Quantcast

Bravo to Indiana! Law Enforcement Officers CAN BE SHOT!!!!

Chris - The Rowdy One! #187 2012/06/12 10:45:21
Law enforcement officers need to follow the laws of nature - it is about time. People do have a right to protect their private property; even from government thugs.

EFF YEAH!

If ANYONE comes into my house without an invite, they are going to be dropped. I do not care who they are.

Hats off to Governor Daniels and everyone else involved in making things Constitutionally right for a change.


NOTE: I do not block. You are free to come here and spew venom or whatever else makes you happy.

Read More: http://www.allgov.com/Top_Stories/ViewNews/Indiana...

You!
Add Photos & Videos

Top Opinion

Sort By
  • Most Raves
  • Least Raves
  • Oldest
  • Newest
Opinions

  • Judge Peter Hill 2012/06/15 04:15:22
    Judge Peter Hill
    +4
    This is the whole point of the Second Amendment right to bear arms which in its original intent, prohibits any law making it a crime to own a weapon or firearm or to have a weapon or firearm ON YOUR PERSON! Once a weapon or firearm is in your hand, you are no longer considered to be carrying it, you are now using it. Nothing in the Constitution prohibits law pertaining to the unlawful USE of weapons or firearms! The idea is that Police and Military personel are less likely to commit crimes when they know the public is armed! This law does not allow you to resist a Police Officer with a valid search warrant! THAT is the difference!
  • Chris -... Judge P... 2012/06/15 13:47:34
  • Judge P... Chris -... 2012/06/15 20:34:04
    Judge Peter Hill
    +3
    1963 Wong Sun vs United States:
    http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com...

    Some of the highlights from this case which apply to Indiana's new law:

    Our holding in Miller v. United States, 357 U.S. 301, is relevant here, and exposes the fallacy of this contention. We noted in that case that the lawfulness of an officer's entry to arrest without a warrant "must be tested by criteria identical with those embodied in 18 U.S.C. 3109, which deals with entry to execute a search warrant." 357 U.S., at 306. That statute requires that an officer "must state his authority and his purpose at the threshold, and be refused admittance, before he may break open the door."
    A contrary holding here would mean that a vague suspicion could be transformed into probable cause for arrest by reason of ambiguous conduct which the arresting officers themselves have provoked. Cf. Henry v. United States, 361 U.S. 98, 104. That result would have the same essential vice as a proposition we have consistently rejected - that a search unlawful at its inception may be validated by what it turns up. Byars v. United States, 273 U.S. 28; United States v. Di Re, 332 U.S. 581, 595.
    In order to make effective the fundamental constitutional guarantees of sanctity of the home and inviolability of the person, Boyd v. United States, 116...
    1963 Wong Sun vs United States:
    http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com...

    Some of the highlights from this case which apply to Indiana's new law:

    Our holding in Miller v. United States, 357 U.S. 301, is relevant here, and exposes the fallacy of this contention. We noted in that case that the lawfulness of an officer's entry to arrest without a warrant "must be tested by criteria identical with those embodied in 18 U.S.C. 3109, which deals with entry to execute a search warrant." 357 U.S., at 306. That statute requires that an officer "must state his authority and his purpose at the threshold, and be refused admittance, before he may break open the door."
    A contrary holding here would mean that a vague suspicion could be transformed into probable cause for arrest by reason of ambiguous conduct which the arresting officers themselves have provoked. Cf. Henry v. United States, 361 U.S. 98, 104. That result would have the same essential vice as a proposition we have consistently rejected - that a search unlawful at its inception may be validated by what it turns up. Byars v. United States, 273 U.S. 28; United States v. Di Re, 332 U.S. 581, 595.
    In order to make effective the fundamental constitutional guarantees of sanctity of the home and inviolability of the person, Boyd v. United States, 116 U.S. 616, this Court held nearly half a century ago that evidence seized during an unlawful search could not constitute proof against the victim of the search. Weeks v. United States, 232 U.S. 383.
    (more)
  • Marek 2012/06/14 19:13:34
    Marek
    +3
    I think that the police must follow the Constitution and can't just enter my house if I do not invite them. No disrespect for the police, it is just that they represent the government and must respect my rights to be safe from unreasonable search.

    I will be polite. However if I was a poisonous snake I would bite every libtard there is. Would consider it a community service.
  • Chris -... Marek 2012/06/14 19:18:37
  • JonDeniro 2012/06/14 17:03:33
    JonDeniro
    +3
    While I applaud the Indiana legislature for doing something positive to correct the grotesque, and blatantly unconstitutional decision of the state supreme court some months back, they made it far too restrictive and conditional. Still, it is better than nothing.
  • Chris -... JonDeniro 2012/06/14 18:48:45
  • Vision of Verve 2012/06/14 01:17:35
  • Chris -... Vision ... 2012/06/14 13:13:17
  • JonDeniro Vision ... 2012/06/14 16:59:48
  • Chris -... JonDeniro 2012/06/14 18:49:12
  • Marek Chris -... 2012/06/14 19:17:22
    Marek
    +2
    I think so too.
  • JonDeniro Chris -... 2012/06/19 17:51:19
    JonDeniro
    +1
    Agreed. Although it is usually futile, I do try to encourage people to look beyond their own opinions and seek the facts of a situation.
  • Iamfree 2012/06/13 19:37:03
    Iamfree
    +1
    I'm of two minds on this one. I understand why Hoosier legislators felt the need to make a law to take the teeth out of a stupid judicial decision. But I also think there are some nasty folks out there who will use this law as justification for killing officers who are just doing their jobs.
  • Chris -... Iamfree 2012/06/14 13:13:43
  • Judge P... Iamfree 2012/06/26 18:59:26
    Judge Peter Hill
    +2
    If the Officer has a valid warrant and knocks first, he is doing his job and this law DOES NOT allow you to resist him! The law allows you to resist an Officer who DOES NOT follow the law regarding a warrant!
  • Spider20 2012/06/13 17:03:41
    Spider20
    +2
    I was watching an old episode of "Cops" last night and part of a segment reminded me of this poll.....it was night and an officer walked up to a home, knocked on the door, then proceeded to grab the door knob and push/pull on the door, like a burglar might do in the attempt to break in....I was thinking that I could see a scenario - a guy asleep on the couch, doesn't hear the officer say "police" as he awakens....hears all the ruckus at the door....and, living in a bad area, puts a round (or several, or a shotgun blast) right through the door, wounding or killing the officer.....and beyond that, an officer getting a bit too careless and kicking the door down, entering the house and getting shot by said home owner......I can see this happening
  • Chris -... Spider20 2012/06/13 18:46:40
  • Marek Chris -... 2012/06/14 19:22:55
    Marek
    +2
    The police are now aware about the law and not likely to barge in as they may get shot. Now if the officer knocks on the door and waits. I may or may not let the officer in. We both are safe and can address the reason for the officers visit.
  • Chris -... Marek 2012/06/14 19:24:12
  • Playerazzi 2012/06/13 14:47:30
    Playerazzi
    +1
    I would need much more information before I can form an informed opinion.

    Right now, though, I tend to oppose this law, and it sounds ill-advised.
  • Chris -... Playerazzi 2012/06/13 15:08:36
  • Playerazzi Chris -... 2012/06/13 15:11:11
    Playerazzi
    +1
    Maybe.
  • Aahz_OneAndOnly 2012/06/13 09:08:10
  • Chris -... Aahz_On... 2012/06/13 11:29:07
  • A Found... Chris -... 2012/06/13 21:10:45
    A Founding Father
    +1
    Yep, now a drug dealer or a meth kitchen can tell the knocking officers to "wait" until the evidence can be flushed and the pots washed. Isn't this the "coolest" thing for the dealers to enjoy? "Knock politely" else I won't let you in, you bad, bad, policemen"!!! How many freaks are there in Indiana that could so benefit from this law? Must be a lot of them.
  • Chris -... A Found... 2012/06/14 13:14:46
  • A Found... Chris -... 2012/06/14 17:45:40
    A Founding Father
    Point a weapon at the policeman and you will quickly learn the difference between "liberty" and "sanity" is just a play on works for those who understand
    neither concept. Your confusion is, of course, that the "few bad guys" are the
    one in thousands of "bad cops" who might violate the "rights" of a few who are
    in the wrong place at the wrong time.
  • Chris -... A Found... 2012/06/14 18:51:28
  • A Found... Chris -... 2012/06/14 19:13:09 (edited)
    A Founding Father
    You picture yourself a "winner" in this circumstance, the sure sign of a confused mind that is pretty good at playing video games. 'DEAD" is "DEAD, and you will not be interred in Jail, but in the local cemetery. How could you be so naive as to think you could shoot a law officer and not be taken down by the local Swat Team, backup, or just one of the twenty officers who would respond to the "Officer Down" call? Your roommates or family might make a case that the officers didn't call ahead for an appointlement, but that won't remove the several holes in your torso and the worms beginning to eat through the pine box.

    It would serve no great purpose to call you names, but you do get pretty close to that border where common names for madness are used.
  • Chris -... A Found... 2012/06/14 19:21:08
  • A Found... Chris -... 2012/06/14 19:42:52
    A Founding Father
    Again, just nonsense from a juvenile mind unable to focus on the reality of this conversation. You need to turn off the video games and talk to a couple of those "cops" you claim to have as customers in your shop.
  • Chris -... A Found... 2012/06/14 19:50:18
  • A Found... Chris -... 2012/06/14 20:11:45
    A Founding Father
    You dare to assert that "3 out of 4" police officers would support this "law" that encourages small minds to shoot at them? I don't
    believe a single word of your suggestion, not even one. No one
    with metal stability sufficient to become an officer would encourage
    imbeciles to arm themselves and increase the risks they must face
    in their jobs.
  • Chris -... A Found... 2012/06/14 21:14:39
  • Judge P... A Found... 2012/06/26 19:02:21
    Judge Peter Hill
    +2
    This is one of the exceptions which allows a "no knock" warrant to be issued. No knock warrants are the exception, not the rule! This also illustrates the futility of the "war on drugs" which is actually a war on the Constitution!
  • A Found... Judge P... 2012/06/26 20:38:48 (edited)
    A Founding Father
    The "war on drugs" is actually a war on imbicels, those so grossly stupid as to be caught up in the wasted resources and lives that such chemicals produce. Of course, there is nothing to talk about regarding the "constitutional" allegations. Whining about the "rights" of criminals and suspected criminals is not a big thing except to the ACLU and other ultra-concerned groups.
  • A Founding Father 2012/06/12 23:53:06
    A Founding Father
    +1
    You ignorant asses can't wait to destroy law and order, to prove your contention that the public is violent. The NRA wants you to commit yourself to a life of violence, which is a way to market pistols. I feel reluctant to point out that for every police officer who will take fire from some lunatic red neck, there will be carloads of other officers on the scene within minutes. Who will win this second phase of this absurd circumstance? Always, always, the officers, the Swat Team, the marksmen, and the red neck will be dead or face down on the sidewalk. This is the most ludicrous piece of nonsense I've witnessed in my life, and I've lived a long time and through some absoultely insane times.
  • Chris -... A Found... 2012/06/13 11:30:34
  • A Found... Chris -... 2012/06/13 21:01:43
    A Founding Father
    I gather you are one of the red necks, or you work in a gun store? No one else stands to benefit for this absurd piece of insanity. Oh,,,, maybe you are a mortician, they will also benefit, but not much. Encouraging anyone to shoot at a policeman is not even short of insanity, it is a glaring symbol of a mind gone beyond the confines of rational processes,

See Votes by State

The map above displays the winning answer by region.

News & Politics

2014/09/20 08:06:37

Hot Questions on SodaHead
More Hot Questions

More Community More Originals