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.”
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...
No one on this planet gives me rights. Those come directly from God, and are not not up for sale.
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.
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.
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.
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 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.'
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
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.