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."
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.
“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).
“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.
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.
I'll rephrase that then, to the Court invalidated the statute without mentioning it.
Very strange way for a court of law to operate.
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.