Privacy guaranteed - Your email is not shared with anyone.

Welcome to Glock Forum at

Why should YOU join our forums?

  • Reason #1
  • Reason #2
  • Reason #3

Site Description

Indiana house approves bill authorizing the shooting of Police Officers

Discussion in 'Cop Talk' started by Anthonysmilsurp, Mar 3, 2012.

  1. 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".

  2. ClydeG19


    Oct 5, 2001
    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."

  3. Brian Lee

    Brian Lee Drop those nuts

    Jul 28, 2008
    Up a tree.
    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.
  4. 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.
  5. jethro21


    Nov 28, 2003
    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 does this cover someone whose belief is unfounded, incorrect or skewed?
  6. cowboy1964


    Sep 4, 2009
    This is stupid and unnecessary.

    Anyone have a link to NRA info where they state they support this?
    Last edited: Mar 3, 2012
  7. IGotIt

    IGotIt No Demlibtards

    Aug 20, 2011
    On The Edge

    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?
  8. WyldeDime

    WyldeDime Doom On You

    Jan 7, 2008
    Whatever's necessary to ensure the safety of the homeowner...
  9. samurairabbi

    samurairabbi Dungeon Schmuck

    Dec 31, 1998
    Indianapolis, IN
    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.
  10. 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.
  11. samurairabbi

    samurairabbi Dungeon Schmuck

    Dec 31, 1998
    Indianapolis, IN
    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."
    Last edited: Mar 3, 2012
  12. CAcop


    Jul 21, 2002
    And it wouldn't the case you gave.
  13. rball


    Jun 20, 2008
    Southern Wisconsin
    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?
  14. samurairabbi

    samurairabbi Dungeon Schmuck

    Dec 31, 1998
    Indianapolis, IN
    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.
    Last edited: Mar 3, 2012
  15. Wait until the sovereign citizens get hold of this. :upeyes:
  16. samurairabbi

    samurairabbi Dungeon Schmuck

    Dec 31, 1998
    Indianapolis, IN
    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.
    Last edited: Mar 3, 2012
  17. 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.
    Last edited: Mar 3, 2012
  18. Southswede


    Sep 29, 2005
  19. cyphertext


    Jan 6, 2004
    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?
  20. Yes but that doesn't make it so in this case.

    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.
    Last edited: Mar 3, 2012