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 06-12-2012, 08:36 PM
  #1  
Boone & Crockett
Thread Starter
 
bigbulls's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2003
Posts: 10,679
Default Indiana to allow residents to shoot officers during unlawful entry.

Guess the cops in Indiana had better make sure they have the correct house before busting down a door in Indiana.

http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2012-0...on-police.html
bigbulls is offline  
Old 06-13-2012, 04:48 AM
  #2  
Typical Buck
 
Sfury's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2011
Location: Wisconsin
Posts: 970
Default

If armed people enter your house, you have always had the right to shoot them. Just because someone bursting into your house shouts police, it does not mean they are actually police.

If the police are breaking down your door by mistake, and you respond aggressively, will you have enough firepower to take them all down? That's the important question.

The fact that someone wants to pass a law making it "legal" just shows how stupid they are. Most states home defense laws would make it a justifiable shooting scenario for the residents of the property.

More worthless laws. Just what we don't need.
Sfury is offline  
Old 06-13-2012, 07:15 AM
  #3  
Dominant Buck
 
burniegoeasily's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2003
Location: land of the Lilliputians, In the state of insanity
Posts: 26,274
Default

Wonder if this holds true for states under the Castle doctrine?
burniegoeasily is offline  
Old 06-13-2012, 09:01 PM
  #4  
Super Moderator
 
CalHunter's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2003
Location: Northern California
Posts: 16,998
Default

I see a lot of problems with this on both sides but will have to wait until tomorrow to comment due to time limits.
CalHunter is offline  
Old 06-14-2012, 05:21 AM
  #5  
Super Moderator
 
CalHunter's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2003
Location: Northern California
Posts: 16,998
Default

OK, I've read this article and am still confused about what the exact goal of the author (state Senator R. Michael young) is with this bill (now law). He provides the hypothetical situation of a police officer raping a person's wife or daughter as the reason for the law which is pointless. A policeman or anybody else committing a rape is committing a serious and violent crime and is subject to arrest and any force needed to make such an arrest by anybody. Being a cop does not place one above the law or give one immunity from committing such crimes.

Cops in Indiana will adjust their tactics due to this law and it may results in less building or home entries to effect arrests. So be it. Such adjustment occurs all the time with new laws, case law and just plain figuring out that some tactic can be improved upon.

Indiana may have a good reason for needing to make such a law but they should articulate it a LOT better. What was provided in the article does not mange to accomplish that.

And last, but certainly not least, I'm a lifetime NRA member. No, I'm not going to resign my membership but I am seriously considering emailing or writing to Wayne about this issue. I'm all for increasing citizen's gun rights and think there are a lot of gun laws that should be rescinded. There may be a logical and persuasive explanation for NRA support of this bill. Unfortunately, that isn't explained in the article because the NRA rep wouldn't return calls or comment. Such a refusal to answer simple questions in an article is pretty lame. The NRA needs to step up its' game if it hopes to persuade people to support this type of legislation, not hide behind an answering machine or secretary.
CalHunter is offline  
Old 06-14-2012, 06:10 AM
  #6  
Little Doe Peep
 
sachiko's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2007
Location: Japan
Posts: 14,929
Smile

It seems as though anytime citizen gun rights are extended, you can find a cop or two to complain that it puts them in danger.

I think before coming to a conclusion about this law, one would have to read it and the court decision that inspired its passage.

I know there seems to be a lot of, perhaps deliberate, misinformation about the so-called stand your ground law, which really just removes the duty to retreat.



May The Sheep Be With You
sachiko is offline  
Old 06-14-2012, 06:41 AM
  #7  
Super Moderator
 
CalHunter's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2003
Location: Northern California
Posts: 16,998
Default

I have to run for work but. In a general sense, cops are supposed to be making an entry to arrest somebody or at minimum conduct a search authorized by a warrant from a judge. Their job and focus is hopefully to NOT use deadly force to effect the arrest, search, etc.

The citizen who thinks that armed people are illegally entering his home is more likely than not going to use deadly force to protect him/herself and their family.

If the cops enter the wrong home, make an illegal arrest, etc., there is a remedy through the federal courts and one that can imprison cops if they acted with deliberate malice, indifference, etc.

If the citizen makes a mistake and uses deadly force against cops who are entering his/her house, the cop(s) are likely going to be dead. Yes, their families can use the same federal court process but they're still dead.

Most states and I believe the fed require citizens to submit to "lawful arrests." The rest of the issue can be decided, reversed, etc. in court. The general idea is to reduce the potential for gunfire and people possibly being killed in the process.

Perhaps Indiana's law preserves this concept--I just didn't see it in the article which was admittedly semi-skimpy on actual parts of the law.

And yes, you are going to find a cop or 2 that have concerns about such a law. From personal experience, I prefer to keep things at a lower level where all parties are not using deadly force. Courts and attorneys actually do a very good job of sorting things out in a legal and safer manner afterwards. Yes, there are exceptions but they are just that--isolated exceptions.
CalHunter is offline  
Old 06-14-2012, 06:42 AM
  #8  
Boone & Crockett
 
The Rev's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2005
Location: Burleson Texas
Posts: 12,558
Default

This can sure turn into a can of worms, QUICK!
The Rev is offline  
Old 06-14-2012, 07:04 AM
  #9  
LBR
Boone & Crockett
 
Join Date: Feb 2003
Location: Mississippi USA
Posts: 15,296
Default

This can sure turn into a can of worms, QUICK!
Looks that way. I wonder how much of this law was based on actual incidence, how much input was allowed from LEO's with actual experience, and how much of it was based on nothing but pointy heads who's only experience in law enforcement was what they had read or watched on television......

IMO it's shutting the henhouse door after the fox has made his rounds to wait until there are dead cops and let lawyers try to sort it out.
LBR is offline  
Old 06-15-2012, 02:40 AM
  #10  
Giant Nontypical
 
Join Date: Dec 2004
Location: Ohio
Posts: 7,868
Default

Originally Posted by Sfury View Post
If armed people enter your house, you have always had the right to shoot them. Just because someone bursting into your house shouts police, it does not mean they are actually police.

If the police are breaking down your door by mistake, and you respond aggressively, will you have enough firepower to take them all down? That's the important question.

The fact that someone wants to pass a law making it "legal" just shows how stupid they are. Most states home defense laws would make it a justifiable shooting scenario for the residents of the property.

More worthless laws. Just what we don't need.
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.

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. 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. The officers were not charged even though the situation before they got there gave them no cause to use deadly force. I think with this law they would be prosecuted along with awards to the X. The man had a right according to this law to stand his ground in his home, he had done no wrong. They had no right according to this law to tell him to drop the weapon.

No, I don't like any of this, nothing but trouble for everybody. Take about stirring a pot of bad blood.
nodog 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.