• Indiana OKs killing cops in own house
    47 replies, posted
[quote]INDIANAPOLIS — The Indiana House has approved a bill laying out when people are justified in using force against police officers. The House voted 74-24 Thursday in favor of the bill that's a response to the public uproar over a state Supreme Court ruling that residents could not resist officers even during an illegal entry. The measure specifies residents are protected by the state's self-defense law if they reasonably believe force is necessary to protect themselves from unlawful actions by an officer. Supporters said the proposal strengthens the rights of homeowners while also making clear that anyone who is committing a crime isn't justified in using force against an officer. "There are citizens of this state who understand … that they need to be protected," said Rep. Jud McMillin, R-Brookville. Opponents argued the Legislature shouldn't give people justification for attacking officers. "Fifteen thousand disagree with this bill. The men and women that are guarding the streets that you live on right now while you're sitting here, they disagree with this bill," said Rep. Linda Lawson, D-Hammond, a retired police captain. The House and Senate must still agree on a final version.[/quote] [url=http://www.policeone.com/use-of-force/articles/5193383-Ind-lawmakers-back-bill-that-OKs-force-against-police-officers/]Source[/url] More on the topic: [quote]Hoosiers could legally defend themselves against police officers who enter their home under a measure that the Indiana House approved on a 74-24 vote, moving it another step toward becoming law, on Thursday. The measure would overturn last year’s Indiana Supreme Court decision. [B]The court ruled that homeowners do not have the right to use force against law enforcement officials who they believe are illegally entering their homes.[/B] That decision came in the case of Richard Barnes, 57, (not Richard Barnes Jr., 38, who was sentenced to prison in 2010 in an unrelated case, or the Rev. Richard Barnes of Evansville) an Evansville man who filed a lawsuit against police who followed him into his house while they were responding to a domestic dispute Barnes had with his wife. Proponents said the measure provides police with additional legal protection, while affirming the “Castle Doctrine” idea that homeowners have the right to resist anyone, including police, who invades their homes. In a rare appearance off the rostrum and on the House floor, Speaker Brian Bosma, R-Indianapolis, urged the chamber to approve Senate Bill 1. “What we’re doing here is we’re writing a jury instruction. We’re writing an appellate standard to see who’s responsible; who has a defense,” he said. “What this says is when it does get to the courts and the courts have to sort out who’s right, who’s wrong, this clarifies that we’re back to the same standard we had in this county, in this state, for more than 200 years.” Other members were more forceful about the measure’s impact. Rep. Mike Speedy, R-Indianapolis, said the measure would help Hoosiers who would otherwise “lose freedom” to “the coercive power of government.” He said without action, police officers who kill citizens in their own homes would be protected. “We can’t kid ourselves – it is as powerful as ever, and without undoing the Barnes decision, it has crept into our home in a way that is wildly unpopular in our communities,” he said. Rep. Matt Pierce, D-Bloomington, said the measure protects Hoosiers from “rogue cops,” but said he thinks there will be few instances when police improperly enter homes, or where Hoosiers use force against police officers because of the measure. “I admit that the number of times that is going to happen in our state is going to be infinitesimally small,” he said. “I’m not concerned that we’re going to suddenly have meth-heads sitting in their La-Z-Boy with their shotgun and SB 1 in their hand.” Pierce, one of the House’s most liberal members, drew laughter when he said it felt uncomfortable to be casting a vote that the National Rifle Association’s lobbyist approved of. Rep. Mike White, D-Muncie, said he could not vote for the measure and then return to his district and look police officers in the eye. “Even though I know that factually, this is probably the right thing to do, sometimes law isn’t about fact – sometimes it’s about perception, and it’s that perception that I fear,” he said. Rep. Craig Fry, D-South Bend, said the bill “is going to cause people to die.” “And it’s too late after somebody dies for a jury to sort it out. Somebody’s going to die, whether it’s a police officer or an individual who thinks a police officer is entering their home unlawfully. People are going to die,” he said. Rep. Linda Lawson, a Hammond Democrat who has worked as a police officer and has trained other law enforcement officials, said she believes the measure would create an “open season on law enforcement.” She said the measure is opposed by “1,250 state police officers and 14,000 men and women in blue, brown and green.” The bill now returns to the Senate. That chamber could approve it in the form that passed the House, or the House and Senate could have a joint committee try to hash out the differences before sending it back to both chambers for final approval.[/quote] [url=http://www.courierpress.com/news/2012/mar/01/indiana-house-approves-bill-covering-police-enteri/]Source #2[/url] Most importantly [quote]The court ruled that homeowners do not have the right to use force against law enforcement officials who they believe are illegally entering their homes.[/quote]
Then whoever shoots that cop will be shot, because backup wont take that to kindly.
If they have no right to come in they are no different to the common criminal. I don't really see the bad thing about this.
Well that will stop those cops that are like. Wait a minute do you smell that let me in now!
I can't even tell you how many cops are about to get shot because the resident didn't KNOW the entry was legal. I can't imagine the Police are happy about this at all. I don't know what laws are like in the USA, but in Canada entry without a warrant is acceptable if there's reason to believe human life may be in danger.
[QUOTE=areolop;34996492] What ever happened to "If you dont have a warrant, you cant come in". Now, its "You leave, or be killed"[/QUOTE] Way to oversimplify. The issue is unlawful entry or force by police officers. If they enter without a warrant, when you have said you, you have the right to make them leave or else. It's perfectly fair. If a police officer needs access to your property or information, he can obtain a warrant. Terrible ruling by their supreme court. Glad they overturned it. [QUOTE=archangel125;34996550]I can't even tell you how many cops are about to get shot because the resident didn't KNOW the entry was legal. I can't imagine the Police are happy about this at all. I don't know what laws are like in the USA, but in Canada entry without a warrant is acceptable if there's reason to believe human life may be in danger.[/QUOTE] In situations where police officers make their identity and intentions known, there won't be a problem. This happens when police mess up procedure, rush into things, or execute a no-knock warrant.
anyone who uses force against an officer will surely be charged/severly beaten by backup cops, whats the point?
Well, I'm sure Contag will be happy to hear this. :v:
[QUOTE=SilentOpp;34996557]Way to oversimplify. The issue is unlawful entry or force by police officers. If they enter without a warrant, when you have said you, you have the right to make them leave or else. It's perfectly fair. If a police officer needs access to your property or information, he can obtain a warrant. Terrible ruling by their supreme court. Glad they overturned it. In situations where police officers make their identity and intentions known, there won't be a problem. This happens when police mess up procedure, rush into things, or execute a no-knock warrant.[/QUOTE] if you try to resist arrest during a no-knock raid your ass is dead [editline]4th March 2012[/editline] hell if you raise an arm during a no-knock raid you're probably dead
[QUOTE=BlazeFresh;34996575]anyone who uses force against an officer will surely be charged/severly beaten by backup cops, whats the point?[/QUOTE] Not if there's a 12 gauge pointed at their face.
[QUOTE=SilentOpp;34996557] In situations where police officers make their identity and intentions known, there won't be a problem. This happens when police mess up procedure, rush into things, or execute a no-knock warrant.[/QUOTE] Standard procedure when life is at risk is to execute a no-knock entry.
[QUOTE=ultra_bright;34996631]Not if there's a 12 gauge pointed at their face.[/QUOTE] Then they kill you.
[QUOTE=BuffaloBill;34996520]If they have no right to come in they are no different to the common criminal. I don't really see the bad thing about this.[/QUOTE] True, but I think this bill will cause more problems than it solved.
[QUOTE=Valdor;34996617]if you try to resist arrest during a no-knock raid your ass is dead [editline]4th March 2012[/editline] hell if you raise an arm during a no-knock raid you're probably dead[/QUOTE] I think this complicates raids way too much, are they are already one of the most stressful things out there. What if there was a mistake on a no knock raid, and you shoot at them? Technically you're in the green, but you'll end up dead anyways. If anything, you shouldn't be allowed to resist, they'd arrest you, then after that you fight them in court and gain compensation.
More on the topic: [quote]Hoosiers could legally defend themselves against police officers who enter their home under a measure that the Indiana House approved on a 74-24 vote, moving it another step toward becoming law, on Thursday. The measure would overturn last year’s Indiana Supreme Court decision. [B]The court ruled that homeowners do not have the right to use force against law enforcement officials who they believe are illegally entering their homes.[/B] That decision came in the case of Richard Barnes, 57, (not Richard Barnes Jr., 38, who was sentenced to prison in 2010 in an unrelated case, or the Rev. Richard Barnes of Evansville) an Evansville man who filed a lawsuit against police who followed him into his house while they were responding to a domestic dispute Barnes had with his wife. Proponents said the measure provides police with additional legal protection, while affirming the “Castle Doctrine” idea that homeowners have the right to resist anyone, including police, who invades their homes. In a rare appearance off the rostrum and on the House floor, Speaker Brian Bosma, R-Indianapolis, urged the chamber to approve Senate Bill 1. “What we’re doing here is we’re writing a jury instruction. We’re writing an appellate standard to see who’s responsible; who has a defense,” he said. “What this says is when it does get to the courts and the courts have to sort out who’s right, who’s wrong, this clarifies that we’re back to the same standard we had in this county, in this state, for more than 200 years.” Other members were more forceful about the measure’s impact. Rep. Mike Speedy, R-Indianapolis, said the measure would help Hoosiers who would otherwise “lose freedom” to “the coercive power of government.” He said without action, police officers who kill citizens in their own homes would be protected. “We can’t kid ourselves – it is as powerful as ever, and without undoing the Barnes decision, it has crept into our home in a way that is wildly unpopular in our communities,” he said. Rep. Matt Pierce, D-Bloomington, said the measure protects Hoosiers from “rogue cops,” but said he thinks there will be few instances when police improperly enter homes, or where Hoosiers use force against police officers because of the measure. “I admit that the number of times that is going to happen in our state is going to be infinitesimally small,” he said. “I’m not concerned that we’re going to suddenly have meth-heads sitting in their La-Z-Boy with their shotgun and SB 1 in their hand.” Pierce, one of the House’s most liberal members, drew laughter when he said it felt uncomfortable to be casting a vote that the National Rifle Association’s lobbyist approved of. Rep. Mike White, D-Muncie, said he could not vote for the measure and then return to his district and look police officers in the eye. “Even though I know that factually, this is probably the right thing to do, sometimes law isn’t about fact – sometimes it’s about perception, and it’s that perception that I fear,” he said. Rep. Craig Fry, D-South Bend, said the bill “is going to cause people to die.” “And it’s too late after somebody dies for a jury to sort it out. Somebody’s going to die, whether it’s a police officer or an individual who thinks a police officer is entering their home unlawfully. People are going to die,” he said. Rep. Linda Lawson, a Hammond Democrat who has worked as a police officer and has trained other law enforcement officials, said she believes the measure would create an “open season on law enforcement.” She said the measure is opposed by “1,250 state police officers and 14,000 men and women in blue, brown and green.” The bill now returns to the Senate. That chamber could approve it in the form that passed the House, or the House and Senate could have a joint committee try to hash out the differences before sending it back to both chambers for final approval.[/quote] [url=http://www.courierpress.com/news/2012/mar/01/indiana-house-approves-bill-covering-police-enteri/]Source #2[/url] Most importantly [quote]The court ruled that homeowners do not have the right to use force against law enforcement officials who they believe are illegally entering their homes.[/quote]
Yeah if you shoot a cop then his buddies/backup are going to fucking mow you down. This is only going to end disastrously.
[QUOTE=-nesto-;34996660]Then they kill you.[/QUOTE] if they did reach for their gun they would get their head blown off.
This is ridiculous. Why not just have more discipline within the police force so unjustified entry doesn't happen.
[QUOTE=ewitwins;34996713]Yeah if you shoot a cop then his buddies/backup are going to fucking mow you down. This is only going to end disastrously.[/QUOTE] They aren't the mafia. when backup arrives they're going to arrest you but you wont have that much trouble in court though.
[QUOTE=Heroms;34996723]This is ridiculous. Why not just have more discipline within the police force so unjustified entry doesn't happen.[/QUOTE] Shit happens, yo. (unfortunately) Police can sometimes hit the wrong house on a warrant.
[QUOTE=areolop;34996696]More on the topic: [url=http://www.courierpress.com/news/2012/mar/01/indiana-house-approves-bill-covering-police-enteri/]Source #2[/url] Most importantly[/QUOTE] Sure is poor reading comprehension. That was the court's decision last year.
[QUOTE=Heroms;34996748]Sure is poor reading comprehension. That was the court's decision last year.[/QUOTE] It was over-turned so, now anyone who BELIEVES the police are there wrongfully, can use force
[QUOTE=Heroms;34996723]This is ridiculous. Why not just have more discipline within the police force so unjustified entry doesn't happen.[/QUOTE] There are some bad cops out there.
[QUOTE=glennman94;34996666]True, but I think this bill will cause more problems than it solved.[/QUOTE] For the most part it won't. You still have to comply with our self defense law and it won't be Oh you're on my property, get off or I'll shoot you. The only issue I see would be with raids like DoctorSalt said.
[QUOTE=areolop;34996747]Shit happens, yo. (unfortunately) Police can sometimes hit the wrong house on a warrant.[/QUOTE] Who pays for the busted door?
[QUOTE=ultra_bright;34996779]Who pays for the busted door?[/QUOTE] The city
[QUOTE=ultra_bright;34996770]There are some bad cops out there.[/QUOTE] Yeah, so you discipline those cops. Not give them paid leave and make sure they never get prosecuted for their actions. America gives way too much power to the police as it is, letting citizens shoot them under the pretense that they were there unlawfully is as bad. Discipline the police.
If the matter is a mistake, no amount of discipline will stop it from happening again. As a mentioned before, don't resist the police, and maybe add into law an automatic minimum amount of compensation, plus circumstantial compensation (trauma related, collateral damage, whatnot), paid/unpaid leave of police. That sort of thing.
[QUOTE=Heroms;34996808]Yeah, so you discipline those cops. Not give them paid leave and make sure they never get prosecuted for their actions. America gives way too much power to the police as it is, letting citizens shoot them under the pretense that they were there unlawfully is as bad. Discipline the police.[/QUOTE] no, we need to cleanse the streets of these dirty pigs. slaughter them all like animals just to be sure there are no dirty ones left and then we may replace them. a hurrrrr
[QUOTE=Heroms;34996808]Yeah, so you discipline those cops. Not give them paid leave and make sure they never get prosecuted for their actions. America gives way too much power to the police as it is, letting citizens shoot them under the pretense that they were there unlawfully is as bad. Discipline the police.[/QUOTE] I dont see how Disciplining the police will solve anything? We discipline criminals but yet 2/3 of them still wind up back in jail for a repeat offense. Sure you can discipline them but, the bad ones will still be bad.
Sorry, you need to Log In to post a reply to this thread.