Go Back  HuntingNet.com Forums > Non Hunting > Politics
Indiana to allow residents to shoot officers during unlawful entry. >

Indiana to allow residents to shoot officers during unlawful entry.

Politics Nothing goes with politics quite like crying and complaining, and we're a perfect example of that.

Indiana to allow residents to shoot officers during unlawful entry.

Old 06-15-2012, 09:18 AM
  #11  
Typical Buck
 
Sfury's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2011
Location: Wisconsin
Posts: 970
Default

I don't blame the police in that scenario. It sounds like the police tried to contact the guy first, and he did not respond.

This is much like Saddam Hussein, who had WMDs at one point, making things worse by his own actions causing outside forces to react. We are ultimately responsible for our own actions as well.

It's unfortunate the guy died, but he died because of his own actions more than anyone elses. The police should not be charged in a situation like that.

That's different than officers breaking down a door with a no knock warrant at the wrong address and being fired upon.

I've witnessed a no knock warrant being executed. I watched my local SWAT team go into a drug house and arrest a bunch of people. It was fast, they were armed and had vests. Thankfully the LEOs didn't get shot at, nor did they shoot anyone. It took only about ten minutes from start to finish for the raid.

Had it been the wrong address, and a law abiding citizen fired upon the officers there would have been a dead citizen, and maybe a wounded/dead officer.

In the end, there are some scenarios that don't need laws passed for. We just have to live honestly, and the LEOs need to do their jobs as best as they can and if all goes well LEOs won't be entering the wrong home.
Sfury is offline  
Old 06-15-2012, 11:51 AM
  #12  
Giant Nontypical
 
Join Date: Dec 2004
Location: Ohio
Posts: 7,868
Default

Originally Posted by Sfury View Post
I don't blame the police in that scenario. It sounds like the police tried to contact the guy first, and he did not respond.

This is much like Saddam Hussein, who had WMDs at one point, making things worse by his own actions causing outside forces to react. We are ultimately responsible for our own actions as well.

It's unfortunate the guy died, but he died because of his own actions more than anyone Else's. The police should not be charged in a situation like that.

.
I don't know why LE can't be blamed. If society understands a man can protect his own land from an armed invasion without cause they won't show up at the door with armed force. Government has gone down the wrong road so far it doesn't know what it can and can't do anymore, it simply believes it can. It wasn't too long ago people didn't just approach the home of another for fear of being shot, made people more civil.

Saddam's case was never about having WMD's until the US decided to invade. The terms he agreed to were allowing inspections, terms he broke. The consequences for breaking that agreement was invasion, and well known to all involved. Finding WMD's was only a litmus test after the fact for those who sought to destroy the credibility of Bush and company. Saddam refused inspectors and brought on the whole war. The man in the apartment never did anything similar. He was under no probationary discipline. Just a paronoide guy living in his home wanting to be left alone. He never gave anyone legal cause to question him and should've been left alone to die if he wished. LE can be blamed for not understand that basic foundational fact of freedom. They had no legal cause and should've backed off telling the X who was an X, guy wants to be left alone, go pound sand or file a charge. Guy never discharged his firearm, just died holding it, then they pried it from his cold, dead hand. Died proving what he thought about government, so was he just paranoid?

Last edited by nodog; 06-15-2012 at 12:02 PM.
nodog is offline  
Old 06-15-2012, 04:30 PM
  #13  
Typical Buck
 
Sfury's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2011
Location: Wisconsin
Posts: 970
Default

In your scenario, there were many things that could have been done differently to allow a better outcome.

Had friends or family taken away the firearm(s) the person who did point a gun at officers may have used a knife or some other weapon. The officers may have then used tasers instead of their guns.

Had a friend or family member been there with the police, the outcome could have been far different.

Whether a person is mentally competent or not, they still have to take actions to not endanger themselves or others. If they can't make the decisions, then someone has to be with them to make those choices. Think of them as young children in adults bodies at that point.

I still say that your scenario left no room for charges to be brought up against the LEOs.
Sfury is offline  
Old 06-15-2012, 05:15 PM
  #14  
Super Moderator
 
CalHunter's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2003
Location: Northern California
Posts: 16,998
Default

Originally Posted by nodog View Post
Not so worthless, the right to do something means someone can be prosecuted for violating that right. Kill somone inside their home without just cause and your up for murder.
True.

Just recently, a woman requested that LE check up on her X, he hadn't been seen and had a history of mental issues. They knocked on the door to his apartment and after no answer got the manager to unlock the door, it was chained.
By "X," do you mean this was the woman's ex-husband/boyfriend? If so, that would tend to filter how a cop looks at the call for service. Knowing the guy has a history of "mental issues" should have also been a red flag. I would want to know exactly what else the woman told the cops before rushing to some judgement on their actions.

For example, if she told them he was subject to seizures, had a bad heart or gave them some other reason to suspect the "X" might be lying unconscious on the floor and needing 911 medical help, they would have some exigent circumstances (read emergency) to pursue a forced entry. Without exigent circumstances, they shouldn't be forcing an entry.



When they cut the chain and opened to door the man was standing at the end of a hallway with a handgun. They told him to drop it after quickly stepping away from the door. Re entering the man was half the distance closer pointing the weapon. They opened fire killing the man.
See above. Cutting the chain should require some exigent circumstances.

Please correct me if I'm misunderstanding what you've posted. If I understand it correctly, the cops entered, saw a man with a gun and then exited the building? Is this correct? If so, was there any reason to believe anybody else was in the building or in immediate danger from this guy with a gun?

If the cops are
outside and there is nobody else INSIDE the building or in immediate danger from the guy with a gun, the cops should seriously consider just treating the guy like a potential barricaded subject who is armed. Most departments' protocol for that would direct the cops to form a safe perimeter around the building, evacuate anybody who is potentially in harm's way (could be nearby buildings, etc.) and then call for SWAT and a Hostage Negotiator who is trained to talk people like that out of their weapons and into surrendering.

This basic protocol will not stop a person from committing suicide and any family would likely complain that the cops didn't stop their loved one from committing suicide. This protocol does tend to pull the cops back from the situation and hopefully keeps the cops from being forced/threatened into a "suicide by cop." It doesn't work so well if the person decides to immediately point his gun at the cops inside or follow them outside doing the same thing (I'm aware of one such case personally).

The officers were not charged even though the situation before they got there gave them no cause to use deadly force.
Basic protocol would dictate there should have been a thorough investigation which determined whether the cops were justified in using deadly force or not. Do you know of such an investigation?

I think with this law they would be prosecuted along with awards to the X.
That would depend on whether the shooting was determined to be justified or not. Anybody can theoretically sue for anything but a lawyer generally wants a winnable case to file a lawsuit.

The man had a right according to this law to stand his ground in his home, he had done no wrong.
Yes and no. He would have a right to "stand his ground" but he wouldn't have some arbitrary right to begin shooting at the cops simply because they are inside his home.

They had no right according to this law to tell him to drop the weapon.
In general, the cops would have that right if they believed they were in danger.

No, I don't like any of this, nothing but trouble for everybody. Take about stirring a pot of bad blood.
I don't like any of it either. There are simply too many things that are not known from this post that could have a huge effect on whether this situation was handled correctly or not. If the cops think the guy is starting to shoot at them or is shooting at them, they are going to defend themselves. If the guy just starts shooting or pointing his gun at them like he's going to shoot, that would be a poor way of resolving the situation.

I'm not saying the cops are right (or wrong) because there are simply too many questions that I have about the rest of the information in that incident. This is JMHO but I do have a little experience and knowledge in this field.
CalHunter is offline  
Old 06-15-2012, 06:33 PM
  #15  
Fork Horn
 
Join Date: Oct 2008
Location: Arkansas Ozarks
Posts: 325
Default

Originally Posted by CalHunter View Post
I don't like any of it either. There are simply too many things that are not known from this post that could have a huge effect on whether this situation was handled correctly or not. If the cops think the guy is starting to shoot at them or is shooting at them, they are going to defend themselves. If the guy just starts shooting or pointing his gun at them like he's going to shoot, that would be a poor way of resolving the situation.

I'm not saying the cops are right (or wrong) because there are simply too many questions that I have about the rest of the information in that incident. This is JMHO but I do have a little experience and knowledge in this field.
Thank you for bringing some common sense to the thread.
newton29 is offline  
Old 06-15-2012, 09:45 PM
  #16  
Super Moderator
 
CalHunter's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2003
Location: Northern California
Posts: 16,998
Default

Thank you and you're welcome. Each of these incidents has so many individual points that have to be considered in order to determine if they did it right or wrong.
CalHunter is offline  
Old 06-17-2012, 12:09 PM
  #17  
LBR
Boone & Crockett
 
Join Date: Feb 2003
Location: Mississippi USA
Posts: 15,296
Default

There are no turf battles over tobacco and alcohol.
Of course not--that's why there are laws against transporting tobacco and liquor across state lines, generally due to taxes placed on them--because nobody would consider doing such. You can just go to your local indian reservation and buy all the smokes you can load onto your truck, and sell them to your friends, without having to worry about it--right?

Here's a novel idea--just legalize everything. Using hd's line of "logic" (term used very loosely), that would eliminate all crime. Robbery? Go for it. Rape? No problem. Murder? No such thing when it's legal to kill someone for any or no reason whatsoever. Our crime rate would instantly be reduced to zero--when there are no laws to break, there can be no crimes committed. After all, drug legalization has worked out great for Amsterdam, right?
LBR is offline  
Old 06-17-2012, 03:45 PM
  #18  
Giant Nontypical
 
bergall's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2006
Posts: 7,626
Default

HD is addled. He confuses the degradation in the standard of living due to drug addicted felons, with the 'crime rate' which reflects arrests and reported crimes. Each 'bad guy' commits on average 50 crimes before he's arrested for one. Most of those crimes are unreported. So I guess HD has no problem with junkies propositioning his female family members....hitting people up for money on the street.....peeing and crapping in alleys and wherever.....shooting up in his hallway....breaking his car windows to 'go shopping' for what's inside the car.....and of course, undergoing a 'bonk on the head' or a cut to the belly when some desperado wants what he's got. THese are the decline in quality of life that drug addicts inflict on a place where they need to be sneaky, furtive, and inconspicuous. What happens when they get their smack from Obama ? Oh....right.....they lose their jobs, they need money for rent and food and clothing and they first bankrupt social safety nets and then force themselves into your pockets.

Hey HD....I understand that a-hole libs like the idea of no constraints....how do you feel about your kids prostituting for drug money ? Make no mistake about it....whether the smack is legal or not....free or paid for, the quality of life goes down when you become a nation of junkies and when you only live for drugs, you have nothing that is not given to you or taken from someone else. Fool.
bergall is offline  
Old 06-17-2012, 05:35 PM
  #19  
Typical Buck
 
Sfury's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2011
Location: Wisconsin
Posts: 970
Default

HD is right about one thing, the current "war" on drugs has failed.

I don't know if legalizing drugs is the right thing to do, but doing the same thing over and over with no gain makes no sense.
Sfury is offline  
Old 06-17-2012, 05:53 PM
  #20  
Fork Horn
 
Join Date: Aug 2007
Location: Central Indiana
Posts: 201
Default

Folks need to read the link provided by the OP. Nothing has changed here, except for a few libtards that wanted to nit-pick the statutes that have existed here forever.

The title to the thread is false.
batchief909 is offline  

Contact Us - Archive - Advertising - Cookie Policy - Privacy Statement - Terms of Service - Do Not Sell My Personal Information

Copyright 2018 MH Sub I, LLC dba Internet Brands. All rights reserved. Use of this site indicates your consent to the Terms of Use.