Indiana First State to Allow Citizens to Shoot Law Enforcement Officers

[Streck-Fu]

It is important to understand that this is a reaction to a ruling by the state supreme court that a citizen has not right to resist an officer entering illegally.

[plato]

Originally Posted by GratefulCitizen

The idiot could have a friend call in some sort of a fake emergency from a burner phone while the idiot lies in wait at home.

Strong chance that the population will lose another idiot.

[Dozer523]

Originally Posted by Sarski

So, one in Indiana can shoot an LEO for unlawful entry, but with a warrant, no knock or other, that same person faces attempted or capital murder charge.

IMO this changes nothing.

The Warrant negates the illegal aspect of the legislation. Changes nothing is right. I'll even go so far as to opine there is no such thing as an illegal warrant.

[Streck-Fu]

Originally Posted by Dozer523

The Warrant negates the illegal aspect of the legislation. Changes nothing is right.

I disagree.

This does change things.

If an officer is entering legally, there is no protection for an occupant resisting that entry. That has not changed as long as the officer has done everything correctly.

What HAS changed is when an officer attempts an illegal entry and the occupant knows it to be illegal, it puts in place legal protections for resisting the illegal entry. This protects home owners in cases when the police get the wrong address, fail to verify an address, or are pursuing a suspect and just start kicking down doors in a search, etc.

[Hand]

Originally Posted by Streck-Fu

I disagree.

This does change things.

If an officer is entering legally, there is no protection for an occupant resisting that entry. That has not changed as long as the officer has done everything correctly.

What HAS changed is when an officer attempts an illegal entry and the occupant knows it to be illegal, it puts in place legal protections for resisting the illegal entry. This protects home owners in cases when the police get the wrong address, fail to verify an address, or are pursuing a suspect and just start kicking down doors in a search, etc.

Given all the different federal and state level organizations that now have SWAT teams (IRS, EPA etc), how the hell are we ever to know if we are being SWATTed for tax evasion, for not cleaning out our drainage ditch or for not returning a book to the library? In other words, one of these damn organizations can surely come up with something you are in violation of after the fact.

[Dozer523]

Originally Posted by Streck-Fu

I disagree.

This does change things.

If an officer is entering legally, there is no protection for an occupant resisting that entry. That has not changed as long as the officer has done everything correctly.

What HAS changed is when an officer attempts an illegal entry and the occupant knows it to be illegal, it puts in place legal protections for resisting the illegal entry. This protects home owners in cases when the police get the wrong address, fail to verify an address, or are pursuing a suspect and just start kicking down doors in a search, etc.

Well . . . I disagree right backatchoo
Attempting to serve a warrant to the wrong door doesn't make the warrant illegal. And it is unreasonable to react with gunfire to a knock on the door accompanied by the phrase, "Police, we have a warrant. Open the door." Even if it is the wrong door How ya gonna know til later anyway? As a general rule most people upon hearing that will probably open the door with a "okay, but . . . "
Nobody gets a freebie to shoot just cause "No way that warrant can really be for me (So a law abiding citizen is going to go all "Come and get me Copper"? I don't think so.) IMHO this most definately does not authorize the killing of a police officer who's only "crime" is to be land navigationally challenged.
I sort of invision something like the scene in Training Day when Denzel uses the church bullitin to gain access so he can rip of the bad guy. And we all know how that movie ended . . .

[Streck-Fu]

Originally Posted by Dozer523

Well . . . I disagree right backatchoo
Attempting to serve a warrant to the wrong door doesn't make the warrant illegal. .

The warrant may be legal but if issued for 123 Main St and they kick the door down at 125 Main St, that would be an illegal search of the property at 125.

Oops, sorry that we destroyed your front door and shot your barking dog. Do you know if you neighbor is home by chance?

Yes, it happens often enough to be a legitimate problem.

IMHO this most definately does not authorize the killing of a police officer who's only "crime" is to be land navigationally challenged.

What about when the police kill the innocent occupant of the house they entered becasue they were land navigationally challenged? Rarely are there consequences for the offending officers.

And, again, this is less about resisting police issuing warrants and more about affirming the rights of citizens. The State Suprememe Court specifically wrote that a citizen has "no right to resist...." Is that acceptable to you?

[tonyz]

As I understand things - in Indiana during an unlawful entry - citizens had limited or no protection prior to this legislation.

Post legislation - citizens can lawfully resist an unlawful entry into their residence...

Now, at least in the case of an UNLAWFUL entry a citizen who happens to wake up to his front door being caved in, and grabs the handgun on the nightstand, (The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized) and wanders down the hall and is shot during an UNLAWFUL entry, has some rights and probally won't be prosecuted for brandishing. And, if he is, he might now have a defense.

Originally Posted by TXGringo

I don't see much good in this. IMHO, this is just incentive for criminals to put up a fight instead of standing down. Defense lawyers will take every advantage of this that they can...

A criminal will not see the law as an obstacle to his wrongdoings regardless of that law.
I can't talk about civilian law enforcement, provided that I operate in the military side of the house, namely naval law enforcement.
That being said, no knock entries and any other course of action based on exigent circumstances should always be carefully employed in order not to cross the line between doing one's job and treading on a person's constitutional rights.
A supa troopa cop acting on his own ego-driven agenda will inevitably put himself in harm's way, law or no law. I'm in favour of the aforementioned law, since it will definitely make the supa troopaz think twice before they illegally enter somebody's place of abode.

[Russell270]

As a former LEO I served numerous search warrants and entered countless homes. The problem that I see with this law is that most people have no idea why the police entered their home until after all of the occupants had been secured. Most of the time all the occupants are secured without any physical force and the ones that did resist were usually the criminal we were after. I have conducted search warrants on homes of soldiers and LEO's to go after a 18-21 year old living in the residence that had been involved in criminal activity. The parents were clueless to the crimes that their child had been committing but we could not be sure of that so all parties were treated as possible threats until we secured the residence. It would have been terrible if one of the innocent parents had started shooting at the police and had turned the house into a war zone. Rarely a door is kicked in by a swat team that turns out to be a wrong house. LEO's are human it can happen. Sometimes it is something as minor as a typo or a swat guy went to the wrong side of a duplex. It is a mistake and when that happens the department fixes any damages to the property, makes a public apology and normally pays some restitution to the family. The department conducts an investigation to ensure it was an accident. I agree that there are bad cops out there as there are in any proffession. Every bad cop that I have ever met has been criminally charged and I am glad they were. It would be terrible for people to believe that every cop coming into their house should be shot at. Just my two cents.

[Destrier]

To me, the sound of breaking glass and a door being kicked down in the middle of the night sounds like a home invasion. In many reported incidents the invaders yelled, "police' as a method to overcome resistance quickly.

Since I am not out breaking laws the odds of a police no knock entry is damn slim if non existent.

On the off hand chance law enforcement got the address wrong and entered my home at 3am with a no knock..

You can bet my initial response would be as if I had a home invasion or another break in.

My rights should be protected if someone gets hurt and they are in the wrong by being in the wrong place wrong time wrong reason.

No one wants to see LEO's get hurt in pursuit of their duties. But I "john Q public" expect law enforcement to be 'very' certain when exercising a warrant. It should never be a fishing expedition hoping to find a bad guy.



From dozer ' "Police, we have a warrant. Open the door." Even if it is the wrong door How ya gonna know til later anyway? As a general rule most people upon hearing that will probably open the door with a "okay, but . . . "

I would tell them to hang on till my lawyer gets here. If they have not broken the door down. And I know it is the wrong door because I do not run around breaking laws. I bet allot of German citizens wish they had had the 4th Amendment before World War 2.

But I am not a LEO, just a guy in the middle of nowhere America with children to protect.

[Streck-Fu]

This sums it up very well.

LINK

Print|Email
Restoring the Right of Self-Defense Is Not a License to Kill Cops


Former Reason writer Radley Balko notes that various news outlets are misrepresenting recent changes to Indiana's self-defense law as a license to kill cops. As Balko explains, the legislation, which Gov. Mitch Daniels signed last week, merely restores a common-law right that residents of the state had until last year, when the Indiana Supreme Court declared "there is no right to reasonably resist unlawful entry by police officers." As I pointed out at the time, that conclusion was completely unnecessary for resolving the case, which involved a domestic dispute where a woman called 911. She wanted the police to enter the apartment she shared with her husband, while he tried to stop them. Even if the officers did not have a resident's consent, the situation was such that the court could have concluded "exigent circumstances" justified their entry. Instead the court decided to nullify a principle of common law that is centuries old and arguably dates back to the Magna Carta because it considered this right of self-defense outmoded and apt to encourage violence.

As a result of that decision, the only option for someone confronted by a police officer's unlawful violence was to sit and take it, then challenge the trespass or other crime after the fact. This legally required passiviity applied not only to cases of mistaken searches (such as the Cory Maye case in Mississippi, chronicled by Balko) but even to cases where cops knowingly break the law: A cop burglar or cop rapist could not be lawfully resisted, although he could be prosecuted after the fact.

Now that the right to reasonably resist police trespasses has been restored in Indiana, anyone using that defense still must show that his actions (including the level of force used as well as the decision to use force) were reasonable in the circumstances, as a defendant would have to show in any other case involving a claim of self-defense. As Mark Rutherford, chairman of the Indiana Public Defender Commission, tells Balko, the amendment "really just puts police officers on the same level as everyone else."

[Streck-Fu]

It would have been terrible if one of the innocent parents had started shooting at the police and had turned the house into a war zone.

That would be terrible. Maybe there are better ways to go about capturing someone than breaking down the door to the home of unsuspecting people that may put up a defense.

Rarely a door is kicked in by a swat team that turns out to be a wrong house.

Quite probably your experience but with the proliferation of SWAT teams throughout the US, especially into smaller communities, it is becomeing more common.

[Rhod7520]

Originally Posted by Ghost_Team

Granted, I'm not an LEO, but my understanding of a "no knock" warrant is just that - you just go in.

That being said (and correct me if I am wrong) but it would seem to me that a no knock warrant would open you up to being shot as soon as you walk in the door.

I'm no fan of those few police who hide behind their badge on a power trip, but this just reeks of bad things to come.

Agreed.

Originally Posted by alelks

I'm with Pete on this one. There is and never will be a reason for any law enforcement officer to tactically enter my home. If they do they suffer the consequences.

Exactly. There is no reason for my front (or back) door to come flying off it's hinges. I despise rhetoric following the line of "well I have nothing to hide, so what's the big deal?" Well, I have nothing to hide, because I have done nothing wrong, and therefore the police have no justifiable business occupying my private spaces, (be it residence, vehicle, pockets, anal cavity...)

No knock warrants open you up (as an LEO) to being shot anyway. That is why they wear body armor during these events. That being said, a google search will turn up a multitude of cases where no knock warrants resulted in gross abuses, needlessly put innocent civilians in harms way, or has been mentioned already, were served to the wrong address. Oops. This Law does not present a problem to no knock warrants. I say no knock warrants were a problem to begin with. We have given up too much on behalf of being protected from drug crime and such.

[Pericles]

I'm just not willing to be collateral damage in someone's war on whatever.

The purpose of my military service was to ensure our citizens (and I happen to be one) have the freedoms articulated by our Constitution, and if our Constitution inspires others to demand likewise from their governments, so much the better.

Equal justice under law - what a quaint notion.