Home Forums Classifieds Blogs Today's Posts Search Social Groups



  
SIGN-UP
Notices

Glock Talk
Welcome To The Glock Talk Forums.

 
  
Reply
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
Old 03-03-2012, 10:25   #1
Anthonysmilsurp
Member
 
Join Date: Aug 2007
Location: Summerville South Carolina
Posts: 72
Indiana house approves bill authorizing the shooting of Police Officers

Long story short if a homeowner thinks Police are in their homes or on their property for unlawful reasons they can shoot them. I don't think it would ever get approved but then again I know nothing about Indiana. I just know around here it would go something like this:

So, you shot the Officer why sir?
"Because he bun on mei propaty dawg".
Sir you know this officer was here to serve an arrest warrant for you ?
"How you mean arrest worant?"
You have a warrant for your arrest
"Dat's bull**** dawg, nah man dat poolice bun trespassin and I shoot em".



Http://www.addictinginfo.org/2012/03...lice-officers/
Anthonysmilsurp is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 03-03-2012, 11:30   #2
ClydeG19
Senior Member
 
ClydeG19's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2001
Location: Arizona
Posts: 7,189


Yeah this won't lead anywhere good. How many roadside lawyers do we come across that think they know the law and actually have it completely wrong? Heck just the crap people on GT come up with..."That's right, judge. I shot him because he didn't have his hat on."
ClydeG19 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 03-03-2012, 14:25   #3
Brian Lee
Drop those nuts
 
Brian Lee's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2008
Location: Up a tree.
Posts: 8,028
If there is good evidence that a cop was acting with criminal intentions in a particular situation, wasn't it already legal to shoot the criminal in self defense? I thought we already acknowledged that sometimes, cops can be bad people too.
Brian Lee is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 03-03-2012, 14:35   #4
Anthonysmilsurp
Member
 
Join Date: Aug 2007
Location: Summerville South Carolina
Posts: 72
Yes that is with good evidence, this law reds to me that if the homeowner BELIEVES the officer is there illegally they can shoot them.
Anthonysmilsurp is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 03-03-2012, 15:02   #5
jethro21
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Nov 2003
Location: arizona
Posts: 604
This law is dangerous, no matter what argument is put forth in support of it. Anyone who is LEO has run into hundreds of nitwit street lawyers who spout what they perceive as law or have heard from a friend whose brother is a lawyer. Unfortunately what they think the law states and means is most often NOT what it actually means. I am certain I am not the only one who arrested someone only to have them try to make a complaint that I didn't read them their Miranda Rights. When I explain that I do not need to read their rights to arrest them...well you know where it goes from there.

As we speak this decision will be circulating through the jails and prisons, anti government types will grasp hold and it will be misinterpreted, leading to the BELIEF that if an officer enters your home short of a warrant (or even with) that they can legally be shot.

As it appears to me to be written, the homeowner has to believe the officer is illegally in their home...how does this cover someone whose belief is unfounded, incorrect or skewed?
jethro21 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 03-03-2012, 16:07   #6
cowboy1964
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Sep 2009
Location: U.S.A.
Posts: 15,348
This is stupid and unnecessary.

Anyone have a link to NRA info where they state they support this?

Last edited by cowboy1964; 03-03-2012 at 16:08..
cowboy1964 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 03-03-2012, 16:31   #7
IGotIt
No Demlibtards
 
IGotIt's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2011
Location: On The Edge
Posts: 1,285
http://www.courierpress.com/news/201...police-enteri/

The measure still has to go to the Senate. The above article stated it was a NRA lobbyist that supported the measure, it didn't say the NRA.

If it does pass the senate, and if I was a cop in Indiana, I wouldn't do a darn thing the rest of my career except to look for another PD job, out of state. People good and bad are going to die if this passes. What are those morons thinking?
__________________
I'm sorry I hurt your feelings when I called you stupid. I thought you already knew.
IGotIt is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 03-03-2012, 17:40   #8
WyldeDime
Doom On You
 
WyldeDime's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2008
Posts: 82
Whatever's necessary to ensure the safety of the homeowner...
WyldeDime is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 03-03-2012, 17:54   #9
samurairabbi
Dungeon Schmuck
 
Join Date: Dec 1998
Location: Indianapolis, IN
Posts: 6,922
An important bit of background:

Last year, the Indiana Supreme Court ruled that a resident can NEVER use deadly force in resisting ANY police entry attempt WHATSOEVER, even if the reason for that entry is demonstrably false at the time the entry is made.

If a neighbor is pissed off at you, and has a friend on the force who is off-duty and decides to throw his weight around and enter your residence on his OWN volition, with no contact with his department, and with some alcohol into the mix, you STILL can't resist with deadly force. This is really the basis of the uproar.

The proposed bill is tightly written. The police must have warrants, be in hot pursuit, or have noted plausible evidence that criminal activity is underway, to be in JUSTIFIED status for an entry.

I understand that people reading internet coverage may blow a gasket over what they are reading. Reality is considerably more subdued.
__________________
Samurai Rabbi
samurairabbi is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 03-03-2012, 18:15   #10
4949shooter
Senior Member
 
4949shooter's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2006
Location: New Jersey Republik
Posts: 13,096


Quote:
Originally Posted by samurairabbi View Post
An important bit of background:

Last year, the Indiana Supreme Court ruled that a resident can NEVER use deadly force in resisting ANY police entry attempt WHATSOEVER, even if the reason for that entry is demonstrably false at the time the entry is made.

If a neighbor is pissed off at you, and has a friend on the force who is off-duty and decides to throw his weight around and enter your residence on his OWN volition, with no contact with his department, and with some alcohol into the mix, you STILL can't resist with deadly force. This is really the basis of the uproar.

The proposed bill is tightly written. The police must have warrants, be in hot pursuit, or have noted plausible evidence that criminal activity is underway, to be in JUSTIFIED status for an entry.

I understand that people reading internet coverage may blow a gasket over what they are reading. Reality is considerably more subdued.
The problem is, somebody might not know this. They might hear about part of the bill only, and think they can shoot on sight. It will set a bad precedent if it passes.
__________________
"...the men under your command deserve your leadership."-OXCOPS
4949shooter is online now   Reply With Quote
Old 03-03-2012, 18:29   #11
samurairabbi
Dungeon Schmuck
 
Join Date: Dec 1998
Location: Indianapolis, IN
Posts: 6,922
Quote:
Originally Posted by 4949shooter View Post
The problem is, somebody might not know this. They might hear about part of the bill only, and think they can shoot on sight. It will set a bad precedent if it passes.
Someone MAY misinterpret the law. Someone may be drunk or judgementally impaired when the door blows open. Someone may be offended that his honor is being dissed by the guy at the door. These are circmstances that NOW exist.

As far as a bad precedent, many still view Miranda as a bad precedent; claiming precedent CAN be overworked.

I ask readers to consider the instance I described in my previous post. A shield on a chest or belt cannot be extended to "I'll do whatever I want at any time."
__________________
Samurai Rabbi

Last edited by samurairabbi; 03-03-2012 at 18:31..
samurairabbi is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 03-03-2012, 18:48   #12
CAcop
Senior Member
 
CAcop's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2002
Location: California
Posts: 22,110
Quote:
Originally Posted by samurairabbi View Post
Someone MAY misinterpret the law. Someone may be drunk or judgementally impaired when the door blows open. Someone may be offended that his honor is being dissed by the guy at the door. These are circmstances that NOW exist.

As far as a bad precedent, many still view Miranda as a bad precedent; claiming precedent CAN be overworked.

I ask readers to consider the instance I described in my previous post. A shield on a chest or belt cannot be extended to "I'll do whatever I want at any time."
And it wouldn't the case you gave.
__________________
I wonder if your assessment of "The Wizard of Oz" would sound something like "A teenaged orphan runs away with three psychotic AD/HD patients and a little dog. She kills the first two women she meets." --Sinecure 07/03/2006
Freakin' awsome!! Kickin it old school. Hot sheet on the dash. The report was probably only two sentences. Long live Rencko and Bobbie Hill!--WhiskeyT
CAcop is online now   Reply With Quote
Old 03-03-2012, 19:43   #13
rball
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Jun 2008
Location: Southern Wisconsin
Posts: 158
Quote:
Originally Posted by 4949shooter View Post
The problem is, somebody might not know this. They might hear about part of the bill only, and think they can shoot on sight. It will set a bad precedent if it passes.
Personally, I think one LEO getting shot at is one too many. However, if this law passes, and someone shoots an LEO who had every legal reason for being there, would the ramifications for the shooter be any different because the shooter only knew part of the law?
rball is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 03-03-2012, 19:57   #14
samurairabbi
Dungeon Schmuck
 
Join Date: Dec 1998
Location: Indianapolis, IN
Posts: 6,922
Quote:
Originally Posted by rball View Post
However, if this law passes, and someone shoots an LEO who had every legal reason for being there, would the ramifications for the shooter be any different because the shooter only knew part of the law?
Under the proposed version now being kicked around the statehouse, the shooter claiming "imperfect defense" and its "imperfect comprehension of the law" sidekick would be SOL against a valid police entry... unless the jury goes berserk on a "jury-nullification" binge. But then, we face that possiblity now, even under that Indiana Supreme Court decision that created all the uproar.

The shooter would be up against a homicide charge with aggravating circumstances (death of a law enforcement officer). The shooter MIGHT be able to deflect a charge of "malice aforethought", the foundation for a Murder One conviction, but again, that is the CURRENT situation.
__________________
Samurai Rabbi

Last edited by samurairabbi; 03-03-2012 at 19:59..
samurairabbi is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 03-03-2012, 20:19   #15
Vigilant
Senior Member
 
Vigilant's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2005
Location: Inside the Perimeter
Posts: 8,608
Wait until the sovereign citizens get hold of this.
__________________
Illegitimi non carborundum
Vigilant is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 03-03-2012, 20:38   #16
samurairabbi
Dungeon Schmuck
 
Join Date: Dec 1998
Location: Indianapolis, IN
Posts: 6,922
Quote:
Originally Posted by Vigilant View Post
Wait until the sovereign citizens get hold of this.
We don't have to wait. Certain segments of the "sovereign citizen" crowd NOW believe they can shoot at cops for perceived "valid reasons" perceived by the shooter during the incident. We lost an Indy cop last year on a traffic stop, POSSIBLY because a convicted felon thought he was in danger of physical harm upon apprehension; the case is currently creeping through the system. This current uproar is not new; rather, it concerns the the narrow aspect of the status of one's residence.
__________________
Samurai Rabbi

Last edited by samurairabbi; 03-03-2012 at 20:42..
samurairabbi is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 03-03-2012, 21:01   #17
Patchman
Florist
 
Join Date: Jul 2008
Location: Land of Flora, Fauna & Merriweather
Posts: 12,936
Should this law pass, I would hope all IN LEOs would remember that as long as they know they're "there" under colour of law, they have every legal right to use lethal force to defend themselves.

And they won't hesitate to exercise their right to self defense.
__________________
Although many good citizens in your community may own and carry guns, keeping the community safe still fall on those who carry badges.

In a gunfight, even if you do everything right, you can still get killed.

Last edited by Patchman; 03-03-2012 at 21:02..
Patchman is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 03-03-2012, 21:09   #18
Southswede
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Sep 2005
Posts: 898
Quote:
Originally Posted by samurairabbi View Post
We don't have to wait. Certain segments of the "sovereign citizen" crowd NOW believe they can shoot at cops for perceived "valid reasons" perceived by the shooter during the incident. We lost an Indy cop last year on a traffic stop, POSSIBLY because a convicted felon thought he was in danger of physical harm upon apprehension; the case is currently creeping through the system. This current uproar is not new; rather, it concerns the the narrow aspect of the status of one's residence.
http://www.policeone.com/Officer-Saf...hreat-to-cops/
Southswede is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 03-03-2012, 21:49   #19
cyphertext
Senior Member
 
cyphertext's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2004
Posts: 2,668
Not an officer, but discussing this with an officer friend via facebook and have a question....

Does this law, passed or not, really change anything for an officer? I mean, there is an inherent danger when you guys respond, warrant or not, lawfully allowed entrance. So, would it change your response and how you approach a home?
cyphertext is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 03-03-2012, 21:56   #20
4949shooter
Senior Member
 
4949shooter's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2006
Location: New Jersey Republik
Posts: 13,096


Quote:
Originally Posted by samurairabbi View Post
Someone MAY misinterpret the law. Someone may be drunk or judgementally impaired when the door blows open. Someone may be offended that his honor is being dissed by the guy at the door. These are circmstances that NOW exist.

As far as a bad precedent, many still view Miranda as a bad precedent; claiming precedent CAN be overworked.

I ask readers to consider the instance I described in my previous post. A shield on a chest or belt cannot be extended to "I'll do whatever I want at any time."
Yes but that doesn't make it so in this case.

Quote:
Originally Posted by rball View Post
Personally, I think one LEO getting shot at is one too many. However, if this law passes, and someone shoots an LEO who had every legal reason for being there, would the ramifications for the shooter be any different because the shooter only knew part of the law?
No sir, because as you know ignorance of the law does not justify illegal action.

The problem is, that a law enforcement officer would be dead because of some person's misunderstanding of the law. There are no retrials, or appeals, or rulings overturned. Death is forever.
__________________
"...the men under your command deserve your leadership."-OXCOPS

Last edited by 4949shooter; 03-03-2012 at 21:58..
4949shooter is online now   Reply With Quote

 
  
Reply

Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off

Forum Jump




All times are GMT -6. The time now is 02:03.




Homepage
FAQ
Forums
Calendar
Advertise
Gallery
GT Wiki
GT Blogs
Social Groups
Classifieds


Users Currently Online: 595
143 Members
452 Guests

Most users ever online: 2,672
Aug 11, 2014 at 2:31