Armed Polite Society
Main Forums => Politics => Topic started by: T.O.M. on February 17, 2014, 11:56:43 AM
-
http://news.yahoo.com/indiana-law-lets-citizens-shoot-cops-145000063.html;_ylt=A0LEVxloPgJTtG4A_eVXNyoA;_ylu=X3oDMTEzam1xcXQwBHNlYwNzcgRwb3MDMwRjb2xvA2JmMQR2dGlkA1ZJUDM2NV8x
Anyone catch this? Interesting change in the law... Could have interesting effects on no-knock warrants.
-
Police, of course, are not pleased
That's always a good sign :cool:
-
That's from a year and half ago. (Jun 2012)
A couple of years ago the Indiana Supreme Court upheld a conviction of man accused of murdering a police officer in a middle of the night, no-knock raid on his house. (which just so happened to be the wrong house, IIRC).
There was a large hue and cry across the state with something about the 4th Amendment.
This law is a result of that bad decision. Funny that it's not mentioned in that story.
-
This law is a result of that bad decision. Funny that it's not mentioned in that story.
Bad precedent makes for bad law. I think I'd have preferred something along the lines of it still being self defense if the killer had no reasonable belief that the invader he killed was a police officer in the valid course of his duties.
And yes, it should stop something like 99% of no-knocks.
-
A couple of years ago the Indiana Supreme Court upheld a conviction of man accused of murdering a police officer in a middle of the night, no-knock raid on his house. (which just so happened to be the wrong house, IIRC).
There was a large hue and cry across the state with something about the 4th Amendment.
This law is a result of that bad decision. Funny that it's not mentioned in that story.
Don't you mean Barnes v. State?
Pretty sure the case didn't involve anyone getting killed.
Back in 2011 the Indiana Supreme Court weighed in on a case involving a domestic disturbance (Barnes v. State) which went something like this:
A couple are fighting when the guy is getting ready to move out. He throws a phone against the wall and his wife (Mary) calls 911 and tells them that he's throwing stuff but hasn't hit her. Cops arrive and talk to Richard Barnes outside his apartment. Mary comes out and tells Richard to get the rest of his stuff. Mary and Richard both go back into their apartment whereupon Richard tells the cops they aren't needed and his wife says (to Richard) "don't do this", and "just let them in" while never actually granting permission to enter. Cops push past the guy and he shoves the officer against the wall. The cop tases and arrests Richard who is charged with and convicted of resisting law enforcement, misdemeanor battery on a law enforcement officer, disorderly conduct and a couple of other things. Barnes appealed stating that he was opposing unlawful entry by officers.
After all the appeals were said and done instead of the Indiana Supremes just saying "Nope, it was a lawful entry based on exigent circumstances and the need to ensure all parties were safe," or something, they decided to say:
We believe however that a right to resist an unlawful police entry into a home is against public policy and is incompatible with modern Fourth Amendment jurisprudence. Nowadays, an aggrieved arrestee has means unavailable at common law for redress against unlawful police action.
and
We also find that allowing resistance unnecessarily escalates the level of violence and therefore the risk of injuries to all parties involved without preventing the arrest [...]
Read the whole decision here: http://www.nwitimes.com/news/state-and-regional/indiana/pdf-supreme-court-ruling-in-barnes-v-state/pdf_c82cdbb8-7ea0-5c55-bb00-2aa247134bbb.html
So, because the Indiana Supremes ruled that there was no right to resist illegal entry by cops, the Indiana State Legislature was pressured into passing a law that explicitly allowed it.
-
Maybe he got that one switched with one in florida where I believe a guy shot a cop in his garage under similar conditions. I am not sure but I think he walked
On reflection I think the guy fought the cops not sure if there was
Shooting
Sent from my SAMSUNG-SGH-I537 using Tapatalk
-
I remember the original ISC ruling happening, but don't recall the circumstances. Also remember this passing as a result
-
Yup, the law is an attempt to undo a bad state supreme court ruling (or maybe 2 rulings?) that people can't resist police entering their homes illegally. People in Indiana don't stand for that kind of thing.
This was all a few years ago. Why the sudden interest now?
-
I just caught the linked story, and several similar stories, in the last few days. Don't know why it sprung into the news all of the sudden...