PDA

View Full Version : Indiana : Citizens can use deadly force against Police who unlawfully enter your home



Dolphins9954
06-12-2012, 01:57 PM
Police officers in Indiana are upset over a new law (http://www.in.gov/legislative/bills/2012/SE/SE0001.1.html) 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 (http://home.nra.org/#/nraorg) 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 (http://www.instatefop.org/), 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.

Its just a recipe for disaster, Downs told Bloomberg. It just puts a bounty on our heads.


http://www.allgov.com/Top_Stories/ViewNews/Indiana_First_State_to_Allow_Citizens_to_Shoot_Law_Enforcement_Officers_120611


Sounds good to me.

Gonzo
06-12-2012, 02:07 PM
You know what could have prevented this? Doing their jobs right and NOT illegally entering homes.

Dolphins9954
06-12-2012, 02:11 PM
You know what could have prevented this? Doing their jobs right and NOT illegally entering homes.

I was thinking the same thing. Of course police won't like this law but for me it's quite simple. Respect the 4th amendment, people's property and follow the law.

Gonzo
06-12-2012, 06:00 PM
I was thinking the same thing. Of course police won't like this law but for me it's quite simple. Respect the 4th amendment, people's property and follow the law.
It's one of the things that is meant to separate us from the iron-fisted, police-state totalitarian nations we're supposed to hate so much. The police must always be kept in check. They're far too easily corrupted by their own power because it doesn't take many of them to shift the balance. That being said, the majority of cops are great. It's the few that let the power go to their heads and lead them to believe they are above the very law they're sworn to protect that are the problem.

phinfan3411
06-12-2012, 06:10 PM
It's one of the things that is meant to separate us from the iron-fisted, police-state totalitarian nations we're supposed to hate so much. The police must always be kept in check. They're far too easily corrupted by their own power because it doesn't take many of them to shift the balance. That being said, the majority of cops are great. It's the few that let the power go to their heads and lead them to believe they are above the very law they're sworn to protect that are the problem.

Could not agree more, well maybe, i am not sure there are as many great cops as you...but then again i work with a ex NYCP everyday, and i have heard all the stories.

Gonzo
06-12-2012, 09:11 PM
Could not agree more, well maybe, i am not sure there are as many great cops as you...but then again i work with a ex NYCP everyday, and i have heard all the stories.

I think the problem is that the bad ones stand out so much more (especially to other cops), and rightly so. They need to be exposed.

Dolphins9954
06-12-2012, 11:01 PM
The war on drugs along with things like the Patriot Act and all these warrantless searches has pretty much decimated the 4th amendment. Government has no respect whatsoever about our privacy or property. Laws like this are only reaffirming what the essense of the 4th amendment is. With so much government overreach and violations of our liberties it's good to see a win every now and then.

Dolphins9954
06-12-2012, 11:06 PM
I think the problem is that the bad ones stand out so much more (especially to other cops), and rightly so. They need to be exposed.

I've had exp. with both. Unfortunately it was the bad one first which left a bad taste in my mouth for awhile. As I got older and had kids I meet a Sheriff Deputy where I live through cup scouts. And he was properly the most honest and stand-up guy I ever came across and a man to admire. Salt of the Earth. He definitely changed my views. For me I look at the laws and policies that has these cops doing things they shouldn't be doing like the War On Drugs and other BS that has created a lot of resentment toward police.

WSE
06-13-2012, 12:02 AM
its a stupid law because force is being used before it is determined whether entry was lawful or not.

Whether entry was lawful or not a lot of times is decided well after the fact, including court.

[edit] to differentiate this from "reasonable force" or "self defense", that is according to the person who fires the weapon. Their reasonable beleif. A law like this makes the justification on the shooting dependant on the lawfulness of the officers, which is hard to determine at a given time and hard for citizens who do not have all the information to determine at all, and the weapon would be fired before a final determination of that- its a dangerous law.

GoonBoss
06-13-2012, 12:33 AM
I'm fine with it.

Get your **** right, and you don't have these problems.

Dolphins9954
06-13-2012, 08:22 AM
its a stupid law because force is being used before it is determined whether entry was lawful or not.

Whether entry was lawful or not a lot of times is decided well after the fact, including court.

[edit] to differentiate this from "reasonable force" or "self defense", that is according to the person who fires the weapon. Their reasonable beleif. A law like this makes the justification on the shooting dependant on the lawfulness of the officers, which is hard to determine at a given time and hard for citizens who do not have all the information to determine at all, and the weapon would be fired before a final determination of that- its a dangerous law.

So we should be good citizens a let the government unlawfully enter our homes and hope maybe one day the courts will hear our case? BS. I prefer the 4th amendment.

Gonzo
06-13-2012, 08:41 AM
So we should be good citizens a let the government unlawfully enter our homes and hope maybe one day the courts will hear our case? BS. I prefer the 4th amendment.

And when they finally do after nearly a year has passed, you then have to hope that the court will consider your statement over a uniformed officer that will clearly have no issue with lying, considering they have already shown that they have no problem being corrupt and entering your house in the first place.

That being said, in the end, all this law is going to do is get the other overturned and maybe a middle-ground law made. One side creates an extreme law and the other reacts with an extreme law to counter it in order to force a review. In the end, cops will probably be entering houses illegally. They just better hope the owner doesn't know about his rights.

LANGER72
06-13-2012, 10:14 AM
It makes the police think twice about entering homes under flimsy suspicion. The problem is that police are wearing vest, carrying assault rifles, gas and street sweepers and ready for combat before they enter. The citizens will fire and the police will just rain lead on them.
In theory, I like the ruling because we have our rights, but in a practical sense, there will be more death on both sides when these types of mistakes or rambo tactics are made.
A more sensible approach would be tighter regulation on police entry coupled with a citizens right to defend their property. A search warrant, signed by a judge, must be issued in all cases when private property or land is entered.

WSE
06-13-2012, 01:44 PM
So we should be good citizens a let the government unlawfully enter our homes and hope maybe one day the courts will hear our case? BS. I prefer the 4th amendment.

With police, they don't need express homeowner approval to enter a property as long as they have approval from a different appropriate source.

Lets say a call comes into 911 with a neighbor reporting a violent domestic violence disturbance at your home. Let's say it's completely false. Police enter your residence without your permission but they had the right to given the report of a currently violent situation.

You as a homeowner have no idea of the 911 call and to you it's unlawful entry. Can you shoot?

To me, this should be a no. Homeowners do not know the independent justifications for entry when they would be making their decision to shoot.

So for you question, my answer is yes. It's like getting arrested. You do not challeng it with violence at the time even if you beleive you were arrested wrongfully. You challenge it in court in a non violent and civically acceptable way.

LANGER72
06-13-2012, 02:59 PM
With police, they don't need express homeowner approval to enter a property as long as they have approval from a different appropriate source.

Lets say a call comes into 911 with a neighbor reporting a violent domestic violence disturbance at your home. Let's say it's completely false. Police enter your residence without your permission but they had the right to given the report of a currently violent situation.

You as a homeowner have no idea of the 911 call and to you it's unlawful entry. Can you shoot?

To me, this should be a no. Homeowners do not know the independent justifications for entry when they would be making their decision to shoot.

So for you question, my answer is yes. It's like getting arrested. You do not challeng it with violence at the time even if you beleive you were arrested wrongfully. You challenge it in court in a non violent and civically acceptable way.

The source is a judge. The cop doesn't have that right except for special circumstances.

It isn't right that private property can be entered simply by making a phone call.

LouPhinFan
06-13-2012, 03:48 PM
My brother-in-law is a police officer in Whiting, IN (on the tip of Lake Michigan just across the line from Chicago). Next time I talk to him I'll have to ask him his thoughts on this subject.

WSE
06-13-2012, 03:50 PM
The source is a judge. The cop doesn't have that right except for special circumstances.

It isn't right that private property can be entered simply by making a phone call.

Well, most of the time it would require a judge giving a warrant. However, for example being the case I used, some circumstances allow entry without a warrant with the major one being an allegation of an ongoing violent act.

I stand by my example of a foreseeable problem with the law.

Dolphins9954
06-13-2012, 09:28 PM
With police, they don't need express homeowner approval to enter a property as long as they have approval from a different appropriate source.

Lets say a call comes into 911 with a neighbor reporting a violent domestic violence disturbance at your home. Let's say it's completely false. Police enter your residence without your permission but they had the right to given the report of a currently violent situation.

You as a homeowner have no idea of the 911 call and to you it's unlawful entry. Can you shoot?

To me, this should be a no. Homeowners do not know the independent justifications for entry when they would be making their decision to shoot.

So for you question, my answer is yes. It's like getting arrested. You do not challeng it with violence at the time even if you beleive you were arrested wrongfully. You challenge it in court in a non violent and civically acceptable way.

Sorry I'm a big fan of the 4th amendment and won't allow a police officer in my home without a warrant no matter what because that's suppose to be my right under the constitution. Letting the police come in my home unlawfully and hoping one day the courts will help me out is a pipe dream and goes against my 4th amendment right. Now could there be a situation where someone takes advantage of the law. It's possible people take advantage of the laws everyday in this country. But for me "I would rather be exposed to the inconveniences attending too much liberty than to those attending too small a degree of it." Letting the government unlawfully enter your home goes against the founding principles of this country and only leads to less privacy and liberty. What this law does is make the police think twice before unlawfully entering people's homes and that's always a good thing for liberty.

Dolphins9954
06-13-2012, 10:34 PM
Here's a good read......

Why do police lie? Insight from a Florida judge (http://www.copblock.org/16413/why-do-police-lie-insight-from-a-florida-judge/)


An interesting decision (http://www.civil-rights-law.com/storage/OrderGrantingKnockandTalkSuppression.pdf) from a judge in Volusia County, Florida, helps us understand why police lie. The case at issue involved the Daytona Beach Police Department, which received an anonymous tip that there was drug activity at the defendant’s home. Two officers went to the home, and the defendant’s mother answered the door. The officers told her they were looking into a “911 disconnect” and wanted to enter the house to ensure her safety. She allowed them in. By lying in order to gain entry to her home, these officers engaged in a police procedure called a “knock and talk.” Courts have found this practice perfectly legal. Officers are permitted to create false scenarios to try to catch people they think might be involved in crime, but for whom they do not have probable cause to arrest or search.
The Daytona Beach officer claimed that once he was inside the defendant’s mother’s home, he asked if he could search further and the mother said yes. The mother, on the other hand, testified that the officer never asked permission to search the house any further. The officer found drugs in a piece of furniture, which led to this criminal case. The defendant filed a motion to suppress this evidence, which Circuit Judge Joseph G. Will (http://www.circuit7.org/Circuit%20Judges/will.html) allowed on January 17, 2012.

The parties agreed that the mother’s consent was necessary in order for the search to be legal. Thus, Judge Will had to determine who was more credible; the mother or the police officer? The defendant argued that the officer damaged his credibility when he lied to gain access to the home, even though his lie was legal. Judge Will agreed.

The judge’s opinion argues that by encouraging police officers to lie, we have corrupted our police, communities, and government. He writes:

What are the costs of alienating those growing segments of the community where ‘knock and talk’ sessions are more likely to become a standard practice? Or the costs incurred when police come before the court, time after time, employing deceitful law enforcement practice? What are the costs of teaching the community that law enforcement officers, whom ideally deserve the trust of the citizen, cannot be trusted to tell the simple truth? That no one is wearing the white hat anymore? That the ends justify the means? That the virtue of honesty is essential in our families and individual lives, but that same virtue is optional for the executive branch of our government in the exercise of its police powers?


http://www.copblock.org/16413/why-do-police-lie-insight-from-a-florida-judge/

greenrules008
06-13-2012, 10:46 PM
Why the hate on policemen??? They're just doing their jobs and making sure miscreants aren't out and about scrounging up drugs someplace, and putting the badguys behind bars! Boo hoo, they mess up sometimes, so do most people. Don't break the law and you won't get arrested. Simple as that.

HA! HA! HA! HA!

LANGER72
06-14-2012, 10:08 AM
Why the hate on policemen??? They're just doing their jobs and making sure miscreants aren't out and about scrounging up drugs someplace, and putting the badguys behind bars! Boo hoo, they mess up sometimes, so do most people. Don't break the law and you won't get arrested. Simple as that.

HA! HA! HA! HA!

IMHO..No one here hates the police, but over time our rights and freedom have been chipped away in the name of law and order. Some individuals rights and property are getting trampled. The balance should be tilted toward maintaining our property rights and freedom from illegal search and seizure.
I understand they have a job to do, but the burden is on them to get the approval from a judge...not the free and innocent citizens having to extract a remedy from the court system...after the fact.... Rant over.