The Firing Line Forums

Go Back   The Firing Line Forums > The Conference Center > Law and Civil Rights

Reply
 
Thread Tools
Old June 7, 2013, 10:55 PM   #26
KyJim
Senior Member
 
Join Date: July 26, 2005
Location: The Bluegrass
Posts: 7,537
Most of us here are probably very sympathetic to a homeowner who is awakened by the sound of his door being bashed in at 2:00 a.m. and, as it turns out, it was done "unlawfully" by police. Unlawfully simply means without proper legal authorization. It does not mean with ill will or malice.

Imagine a different scenario:
Quote:

Trooper Allen and Sergeant Blake Stone were investigating a theft and were informed by two men that Johnson, Billy Deaton, and an unidentified man were observed acting suspiciously in the same area and at the same time that the theft was committed.

The officers went to Billy Deaton's residence to question Deaton. Trooper Allen knocked several times and identified himself as a police officer but received no response. The officers then observed an automobile in the driveway. With a flashlight, they looked into the car. At that time, the porch light came on and Deaton stood in the doorway of the residence yelling obscenities at the officers. Trooper Allen, in uniform, again identified himself as an officer and requested that Deaton exit the residence and respond to questions. Deaton then turned and ran back into the house.

Trooper Allen, who had previously been called to the residence in response to a domestic dispute and was aware that Deaton had previously threatened law enforcement officers, testified that he believed that Deaton might retrieve a weapon from the residence. He testified that as a safety precaution, Trooper Allen and Sergeant Slone pursued Deaton into the residence . . . .
Commonwealth v. Johnson, 245 S.W.3d 821, 822-23 (Ky. Ct. App. 2008).

As it turns out, the courts thought the police officers did not have sufficient justification to enter the home but I think that is a very close question. Yet, under Indiana's law, the homeowner would have been justified in shooting the officers because their entry is "unlawful." IMO, there needs to be something more than unlawful entry, there has to be a real fear of death or serious injury.

BTW, the case above did not involve the homeowner injuring a police officer, but a different person inside the home assaulting the officer.
__________________
Jim's Rules of Carry: 1. Any gun is better than no gun. 2. A gun that is reliable is better than a gun that is not. 3. A hole in the right place is better than a hole in the wrong place. 4. A bigger hole is a better hole.
KyJim is offline  
Old June 8, 2013, 11:53 AM   #27
Webleymkv
Senior Member
 
Join Date: July 20, 2005
Location: Indiana
Posts: 9,876
Quote:
Most of us here are probably very sympathetic to a homeowner who is awakened by the sound of his door being bashed in at 2:00 a.m. and, as it turns out, it was done "unlawfully" by police. Unlawfully simply means without proper legal authorization. It does not mean with ill will or malice.
It does not necessarily mean without ill will or malice either. While an extremely small minority, there are bad cops who abuse the law and the IN Supreme Court ruling made it easier for them to do so.

Quote:
As it turns out, the courts thought the police officers did not have sufficient justification to enter the home but I think that is a very close question. Yet, under Indiana's law, the homeowner would have been justified in shooting the officers because their entry is "unlawful." IMO, there needs to be something more than unlawful entry, there has to be a real fear of death or serious injury.
I don't think you entirely understand what the law actually says. Indiana Code 35-41-3-2 states in part:

Quote:
A person is justified in using reasonable force against any other person to protect the person or a third person from what the person reasonably believes to be the imminent use of unlawful force. However, a person:
(1) is justified in using deadly force; and
(2) does not have a duty to retreat;
if the person reasonably believes that that force is necessary to prevent serious bodily injury to the person or a third person or the commission of a forcible felony. No person in this state shall be placed in legal jeopardy of any kind whatsoever for protecting the person or a third person by reasonable means necessary.
This law does not change the standard that must be met for deadly force to be justified. Regardless of whether the person illegally entering your home is a police officer or escaped convict, you still must "reasonably believe that force is necessary to prevent serious bodily injury of the commission of a forcible felony" in order to legally shoot.

As a matter of fact, Indiana Code 35-41-3-2.5 specifically states in part:

Quote:
A person is not justified in using deadly force against a public servant whom the person knows or reasonably should know is a public servant unless:
(1) the person reasonably believes that the public servant is:
(A) acting unlawfully; or
(B) not engaged in the execution of the public servant's official duties; and
(2) the force is reasonably necessary to prevent serious bodily injury to the person or a third person.
emphasis added
__________________
Smith, and Wesson, and Me. -H. Callahan
Well waddaya know, one buwwet weft! -E. Fudd
All bad precedents begin as justifiable measures. -J. Caesar
Webleymkv is offline  
Old June 8, 2013, 03:43 PM   #28
KyJim
Senior Member
 
Join Date: July 26, 2005
Location: The Bluegrass
Posts: 7,537
Thanks for quoting the statute. That helps a lot.
__________________
Jim's Rules of Carry: 1. Any gun is better than no gun. 2. A gun that is reliable is better than a gun that is not. 3. A hole in the right place is better than a hole in the wrong place. 4. A bigger hole is a better hole.
KyJim is offline  
Old February 6, 2014, 06:16 AM   #29
JimmyR
Senior Member
 
Join Date: February 4, 2012
Posts: 1,012
Sorry ahead of time for necro-posting, but i felt this would be better served on this topic rather than starting a new thread.

OK, I was browsing around, and found this article concerning the aforementioned change in the law. It was posted today, in response to the most recent bout of voiced concerns over this law. It actually explains the changes to the new law very well, and their rationale.

The real kicker is, I found it in the Huffington Post

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/radley...ef=gun-control
JimmyR is offline  
Reply

Thread Tools

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off

Forum Jump


All times are GMT -5. The time now is 02:18 AM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.7
Copyright ©2000 - 2014, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.
This site and contents, including all posts, Copyright © 1998-2014 S.W.A.T. Magazine
Copyright Complaints: Please direct DMCA Takedown Notices to the registered agent: thefiringline.com
Contact Us
Page generated in 0.07406 seconds with 9 queries