Indiana First State to Allow Citizens to Shoot Law Enforcement Officers

[koz]

This will be interesting to see how it plays out.

-------

http://www.allgov.com/Top_Stories/Vi...fficers_120611

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.”

The National Rifle Association lobbied for the new law, arguing that the court decision had legalized police to commit unjustified entries.

Tim Downs, president of the Indiana State Fraternal Order of Police, which opposed the legislation, said the law could open the way for people who are under the influence or emotionally distressed to attack officers in their homes.

“It’s just a recipe for disaster,” Downs told Bloomberg. “It just puts a bounty on our heads.”

[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.

[Pete]

Originally Posted by koz

......“It’s just a recipe for disaster,” Downs told Bloomberg. “It just puts a bounty on our heads.”

Excuse me Mr Downs, did I just here you right? Bounty?

How about just follow the law.

You seem to put a bounty on everyone on the other side of the door your SWAT Team just kicked in - regardless of if it's the right door or not.

How about just follow the law.

While most of the focus appears to be on no-knock entry - the gist of the new law is that having a badge is no excuse for breaking the law - however you do it. A person doing nothing wrong and is assaulted has a right to defend themselves. So some off duty LEO wants to puff himself up in a bar and flash his badge and start slapping people around. This law comes down on the side of the victim of the assault.

[alelks]

Originally Posted by Pete

Excuse me Mr Downs, did I just here you right? Bounty?

How about just follow the law.

You seem to put a bounty on everyone on the other side of the door your SWAT Team just kicked in - regardless of if it's the right door or not.

How about just follow the law.

While most of the focus appears to be on no-knock entry - the gist of the new law is that having a badge is no excuse for breaking the law - however you do it. A person doing nothing wrong and is assaulted has a right to defend themselves. So some off duty LEO wants to puff himself up in a bar and flash his badge and start slapping people around. This law comes down on the side of the victim of the assault.

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.

[airbornediver]

ditto.

[PRB]

Uh huh, that bounty deal is a tad dramatic....

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. For a no knock, that individual will not have any idea (hopefully) they are being served. And the types of folks who have these warrants served on them probably don't really care about laws to begin with. The risk level for LEOs remains the same regardless of any laws. And going in, those LEOs still have to assume the target is hot and weapons can/will be used against them until all persons and weapons are secure, and clear. IMO this changes nothing.

[Pete]

I think everybody needs to step back and not focus so much no-knock entry.

This is more to the standing at the door having a conversation and "Can we come in?" "Do you have a search warrant?" "No" "No" "We're comming in anyway." Fight on.

Before - after the owner was thumped around, smashed in the yard a few times, bounced off the side of the car, "Yeah, he tripped", charged and then released with a court date.

Now somebody is going to question the cops a little more.

The owner is still going to get thumped.

[tonyz]

An unintended consequence of this law prolly puts a damper on home invaders posing as cops...at least in Indiana.

[AngelsSix]

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.

The 'no knock' warrants are normally high risk regardless. Someone is going to try to shoot you when you go in the door, the point is to gain the tactical advantage and bea them to the drugs they are trying to hide or the guns they are going to shoot at you with.

This law doesn't make much sense to me personally, because anyone who enters my home uninvited is getting shot. Period. So who here is going to ask the LEO barging into their house if they are there legally?

[GratefulCitizen]

Nobody is above the law and I support the idea of this law.
That being said, there is the potential for problems.

Some idiot with a chip on his shoulder may try to "set up" an ambiguous circumstance.
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.

[Hand]

Originally Posted by GratefulCitizen

Nobody is above the law and I support the idea of this law.
That being said, there is the potential for problems.

Some idiot with a chip on his shoulder may try to "set up" an ambiguous circumstance.
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.

Like these? http://m.washingtontimes.com/blog/wa...tigation-blog/

[tonyz]

Legislative summary and text of bill in this link:

http://legiscan.com/gaits/view/347918

As an aside - IMO - a no-knock warrant should be somewhat difficult to obtain - if this law forces authorities to quadruple or quintuple check it may serve a purpose.

"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."

[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...

[greenberetTFS]

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.

I'm with Al and Pete on this one also........

Big Teddy