|
Forum Rules | Firearms Safety | Firearms Photos | Links | Library | Lost Password | Email Changes |
Register | FAQ | Calendar | Search | Today's Posts | Mark Forums Read |
|
Thread Tools | Search this Thread |
June 12, 2012, 12:15 PM | #1 |
Senior Member
Join Date: May 1, 2012
Posts: 280
|
Indiana Residents Right to Use Deadly Force
http://presstv.com/usdetail/245679.html
Police officers in Indiana are upset over a new law 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. Check it out. |
June 12, 2012, 12:33 PM | #2 |
Senior Member
Join Date: June 20, 2011
Location: Texas
Posts: 1,185
|
I read the article. It was definitely written with an anti-gun, anti-NRA perspective. Looks to me like the police will have to do their jobs right. However, I do see the strong possibility that the law could be misconstrued and mistakenly interpreted by civilians and lead to a disaster for a police officer doing his job correctly. I see a possibility for misuse of this law by lawyers.
BTW, I did not actually read the law only the article.
__________________
This is my gun. There are many like her, but this one is mine. I'm not old. I'm CLASSIC! |
June 12, 2012, 12:39 PM | #3 |
Senior Member
Join Date: December 23, 2010
Location: Chicagoland
Posts: 1,293
|
I just don't see how you end up on the "good' end of shooting a "rogue" cop.
I don't see this law being applied to the numerous situations where cops storm someones home in error, though I guess it does give them pause to double check the address on the warrant! Best case, you shoot some rogue, straight up training day cop and you probably catch several beatings during the arrest, spend weeks or months in jail, thousands of dollars on a lawyer only to pick up the pieces of your life again after. MAYBE you get some kind of a settlement out of it, if the rogue cops family does not sue you. Worst case, you shoot Mr. Rogue cop and his buddies light you up. Doesn't matter at that point what the law says, you are dead. |
June 12, 2012, 03:43 PM | #4 | |
Staff
Join Date: September 25, 2008
Location: CONUS
Posts: 18,414
|
Quote:
Obviously, what's really needed is a law prohibiting "no knock," dynamic entry warrant "services" and clarifying that waiting 15 to 30 seconds when you're knocking on the door at 3:00 a.m. is not a reasonable length of time. Unless the subject is a fugitive who is known to be armed, dangerous, AND at that location (known to be there, not suspected on possibly being there), I don't see any possible justification for busting in doors and putting both the occupants of the premises AND the entry team at significant risk. The whole point of a warrant is that the occupant is supposed to have an opportunity to read it, understand it, and to stand aside and allow the officer(s) to enter. That's how things like incorrect addresses or "Sorry, but that family moved out six months ago" get discovered before the front door has been demolished. |
|
June 12, 2012, 05:45 PM | #5 |
Senior Member
Join Date: November 20, 2007
Posts: 438
|
not to mention firefighters who at times have to force entry into occupied homes and apartments via doors or windows.
|
June 12, 2012, 11:08 PM | #6 | |
Staff
Join Date: November 23, 2005
Location: California - San Francisco
Posts: 9,471
|
There's a potential trap. Here's the text of the law (IC 35-41-3-2(i), (j) and (k), emphasis added):
Okay, let's have a show of hands please. How well do any of you understand the laws relating to police procedure and search and seizure? How confident are you that you will be able to tell in an instant whether an officer's actions are legal or illegal or that he is not engaged in the execution of his official duties? How confident are you that if you are wrong you will still be able to convince people that your mistake was reasonable? These are much more complex and difficult issues when claiming to be defending yourself against a police officer compared with self defense against an armed robber or burglar. A robber or burglar necessarily is acting illegally when he enters your property. A robber is necessarily acting illegally when he threatens or uses force against you. On the other hand, there are circumstances under which an LEO may lawfully enter your property, stop you, detain you, threaten the use of force or even use force. Are you really sure that you can tell the difference between a police officer's lawful seizure of your person and his unlawful seizure of your person?
__________________
"It is long been a principle of ours that one is no more armed because he has possession of a firearm than he is a musician because he owns a piano. There is no point in having a gun if you are not capable of using it skillfully." -- Jeff Cooper |
|
June 13, 2012, 07:28 PM | #7 |
Senior Member
Join Date: September 5, 2010
Location: McMurdo Sound Texas
Posts: 4,322
|
Unfortunately...
I expect that this will get changed, but not until there is at least one dead or severely injured public servant, and a homeowner, claiming their home was wrongfully invaded, who is on trial for their life, after assuming they had carte blanche to blast away.
__________________
Cave illos in guns et backhoes |
June 13, 2012, 10:47 PM | #8 |
Senior Member
Join Date: March 24, 2011
Posts: 730
|
the blood will not flow, but the police may be a bit more forthright...which is not bad.
|
Thread Tools | Search this Thread |
|
|