Skip to main content

The House of Representatives in Indiana just passed a bill that makes it legal for a homeowner to shoot and kill a police officer on their property if they just "believe" that they are there illegally. Shoot and kill. This new law is of course strongly backed by the NRA and the Republican representatives of Indiana. I understand that we should always protect the rights of criminals and suspects in any case but to go to the extent that they are allowed to use force against a police officer to the point of killing them if they think it's necessary, is disgusting. I can not believe that this passed at all. This shouldn't be partisan issue, it should be about saving the lives of the people who are there to protect us. We NEED to take action to stop this horrible bill.

For more details, follow below the orange swirly.

I think that one major problem with law making is language used. If things aren't specific enough, they can be interpreted in too many ways. First off, this law is already crazy enough and then to have such language say that they can use force if they just "believe" they are there illegally.

The police could have a search warrant and the criminal could later say that they never saw it, even if the police had it. They could make up so many different stories as to why they shot, true or not, and the police officer wouldn't even be able to defend his or herself since they've been killed and cannot say otherwise. This law makes it possible for any manipulative or paranoid person to kill any police officer. It seriously sickens me. The republicans in the state of Indiana have gone way too far. I would be scared to be a police officer in that state now. It shouldn't be the police officers who are scared of criminals ever.

Representative Craig Fry (D) from Indiana said,

"And it’s too late after somebody dies for a jury to sort it out. Somebody’s going to die, whether it’s a police officer or an individual who thinks a police officer is entering their home unlawfully. People are going to die,”
And he is spot on, and seemingly one of the only few representatives in his state who seem to get the gravity of the situation. People will die from this bill. And somehow it passed with a 74-24vote. Legal murder passed with a 74-24 vote in the House. I don't understand how anyone could think that this is a good idea.

I'm all for protecting the rights of criminals, really I am. If you've read my other blog about Brazilian criminal justice, it should be clear that I care deeply about how people are treated, criminals, suspects or not. However, making the check and balance system that involves shooting someone, killing someone without any proof is outrageous.

If people in that state really care so much about the rights of criminals and suspects, then they should do something that doesn't involve risking the lives of anyone especially those who are there to protect the people and enforce laws. They should be about stricter search warrant enforcement, the right to just not answer the door if they don't believe a police officer is there legally. Not just give any person the right to kill whoever is on their property.

The law was inspired by a case with a man named Richard Barnes who filed a lawsuit against police who followed him into his house because of a domestic dispute with his wife. He was charged with battery on a law enforcement officer, resisting law enforcement and disorderly conduct. So, even the root of this law is from someone who may have been beating his wife and when the police came, he continued to be violent and abusive to the police who came to bring justice.

This law defends people who want to legally defend their abuse and violence. It defends the idea that violence is the best way to react to situations. There are so many other options, and violence is what is being condoned. I really cannot believe this law will likely be passed and am totally in shock and disgusted that this could even be considered to be law anywhere.

Please if you believe as strongly as I do that this is a disgusting law that condones murder, please contact the senators and representatives of the state of Indiana and urge them not to pass this bill. More importantly, at the moment, is contacting the senators because the bill is being sent back to the Senate at the moment.

Here are the links to contact information:

Indiana Democrat Senators

Indiana Republican Senators

Indiana House Democrat Members

House Republican Members

UPDATE:

(the computer I'm using right now doesn't have spell check so I apologize for horrible spelling errors in advance)

So I seem to have created some misconceptions about my point. To clarify, I am aware of the Indiana Supreme Court decision that said,

"INDIANAPOLIS | Overturning a common law dating back to the English Magna Carta of 1215, the Indiana Supreme Court ruled Thursday that Hoosiers have no right to resist unlawful police entry into their homes.
 In a 3-2 decision, Justice Steven David writing for the court said if a police officer wants to enter a home for any reason or no reason at all, a homeowner cannot do anything to block the officer's entry."
This is a horrible thing to have happened. I also realize that this new bill was in part reactionary to the Supreme Court decision that was unconstitutional but also partially fueled by anger towards the political justice system lately. There have been so many cases of cops that have shot and killed people seemingly without warning, without adequit reason to shoot although they claim to have had "reasonable cause". Then with futher analysis they didn't.

These cops were acting upon their right to take action with force when they "believed" that they had reasonable cause to use force and that their actions were necessary and justified. Or at least that's what they say. So, if these cases of injustice anger people so much, if we as a people think that this kind of violence based on police desgression should not be allowed, then our reaction as a people shouldn't be to let other people act in the exact same way that we believe police shouldn't.

Police shouldn't enter a citizen's house without reasonable evidence agaisnt them, without solid facts, a search warrant that is approved by a court of law. Police shouldn't act on their own "reasonable cause" in the moment so therefore it doesn't make sense that a person is allowed to shoot at police with their own "reasonable cause". In my opinion neither should be allowed. I am disgusted by the horrible rise in police violence  but is it really the answer is to shoot back? Instead of reducing the problem, which is violence, increasing it in another way. Instead of trying to put out the fire, we're feeding it.

Putting out the fire, in my opinion would be through punishing police who act above the law and resort to violence when it's not needed by making sure that the laws agaisnt bad cops are strong. So that police don't fear the people, they fear breaking the laws and being overly violent. Police should be aware that they also do not live above the law. That they can easily go to jail for abusing their power. I don't think that this will be acheived by giving other people more legal grounds for violence. If we don't like how the police are acting, we shouldnt then act like them in response. An eye for an eye makes the whole world blind. Violence + violence does not equal peace and justice.

Originally posted to RoyaHegdahl on Fri Mar 02, 2012 at 05:47 PM PST.

Also republished by PacNW Kossacks.

EMAIL TO A FRIEND X
Your Email has been sent.
You must add at least one tag to this diary before publishing it.

Add keywords that describe this diary. Separate multiple keywords with commas.
Tagging tips - Search For Tags - Browse For Tags

?

More Tagging tips:

A tag is a way to search for this diary. If someone is searching for "Barack Obama," is this a diary they'd be trying to find?

Use a person's full name, without any title. Senator Obama may become President Obama, and Michelle Obama might run for office.

If your diary covers an election or elected official, use election tags, which are generally the state abbreviation followed by the office. CA-01 is the first district House seat. CA-Sen covers both senate races. NY-GOV covers the New York governor's race.

Tags do not compound: that is, "education reform" is a completely different tag from "education". A tag like "reform" alone is probably not meaningful.

Consider if one or more of these tags fits your diary: Civil Rights, Community, Congress, Culture, Economy, Education, Elections, Energy, Environment, Health Care, International, Labor, Law, Media, Meta, National Security, Science, Transportation, or White House. If your diary is specific to a state, consider adding the state (California, Texas, etc). Keep in mind, though, that there are many wonderful and important diaries that don't fit in any of these tags. Don't worry if yours doesn't.

You can add a private note to this diary when hotlisting it:
Are you sure you want to remove this diary from your hotlist?
Are you sure you want to remove your recommendation? You can only recommend a diary once, so you will not be able to re-recommend it afterwards.
Rescue this diary, and add a note:
Are you sure you want to remove this diary from Rescue?
Choose where to republish this diary. The diary will be added to the queue for that group. Publish it from the queue to make it appear.

You must be a member of a group to use this feature.

Add a quick update to your diary without changing the diary itself:
Are you sure you want to remove this diary?
(The diary will be removed from the site and returned to your drafts for further editing.)
(The diary will be removed.)
Are you sure you want to save these changes to the published diary?

Comment Preferences

  •  Actually (14+ / 0-)

    The new law is that police aren't protected if they enter without a warrant.

    If you enter somebody's house without permission and don't show a search warrant signed by a judge, you're committing a felony. If you're committing a felony, the victim is legally justified in using lethal force in self-defense.

    •  Actually, the language of the law states (0+ / 0-)
      "Specifies that a person may use reasonable force against any other person in certain circumstances. Provides that a person is justified in using reasonable force against a law enforcement officer if the person reasonably believes the force is necessary to: (1) protect the person or a third person from unlawful force; (2) prevent or terminate the law enforcement officer's unlawful entry into the person's dwelling; or (3) prevent or terminate the law enforcement officer's criminal interference with property lawfully in the person's possession. Specifies that a person is not justified in using force against a law enforcement officer if: (1) the person is committing or is escaping after the commission of a crime; (2) the person provokes action by the law enforcement officer with intent to injure the law enforcement officer; (3) the person has entered into combat with the law enforcement officer or is the initial aggressor; or (4) the person reasonably believes the law enforcement officer acting lawfully or is engaged in the lawful execution of the law enforcement officer's official duties. Provides that a person is not justified in using deadly force against a law enforcement officer who the person knows or reasonably should know is a law enforcement officer unless: (1) the person reasonably believes that the law enforcement officer is acting unlawfully or is not engaged in the execution of the officer's official duties; and (2) the force is reasonably necessary to prevent serious bodily injury to the person or a third person."
      If the person "reasonably believes the force is necessary" that can be interpreted in so many ways and can be because the person "believes" they are not there legally.
      And additionally, they are only able to use deadly force if "the person reasonably believes that the law enforcement officer is acting unlawfully or is not engaged in the execution of the officer's official duties". So they are allowed to kill them at the discretion of their judgement that they are not at their property legally.
      Killing someone should not be permitted, maybe self defense, but not specifically stating that a police officer may be killed, aka deadly force if they believe that they are not acting appropriately.
      And even if in trial they are found later to have had a misconception, it's too late because they will already be dead.
      •  Clarification (11+ / 0-)

        This is because the Indiana Supreme Court ruled that allowing officers who enter without warrants to be vulnerable to the Castle Doctrine would violate the Fourth Amendment. That's why police officers are mentioned specifically.

      •  No, you're misunderstanding the text (8+ / 0-)

        Sorry to be late to the party.

        The text reads that both conditions must be met before deadly force is justified - the LEO is acting unlawfully AND deadly force is necessary to defend yourself or another.

        It looks to me like all this law is saying is that the police don't have special privileges; if one kicks down your door without a warrant, he's no different than a private citizen kicking down your door. You seem to be under the impression that one can now indiscriminately shoot cops as they stand on your porch. No.

        The term "reasonable" is the term the DA or the Grand Jury will use. If they decide that you made a reasonable assumption about your safety, they will say it was justified. On the other hand, if they decide that it was not a reasonable assumption, you will be tried for murder. This is the same rule that applies to any use of deadly force.

        •  Yeah I was, you're right but still (0+ / 0-)

          the way in which it is worded still bothers me.
          Another commenter seemed to explain it well.

          "If a defendant and his legal team can prove to a jury that it was reasonable to believe that the policeman was behaving outside the law, and that such behavior endangered the life of the resident or a third party, the resident has recourse to deadly force.

          The word "reasonable" is scary.  Properly executed law enforcement for just cause looks like assault and battery because it takes some force to subdue an uncooperative suspect.  The "third party" bit is frightening as well:  excessive force in arrest is inherently unlawful and causes serious injury.  

          The nightmare scenario for the police is that they carry out a lawful arrest and use scary-looking, nonlethal methods to take down the suspect.  A local resident or business owner sees this, and decides to use deadly force.  The "reasonable" level of evidence that a cop threatens serious, justified harm to a suspect varies with each observer.  (Go to any Occupy Oakland diary to verify this.  Then remember that young, low-income urban men of color, conservative authoritarians and the UN black helicopter crowd are underrepresented here.)  "

          or also,
          "right now it appears that the law in Indiana has been ruled by the Indiana Supreme Court and legislated by the Indiana legislature, that the castle doctrine allows people to use deadly force on police officers who enter onto their property, subject to various qualifications that Joe Average isn't going to bother himself about, while he takes aim at the cop who's walking up his driveway.

          That's a f---ing outrage.

          If the issue is that the police could be misusing their authority in some way, the answer to that isn't bullets but lawsuits.  

          And the way to make lawsuits work is with evidence.

          And a video recording that has been handled in a manner as to prevent it being edited for the desired result, would be darn good evidence if someone wants to use it.  

          So I'm saying, let's reformulate the castle doctrine just a bit.

          Let's throw out this horrible interpretation that creates a right to murder cops.

          And let's replace it with something that protects a right to record video and audio.  A "castle doctrine" right-to-record enables getting justice in court in the event of police misconduct.  And it does not lead to property owners murdering cops."

          Like, I get it, I really do that there is a serious problem with police who seem to live above the law and take actions that any citizen could not do, which is wrong but this law doesn't sit right with me and I really think it has the potential to go really wrong.

          Maybe my problem is more with gun laws in general and that is affecting how I view this bill as well but I just really can not approve of bill that in my opinion has such sketchy language that seems too open to interpretation. I can't put someones life at risk because of poor interpretation.

  •  I think the summary of the actual bill would be (4+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    shenderson, RoyaHegdahl, oldpunk, alizard

    useful for purposes of discussion:

    Summary
    Specifies that a person may use reasonable force against any other person in certain circumstances. Provides that a person is justified in using reasonable force against a law enforcement officer if the person reasonably believes the force is necessary to: (1) protect the person or a third person from unlawful force; (2) prevent or terminate the law enforcement officer's unlawful entry into the person's dwelling; or (3) prevent or terminate the law enforcement officer's criminal interference with property lawfully in the person's possession. Specifies that a person is not justified in using force against a law enforcement officer if: (1) the person is committing or is escaping after the commission of a crime; (2) the person provokes action by the law enforcement officer with intent to injure the law enforcement officer; (3) the person has entered into combat with the law enforcement officer or is the initial aggressor; or (4) the person reasonably believes the law enforcement officer acting lawfully or is engaged in the lawful execution of the law enforcement officer's official duties. Provides that a person is not justified in using deadly force against a law enforcement officer who the person knows or reasonably should know is a law enforcement officer unless: (1) the person reasonably believes that the law enforcement officer is acting unlawfully or is not engaged in the execution of the officer's official duties; and (2) the force is reasonably necessary to prevent serious bodily injury to the person or a third person.
    Beyond that, is it known what the impetus was for this bill?  

    "On their backs were vermiculate patterns that were maps of the world in its becoming. Maps...of a thing which could not be put back. Not be made right again."

    by middleagedhousewife on Fri Mar 02, 2012 at 06:08:08 PM PST

    •  Oh, duh, I see the inspiration part now, although (3+ / 0-)

      it doesn't really make much sense.  This does seem like a really odd and unusual bill.  I do believe there has been way too much police violence in (at least) recent years, leading to the deaths of innocent civilians, but this just seems like it will legitimize battles between police and civilians.  Why not just take police powers away, or actually punish officers (with actual, serious consequences, not just paid leave) who unnecessarily harm or kill citizens, or who unlawfully enter citizens' homes?

      "On their backs were vermiculate patterns that were maps of the world in its becoming. Maps...of a thing which could not be put back. Not be made right again."

      by middleagedhousewife on Fri Mar 02, 2012 at 06:14:02 PM PST

      [ Parent ]

    •  Reason for bill (9+ / 0-)

      This is because the Indiana Supreme Court ruled that allowing officers who enter without warrants to be vulnerable to the Castle Doctrine would violate the Fourth Amendment.

      •  Which I get is wrong but (2+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        middleagedhousewife, G2geek

        the way to respond to this injustice is not by legalizing the use of deadly force. That only increases violence and injustice, it doesn't reduce it.
        If this supreme court decision is wrong, the way to solve it is not this way.

        •  i'm almost speechless about this whole thing. (1+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          RoyaHegdahl

          It's as if there's been an outbreak of contagious insanity in Indiana.  First the state supreme court, now the legislature.

          I can't even wrap my brain around this one.  Usually the crazy shit that judges and elected officials do makes sense at some level in terms of motivations and so on, but this is just beyond the pale, completely out there in "random lunacy" territory, like schizophrenic word-salad.  

          "Minus two votes for the Democrat" equals "plus one vote for the Republican." Arithmetic doesn't care about your feelings.

          by G2geek on Fri Mar 02, 2012 at 06:49:14 PM PST

          [ Parent ]

    •  It seems like a reaction to the hideously (13+ / 0-)

      awful Indiana Supreme Court decision from last year:

      Court: No right to resist illegal cop entry into home

      INDIANAPOLIS | Overturning a common law dating back to the English Magna Carta of 1215, the Indiana Supreme Court ruled Thursday that Hoosiers have no right to resist unlawful police entry into their homes.

      In a 3-2 decision, Justice Steven David writing for the court said if a police officer wants to enter a home for any reason or no reason at all, a homeowner cannot do anything to block the officer's entry.

      Given that we're talking about the Indiana state legislature here, I think it's fair to assume that this new law has been sufficiently poorly drafted that it will create new problems.  But it is actually aimed at fixing a very serious issue that the Indiana Supremes created for no discernible reason, in a decision that generated a groundswell of outrage from right and left alike.  

      Since it's far better that the police should be in fear of the people than that the people should be in fear of the police, I'm a little puzzled at the diarist's outrage.  (Of course, it's preferable that neither should have to fear the other, but we are talking about the America created by the War on Drugs here.)

      •  Well, I get that that decision wasn't a good one, (2+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        middleagedhousewife, G2geek

        I do but this is not the way to solve it. A law like this needs to have extremely carefully drafted language because it is not going to be okay if more violence is spurred because of this.
        People do have a right against police officers unlawful action. However, I don't think that condoning violence for any reason is good.
        Prosecute the police officers who act unlawfully, don't use violence against them or kill them.

        •  Defense of self or others from lethal force, (9+ / 0-)

          threat of lethal force, severe maiming, rape...

          I would condone a violent response in those circumstances.

          Republicans cause more damage than guns ever will. Share Our Wealth

          by KVoimakas on Fri Mar 02, 2012 at 06:44:55 PM PST

          [ Parent ]

          •  The language of the bill says (0+ / 0-)
            " the law enforcement officer is acting unlawfully or is not engaged in the execution of the officer's official duties"
            This language is so poor and vague, it would allow more than just extreme cases and is considered specifically separate in the law than
            "force is reasonably necessary to prevent serious bodily injury to the person or a third person."

            So these other cases that are different from serious bodily injury are at the person's discretion of what they think "not engaging in the execution of the officer's official duties" are which is not including serious bodily injury.
          •  This says it all KV. (6+ / 0-)
            Killing someone should not be permitted, maybe self defense,...

            Any power that government amasses will not be relinquished and any right we give up we give up forever.

            by oldpunk on Fri Mar 02, 2012 at 06:55:02 PM PST

            [ Parent ]

            •  So what about? (0+ / 0-)
              "Provides that a person is not justified in using deadly force against a law enforcement officer who the person knows or reasonably should know is a law enforcement officer unless: (1) the person reasonably believes that the law enforcement officer is acting unlawfully or is not engaged in the execution of the officer's official duties; and (2) the force is reasonably necessary to prevent serious bodily injury to the person or a third person."
              They are not justified "UNLESS", meaning they are justified in the above circumstances.
              •  Ok, maybe I'm reading this wrong: (8+ / 0-)
                and (2) the force is reasonably necessary to prevent serious bodily injury to the person or a third person."
                So, you still can't use deadly force against a LEO unless TWO conditions are met, one of those being the block quoted above.

                Correct?

                Republicans cause more damage than guns ever will. Share Our Wealth

                by KVoimakas on Fri Mar 02, 2012 at 07:26:14 PM PST

                [ Parent ]

              •  That is what the text says. (7+ / 0-)

                And I take little issue with the concept of the law. If what I am witnessing meets the proper criteria I am allowed to use the force necessary to stop the crime or prevent serious bodily injury, which is up to and including deadly force. I also happen to like that it is specific in its inclusion of police officers.

                I think it is a good control measure to help keep in check an organization that has consistently displayed its corruption and willingess to engage in unlawful conduct.

                With the continued militarization of the police force I find it comforting that if I see illegal activity being conducted by an officer of the law, I have a law on my side that will enable me to be a better citizen and do what I can to stop the illegal activity without fear of legal repercussions.

                The point of my comment was not what the bill would or would not allow, it was about what you said. Which in sum and substance was that killing is bad and should not be permitted except that it maybe be ok, there is the uncertain possibility that it might be alright, that it could perhaps considered, that killing someone is self-defense might have the potential to be justifiable.

                There is no maybe about it killing someone in self-defense is always ok. To state that it maybe ok indicates to me that for you there are times when killing someone in self-defense would not be ok.

                Any power that government amasses will not be relinquished and any right we give up we give up forever.

                by oldpunk on Fri Mar 02, 2012 at 07:46:18 PM PST

                [ Parent ]

        •  maybe video taping? (0+ / 0-)

          Establish a "castle doctrine" to use audio & video recording?  Put some kind of safeguard in there to deal with the risk that someone will edit a recording to falsely incriminate an officer.

          That would make sense because it enables putting the events into the court system with objective evidence.   Rather than the abomination that's the subject of this diary.

          "Minus two votes for the Democrat" equals "plus one vote for the Republican." Arithmetic doesn't care about your feelings.

          by G2geek on Fri Mar 02, 2012 at 06:52:46 PM PST

          [ Parent ]

          •  What do you mean? (0+ / 0-)

            I'm not sure I totally understand.

            •  right now it appears that the law in Indiana... (1+ / 0-)
              Recommended by:
              RoyaHegdahl

              ... has been ruled by the Indiana Supreme Court and legislated by the Indiana legislature, that the castle doctrine allows people to use deadly force on police officers who enter onto their property, subject to various qualifications that Joe Average isn't going to bother himself about, while he takes aim at the cop who's walking up his driveway.

              That's a f---ing outrage.

              If the issue is that the police could be misusing their authority in some way, the answer to that isn't bullets but lawsuits.  

              And the way to make lawsuits work is with evidence.

              And a video recording that has been handled in a manner as to prevent it being edited for the desired result, would be darn good evidence if someone wants to use it.  

              So I'm saying, let's reformulate the castle doctrine just a bit.

              Let's throw out this horrible interpretation that creates a right to murder cops.

              And let's replace it with something that protects a right to record video and audio.  A "castle doctrine" right-to-record enables getting justice in court in the event of police misconduct.  And it does not lead to property owners murdering cops.

              "Minus two votes for the Democrat" equals "plus one vote for the Republican." Arithmetic doesn't care about your feelings.

              by G2geek on Fri Mar 02, 2012 at 09:05:12 PM PST

              [ Parent ]

              •  Exactly, thank you (1+ / 0-)
                Recommended by:
                G2geek

                if you want to read how I updated this post, it will kind of better explain my point of view. I don't know too much about the castle doctrine but so far it does sound like a good way to help reduce the problem.

                •  Castle Doctrine (6+ / 0-)

                  The legal system that the federal government and every state besides Louisiana use is called common law.

                  Traditionally, under common law, if you're committing a felony, you're assumed to be willing to kill somebody in order to accomplish your objective. Therefore, what would otherwise be second-degree murder (not planned beforehand) is considered to be justifiable homicide if it's done to somebody who unlawfully entered a home.

                  •  So you agree with that then? (0+ / 0-)

                    That someone should murder or commit "justifiable homicide" for another person entering their house unlawfully?

                    (And I didn't know the rule of Common Law so thank you)

                    •  There are nuances (7+ / 0-)

                      Usually, the law has more requirements.

                      If you break into my house and I don't see a weapon, I'll politely ask you to leave while pointing my weapon at you. However, if you break into my house and I see that you're armed, I'm not going to wait for you to try to kill me.

                      •  I don't believe I am required to look and see (2+ / 0-)
                        Recommended by:
                        PavePusher, gerrilea

                        if the person that has committed a felony by breaking and entering into my home has a weapon before I employ lethal force. If someone has broken into my house while I am home, I am not going to assume they just want my stuff. I am not willing to risk my life or the lives of my family in such a manner. If someone commits the violent crime of breaking into my house, I have reasonable cause to believe that I and my family are being threatened with serious bodily harm.

                        I am not going to ask the person what they want, I am not going to turn on the lights and see if they are armed, I am not going to rack the shot gun to warn them I am there. What I am going to do is aim center mass of the silhouette I see and pull the trigger, and I will continue pulling the trigger until the target stops moving or I am out of rounds.

                        Any power that government amasses will not be relinquished and any right we give up we give up forever.

                        by oldpunk on Fri Mar 02, 2012 at 10:37:31 PM PST

                        [ Parent ]

                        •  Well, I guess in that case (0+ / 0-)

                          agreed to disagree because I strongly and wholeheartedly believe that is wrong.
                          And I hope and pray that if you are ever confronted with that situation, the person you don't ask questions to, that you don't even turn the light on for, isn't a neighborhood lost child, a mentally disabled person, someone trying to find safety and seek help to escape abuse, a violent attack or rape, a family member who is in trouble that decided not to wake you up and just come in and explain in the morning, and I sincerely hope above all, that when you're kids grow up and become teenagers that they don't sneak out, like most teenagers do and sneak back into the house and get shot by you. Get shot and killed because you didn't even turn on the light.

                          •  the critical difference here, is between... (2+ / 0-)
                            Recommended by:
                            oldpunk, RoyaHegdahl

                            ... a random intruder and a uniformed police officer.

                            A random intruder breaking into your house can be reasonably presumed to be a criminal committing a crime.  If the intruder breaks in when you are present, it can reasonably be presumed that they are willing and able to perpetrate violence upon you and others who are present, in order to accomplish their criminal intent.  

                            That's the basis of the doctrine that gives you a legal right to shoot a criminal intruder.  And IMHO that's perfectly reasonable.  See also cases of violent home invasion robberies, serial rapes in apartment complexes, and so on.  If I was a single woman living alone in a building where there were serial rapes going on, I'd damn well keep a pistol under my pillow and be prepared (proper safety training & practice, etc.) to use it if the need arose.  

                            Contrast to a uniformed police officer breaking into your house: the presumption is that they are doing so pursuant to a lawful purpose, for example breaking down the door of a crack-house, or a house where a kidnap victim is present, or where criminal suspects of some kind are present.

                            And further, the presumption is that if you immediately put your hands up and surrender, they will not use gratuitous force against you.  Most of the time that's true, and all the more so now that more police departments are equipping officers with personal video cameras on their uniforms, that run throughout their shifts so they have records of everything they do in case it's needed as evidence.

                            Occasionally they make mistakes and break down the door of the wrong house, or use excessive force against suspects, and occasionally this leads to outrageous or tragic events such as innocent people getting injured or killed.  Those cases are dealt with via lawsuits, and municipalities often settle for large sums to compensate the victims, and those settlements are powerful incentives for municipalities to have strong policies to minimize the risks of such events.  

                            But once we grant a "right" to shoot at cops who are clearly identifiable as such, then every desperate criminal this side of hell is going to consider it open season if the cops come to arrest them for whatever-it-is.  The result of that will be more dead cops, more escaped suspects, and more crimes downstream when the escaped suspects are on the run.  Aside from the obvious outrage and tragedy of more dead cops, there's also the further hazard to public safety of escaping criminals committing more crimes as they are fleeing, for example carjackings or kidnappings.  All of those consequences are unacceptable.  

                            "Minus two votes for the Democrat" equals "plus one vote for the Republican." Arithmetic doesn't care about your feelings.

                            by G2geek on Sat Mar 03, 2012 at 04:43:53 AM PST

                            [ Parent ]

                          •  Read the bill. (5+ / 0-)
                            But once we grant a "right" to shoot at cops who are clearly identifiable as such, then every desperate criminal this side of hell is going to consider it open season if the cops come to arrest them for whatever-it-is.
                            It specifically prohibits this.

                            "A lie is not the other side of a story; it's just a lie."

                            by happy camper on Sat Mar 03, 2012 at 08:26:46 AM PST

                            [ Parent ]

                          •  A neighborhood lost child (3+ / 0-)
                            Recommended by:
                            PavePusher, hagagaga, gerrilea

                            isn't going to break into a house, they will ring the door bell and ask for help. Having been exposed to those with mental disabilities and seeing how they mostly withdrew into themselves when stressed I find it unlikely they would have the where with all to break into a house. Someone seeking safety and refuge isn't going to forcibly enter a home without first yelling for help or calling the police. I have no family that would just stop by and break into my house because they didn't want to wake me, they know I have firearms just like they do. If they were in trouble they would call or come up to my front door bang on it and say "git yer ass out here dammit, I need help!" I have already told my eldest son not to be dumb enough to be sneaking in and out of the house because of what could happen.

                            Nevertheless the likelihood of your scenarios ever occurring has got to be so statistically insignificant that they can hardly be even considered as possible let alone probable.

                            But to protect my family I have taken certain precautions, you see I have heavy dead bolts and strong locks on my doors and windows. I have an alarm system with this dandy panic alarm remote that when activated results in the alarm company immediately calling not the police but my brother-in-law, who is a stone cold Louisiana coon ass who will not allow his sister to come to harm. There are night lights through out my house so the inside is never so dark as to make people unrecognizable. I have outside motion sensors that turn on really bright lights. Before going to bed doors and windows get shut and locked and the alarm goes on, so some poor lost soul that just happens to be wandering by isn't going to be able to trip and fall into my living room. No, if some one wants into my house they will have to commit a violent crime to do so and anyone who is willing to commit a violent crime to get into my house doesn't get a mulligan from me.

                            I am not going to ask a violent criminal what they happen to be doing in my house, I am not going to give a violent criminal the chance to attack me by announcing myself and I am not going to ruin my night vision my turning on the lights. If someone breaks into my house while we are at home, my wife dials 911, grabs her gun and goes to the boys room while I grab my shot gun and go eliminate the threat.

                            Any power that government amasses will not be relinquished and any right we give up we give up forever.

                            by oldpunk on Sat Mar 03, 2012 at 06:25:20 AM PST

                            [ Parent ]

    •  Well, I mentioned it in the (1+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      middleagedhousewife

      diary I thought you mean where it came from right? Mostly from a man named Richard Barnes. They were investigating a domestic dispute with him and his wife. Details of the case are here

      •  So a cop, on duty, off duty, suspended... (7+ / 0-)

        sees your daughter get spun around and sent back into the house, as you - her parent - said: "You're not leaving, looking like that - put some clothes on".

        You look "suspect" and he "believes" there's parental abuse - and she's damn fine looking in that transparent top, no bra, and mini skirt.  He wants to "interview her" - shows a badge, flashes a gun and says:

        Official police business, stand-aside.
        You say - "Hell no, my daughter, get a warrant".

        Per the president set by the Court (cited by shenderson above)
        you have no right to interfere with "official business".

        Even if that business is to determine if your teen-age daughter is lacking both bra and underpants.  

        The Court vacating the Fourth Amendment, and the Legislature's recent bill are both ill-conceived, over-reaching, and bound to create problems, not mitigate them.

        A man who stands for nothing, will fall for anything. ~ Malcolm X.

        by 43north on Fri Mar 02, 2012 at 06:39:30 PM PST

        [ Parent ]

        •  Well, I wouldn't pull out a gun (0+ / 0-)

          and shoot the officer. I wouldn't use any kind of "deadly violence" against that officer because I "believed" that they were acting "unlawfully". That's what bothers me about this bill.
          I totally am for the protection of the right of people to demand a search warrant. However, to have this enforced does not require people being allowed to use DEADLY violence.

          •  Lethal force is never the first option (7+ / 0-)

            However, if a life is in danger, it should always be an option.

          •  Thus the problem. (2+ / 0-)
            Recommended by:
            RoyaHegdahl, oldpunk

            If a defendant and his legal team can prove to a jury that it was reasonable to believe that the policeman was behaving outside the law, and that such behavior endangered the life of the resident or a third party, the resident has recourse to deadly force.

            The word "reasonable" is scary.  Properly executed law enforcement for just cause looks like assault and battery because it takes some force to subdue an uncooperative suspect.  The "third party" bit is frightening as well:  excessive force in arrest is inherently unlawful and causes serious injury.  

            The nightmare scenario for the police is that they carry out a lawful arrest and use scary-looking, nonlethal methods to take down the suspect.  A local resident or business owner sees this, and decides to use deadly force.  The "reasonable" level of evidence that a cop threatens serious, justified harm to a suspect varies with each observer.  (Go to any Occupy Oakland diary to verify this.  Then remember that young, low-income urban men of color, conservative authoritarians and the UN black helicopter crowd are underrepresented here.)  

            "Politics should be the part-time profession of every citizen who would protect the rights and privileges of free people and who would preserve what is good and fruitful in our national heritage." -- Lucille Ball

            by Yamaneko2 on Fri Mar 02, 2012 at 10:27:39 PM PST

            [ Parent ]

            •  "reasonable" is carried from common law (3+ / 0-)
              Recommended by:
              hagagaga, theatre goon, gerrilea

              It's used to define jeopardy, negligence, and often police actions.

              Juries are assumed to be reasonable persons, who'd place themselves in the shoes of those before the Court:

              Would you, Juror Six, believe yourself to be in reasonable fear of eminent injury, and possibly death - given the actions of the accused?

              Would you, Juror Eleven, believe yourself capable of withstanding the heat of the fire, and be reasonably expected to stay within the building, until all of your employees were accounted-for?

              Officer Jones, you've testified that it was your reasonable suspicion that a man running from a homicide scene would in-fact be the prime suspect in that shooting?

              Fact is, the man running may be facing the gun, and decided "let him shoot a running target".  It may be that he's on parole, and being associated with the incident in any fashion means another 3 1/2 years in Angola, as the P.O. has a serious hate on you.

              None of that matters, as good Officer Jones unleashed two bursts from his M4 carbine, just as he did in Iraq.
              Then it was reasonable suspicion of planting IEDs... now it's just, well - do the reasons ever matter?

              A man who stands for nothing, will fall for anything. ~ Malcolm X.

              by 43north on Sat Mar 03, 2012 at 04:47:09 PM PST

              [ Parent ]

  •  Repugs love those westerns (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    RoyaHegdahl

    its a return to the Dodge City mentality. "He needed killin"

  •  The "believe" part (0+ / 0-)

    more freedom of conscience stuff?

    Words can sometimes, in moments of grace, attain the quality of deeds. --Elie Wiesel

    by a gilas girl on Fri Mar 02, 2012 at 06:53:49 PM PST

  •  Given a choice (7+ / 0-)

    between merely video taping a spouse's death at the hands of a LEO operating illegally, or having the option of using deadly force, if necessary, to save an innocent life, I suspect many would choose the latter.

    The increase in law enforcement militarization, aggression, and illegal use of force requires either a legislative correction, or a legal counterbalance.

    I'd much prefer the former.

    Disclaimer: Weapons of Mass Destruction and terrorists may vary according to region, definition, and purpose. Belief systems pandered separately.

    by BlackBandFedora on Sat Mar 03, 2012 at 06:15:21 AM PST

  •  You have (6+ / 0-)

    badly misread this bill. It is not "nearly legal" to murder anyone, much less a police officer, in Indiana. All this does is repudiate the SC decision that essentially gave police a blanket immunity when they engage in illegal behavior. The bill specifies that the officer's conduct must be unlawful, and the person resisting them must not be engaged in or a suspect in a crime. It is intended to protect people who are clearly innocent parties.

    There have been cases where plainclothes police have kicked down the wrong door using a "no-knock" warrant, failed to identify themselves as police officers, then assault or murder charges are filed when they are shot by the homeowner who honestly believes his home is being invaded by armed criminals. That is obviously wrong, and should not be allowed to happen.

    That is the intent of this law, not to give people permission to kill cops just because they feel like it.

    "A lie is not the other side of a story; it's just a lie."

    by happy camper on Sat Mar 03, 2012 at 10:23:45 AM PST

  •  While I see that you've been very willing (2+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    hagagaga, KVoimakas

    to actually discuss this and have even adjusted the diary to reflect a better understanding of these issues we all face.

    I feel it necessary to point out some misconceptions that have not been addressed yet.

    This is the first biggest one:

    This shouldn't be partisan issue, it should be about saving the lives of the people who are there to protect us.
    The police have no constitutional duty to protect anyone. In fact, they have no obligation to come to your aid in a time of need.  They are not empowered to protect you or I but to protect "society" and the government itself.
    DeShaney v. Winnebago County
    They ruled that the DSS could not be found liable, as a matter of constitutional law, for failure to protect Joshua DeShaney from a private actor.
    Justices Rule Police Do Not Have a Constitutional Duty to Protect Someone
    The Supreme Court ruled on Monday that the police did not have a constitutional duty to protect a person from harm, even a woman who had obtained a court-issued protective order against a violent husband making an arrest mandatory for a violation.
    Warren V. District of Columbia
    This uniformly accepted rule rests upon the fundamental principle that a government and its agents are under no general duty to provide public services, such as police protection, to any particular individual citizen.

    -cut-

    This rule of duty (is) owed to the public at large


    The second glaring misconception you have:

    he continued to be violent and abusive to the police who came to bring justice.
    Police are not empowered to "bring justice", that is what we have juries and judges for.  In fact, we do not have a system of justice, we have a system of law.
    This is a court of law, young man, not a court of justice.  ~Oliver Wendell Holmes, Jr.
    And the final point you've probably never been told, we have the right to defend against an unlawful arrest, up to and including killing the person attempting to do so.

    Your Right of Defense Against Unlawful Arrest

    “Citizens may resist unlawful arrest to the point of taking an arresting officer's life if necessary.” Plummer v. State, 136 Ind. 306.

    This premise was upheld by the Supreme Court of the United States in the case: John Bad Elk v. U.S., 177 U.S. 529. The Court stated: “Where the officer is killed in the course of the disorder which naturally accompanies an attempted arrest that is resisted, the law looks with very different eyes upon the transaction, when the officer had the right to make the arrest, from what it does if the officer had no right. What may be murder in the first case might be nothing more than manslaughter in the other, or the facts might show that no offense had been committed.”

    -7.62; -5.95 The scientists of today think deeply instead of clearly. One must be sane to think clearly, but one can think deeply and be quite insane.~Tesla

    by gerrilea on Sat Mar 03, 2012 at 07:33:30 PM PST

  •  I'm concerned that.... (3+ / 0-)

    I've never heard of a case where someone shot a cop and was found innocent. Think about that (everyone).

    How does a person win in court after killing a cop and saying that it was justified? The cop is dead and it's the defendants word against the state.

    You can continue to serve at Votevets.org

    by rickeagle on Sat Mar 03, 2012 at 08:06:43 PM PST

Subscribe or Donate to support Daily Kos.

Click here for the mobile view of the site