Ammo For Sale

« « Junk science | Home | A good way to get shot » »

Sign of the times

In Indiana, the governor signed a law that specifies that people are protected by the state’s self-defense law if they reasonably believe force is necessary to protect themselves, someone else or their own property from unlawful actions by a public servant.

This is because the supreme court ruled that residents couldn’t resist police officers who were unlawfully entering.

15 Responses to “Sign of the times”

  1. Noah D Says:

    A problem seems to be, there’s some murkiness to the law:

    Under the new law, people can resist if they reasonably think police are illegally entering their home or car and force is the only way to protect themselves or someone else from harm. Even then, there is no right to resist if the citizen was the aggressor or was committing a crime, and the citizen must first try to cool things down by withdrawing from the encounter with the police.

    Granted, this is from an Indy Star reporter, so…grains of salt and all.

    I have a duty to withdraw…from my house?

  2. Mad Saint Jack Says:

    Remember:

    http://twowheeledmadwoman.blogspot.com/2011/05/vote-out-justice-steven-h-david.html

    Remove Justice Steven H. David in 2012 Has a Facebook page.

  3. Jeff from DC Says:

    This is a double edged sword. If the Officer is a maniac cop with his own brand of justice, you’re golden. If you dont like the law he is enforcing or dont understand it, you’re screwed.

  4. J Says:

    I’m just thinking about the rash of rapes committed by cops. Usually women would be placed under arrest so if they fought back they would be guilty of resisting. Then it became a “you drop the rape charge and we’ll drop the resisting charge” to get the cop off. This law should be in effect for women everywhere.

    http://www.thedailybeast.com/articles/2012/01/29/she-dialed-911-the-cop-who-came-to-help-raped-her.html

  5. chris Says:

    I would like the law better if the period followed “property”.

  6. Ellen Says:

    This is going to create a lot of dead people, on both sides of the blue divide, if it’s taken seriously.

  7. Roberta X Says:

    Ellen, it only restores the status quo to what it was before our State Supremes stuck their oar in.

  8. Shootin' Buddy Says:

    “This is going to create a lot of dead people, on both sides of the blue divide, if itís taken seriously.”

    How many people were dead because of the right to resist pre-Barnes? The right to resist law enforcement existed in Indiana from 1816 to 2011. How many people died?

    Status quo ante. Nothing will change excepting an extremely narrow band of cases wherein the remedy is a jury instruction (which was the subject of Barnes).

    Just goes to show what happens when three lawyers in black stop being lawyers and desire to become Philosopher Kings.

  9. Rydak Says:

    The only thing this will do is effect people who hate cops and read it as being something its not. Many many misinformed citizens believe that police can only enter your home with a warrant. This is of course not true. Exigent circumstances, allow for LE to enter a home without a warrant. This happens on an almost daily basis in this country. And yes, if the police “make up” their “exigent circumstances” they get their asses handed to them by the court and open themselves to civil repercussions. The simple and most commonly used “Exigent circumstance” is something along the lines of: neighbor says they hear a woman (or anyone for that matter) screaming for help inside your home. It would take police hours if not a day or two, to get a warrant. That woman would be dead or seriously injured before the police get back with the warrant.

    The people who run around saying “yea, this law means we can shoot police if they don’t have a warrant” are not reading the law clearly, as mentioned above by other commenter….read the law and understand it.

  10. Dustydog Says:

    No Rydak,
    When a police officer enters a home without announcing, and waiting, with or without a warrant, all risk of harm to the officer should remain with that officer. No citizen should fear that an intruder might be an officer.

    Bonus points, for discouraging criminals from pretending to be police.

  11. Mr Evilwrench Says:

    The “pretend police” are my biggest beef with the stormtrooper raids. The real police are given a lot of latitude in their actions based on uncertainty, yet a peaceful, honest citizen, engaged in no blatant illegality, in the comfort of his own home, is required to have an impossible level of certainty as to the identity of anyone attacking him before acting. Someone yells “police” at me. If he’s lying I pretty much wind up dead or wishing I was. If he’s not, I pretty much wind up dead or wishing I was. All because of someone else’s mistake/criminality.

  12. Rydak Says:

    Dustydog, you seriously;y need to speak with an attorney…anyone will do.

  13. Robert Says:

    Lawyers are what got us in this craphole to begin with.

  14. Rydak Says:

    Robert,

    Agreed.

  15. Rob Crawford Says:

    “This is going to create a lot of dead people, on both sides of the blue divide, if itís taken seriously.”

    Betcha it doesn’t.