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

'Right to resist police' signed into law by Ind. governor

Discussion in 'Carry Issues' started by RussP, Mar 22, 2012.

  1. RussP

    RussP Moderator

    Jan 23, 2003
    Central Virginia
    Gov. says law protects police by narrowing circumstances where force can be used against them.

    The Governor put out a written statement. In it he said that he and law enforcement officers are troubled that there's the chance that citizens hearing reports of change will misunderstand what the law says.

    The law took immediate effect.

    It will be interesting how those who carry for self defense will respond.
  2. ijacek


    Jun 21, 2008
    In any situation where the Police are called to investigate (domestics, civil stand-by's, subpoena service, etc.,) there is going to be at least one person, that will feel the LEO is there illegally, and will resist reverting to that law.

    Any crack dealer will possibly use that when SWAT/Narcs come-a-knocking with early morning search warrant.

    Also, if "Indiana Gov. Mitch Daniels said Wednesday that he shares police groups' concerns that some people might misinterpret a new law that lays out when residents could be legally justified in using force against police officers." Why did he signed it?

    Here's something for a perspective - Miranda Warning consists of five(!) sentencess, and is one of the most missused/misinterpreted laws out there. People do not understand that Miranda Warning does not give one the right not to answer the questions in regards to identity of the individual during criminal investigation, yet whole lot of people use that as the right to remain silent when asked for a name/ID.

    Something tells me that "Right to refuse" is a little bit more lenghty, and thus more complicated.

    This law will eventually end up in Supreme Court. Meantime if I was an LEO in Indiana, I'll be looking to move!

  3. 3.slow


    Dec 20, 2010
    Go on strike for one day, see if public opinion changes. The masses probably want a police force as it is quite convenient to aiding in the people's problems. Some believe the police do more harm than good citing the drug war. That would be me
  4. Gombey


    Oct 10, 2011
    Man!! Please be extra vigilant out there!

    This just made law enforcement a lot harder.…
  5. IndyGunFreak


    Jan 26, 2001
    I personally think this is much ado about nothing. I tend to agree w/ the Gov. on this, all it does is keep the police in line while clarifying citizen rights. Will there be some idiot who thinks this means he can open fire on an officer walking to his house? Almost definitely, however, that same idiot likely would have done the same thing whether this law was passed or not.

    This law is more about clarification, than actually declaring open season on the police.
  6. IndyGunFreak


    Jan 26, 2001
    For crying out loud, read the bill before posting such nonsense. This is exactly what we berate anti-gunners for (hyperbole, and basically saying things that are 100% not true)

    I'm not saying I 100% support this bill, I think it's sad that it was even introduced... but there were reasons this was introduced, and like I said, this is more about clarification rather than being able to shoot officers serving a warrant.
  7. ijacek


    Jun 21, 2008

    Who decides what is reasonable? "Your Honor, my client by no fault of his own is a drug user, a situation he was driven into by the economic hardships, his wife leaving and his dog dying. My client was coming off of the extreme high he had enjoyed few hours earlier, when he was awaken by the loud knocking on his door at o'dark morning. In his altered state of mind, being in his own house, to which may I remind you he holds a clear and free title, was it so unreasonable for him to believe the law enforcement was there unlawfully?" All is needed is a bit of reasonable doubt in the mind of the twelve of his peers!

    See above.

    I am just playing a little bit of Devil's Advocte here.
    Last edited: Mar 22, 2012
  8. IndyGunFreak


    Jan 26, 2001
    This is the problem right here, and what I was really referring to. The bill specifically states that if you're involved in illegal activity (ie, dealing crack, or in your above example, using drugs) this law doesn't apply. Again, stop sensationalizing and read the bill, or read some articles that are not biased..

    This was all brought on by the fools on our Supreme Court, but that's another story. Bottom line, just like when "Constitutional Carry" or whatever "blood will run in the streets" gun law is relaxed, results in very few incidents... we will likely never hear about this again after the initial uproar.

    Before I'm accused of being anti-cop, etc.,. nothing could be further from the truth. The fact we need a law like this, is pathetic. Much like most of society, a "lot" of cops are paying because a few of them are not doing their jobs properly.

    Last edited: Mar 22, 2012
  9. xmanhockey7


    Dec 6, 2010
    This bill had to be passed. As a citizen you have the right to resist unlawful arrest by our government. Now me personally in a situation where society is functioning correctly and it's a matter of a stupid cop I will definitely not right them and get it straightened out later. But I should always have the legal right to resist unlawful arrest.
  10. ticktwrter


    Mar 9, 2009
    That sad part is we DID NOT need this law. The Constitution already exists and has the amendments needed.
  11. ballr4lyf


    Jan 3, 2012
    I've seen this question asked in this thread and the Trayvon Martin thread... The answer is simple. The people that decide what is "reasonable" are the 12 individuals that will comprise the jury. If it is not a jury trial, then it will be up to the judge to decide what is reasonable.

    It will be incumbent upon the defendant/defense team to explain why *HE* thought it was reasonable. The judge/jury then decides if the defendant's rationale was indeed reasonable. If it is not, then the law does not apply.
  12. With all due respect to Ballr4lyf, who is technically correct, I believe that in a practical sense it will be the media and public after your funeral.

    If you are shooting at and actively resist a SWAT team, you will likely be shot and killed. If the officers are discovered to be corrupt and acting illegally after the fact, that will be of no difference to your corpse.
    Last edited: Mar 22, 2012
  13. JK-linux


    Mar 5, 2009
    Last edited: May 21, 2012
  14. EAJuggalo


    Jan 17, 2005
    Eagan, MN
    The really sad part is that IN did need this law. The state supreme court ruled earlier this year that the public has no right to defend themselves from police.

    ijacek, the problem comes not when the police kick in the door of the drug dealer, it comes when the kick in the door of the drug dealers neighbor whom is a law abiding citizen with a LTCH. I don't know about you but if anyone comes kicking down my door at O Dark Thirty while I'm asleep there may very well be shots fired at them.
  15. jdavionic

    jdavionic NRA Member

    May 1, 2008
    A fine example of having so many laws on the books that other laws are necessary to counteract the existing laws and somehow re-enable rights that should have been clear from the onset.

    Makes you wonder whether we will ever go through a period the number of laws is decreased.
  16. kensteele


    Aug 3, 2003
    Leawood, KS
    can't have it both ways.

    better respect daniels, he might end up being your gop vp.
    Last edited: Mar 22, 2012