Indiana First State to Allow Citizens to Shoot Law Enforcement Officers

[barts]

The basis for this law is,

Police officers in Indiana are upset over a new law allowing residents to use deadly force against public servants, including law enforcement officers, who unlawfully enter their homes. It was signed by Republican Governor Mitch Daniels in March.

The first of its kind in the United States, the law was adopted after the state Supreme Court went too far in one of its rulings last year, according to supporters. The case in question involved a man who assaulted an officer during a domestic violence call. The court ruled that there was “no right to reasonably resist unlawful entry by police officers.”

In my view, this is an important step towards redressing the abuse of the law and the rights of people by police officers, abuses that too frequently lead to the death of innocent people. Citizens must have the right to protect themselves from the police.

In the United States, citizens have "the right...to keep and bear arms." This is exactly what this right should be used for.

[ruksak]

My home state of Indiana has been buzzing since last years supreme court ruling that essentially extended the right for police to enter your home or vehicle whenever they so choose, without the need for a warrant.

The pertinent excerpt from the new law;
(i) A person is justified in using reasonable force against a public servant if the person reasonably believes the force is necessary to:
(1) protect the person or a third person from what the person reasonably believes to be the imminent use of unlawful force;
(2) prevent or terminate the public servant's unlawful entry of or attack on the person's dwelling, curtilage, or occupied motor vehicle; or
(3) prevent or terminate the public servant's unlawful trespass on or criminal interference with property lawfully in the person's possession, lawfully in possession of a member of the person's immediate family, or belonging to a person whose property the person has authority to protect.

This appears to be a Castle Doctrine that applies to use of force against police officers, even in regard to protecting your vehicle.

Though I feel exercising this right may be quite dangerous and citizens should be very very cautious in even thinking of doing so. I feel this is more of a message to police to observe the sanctity of citizens homes and vehicles.

I would never shoot a police officer unless he/she was being very aggressive and extraordinarily threatening. However, I would feel free to slam my door in their face and/or push them away from my threshold if they insisted entry without due cause.

It's a good step but I'm curious how long it will stand? This was clearly in response to a lack of proper language in our law regarding police entry into our homes.

[Angry Citizen]

The basis for this law is,



In my view, this is an important step towards redressing the abuse of the law and the rights of people by police officers, abuses that too frequently lead to the death of innocent people. Citizens must have the right to protect themselves from the police.

In the United States, citizens have "the right...to keep and bear arms." This is exactly what this right should be used for.

Am I correct in assuming that you believe guns should not be used to kill criminals, but should be used to kill police?

I'm somewhat leery about this law. I agree with it in spirit, but I think a lot of innocent cops are going to die as a result of it. The people who abuse it are going to have their lives ruined as well.

[Zeebadee]

If the courts hadn't first ruled that a homeowner had no right to resist unlawful entry by police, this law would never have even been considered. When the courts make stupid rulings, the citizens have every right to step in and mitigate them.

[ruksak]

I'm somewhat leery about this law. I agree with it in spirit, but I think a lot of innocent cops are going to die as a result of it. The people who abuse it are going to have their lives ruined as well.

The key word in the language of this law is "reasonable/reasonably".

I want to focus on the primary of entry into this code;
(i) A person is justified in using reasonable force against a public servant if the person reasonably believes the force is necessary to:
(1) protect the person or a third person from what the person reasonably believes to be the imminent use of unlawful force;

So.....if you witness a 'Rodney King' type beat down, wherein obvious and unlawful excessive force is being implemented, am I right to say that the law says I can open fire to protect the victim?

That is what this law says, correct? Is that reasonable? I mean to say, I can't reasonably walk up and start giving them orders or punching and wrestling with them, they'd tear me apart. So is it reasonable force to choose to open fire to stop the assault by police?

As AC said, I like the spirit of the law but to what capacity does a civilian really have to intervene with what would essentially be an entire force of armed (and armored) trained "soldiers"?

If a cop was harassing you at your doorstep and you told him to get off your property, he kicked your door in and you shoot him.....that sounds like you've just committed to your own death sentence to be carried out on the spot.

[ruksak]

http://www.fop.net/servlet/display/n...ocache=9607731

News Item:
Indiana's New "Right to Resist" Law Worries Police
04/05/2012
Public's confusion over what is allowed will endanger cops, they say.

INDIANA — Gov. Mitch Daniels is warning Hoosiers that a new Indiana law meant to protect citizens from an illegal intrusion by police is no green light to resist law enforcement.

Police, though, fear it will lead to just that.

The law, passed by lawmakers who were outraged by a controversial Indiana Supreme Court decision, allows people to resist police, including with deadly force, but only if police are acting illegally.

Under the new law, people can resist if they reasonably think police are illegally entering their home or car and force is the only way to protect themselves or someone else from harm. Even then, there is no right to resist if the citizen was the aggressor or was committing a crime, and the citizen must first try to cool things down by withdrawing from the encounter with the police.

Sound confusing?

That is exactly what worries police.

William Owensby, president of Indianapolis Fraternal Order of Police Lodge 86, said the problem will be the public perception. He doubted that many people will take the time to read the new law and understand what they can and cannot do in a confrontation with police.

Tim Downs, president of the state Fraternal Order of Police, feared some people will hear only the "right to resist" part of the law and not all of the ifs, ands or buts explaining that that right applies only to the rare cases of a rogue officer.

"There's an element of society out there that doesn't have a lot of use for the police to begin with," he said. "They're going to view this as an avenue for them to go after us."

Daniels, who signed Senate Enrolled Act 1 into law Tuesday evening, tried to address those concerns in a statement issued Wednesday.

"The right thing to do is cooperate with (police) in every way possible," Daniels said. "This law is not an invitation to use violence or force against law enforcement officers. In fact, it restricts when an individual can use force, specifically deadly force, so don't try anything."

Daniels met with supporters and opponents of the new law, including Downs, and said he concluded that "contrary to some impressions, the bill strengthens the protection of Indiana law enforcement by narrowing the situations in which someone would be justified in using force against them."

The new law, which takes effect immediately, "clarifies the current requirement that a person reasonably believe the law enforcement officer is acting unlawfully," Daniels said, and adds a new requirement that the force "must be reasonably necessary to prevent serious bodily injury to the citizen."

Unless the citizen is convinced that the officer acted unlawfully, "he cannot use any force of any kind."

"In the real world," Daniels said, "there will almost never be a situation in which these extremely narrow conditions are met."

Still, the fears that some people may perceive the law as a license to defy police are strong enough that the Indiana State Police followed up Daniels' statement with its own.

"This law may be misunderstood by the public," State Police Capt. Dave Bursten said. "My biggest fear is a homeowner, in the heat of the moment, will think an officer is entering their home illegally, when in fact the officer has every legal right to enter the home… . The bottom line is rash decisions can have devastating, life-altering consequences."

In fact, the Supreme Court case that led to the law, Barnes v. Indiana, involved a Vanderburgh County domestic violence complaint. The police there were acting legally, within the scope of their duties, when they responded and arrested a man when he shoved police as they entered an apartment.

In its 3-2 decision in May, the court more broadly discussed the issue of resisting police and found that "allowing resistance unnecessarily escalates the level of violence and therefore the risk of injuries to all parties involved without preventing the arrest."

That sparked outrage from conservatives and liberals who felt that it overturned centuries of common law that viewed a man's home as his castle, as well as the U.S. Constitution's Fourth Amendment protections against unreasonable search and seizure.

The court, facing death threats as well as calls by lawmakers and by Indiana Attorney General Greg Zoeller to rethink the case, issued a 4-1 opinion in September, clarifying that the Fourth Amendment protections remained.

"Our earlier opinion was not intended to, and did not, change that existing law about the right of people to be secure in their persons, houses and papers against unreasonable searches and seizures," wrote Justice Steven David, who also had written the initial opinion.

State Rep. Jud McMillin, a Brookville Republican who was one of the bill's chief sponsors, said he believed the fact that the original case involved police acting legally, while the opinion also discussed police acting illegally, started the confusion that persists.

He said the law tries to balance the needs of police and citizens.

Under the new law, he said, "before anybody uses any type of force against a law enforcement officer, they have to try to extricate themselves."

"They have to try to get away," he said. "They have to try to retreat. It's designed to hopefully alleviate the problem of decisions made in the heat of the moment."

Downs, the FOP president, said police will explore "every option" to change the law, including asking legislators to revisit this issue in future sessions.

"We are not giving it up, I'll tell you that."

How the new law works

Senate Enrolled Act 1 was signed into law by Gov. Mitch Daniels late Tuesday.

Under the law, people are justified in using "reasonable" force against law enforcement if they "reasonably" believe it is necessary to:

•Protect themselves or someone else from the imminent use of unlawful force.

•Prevent or stop the unlawful entry or attack on their home or occupied car.

•Prevent or stop an unlawful trespass or criminal interference by police of their property.

People are justified in using "deadly force" if:

•They reasonably believe the police are acting unlawfully and outside the scope of their public duties.

•The force is necessary to prevent serious bodily injury to themselves or someone else.

•People are not justified in using force against police if they:

•Are escaping after committing a crime.

•Provoked law enforcement with intent to cause serious bodily harm to the police.

•Were the initial aggressor or entered into combat without first trying to withdraw from the encounter.

•Reasonably believe or reasonably should know that the police are acting lawfully.

[Angry Citizen]

The key word in the language of this law is "reasonable/reasonably".

Yes, I'm aware, but who decides "reasonable/reasonably"? A person about to get his ass arrested. Like the saying goes, in prison, everyone is innocent.

[ruksak]

Yes, I'm aware, but who decides "reasonable/reasonably"? A person about to get his ass arrested. Like the saying goes, in prison, everyone is innocent.

I didn't intend to aim that at you. I only meant that the use of "reasonable" in this document seems quite innocuous. An officer would have to be going to quite an extreme for me to even think of doing something forceful against him. Not out of concern for the officer, but rather, out of concern for consequence.

If you think a cop is acting illegally, it seems best to record it and file a report later. I think legislation holding officers to a higher degree of accountability seems more appropriate than this "Right To Resist" law.

[barts]

Am I correct in assuming that you believe guns should not be used to kill criminals, but should be used to kill police?

I'm somewhat leery about this law. I agree with it in spirit, but I think a lot of innocent cops are going to die as a result of it. The people who abuse it are going to have their lives ruined as well.

If necessary to protect lives, I believe that guns should be used to kill criminals even if they are the police.

Will a lot of innocent cops die because of the law? Perhaps. Just like a lot of innocent people are killed by cops.

[Dieval]

Just like a lot of innocent people are killed by cops.

What is your definition of "a lot"?

[Angry Citizen]

I agree, ruksak. I think anyonr convicted of police brutality or abuse of power should be sentenced to life in prison. There is very little more evil than using your authority maliciously.

[ironeagle]

I LOVE this law! It's not only smart and CONSTITUTIONAL but it's about friken time the cops leanred they aren't God and can't just do whatever they want to to people. These criminals have been makinf unlawful arrests, shooting innocent people over nothing, and making warrantless searches and seazures for decades! Serves them all right, now perhaps the power trippers on steroids will think twice before breaking and entering under color of law!!!!!!!!! GO INDIANA!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!