PDA

View Full Version : New Indiana law gives people the right to resist (with force) unlawful acts by leos.


morfeeis
06-12-2012, 8:11 AM
Every time police Sergeant Joseph Hubbard stops a speeder or serves a search warrant, he says he worries suspects assume they can open fire -- without breaking the law.
Hubbard, a 17-year veteran of the police department in Jeffersonville, Indiana, says his apprehension stems from a state law approved this year that allows residents to use deadly force in response to the “unlawful intrusion” by a “public servant” to protect themselves and others, or their property.
“If I pull over a car and I walk up to it and the guy shoots me, he’s going to say, ‘Well, he was trying to illegally enter my property,’” said Hubbard, 40, who is president of Jeffersonville Fraternal Order of Police Lodge 100. “Somebody is going get away with killing a cop because of this law.”

http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2012-06-05/nra-backed-law-spells-out-when-indianans-may-open-fire-on-police.html


Is this a step in the right direction giving people the right to stand up against corrupt LEO or would a law like this endanger the lives of peace officers? and do you think a law like this would pass in CA?

lol @ bloomberg title and their non biased view on the subject.

Alan Block
06-12-2012, 8:19 AM
I think this was a response to an Indiana court decision last year that prevented people from resisting warrantless police entry.

Bhobbs
06-12-2012, 8:21 AM
Like I posted in the other thread, you may be right in killing the cop but good luck convincing the other cops of that when they see their dead buddy on the ground. We are too far beyond this law being able to work. The cops and public will never accept that they should be treated like any other criminal when they illegally enter a house.

JDoe
06-12-2012, 8:55 AM
I don't see what the fuss is all about.

http://www.in.gov/legislative/bills/2012/SE/SE0001.1.html

TheExpertish
06-12-2012, 9:00 AM
Unfortunately what this law doesn't do is give people the sense to know the difference. I've arrested many people that didn't think they were breaking the law. Not sure it will matter either way since people that open fire on police do so regardless of law. Only problem now is someone is bound to get away with it.

RMP91
06-12-2012, 9:17 AM
This is why the other thread on this was deleted.

This doesn't give you an excuse to kill an officer of the law.

This doesn't make it "OK" to take away a family's mother/father/son/daughter because he was just doing his job but someone in command somehow screwed up.

Bhobbs
06-12-2012, 9:19 AM
This is why the other thread on this was deleted.

This doesn't give you an excuse to kill an officer of the law.

This doesn't make it "OK" to take away a family's mother/father/son/daughter because he was just doing his job but someone in command somehow screwed up.

Well, sh*t, if my life depended on some information, I would make sure it was right. Besides, how many civilians have been killed, wounded or scared to death because the cops got it wrong? What about them? You know, those people that cops are supposed to be protecting and serving.

Jeepergeo
06-12-2012, 9:27 AM
Before the formal birth of this great country, British Soldiers were famous for entering homes/properties for nefarious purposes. The framers of our Constitution knew that to get the Constitution ratified, they needed to confirm the God given rights of citizens to keep arms, which they did via the Bill of Rights.

The focus needs to be protection of our 2nd Amendment rights, and restoring them where they have been dimenished or limited. Once this is accomplished, we will all have a reasonable ability to provide protection of ourselves, our families, and property against illegal attacks, including attacks from British Soldiers of yore, thugs, and jack-booted government thugs.

Lc17smp
06-12-2012, 9:33 AM
“Somebody is going get away with killing a cop because of this law.”

now lets reverse the order

“ A cop is going get away with killing somebody because of this law.”

There are tons of laws that would allow the second sentence to happen but very very few that would allow the the first sentence to happen. IMO the Indiana law is a step in the right direction.


When the people fear their government, there is tyranny; when the government fears the people, there is liberty. Thomas Jefferson

JDoe
06-12-2012, 9:59 AM
Unfortunately what this law doesn't do is give people the sense to know the difference. I've arrested many people that didn't think they were breaking the law. Not sure it will matter either way since people that open fire on police do so regardless of law. Only problem now is someone is bound to get away with it.

Get away with what?

J.D.Allen
06-12-2012, 10:02 AM
Law or no law pulling a firearm on a group of half a dozen cops will get you killed in a hurry. Pretty stupid thing to do IMHO

Wherryj
06-12-2012, 10:34 AM
Unfortunately what this law doesn't do is give people the sense to know the difference. I've arrested many people that didn't think they were breaking the law. Not sure it will matter either way since people that open fire on police do so regardless of law. Only problem now is someone is bound to get away with it.

True. There are also thousands of documented cases in which the LEO didn't realize that the person WAS NOT committing a crime, yet arrested them.

Laws like this may just muddy the waters, but they do at least give a framework for the obvious case of police abuse that resulted in injury. Too many of the laws on the books pretty much give officers the right to do ANYTHING without consequence, even if it is blatantly illegal.

dantodd
06-12-2012, 10:52 AM
Unfortunately what this law doesn't do is give people the sense to know the difference. I've arrested many people that didn't think they were breaking the law. Not sure it will matter either way since people that open fire on police do so regardless of law. Only problem now is someone is bound to get away with it.

As you said, if someone is going to open fire they are going to open fire if it is illegal. The law only helps people "get away with it" if the shooting was justified.

dantodd
06-12-2012, 10:55 AM
True. There are also thousands of documented cases in which the LEO didn't realize that the person WAS NOT committing a crime, yet arrested them.


Then perhaps we'll end up in an environment where "arrest them and let the courts figure it out" will no longer be SOP. You and I are required to JNOW the law and that what we are doing is legal, demanding the same from officers seems reasonable.

njineermike
06-12-2012, 11:04 AM
What people don't realize who were not in Indiana, was that self-defense against a police officer, even one acting illegally, such as the drunken off-duty officers at a convention rampaging through downtown Indianapolis pointing guns at passersby and assaulting anybody who fought back, or the officer who assaulted a man in his own front yard because the man was dating his ex-wife, was not an allowable defense in court. That was the basis of all of this. Under the previous Indiana law, if you were under attack by a law enforcement officer, even an off-duty officer that didn't identify himself, or one acting illegally, (or both as was usually the case) the person who was assaulted could (and often did) face prosecution, and since self-defense was NOT allowed as a legal defense, they usually lost the case. Yes, I know, the typical "They can appeal" protests will come in, but how much of that person's life is able to be returned to him if his conviction is overturned on appeal? How will he be repaid for the beatings and rapes? Who will cover the attorney fees? The entire point of this law was to provide a LEGAL DEFENSE IN COURT. Will a person likely still be arrested? Yes. Will that person have a self-defense option now available? Yes. It's NOT A NEW LAW. It's a revision of existing law allowing self defense to be used in court.

The "There will be blood in the streets" crowd reminds me of the brady bunch.

Sniper3142
06-12-2012, 12:25 PM
“Somebody is going get away with killing a cop because of this law.”

now lets reverse the order

“ A cop is going get away with killing somebody because of this law.”

There are tons of laws that would allow the second sentence to happen but very very few that would allow the the first sentence to happen. IMO the Indiana law is a step in the right direction.


When the people fear their government, there is tyranny; when the government fears the people, there is liberty. Thomas Jefferson

True and wise words indeed!

Why some people fear a law saying Citizens can resist unlawful attacks or violations from police is beyond me.

What people don't realize who were not in Indiana, was that self-defense against a police officer, even one acting illegally, such as the drunken off-duty officers at a convention rampaging through downtown Indianapolis pointing guns at passersby and assaulting anybody who fought back, or the officer who assaulted a man in his own front yard because the man was dating his ex-wife, was not an allowable defense in court. That was the basis of all of this. Under the previous Indiana law, if you were under attack by a law enforcement officer, even an off-duty officer that didn't identify himself, or one acting illegally, (or both as was usually the case) the person who was assaulted could (and often did) face prosecution, and since self-defense was NOT allowed as a legal defense, they usually lost the case. Yes, I know, the typical "They can appeal" protests will come in, but how much of that person's life is able to be returned to him if his conviction is overturned on appeal? How will he be repaid for the beatings and rapes? Who will cover the attorney fees? The entire point of this law was to provide a LEGAL DEFENSE IN COURT. Will a person likely still be arrested? Yes. Will that person have a self-defense option now available? Yes. It's NOT A NEW LAW. It's a revision of existing law allowing self defense to be used in court.

The "There will be blood in the streets" crowd reminds me of the brady bunch.

Totally agree.

Giving Citizens the Right to defend themselves from unlawful attacks from anyone including police doesn't seem like a bad thing to me. The Constitution says "We the People", not "We the Sheeple".

;)

Nessal
06-12-2012, 12:43 PM
Totally support this law.

nocomply25
06-12-2012, 1:24 PM
Ya this will give the cops in the area something to think about before abusing power. Good law.

DrDavid
06-12-2012, 3:33 PM
So, will the cops now shoot first and ask questions later? "Sure, we were there illegally, but the homeowner had a gun, so we had to shoot in self-defense."

I actually wonder if you can you actually claim a right to self-defense when you're staring down the barrel of a gun inside someone else's home? (And, you're there because you broke into said home..)

J.D.Allen
06-12-2012, 3:38 PM
That's not the point. When the cops break down your door they don't know that they are making a mistake. If they see you aiming a weapon at them they are not going to think it's because they got the wrong house. At that point it's your survival vs. theirs and the sad fact is that you are at a distinct disadvantage in that scenario. They're not going to wait around to sort things out. They are going to kill you. I think a much better idea would be making cops criminally liable for this sort of thing.

Rattlehead
06-12-2012, 3:42 PM
Every time police Sergeant Joseph Hubbard stops a speeder...he says he worries suspects assume they can open fire

They must give some expensive speeding tickets in Indiana.

QQQ
06-12-2012, 4:11 PM
I think a much better idea would be making cops criminally liable for this sort of thing.

lol I'm sure that would work. Maybe I'd be less skeptical if they didn't pat each other on the back for storming the wrong house (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oFnmZKl5WEA).
Oh, by the way- the person who used his weapon to defend himself and his family survived the encounter.

six seven tango
06-12-2012, 6:05 PM
...When the cops break down your door they don't know that they are making a mistake...

Maybe this law will make those who co-ordinate these raids do a little more homework to ensure they're going after the right person at the right address instead of kicking down joe citizen's door while the real criminal is sound asleep 2 streets over.

While I wouldn't want to be the one to test this law out, maybe having it on the books will hold leo's a little more accountable for what they do.

RMorenoUSA
06-12-2012, 6:09 PM
“Somebody is going get away with killing a cop because of this law.”

now lets reverse the order

“ A cop is going get away with killing somebody because of this law.”

There are tons of laws that would allow the second sentence to happen but very very few that would allow the the first sentence to happen. IMO the Indiana law is a step in the right direction.


When the people fear their government, there is tyranny; when the government fears the people, there is liberty. Thomas Jefferson

I agree with your statement.

Manolito
06-12-2012, 6:20 PM
I for one like the law. I am more afraid of the police than I am of the burgler.
For my thoughts police should stay outside the house call over phone or bull horn come out with your hands up.
Sat on a jury where a search was recorded and used as evidence. no way you could hear the first statement POLICE because at the exact same time the door was being broken down.

I am not for 0300 search warrants being delivered.

OlderThanDirt
06-12-2012, 7:52 PM
One needs to keep in mind the difference between a LEO making a mistake and defending against illegal LEO actions.

As I recall, the case that started this chain of events was a homeowner that physically tried to prevent an illegal search.

garandguy10
06-12-2012, 7:59 PM
Only problem now is someone is bound to get away with it.

And how is that a problem???

whatpain
06-12-2012, 8:07 PM
my grandma just bought a house. the first day her and my uncle came up here to look around to see what needed to be done to the house someone called the cops on them. my uncle said they busted in on him and my grandma with guns drawn like 6 deep. now any reasonable person would have seen the for sale sign and realized that this old lady and overweight gentleman were not stealing anything from an empty house. but no they held them at gunpoint for at least an hour. my uncle said at one point his arms were getting tired from raising his hands over his head so he tried to lower them and the cop yelled at him to keep them up. meanwhile there are actual crimes going on down the street.

SFgiants105
06-12-2012, 8:19 PM
...

do you think a law like this would pass in CA?

...


Hell no!

If a law like that passes, they should make it mandatory that people who buy guns have to pass a class that includes info to make sure they fully understand when they can and cannot shoot LEOs; they need to make sure that people whose property is unlawfully trespassed on give the officers sufficient warning and find some way to resolve the issue without either side opening fire.

There would need to be some sort of protocol to confirm who is in the right, and without it, I am going to have to agree that at some point a LEO will be wrongfully shot.

OlderThanDirt
06-12-2012, 8:26 PM
Yup, we really NEED a test to pass in order to exercise a Constitutional right.

DrDavid
06-12-2012, 8:39 PM
Yup, we really NEED a test to pass in order to exercise a Constitutional right.
You didn't hear? That's the 28th amendment!