Armed Polite Society
Main Forums => Politics => Topic started by: Battle Monkey of Zardoz on June 12, 2012, 02:03:12 AM
-
http://www.allgov.com/Top_Stories/ViewNews/Indiana_First_State_to_Allow_Citizens_to_Shoot_Law_Enforcement_Officers_120611 (http://www.allgov.com/Top_Stories/ViewNews/Indiana_First_State_to_Allow_Citizens_to_Shoot_Law_Enforcement_Officers_120611)
Good law. And to all the folks upset over this, get over it. If you don't illegally enter a house, you won't get shot.
-
The folks upset over this have seen their lawbreaking license revoked.
Cry me a river . . . .
-
I'm 100% in support but I suspect anyone that attempts to exercise their rights under that law will have their case adjudicated posthumously.
-
is indiana the first state? didn't a guy shoot a cop in his garage in florida and it was a good shoot?
-
I guess in Indiana now the cops better make DANGED sure that they're kicking down the right door....
With the seemingly growing number of home invasion robberies perpetrated by the ruse of being cops doing a no-knock....
I see this as excellent for the citizens of Indiana. And eventually, good for the police as well, as this will hopefully encourage them to be more thorough in their investigation and targeting the right location.
-
Good for them. My understanding is that most of this "no knock" stuff got started because they didn't want drugs flushing down the toilet, then the reasons expanded from there.
I'd like to see the police go back to the tried and true methods of 1940s cops and robbers movies. Surrounding a house and getting on the megaphone to say, "This is the police! Come out with your hands up!" will nicely handle most any situation.
If they mistakenly come to my house, using that method will make me much more amenable to complying since I can walk out in public and let them know they have the wrong address. If they are at the right address, I'd much rather my tax dollars go to providing donuts to a dozen cops that have surrounded a house, waiting for the suspect to come out, than using my tax dollars to buy them balaclavas.
-
So we're getting all excited because the law is ALLOWING us to do something that should be a no-brainer: shoot a strange person entering your home without your permission.
Great. We've come a long way. We now look to the gov to tell us what we CAN do rather than just what we CAN'T do. Yippee.
-
My understanding is that most of this "no knock" stuff got started because they didn't want drugs flushing down the toilet, then the reasons expanded from there.
thats kinda my memory too about why its started but that was pre swat. the swat deal on dynamic entry is also about stopping folks from getting silly. they hit so fast and hard guy with a gun on the table in front of him is so stunned he can't pick it up before hes cuffed. iff you want to take a look at some interesting numbers try la swat. they were amongst the first and their results as far as folks getting hurt are remarkable. i can remember when what ever cops were there "took the door" with 12 ga and revolvers and there was a lot more gunfire. but back then no one gave a darn especially since
A) the dead were usually black or clearly "bad guys"
B) there were no cameras and internet
-
Clicking on the OP's link I get:
The service is unavailable
??? *SIGH!*
-
So we're getting all excited because the law is ALLOWING us to do something that should be a no-brainer: shoot a strange person entering your home without your permission.
Great. We've come a long way. We now look to the gov to tell us what we CAN do rather than just what we CAN'T do. Yippee.
That was what I was going to ask about. It wasn't already legal?
-
This law was a reaction to a recent Indiana Supreme Court ruling that said you had no right to resist unlawful entry in your home by police officers -- which flies in the face of the US Supreme Court ruling in John Bad Elk v. U.S..
-
This law was a reaction to a recent Indiana Supreme Court ruling that said you had no right to resist unlawful entry in your home by police officers -- which flies in the face of the US Supreme Court ruling in John Bad Elk v. U.S..
I'm not surprised by the ruling, but this law is an excellent step in the right direction.
Police shouldn't have an issue with it. Because it only applies to an unlawful entry, which they should not be doing.
-
So we're getting all excited because the law is ALLOWING us to do something that should be a no-brainer: shoot a strange person entering your home without your permission.
Great. We've come a long way. We now look to the gov to tell us what we CAN do rather than just what we CAN'T do. Yippee.
As zxcvbob mentions, this is a reaction to a bad ruling, not out of the blue. 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 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 Barnes tells the cops they aren't needed and his wife says (to Barnes) "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 Barnes 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.
-
Police shouldn't have an issue with it. Because it only applies to an unlawful entry, which they should not be doing.
The police response at the time was: "OMG, every gun-toting hilljack and tweaker is going to declare open season on good cops because this law will make them think that it is legal!!111"
-
The Indiana Supreme Court had argued that the Fourth Amendment should not apply to unlawful entry if done by a government employee. Specifically, "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." It also held that yelling at folks for unlawful entry is not protected speech, and thus also actionable. Obviously, if the Indiana Supreme Court "decline to recognize the right of a homeowner to reasonably resist unlawful entry", hitting someone for unlawful entry is also actionable.
http://www.in.gov/judiciary/opinions/pdf/05121101shd.pdf
Goodness. Mr Barnes may or may not have been an idiot. Hitting a cop, even if he or she is unlawfully in your property, is a good way to catch a beating or a projectile. Which is apparently exactly what happened, as he had an unfortunate "adverse reaction" to a taser and was hospitalized, according to the Indiana SC judgment.
My thoughts on the matter are exactly the same as the dissenting opinion. "In my view the majority sweeps with far too broad a brush by essentially telling Indiana citizens that government agents may now enter their homes illegally – that is, without the necessity of a warrant, consent, or exigent circumstances. And that their sole remedy is to seek refuge in the civil arena. I disagree and therefore respectfully dissent."
So, Indiana passed a law stating you CAN resist unlawful entry, even by government employees. Because the alternative was legally allowing unlawful entry without warrant, consent or exigent circumstances by government agents.
Naturally, the news uses slightly misleading headline. Shocking.
Seems much simpler to say "Uhm. Try not to unlawfully enter property, k? Because theoretically, folks always HAVE had the right to light up someone unlawfully entering their property. And it's now being actually codified as being okey." Course, I suspect people that do employ their rights under this law are not likely to make it to a trial except under extreme circumstances.
-
who wants to be test case? >:D
-
Thank you for explaining gentlemen.
-
who wants to be test case? >:D
First one got hospitalized. $1 says second test case gets six feet of dirt.
-
yea likely depends on how lucky he is
-
First one got hospitalized. $1 says second test case gets six feet of dirt.
Yep.
-
even if he or she is breathing we get to find out how good their instant assessment of what is and isn't lawful is. seeing how well folks understand something as basic as miranda good luck with that
-
anyone from indiana tell me how a rep got this?
Indiana State Public Employee's Legislator of Year, 1995 ?