Quantcast

Indiana First State to Allow Citizens to Shoot Law Enforcement Officers

WannaBeRSC the Contrarian SOB 2012/06/12 11:30:47
Those who breech the peace, and violate the constitution and their Oaths need to understand;
They do so at their own risk.


Monday, June 11, 2012
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.”

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

You!
Add Photos & Videos

Top Opinion

  • Katfish 2012/06/12 15:10:41
    Katfish
    +5
    From what I understand it simply means that the police must have a warrant and identify themselves to bust into your house.

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

  • Doreen 2012/06/12 20:21:26
    Doreen
    +3
    It is about time that we have someplace intelligent enough to give us the right to protect ourselves. It SHOULD NOT be privilege to protect ourselves it should be a RIGHT. If I have any entitlement issue it is an entitlement to own a gun.
  • WannaBe... Doreen 2012/06/13 11:02:17
    WannaBeRSC the Contrarian SOB
    +1
    I am becoming very aware of words and the usage of such. A right outclasses both privileges and entitlements.

    No one on this planet gives me rights. Those come directly from God, and are not not up for sale.
  • safari 2012/06/12 20:11:50
    safari
    +4
    YES!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!... I support our public service officers but anyone who keeps up with the news knows there has been too much abuse for this law not to be important. Officers operating within the law shouldn't have to worry - and this is only for defense against armed persons illegally entering a home. It shouldn't be happening but it is. So GOOD.
  • WannaBe... safari 2012/06/13 11:03:34
    WannaBeRSC the Contrarian SOB
    If the officers aren't doing something illegal, they have nothing to fear from the Law.
  • Gregaj7 2012/06/12 20:04:23
    Gregaj7
    +4
    I saw this several days ago, and fully support it.
  • WannaBe... Gregaj7 2012/06/13 11:04:06
    WannaBeRSC the Contrarian SOB
    +1
    Good man.
  • Herman 2012/06/12 16:43:47
    Herman
    +3
    If the cops are abiding by the law they have nothing to worry about now do they?
  • WannaBe... Herman 2012/06/13 11:04:31
    WannaBeRSC the Contrarian SOB
    +2
    Just said the same thing. :-)
  • Herman WannaBe... 2012/06/13 14:46:23
    Herman
    +1
    Sick minds think alike.
  • TheCouchF*cker 2012/06/12 16:27:35
    TheCouchF*cker
    It just isn't that simple, folks. Even if you win the battle, you will lose the war.
  • WannaBe... TheCouc... 2012/06/13 11:05:12
    WannaBeRSC the Contrarian SOB
    +1
    So? If I die for what's right, is there something wrong with that?
  • Jackie G - Poker Playing Pa... 2012/06/12 15:57:16
    Jackie G - Poker Playing Patriot
    +2
    If one reads the law, it says clearly "unlawful entry' - that means without a warrant, it is unfortunate that an addition law is required to enforce warranted entry, seems that should have been understood
  • WannaBe... Jackie ... 2012/06/13 11:06:44
    WannaBeRSC the Contrarian SOB
    +1
    It is a shame we have to continually remind "law enforcement" to follow the Law.
  • U-Dog 2012/06/12 15:47:24 (edited)
    U-Dog
    +3
    It only makes sense that if a peace officers powers are derived from the people then those powers are nothing more than extention of an individuals natural right to self defense. That is why they are classified as public servants and not public tyrants.

    The last thing I want is good peace officers harmed but public servants always need to properly identify themselves or there is simply no real way for a person to know who or what is coming at them.
  • WannaBe... U-Dog 2012/06/13 11:09:25
    WannaBeRSC the Contrarian SOB
    +1
    Your last, very true. Marine buddy was murdered in Tucson last year in just this type of raid.
  • Maria 2012/06/12 15:40:44
    Maria
    +2
    Dang surprise....about time..
  • WannaBe... Maria 2012/06/13 11:09:43
    WannaBeRSC the Contrarian SOB
    +1
    Agreed!
  • Quietman ~PWCM~JLA 2012/06/12 15:29:53
    Quietman   ~PWCM~JLA
    +3
    Good for Mitch Daniels and the people of Indiana!!
  • WannaBe... Quietma... 2012/06/13 11:10:08
    WannaBeRSC the Contrarian SOB
    +1
    Absolutely. Thank you.
  • Katfish 2012/06/12 15:10:41
    Katfish
    +5
    From what I understand it simply means that the police must have a warrant and identify themselves to bust into your house.
  • Tink123 Katfish 2012/06/12 16:57:45
    Tink123
    +3
    The problem we encounter now is that under the provisions of the Patriot Act, the police can write and enforce their own warrants without them first being signed or even seen by a judge. That's the main reason the Patriot Act needs to be abolished completely.

    Thus they can appear at your door with what looks to be a genuine search warrant, even though it is unsigned and hasn't first gone before a judge. A judge must sign off on probable cause - what the Patriot Act did was allow the police to operate in the capacity of a warranted search, but based only on reasonable suspicion, not probable cause. And when they come to your door - they ain't knocking. That is the very definition of unlimited power.
  • Katfish Tink123 2012/06/12 22:18:40
    Katfish
    +3
    Looks like the potential for a state vs federal conflict in which the state will likely lose.
    I remember a SWAT show a couple years back, I think it was Dallas based. They had warrants (drug I think) and would sneak the trucks up close to the homes and quickly chain up to the windows, doors, carports, whole walls if possible and rip them all off on cue. They said it was safer by squelching any will the suspect may have to fight. Just seemed like a lot of destruction they seemed to take pleasure in.
  • Tink123 Katfish 2012/06/12 22:30:47
    Tink123
    +2
    That's nuts.
  • WannaBe... Katfish 2012/06/13 11:10:50
    WannaBeRSC the Contrarian SOB
    +2
    Yeah, follow the law, do it the right way.
  • Tink123 2012/06/12 14:57:51 (edited)
    Tink123
    +3
    The thing that people need to understand, that sooo many don't - is that many people are armed, trained with their firearm, and will defend themselves from any aggressor that attempts illegitimately, to initiate force against them. It's our right no matter who the aggressor is and should be recognized.

    The entire notion that passing law to prevent incidents of that nature will in turn work to that effect is deeply flawed at the very core. Laws never work to "prevent" crime. And when you see people like Downs make such a statement - you know immediately that they're still stuck in the failed, Conditioned mode of thought which holds that preventive laws prevent crimes. lol We have mountains of evidence to the contrary.

    What it will do, laws passed to "prevent use of force" against police, is assign an automatic perceived 'status' to the aggressor - which in this case is the police. That is upside down. And the police in many areas are fully aware that they can walk into court with nothing other than such a 'status' and never once have to explain their actions. Wrong wrong wrong. What this law does - is put THEM in the hot seat when they need be.

    Laws DO NOT 'save lives.' They punish actions. They are not preventive, they redress wrongs, nothing more. Since the dawn of man, we've ...

    The thing that people need to understand, that sooo many don't - is that many people are armed, trained with their firearm, and will defend themselves from any aggressor that attempts illegitimately, to initiate force against them. It's our right no matter who the aggressor is and should be recognized.

    The entire notion that passing law to prevent incidents of that nature will in turn work to that effect is deeply flawed at the very core. Laws never work to "prevent" crime. And when you see people like Downs make such a statement - you know immediately that they're still stuck in the failed, Conditioned mode of thought which holds that preventive laws prevent crimes. lol We have mountains of evidence to the contrary.

    What it will do, laws passed to "prevent use of force" against police, is assign an automatic perceived 'status' to the aggressor - which in this case is the police. That is upside down. And the police in many areas are fully aware that they can walk into court with nothing other than such a 'status' and never once have to explain their actions. Wrong wrong wrong. What this law does - is put THEM in the hot seat when they need be.

    Laws DO NOT 'save lives.' They punish actions. They are not preventive, they redress wrongs, nothing more. Since the dawn of man, we've been attempting to "stop" actions before they're carried out. Think of how insane that actually sounds - it's impossible to "prevent" human beings from acting in what is quintessentially their nature. Self-defense is not something you 'plot' - it's instinctive to all humans / animals. You may punish it - but you will never stop it. I'm glad those who need defend themselves finally have a form of redress so that their grievances may also be heard.

    This was a great find Wanna - 'spew worthy.'
    (more)
  • WannaBe... Tink123 2012/06/13 11:16:58
    WannaBeRSC the Contrarian SOB
    +2
    I see corporate "officers" breeching the peace and endangering public safety on a daily basis.

    I believe the 5th circuit court (dc) in 2005 has declared that "Americans" have no right to petition the "government" for redress of grievances.

    I spew not, for I am Wanna! lol
  • Tink123 WannaBe... 2012/06/13 11:20:24
    Tink123
    +2
    Morning. Yes, same here. I live right around the cut from a police dept. So when they move, I know about it. Cause I am Tink and that's just what Tinks do, ya know. lol
  • WannaBe... Tink123 2012/06/14 07:30:41
    WannaBeRSC the Contrarian SOB
    +1
    Fur sure!
  • Tink123 WannaBe... 2012/06/14 15:00:32
  • 9th of 9 2012/06/12 12:36:01
  • LOU 2012/06/12 12:15:54
    LOU
    Stupid law and those who support it are stupid.
  • Jackie ... LOU 2012/06/12 15:58:55
    Jackie G - Poker Playing Patriot
    +2
    If one reads the law, it says clearly "unlawful entry' - that means without a warrant - it is saying that a warrant is required or owner may protect them selves - What do you find stupid about that
  • LOU Jackie ... 2012/06/13 14:11:27
    LOU
    It is the same law that has been on the books. Cops don't just bust into houses ya IDIOT!
  • Jackie ... LOU 2012/06/13 14:14:36
    Jackie G - Poker Playing Patriot
    +1
    What the hell is your problem - I never said cops bust into houses
  • LOU Jackie ... 2012/06/13 14:22:41
    LOU
    Then when your kid is missing or your home is broken into you can call a fireman.
  • Jackie ... LOU 2012/06/13 14:29:11
    Jackie G - Poker Playing Patriot
    +1
    WTF - have no idea what the heck you are talking about - you, friend, are off the rails
  • LOU Jackie ... 2012/06/14 17:30:09
    LOU
    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.
  • Jackie ... LOU 2012/06/14 17:36:21
    Jackie G - Poker Playing Patriot
    +1
    Now this makes sense, I wonder though, if a wing nut attacking officers is equally as rare as an officer entering with probable cause or without a warrant - at any rate, Indiana was concerned and passed the law. I suggest that it will be modified or tossed if indeed it results in attacks on officers. Police work is a thankless job (I worked closely with both police and fire as their civil service administrator) and it requires special mind set to do the hard work - no law should put them in more danger and only time will tell if this one does that.
  • LOU Jackie ... 2012/06/14 17:38:40
    LOU
    +1
    I was a cop for four years. Could not handle the low pay.
  • Jackie ... LOU 2012/06/14 17:45:27
    Jackie G - Poker Playing Patriot
    I understand - salaries where I was were good (not great) but we worked really hard to get them to a reasonable level with good increases for service steps as well as fair bumps for Sgts, Lts, Training officers and upper management. Good people earn good pay.

    I was proud to even implement a wage equalization for those called back to military service so they and their families would not suffer financially - fought the city attorney for that one but won.

    When I left my personnel managers job and there was a going away party for me - the room was filled with officers and fire; my greatest compliment was that they trusted me and that I was a straight shooter. I do treasure my experience working with all of them.

See Votes by State

The map above displays the winning answer by region.

News & Politics

2014/12/19 03:56:53

Hot Questions on SodaHead
More Hot Questions

More Community More Originals