that there was a statutory right in existence at the time the Indiana Supreme Court haded down its Barnes decision. You said there was not.

38 posted on 03/29/2012 3:50:02 PM PDT by Cboldt
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 32 | View Replies]

To: BobL

It actually funded Major Moves, just like I said. You might be surprised to find out that the lease of the ITR was a pretty big deal in Indiana. The state laid out exactly where the money was going to go.

Maybe if you’re in Texas, you might want to stick to commenting on Texas politics. Why don’t you leave Indiana politics to the Hoosiers?


39 posted on 03/29/2012 3:51:21 PM PDT by Publius Valerius
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 36 | View Replies]

To: BobL

By the way, care to guess how much the ITR lost in 2010, the last year data is available?

Give you a hint: Thanks a negative 209 million, suckers!

It is mind boggling that these idiots paid us nearly $4 billion, in cash, to lose $209 million annually. The people of the state of Indiana are laughing all the way to the bank.


40 posted on 03/29/2012 3:55:36 PM PDT by Publius Valerius
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 36 | View Replies]

To: Cboldt

Your post #8 asserted that the Indiana Supreme Court ignored an Indiana stautue. I pointed out that there was no Indiana statute on point for it to ignore. That the self defense statute was nor available to Barnes was the one thing he, the State and the Supreme Court Agreed on.


41 posted on 03/29/2012 3:56:13 PM PDT by Mr. Lucky
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 38 | View Replies]

To: Publius Valerius

“It is mind boggling that these idiots paid us nearly $4 billion, in cash, to lose $209 million annually. The people of the state of Indiana are laughing all the way to the bank.”

I’m sure that will be the case for the next 74 years - LOL. Sorry, but the people that bought the toll road are MUCH SMARTER than the drug dealer that sold it to them (no different here in TX).


42 posted on 03/29/2012 4:00:58 PM PDT by BobL (I don't care about his past - Santorum will BRING THE FIGHT to Obama)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 40 | View Replies]

To: Publius Valerius

“Maybe if you’re in Texas, you might want to stick to commenting on Texas politics. Why don’t you leave Indiana politics to the Hoosiers?”

You can KISS MY ASS. As long as that nutcase is mentioned a US presidential candidate, I will comment on his stupidity.


43 posted on 03/29/2012 4:01:42 PM PDT by BobL (I don't care about his past - Santorum will BRING THE FIGHT to Obama)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 39 | View Replies]

To: Mr. Lucky
-- Your post #8 asserted that the Indiana Supreme Court ignored an Indiana stautue. I pointed out that there was no Indiana statute on point for it to ignore. --

No. You said, "There was no statutory provision before the Decision." That's different from saying Barnes didn't assert a statutory right, or the court ruled that the statutory defense was unavailable to Barnes.

Before the decision, there were two places one could find a right to use force to resist unlawful entry. Common law, and Indiana statute. The Barnes decision eliminated ALL right to use force to resist unlawful entry, and in doing so it never mentioned the statutory right. I find that odd, and so did the Indiana legislature.

-- That the self defense statute was nor available to Barnes was the one thing he, the State and the Supreme Court Agreed on. --

There is no remark in the Indiana Supreme Court case that a statutory right existed at all, for anybody. The ruling removed ALL right to assert an affirmative defense for the use of force to resist unlawful entry.

44 posted on 03/29/2012 4:10:37 PM PDT by Cboldt
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 41 | View Replies]

To: Mr. Lucky
-- Your post #8 asserted that the Indiana Supreme Court ignored an Indiana stautue. --

I'll rephrase that then, to the Court invalidated the statute without mentioning it.

Very strange way for a court of law to operate.

45 posted on 03/29/2012 4:15:46 PM PDT by Cboldt
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 41 | View Replies]

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