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 1-5051-100101-150151-200 ... 401-429 next last
Good for you Mitch.
1 posted on 06/12/2012 4:31:27 AM PDT by Rennes Templar
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | View Replies]

To: Rennes Templar

Now is the time for the other 49 to do the same.


2 posted on 06/12/2012 4:38:37 AM PDT by Marylander (Offendiphobia)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Rennes Templar

Now is the time for the other 49 to do the same.


3 posted on 06/12/2012 4:38:54 AM PDT by Marylander (Offendiphobia)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | 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.”


But, without the law, surely that would NEVER happen.


4 posted on 06/12/2012 4:39:23 AM PDT by abercrombie_guy_38
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Rennes Templar

That could be the first step in ending the “War on Drugs(TM)”....


5 posted on 06/12/2012 4:40:28 AM PDT by varmintman
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Rennes Templar

“It just puts a bounty on our heads.”

Pity.


6 posted on 06/12/2012 4:41:02 AM PDT by BigCinBigD (...Was that okay?)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Rennes Templar
Absolutely no one wants to harm or injure a police office or sheriff in any way.

However every single citizen has the God given right to defend themselves from a dangerous and threatening criminal act.

When any individual crosses the line and becomes a threat to their fellow man, they are immediately subject to the right to self defense and all of the consequences.

7 posted on 06/12/2012 4:42:07 AM PDT by Caipirabob (I say we take off and Newt the site from orbit. It's the only way to be sure...)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Rennes Templar

Congratulations to the People of Indiana for sending a definitive and winning response to tyranny and to the disgusting jurists who grovel before it.

Terrific notice to statists: if you abuse your authority and unlawfully invade a citizen’s home, you may be summarily and deservingly shot.


8 posted on 06/12/2012 4:44:09 AM PDT by Robert Teesdale
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Rennes Templar

Yes it does make life a bit tougher for the Police and I do feel for them. BUT for to long the Police have had next to zero respect for the public. Wrong addresses on warrants, no warrants, shooting of pet animals, etc.

It’s about time that they started to take their jobs seriously and make sure that the information they are acting upon is accurate. And act like Peace Officers not para-military wanna-be’s.

And yes, before I go to far there ARE instances where SWAT is required. But does EVERY department have to have one? Why not have a State Police based one that all of the local offices can use?


9 posted on 06/12/2012 4:45:21 AM PDT by The Working Man
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Rennes Templar
What do the police expect after the recent history of unlawful forced entry into the wrong homes, resulting in dead family and pets?

vaudine

10 posted on 06/12/2012 4:46:24 AM PDT by vaudine
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Rennes Templar

The lesson of WACO is to pick up the person of interest in public instead of SWATing their house (or getting the address wrong).


11 posted on 06/12/2012 4:46:24 AM PDT by Paladin2
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Marylander

Agreed.

Public employees are not above the law. They are our servants, whether they like to hear it or not.

Downs says “It just puts a bounty on our heads.” I say welcome to the club. Now you know how we (citizens) feel.


12 posted on 06/12/2012 4:46:41 AM PDT by panaxanax (Voting 'Third Party' will ensure a Communist-Marxist-Socialist dominated Supreme Court!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: Rennes Templar
The "new" law is a repeat. The same law had been passed before the Indiana supreme Court ruled that there was no right to resist unlawful force by a police officer, period. The Indiana Supreme Court held that (there is no right to use force against unlawful force) and did not even mention the law that was on the books. It was a big enough deal that the Indiana Supreme Court reheard the same case, a second time, and repeated its ruling over a single dissent.

The Indiana legislature picked up the challenge, and passed the law again.

13 posted on 06/12/2012 4:47:21 AM PDT by Cboldt
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Rennes Templar

It was the cops that militarized themselves and created the “us/them” mentality. I hope they appreciate what they have sown


14 posted on 06/12/2012 4:47:32 AM PDT by muir_redwoods (I like Obamacare because Granny signed the will and I need the cash)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Rennes Templar

Good for Daniels and its really good for the citizens of indiana.Message to cops make sure you have the correct address.


15 posted on 06/12/2012 4:48:07 AM PDT by HANG THE EXPENSE (Life's tough.It's tougher when you're stupid.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Marylander

“Now is the time for the other 49 to do the same.”
Why not all 57?
“The law is an ass.”
The Indiana supreemes jumped the shark but the legislature might have taken a better aproach to resolve the issue.


16 posted on 06/12/2012 4:48:13 AM PDT by outofsalt ("If History teaches us anything it's that history rarely teaches us anything")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 3 | View Replies]

To: Rennes Templar

End the damn WOD that spawned these travesties of justice


17 posted on 06/12/2012 4:48:24 AM PDT by uncbob
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Rennes Templar

Keep the goons out of people’s homes and all will be well. You know they will come in uninvited.


18 posted on 06/12/2012 4:49:09 AM PDT by yldstrk ( My heroes have always been cowboys)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Marylander

48 states. Buried in the Texas Penal Code is a similar provision.

From Texas Penal Code, Title II, Chapter 9, Subchapter C - http://www.statutes.legis.state.tx.us/Docs/PE/htm/PE.9.htm

Specifically, Section 9.31(c):
(c) The use of force to resist an arrest or search is justified:

(1) if, before the actor offers any resistance, the peace officer (or person acting at his direction) uses or attempts to use greater force than necessary to make the arrest or search; and

(2) when and to the degree the actor reasonably believes the force is immediately necessary to protect himself against the peace officer’s (or other person’s) use or attempted use of greater force than necessary.

Section 9.31(d) tells us where to look to determine if we can use deadly force:

(d) The use of deadly force is not justified under this subchapter except as provided in Sections 9.32, 9.33, and 9.34.

If we look at 9.32, guess what we see.

Sec. 9.32. DEADLY FORCE IN DEFENSE OF PERSON. (a) A person is justified in using deadly force against another:

(1) if the actor would be justified in using force against the other under Section 9.31; and

(2) when and to the degree the actor reasonably believes the deadly force is immediately necessary:

(A) to protect the actor against the other’s use or attempted use of unlawful deadly force;

Indiana wasn’t the first; I believe that those provisions have been there since 1973. Further on in 9.32, the recently added Castle Law provisions further say “don’t even think about illegal entry without a warrant.”


19 posted on 06/12/2012 4:51:12 AM PDT by Spktyr (Overwhelmingly superior firepower and the willingness to use it is the only proven peace solution.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: Rennes Templar

Indiana: First state in the union to have SWAT double check a suspect’s address, before conducting a raid.


20 posted on 06/12/2012 4:51:44 AM PDT by G Larry (Criminals thrive on the indulgence of society's understanding)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Marylander

It’s about time someone finally caught up with Texas on the subject. Someone tell ABC they’re wrong.


21 posted on 06/12/2012 4:52:46 AM PDT by Spktyr (Overwhelmingly superior firepower and the willingness to use it is the only proven peace solution.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | 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.

People who are 'under the influence or emotionally distressed' will attack an Officer of the Law anyways.

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

An easy fix ...simply ensure you double check that the address you are about to perform a 'dynamic entry' into is the correct address. It may even save you a couple Dollars that might have been spent replacing bullets used to shoot the family dog. We all know it requires a fusillade of bullets to put down an angry vicious man-eating Labrador. Particularly the ones that stick their tongues out!

22 posted on 06/12/2012 4:52:46 AM PDT by spetznaz (Nuclear-tipped Ballistic Missiles: The Ultimate Phallic Symbol)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: BigCinBigD

He sounds like a gun-control nut - same reasoning.

However - although no one should ever be in favor of shooting at any law enforcement this will do two things.

1. The police will do a little more research for the correct address before they come crashing through someone’s door.
2. Or - (what I’m afraid of) the police will step up their overreaction and use of excessive force all in the name of “officer safety”.

Just watch a “SWAT” show on TV - they love to destroy a structure to apprehend the suspect who’s sleeping on the couch.


23 posted on 06/12/2012 4:52:55 AM PDT by LFOD (Formerly - Iraq, Afgahnistan - back home in Dixie.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 6 | View Replies]

To: Spktyr

Exactly. Texas law allows the same, but you better be absolutely sure the LEO is in violation of the law if you do so. However, it does keep everyone honest.


24 posted on 06/12/2012 4:53:48 AM PDT by MeneMeneTekelUpharsin (Freedom is the freedom to discipline yourself so others don't have to do it for you.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 19 | View Replies]

To: G Larry

Second state. See post 19.


25 posted on 06/12/2012 4:53:58 AM PDT by Spktyr (Overwhelmingly superior firepower and the willingness to use it is the only proven peace solution.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 20 | View Replies]

To: Rennes Templar
Old saying that bad cases make bad laws, and boy is this one of them.

The logical solution was to simply remove the Justices who made the stupid decision in the first place; replace them, and then re-run the case with more rational people on the bench.

What Indiana has done instead is write a law that supplants the court decision.

The facts are that the original case had none of the elements the court said it did nor does the new law address any of the troublesome elements of the original case.

As we all recall the wife and her husband were calling it quits. He's got a truck and is moving 'his stuff' out.

He starts tossing "her stuff' and she called the cops.

They came over and he became belligerent.

For many people the case focuses on how the cops dealt with the guy. For others the case focuses on the way the court so casually dismissed the woman's rights ~ actually the court totally ignored the woman treating her like you would under Sharia Law.

For others of us who recognized that fact the whole case is about the insertion of Sharia standards of evidence into Indiana courts by a Justice who'd formerly been chief counsel for the GITMO detainees for something like 8 years. He'd been appointed by Governor Daniels and this was his first chance to write a major decision for the court majority.

Obviously the Justice shouldn't have been sitting on an American court, and obviously the other Justices who went along with him shouldn't have been there either.

I'm not sure shooting the cops is the way to handle judicial misconduct, and this law does nothing to give relief to any woman who calls the cops to come over and supervise her probably soon ex-husband's exit from what had formerly been their joint residence.

And, worse, it does nothing to excise Sharia law standards from the repertoire of the Indiana Supreme Court!

Ordinarily I'd let that slide on by because it's a really minor issue in comparison to other Sharia law problems in America, but Mitch Daniels is Arab American, and this really does mean something ~ now I like Mitch, but he was as meek and mild in the face of this Middle Eastern legal intrustion as any dhimmi resident in a Syrian village waiting on the AlQaida to come around and chop off his head.

So, what is it? Is this hereditary ~ that the Moslems can beat you up for a thousand years and you automatically cave to their BS, or what? I think we need an answer to that first!

26 posted on 06/12/2012 4:56:38 AM PDT by muawiyah
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: BigCinBigD

I don’t see how it “puts a bounty on their heads”.

When you have a warrant to serve, walk up to the door with your sidearm holstered, knock, serve the warrant, and walk away.


27 posted on 06/12/2012 4:57:25 AM PDT by MrB (The difference between a Humanist and a Satanist - the latter knows whom he's working for)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 6 | View Replies]

To: MeneMeneTekelUpharsin

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.


28 posted on 06/12/2012 4:57:53 AM PDT by Spktyr (Overwhelmingly superior firepower and the willingness to use it is the only proven peace solution.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 24 | View Replies]

To: Marylander
“Now is the time for the other 49 to do the same.’

Absolutely!

29 posted on 06/12/2012 4:58:51 AM PDT by Rennes Templar (No matter how cynical you get, it's never enough to keep up.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: spetznaz
In this case no one shot the dog, the cops were there at the invitation of the resident, there was no dynamic entry,........

It's always good to take a look at the facts of the case that precipitates this sort of thing and kind of work from there.

This was a domestic dispute.

30 posted on 06/12/2012 4:59:03 AM PDT by muawiyah
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 22 | View Replies]

To: Rennes Templar

48. See post 19. Nice of Indiana to catch up with us here in Texas.


31 posted on 06/12/2012 4:59:44 AM PDT by Spktyr (Overwhelmingly superior firepower and the willingness to use it is the only proven peace solution.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 29 | View Replies]

To: spetznaz
An easy fix ...simply ensure you double check that the address you are about to perform a 'dynamic entry' into is the correct address.

IMO, the only reason to make a "dynamic entry" is if someone seen entering a home and once inside is being threatened and in eminent danger. That being the case, any LEO entering will face the same threats whether this law is in place or not. Suspicion of drug dealing, prostitution, whatever, is not a reason to SWAT a home. If they are doing something illegal inside the home, surveil and catch them outside; then go in with a warrant.

32 posted on 06/12/2012 5:01:31 AM PDT by IamConservative (Well done is better than well said. - Ben Franklin)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 22 | View Replies]

To: HANG THE EXPENSE
Just Daniels doing a CYA. He appointed the judge who wrote the bad opinion. He should have taken whatever action is needed to get that judge removed from the bench.

No applause for Mitch.

33 posted on 06/12/2012 5:02:37 AM PDT by muawiyah
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 15 | View Replies]

To: MrB
I don’t see how it “puts a bounty on their heads”.

More like it gives them a drug test, and a restraining order ;o)

34 posted on 06/12/2012 5:04:44 AM PDT by papertyger ("And how we burned in the camps later, thinking: What would things have been like if..."))
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 27 | View Replies]

To: muir_redwoods
In the case that precipitated the decision this law sees to rectify all the cops did was respond to a citizen's call for HELP.

You think it was tough getting the cops to deal with crime before, now there's no reason whatsoever for them to do so.

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!

35 posted on 06/12/2012 5:05:03 AM PDT by muawiyah
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 14 | View Replies]

To: Rennes Templar

people who are under the influence or emotionally distressed will not refrain from violence just because of a law. The court decision immunized police from accountability for invading homes without warrant.


36 posted on 06/12/2012 5:06:22 AM PDT by arthurus (Read Hazlitt's Economics In One Lesson)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: The Working Man

Totally agree with you, I feel like most cops anymore are itching to put the hurt on citizens. They shoot dogs for the hell of it even when they are leashed, and they flat out enjoy beating the S%%t out of people just because they can. This law, at the least, will make them think twice before they go kicking in someone’s door for fun and games on a Saturday night. I’m sorry but I used to respect law enforcement but I have absolutely zero now. They don’t keep you safe, they always show up after the crime has been committed and then they treat you like the perp. We live in a society where you must protect yourself, because no one else is going too.


37 posted on 06/12/2012 5:07:34 AM PDT by eak3
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 9 | View Replies]

To: muawiyah

Got it.


38 posted on 06/12/2012 5:07:38 AM PDT by HANG THE EXPENSE (Life's tough.It's tougher when you're stupid.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 33 | View Replies]

To: Paladin2
The lesson of WACO is to pick up the person of interest in public instead of SWATing their house (or getting the address wrong).

They sure got their arrogant asses shot off in that PR/Budget Enhancing stunt.
39 posted on 06/12/2012 5:09:07 AM PDT by ZX12R (FUBO GTFO 2012 !)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 11 | View Replies]

To: muawiyah
...and for private citizens who are left to deal with someone else's criminal behavior on their own!

I'm good with that.

40 posted on 06/12/2012 5:09:23 AM PDT by papertyger ("And how we burned in the camps later, thinking: What would things have been like if..."))
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 35 | View Replies]

To: arthurus
The court decision didn't immunize anyone from anything. The cops in the instant case were responding to a citizens lawful request for help.

You probably ought to drive around Indiana next time you take a cross-country trip. Your right to request assistance from the cops just disappeared.

41 posted on 06/12/2012 5:09:47 AM PDT by muawiyah
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 36 | View Replies]

To: The Working Man

Police in Indiana now have the added burden of having to confirm their information before they tear up someone’s home and shoot its occupants.


42 posted on 06/12/2012 5:10:30 AM PDT by arthurus (Read Hazlitt's Economics In One Lesson)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 9 | View Replies]

To: muawiyah
You think it was tough getting the cops to deal with crime before, now there's no reason whatsoever for them to do so. 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 will accept those circumstances with glee.
43 posted on 06/12/2012 5:11:21 AM PDT by ZX12R (FUBO GTFO 2012 !)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 35 | View Replies]

To: papertyger
You probably won't like life as much where the other guy is his own arbiter of what the law provides.

The cops won't be helping you anymore.

44 posted on 06/12/2012 5:12:41 AM PDT by muawiyah
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 40 | View Replies]

To: arthurus

I didn’t know it was against the law to shoot intruders. Anyone been convicted of such?


45 posted on 06/12/2012 5:13:04 AM PDT by goseminoles
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 42 | View Replies]

To: Caipirabob
"Absolutely no one wants to harm or injure a police office or sheriff in any way. "

Speak for yourself.

Until they stop enforcing unconstitutional laws, stop shooting bassett hounds ,end arresting 3rd graders for "sexual assault", issuing tickets for DUI to people on their lawn mowers and "swatting" incorrect addresses because they're either too stupid or lazy to actually check out the facts beforehand, I have no problem with them getting tagged.


46 posted on 06/12/2012 5:14:50 AM PDT by ex91B10 (We've tried the Soap Box,the Ballot Box and the Jury Box; one box left.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 7 | View Replies]

To: muawiyah
This was a domestic dispute.

and unless the guy was beating her, the cop had no business interfering.

47 posted on 06/12/2012 5:15:05 AM PDT by papertyger ("And how we burned in the camps later, thinking: What would things have been like if..."))
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 30 | View Replies]

To: ZX12R
Like I told your little friend there, you won't like things as well when all those other guys get to decide what's lawful all on their lonesome.

You might imagine it's you against the criminals ~ there are thousands of folks out there who will imagine it's themselves against YOU the criminal.

Eventually you will tire of carrying around all that ammunition just so you have some chance of escaping alive when your door dings theirs in the grocery store parking lot. And don't try to beat that woman to the strawberry pack ~ she's going to have to decide the law in such cases and it won't be pretty.

48 posted on 06/12/2012 5:16:38 AM PDT by muawiyah
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 43 | View Replies]

To: BigCinBigD
"It just puts a bounty on our heads"

Good. SUBJECTS should fear govt, not CITIZENS.


49 posted on 06/12/2012 5:17:49 AM PDT by ex91B10 (We've tried the Soap Box,the Ballot Box and the Jury Box; one box left.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 6 | View Replies]

To: muawiyah
Mitch Daniels was born in America and his family is Christian:

From Wikipedia:

Family and education

Mitchell Elias Daniels, Jr., was born in Monongahela, Pennsylvania, to Dorothy Mae (née Wilkes) and Mitchell Elias Daniels, Sr.[5] His paternal grandparents were Christian immigrants from Syria. Daniels has been honored by the Arab-American Institute with the 2011 Najeeb Halaby Award for Public Service.[6][7][8] His mother's ancestry was mostly English (where three of his great-grandparents were born), as well as Scottish.[9] Daniels spent his early childhood years in Pennsylvania, Tennessee,[10] and Georgia.

50 posted on 06/12/2012 5:18:26 AM PDT by trisham (Zen is not easy. It takes effort to attain nothingness. And then what do you have? Bupkis.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 26 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-5051-100101-150151-200 ... 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