in Indiana

Quote :

"Indiana First State to Allow Citizens to Shoot Law Enforcement Officers Monday, June 11, 2012 (graphic: traditioncreek.com) 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.”"

http://www.allgov.com/Top_Stories/ViewNews/Indiana_First_State_to_Allow_Citizens_to_Shoot_Law_Enforcement_Officers_120611

6/11/2012 11:50:19 PM

makes sense

6/11/2012 11:51:46 PM

How do I know they're are not robbers dressed as cops? I love this law. Come at me coppas.

6/11/2012 11:52:40 PM

Indiana is the only state in the country that agrees with the 3rd Amendment of the Constitution

6/11/2012 11:56:31 PM

What's to stop a "bad guy" from busting into a house and yell out that he's police? This sort of helps the victim, but certainly has some downsides.

6/11/2012 11:58:04 PM

this kinda sounds like a recipe for disaster

SWAT team busts in on the wrong house, resident unloads on them w/ his sawed-off shotgun, bloody mayhem ensues

6/12/2012 12:08:57 AM

SWAT team busts into wrong house based on incompetence to read street addresses or aggressively following up on shitty information, encounters random dude who is sitting on couch facing front door with sawed off shotgun

sounds likely

6/12/2012 12:13:02 AM

^
I'm always prepared for that.

6/12/2012 12:14:12 AM

also how is this not already legal in Texas?

6/12/2012 12:15:50 AM

This just means cops and the like will have to make sure all their ducks are in a row before they bust down someone's door.

It's going to cause problems, but I like that if someone in law enforcement fucks something up a citizen won't necessarily pay the price for the incompetence.

6/12/2012 12:18:18 AM

^^^^
maybe some redneck is sleeping in his room when he hears the door busted down and shouts of "Police! Come out with your hands up!"

this new law will encourage him to come out blazing. And there are plenty of unstable rednecks who need no encouragement to come out blazing, particularly when a stranger has broken into their home

It's far-fetched, I know...but it could definitely happen, and it's not at all unlikely given that the law is being applied to a whole state

Generally, I am against giving people the right to shoot police.


V well shit...maybe they should, then


[Edited on June 12, 2012 at 12:23 AM. Reason : tgre]

6/12/2012 12:19:25 AM

^^^^^?

That's already happening regardless of what the law is. It's just that the person defending themselves against the SWAT team usually ends up dead.

This law makes it so that, if you defend yourself and survive, you won't be charged with a crime for defending yourself against a bunch of men you didn't realize were police officers.

^They never shout "Police!" That's kinda the problem.

[Edited on June 12, 2012 at 12:23 AM. Reason : Plus there's the fake "police" thing or whatever people are saying.]

6/12/2012 12:20:26 AM

i just dont have any problem with a law that forces cops to be sure they're busting down the right door

6/12/2012 12:22:47 AM

Love this law.

A while back I remember reading an article about cops going into the wrong house. Only they didn't kick down the door to do it. They used a sawzall (or whatever kinda saw) and cut a huge hole in the door. It took a minute or two to do it and the woman inside watched the whole thing happen. If that had been me in that place seeing a saw coming through my door, you can bet your life I'm shooting through the door and the wall around it as well. And I would be SOL without a law like this

[Edited on June 12, 2012 at 12:48 AM. Reason : .]

6/12/2012 12:47:02 AM

Indiana is such a great state.

6/12/2012 12:48:00 AM

Quote :

"This just means cops and the like will have to make sure all their ducks are in a row before they bust down someone's door. It's going to cause problems, but I like that if someone in law enforcement fucks something up a citizen won't necessarily pay the price for the incompetence."

Maybe this means they will reserve their swat team raids for actual swat related activities instead of raiding someone's house and shooting their dog so they don't have the chance to flush a couple ounces of weed.

6/12/2012 1:02:00 AM

I love the idea of this law but i think it will result in well-intended officers getting killed over misunderstandings and overzealous interpretations

6/12/2012 1:21:38 AM

Maybe, however if it's not a misunderstanding and you're prepared to shoot intruders, you're probably also prepared to shoot police intruders on purpose. I don't really know, but it has to lean one way or the other, and I think a tie goes to the resident; I'm pretty sure I never signed up for anything like getting startled in my own house by an obviously armed/hostile police officer that made a mistake.

6/12/2012 1:30:36 AM

i don't want well-intentioned police officers killed over misunderstandings, but i also don't want well-intentioned citizens killed over misunderstandings either

this law seems to add some accountability to mistakes by cops

6/12/2012 1:40:51 AM

no qualms with this law

6/12/2012 1:48:09 AM

While I will keep my mouth shut about this instance in particular (because I haven't read enough about it) this is most certainly a step in the right direction. We give police an incredible amount of power and this helps relieve a small bit of the complete immunity to consequences we've been eager to give them for the last 30 years

6/12/2012 1:49:04 AM

on one hand, i love the active refusal to become a police state.

on the other hand, i can see a lot of people being shot by the police for shooting at the police, legally or otherwise. right here, for instance:

Quote :

"If that had been me in that place seeing a saw coming through my door, you can bet your life I'm shooting through the door and the wall around it as well. And I would be SOL without a law like this"

i'd have to think that you'll more than likely also be dead, with or without a law like this. they're not going to be like "oh they're shooting at us, we must be at the wrong place!"

6/12/2012 2:16:11 AM

This is definitely the best way to resolve this problem.

6/12/2012 2:19:29 AM

No one is arguing that police lawfully executing a warrant or in the line of a legitimate exercise of police duty should be shot. Hell, no one is even arguing that police unlawfully entering a premises should be shot.

What this law does is keep people from being prosecuted for protecting themselves and their homes from intruders, even when those intruders are police. This is a reaction to people being charged with things like attempted murder for firing at police who had no legal reason to be breaching their homes. Generally this happens during things like night raids, the execution of no knock warrants, and similar situations.

At least in Indiana, it appears that police will have to start making better decisions about when and how to deploy SWAT. They will have to make sure that they corroborate informant tips, they'll have to make doubly sure they're going to the right address, they'll have to make sure they announce their presence, etc.

All in all this is a fantastic law.

6/12/2012 2:38:24 AM

Now swatting some unlucky guy in Indiana will more likely end in a bloodbath than just massive destruction of property.

6/12/2012 3:51:39 AM

I'm not really against the law. But wouldn't it be better to just hold police more accountable?

6/12/2012 4:11:33 AM

I think it's a great idea. It adds accountability to police officers. I think any law like that, including the castle doctrine are great laws. If you cannot protect your family or yourself on your own property for fear of being prosecuted then what is the point to the 2nd amendment.
It's like saying "you have the right to have that gun, but if you ever use it to protect yourself we're putting you in jail. Just keep it hanging up on the wall and look at how pretty it is."

Also...it's not like it's going to cause more crazy bloodbaths. North Carolina just recently passed the castle doctrine and has there been a crazy increase of shootings because "someone was on my property?" All it's going to do is add a level of protection to citizens who shot at someone who they felt was intruding on their property and threatening the well being of their family.
They will probably still go through a long drawn out trial...still get arrested that night...have to spend a lot of money for a good lawyer...but that law will be there to keep them out of prision (hopefully)

[Edited on June 12, 2012 at 6:31 AM. Reason : ]

6/12/2012 6:23:25 AM

good

6/12/2012 6:25:04 AM

I think a SWAT team will bust down a door, the owner of the house will open fire, and then the SWAT team will fire back.

6/12/2012 7:13:21 AM

What is the threshold?

For example, you have a valid arrest warrant and the occupant tells you the person is in the back bedroom asleep. In NC, you know have the right to enter the residence and arrest the person. But, there are plenty of times the resident will attempt to deny your entry because they don't want you in their house and proclaim to "know their rights." What stops a citizen from shooting an officer based on "knowing their rights" when in fact they don't?



[Edited on June 12, 2012 at 7:24 AM. Reason : Can't type this morning. ]

6/12/2012 7:20:37 AM

The alternative is for massive home raids like in Russia right now against internet bloggers and whatever the hell happens in China...so, theres a balance

6/12/2012 7:27:31 AM

no one presented with a search warrant has the ability to asses the legality of it on the spot. If they still come in with an illegal warrant you can't shoot them but should be able to sue them for everything you can justify in court.

If they don't present a warrant you can shoot the police who come in your house, because if that wasn't true you would have no security against intruders impersonating police and the constitutional right to deny any government agent access to your home would be meaningless.

Then again, I don't know how you have protection against intruders who pretend to be police and present a warrant. I suppose you could call the police station in that case an verify. Not that this was a valid option in the 1700s.

6/12/2012 8:39:06 AM

Quote :

"I suppose you could call the police station in that case an verify."

in the middle of the night? let me know how that works out for you

6/12/2012 8:40:14 AM

This law is a step in the right direction.

There are many ways for police to indicate their presence and for people within homes to verify their presence without having to trust someone who just knocked down their door who is yelling "Police".

Hopefully this law forces police departments to fact check, confirm, and follow procedures properly. That includes leaving their paramilitary unit at home.

The intent of the law isn't to allow people to shoot at cops entering a home all willy nilly. But the public needs to be protected from the government. It's in the middle of the night, you're startled awake by someone busting down your door, you see someone coming at you with a gun. In many states, including NC, you're allowed to use deadly force at this moment. Unfortunately, after it's all said and done, if these were cops, then you as a citizen, acting otherwise legally, are now a criminal.

TT said it well.

Quote :

"I love the idea of this law but i think it will result in well-intended officers getting killed over misunderstandings and overzealous interpretations"

This won't happen if the government does its job.

[Edited on June 12, 2012 at 8:54 AM. Reason : .]

6/12/2012 8:47:27 AM

I don't know.... I still see this as a situation where a police officer would be shot by the home owner who managed to squeeze off a couple of rounds (legally), and the home owner ends up looking like swiss cheese after the police squad unloads 6 full clips into him.

after the fact, the police would probably be held accountable.... But that wouldn't change the fact that the home owner would be dead. Methinks the accountability of the police perhaps should be held BEFORE they decide to bust up in someone's house.

6/12/2012 8:53:23 AM

^but what about this:

Quote :

"It's in the middle of the night, you're startled awake by someone busting down your door, you see someone coming at you with a gun. In many states, including NC, you're allowed to use deadly force at this moment. Unfortunately, after it's all said and done, if these were cops, then you as a citizen, acting otherwise legally, are now a criminal."

Take this situation outside of the topic of this thread. These actions are perfectly legal:

Quote :

"It's in the middle of the night, you're startled awake by someone busting down your door, you see someone coming at you with a gun. In many states, including NC, you're allowed to use deadly force at this moment."

However, let's say everyone survives. In NC, the citizen is now charged with a crime. How is that right?

The major problem here is if and how police identify themselves. If it's the middle of the night, the person inside the home may have not heard them identify themselves as police (may be asleep, couldn't understand/comprehend due to the chaos). All the person know is someone just busted through their door with a firearm. This law would be improved with strict regulations/laws on how police enter homes and identify themselves. Simply yelling police isn't good enough.

[Edited on June 12, 2012 at 9:01 AM. Reason : .]

6/12/2012 8:57:02 AM

What about it?

Still seems like a situation where the homeowner legally shoots a cop in his house, and then the cop's backup squad kills the homeowner...

[Edited on June 12, 2012 at 9:04 AM. Reason : K]

6/12/2012 9:01:10 AM

Quote :

"no one presented with a search warrant has the ability to asses the legality of it on the spot. If they still come in with an illegal warrant you can't shoot them but should be able to sue them for everything you can justify in court. If they don't present a warrant you can shoot the police who come in your house, because if that wasn't true you would have no security against intruders impersonating police and the constitutional right to deny any government agent access to your home would be meaningless. Then again, I don't know how you have protection against intruders who pretend to be police and present a warrant. I suppose you could call the police station in that case an verify. Not that this was a valid option in the 1700s. "

A warrant isn't always needed to enter a has. There are plent of warrantless exceptions. Again, how do you stop people from shooting an officer because the occupant(s) believe the officer has no right to enter but they are legal justified.

6/12/2012 9:01:30 AM

Why should a person be charged with a crime by acting within the law, except for after the fact the intruders turned out to be police at the wrong house?

^Easy. Don't enter a house without a warrant. Don't go busting into houses. Don't do no-knock warrants.

[Edited on June 12, 2012 at 9:03 AM. Reason : .]

6/12/2012 9:01:54 AM

Quote :

""oh they're shooting at us, we must be at the wrong place!""

6/12/2012 9:02:21 AM

i wouldn't open fire on cops that barged in my house illegally, the law be damned! even if it is legal to shoot at them, i don't like my odds of survival.

6/12/2012 9:02:45 AM

^I don't think anyone would; however, most people aren't talking about seeing a cop in their house and shooting. It's about not knowing the people who just busted down your door are cops.

6/12/2012 9:03:48 AM

I was under the impression that HB650 took care of the situation wdprice3 is describing... in a scenario where the use of deadly force is determined to be justified, you'd be immune from civil or criminal liability

but this doesn't apply if you shoot an on-duty LEO, even if he's in your house illegally

[Edited on June 12, 2012 at 9:07 AM. Reason : IANAL]

6/12/2012 9:05:16 AM

I think he's blindly arguing again, without actually reading people's posts.

[Edited on June 12, 2012 at 9:16 AM. Reason : Quoted wrong]

6/12/2012 9:08:45 AM

Quote :

"I was under the impression that HB650 took care of the situation wdprice3 is describing... in a scenario where the use of deadly force is determined to be justified, you'd be immune from civil or criminal liability"

Yes, but this doesn't apply to shooting at LEOs, which is what we're talking about here... so what's your point?

[Edited on June 12, 2012 at 9:20 AM. Reason : .]

6/12/2012 9:10:46 AM

i didn't read your post all the way

i guess is what my point is

carry on

6/12/2012 9:20:46 AM

Quote :

" Why should a person be charged with a crime by acting within the law, except for after the fact the intruders turned out to be police at the wrong house?"

Who said they should?

6/12/2012 9:22:03 AM

what if the cops are dirty ?


I hate it when people come in my house and track mud inside.

6/12/2012 9:23:05 AM

i have a welcome mat out front that says "come back with a warrant"

2 birds with one stone.. no dirty cops coming into MY house dammit

6/12/2012 9:24:42 AM

^ WIN!

6/12/2012 9:25:28 AM