Indiana First State to Allow Citizens to Shoot Law Enforcement Officers

JR,

I disagree. Well, because you're an idiot, I would expect nothing less. ;)

The cry of 'protect the protectors' is moving, but far to often the protecters protect the wrong doers amongst them. Particularly if no credible witnesses can be established. Maybe the effect of this law will be that police will double check an address, or location before conducting a raid. If they have reasonable cause, with a warrant, this law doesn't reduce their safety one iota. If they don't, well maybe they will be just a little more thorough before the take away the sanctity of a law abiding citizen's home.

And from the other side, if a protecter is injured or even killed while conducting a lawful entry I have no doubt what so ever that our terrific, and supremely capable, justice system will put them away for a long long time.

I agree that the "protect the protectors" cry is moving ... to a point. My objection is not that we should do more to protect police but, rather, permitting additional violence in an inherently violent situation is akin to "two wrongs make a right". I also agree that in too many occasions the police fail to police themselves and there is a real lack of accountability. As I stated earlier, the way to combat this is not to ramp up the likelihood of a violent confrontation during a police break in but, rather, to hold the police more accountable once the violent situation has resolved itself. Hopefully, as peacefully as possible.

No matter how many protections you put in place, police will make mistakes. I would suggest that it is just as likely to cause them to think twice & to act with more alacrity to judge the correctness of their action if they know (1) if they are wrong, they are off the force; (2) if they are wrong, they may be personally responsible for the damages caused. Further, if a person is legal where they are supposed to be, they may be less likely to escalate a confrontation if they KNOW they will be fully compensated for the improper police action.

The key is that punishment must certain and that restitution must be full and swift. I know that is difficult to accomplish, but just b/c the right way is the hard way, that doesn't excuse taking the easy way out.

Am I to understand that with this law professor Henry Gates would be justified in blasting Sgt. Crowley or would doing so constitute acting stupidly?

Reread the article. What happened in that instance is horriffic and a terrible case of abuse of authority. All information regarding the raid should be made available to the public even if it compromises further investigations. Those responsible for the raid should be held accountable with the police officers who opened fire being subject to criminal penalties.

The Illinois law, however, would not have changed the outcome. A SWAT team broke in expecting violence and armed to the teeth. Creating a right to resist does nothing to prevent violence in a situation where police mistakenly enter a home but were expecting resistance even if they entered the right home.

FYI -

Here is the search warrant affidavit in the Guereno case. His brothers were significant local drug dealers and the police suspected he, too, was involved in the drug dealing.
http://www.kvoa.com/files/Scanned%20Document0582_000.pdf

As to the opinion in the Barnes case (just read it), IMO the Court went too far and effectively emasculated the need for a search warrant to enter my home. Barnes said you are not permitted entry and that should have been it - unless Ms. Barnes specifically invited them in or articulated a fear for her own safety.

There is a maxim in law "hard cases make bad law" and I think that is what happened here. The courts clearly wanted to allow the police the ability to protect Ms. Barnes and/or be present to diffuse a confrontation that might escalate into violence. Think about what have happened if the police had said, "You're right. We have no authority." and left - only to hear a gunshot inside the apartment moments later and, upon legally entering, find Ms. Barnes (or for that matter, Mr. Barnes) dead.

In refusing to protect someone who is refusing to cooperate with the police and who was reasonably seen as possibly changing a domestic dispute into a domestic violence case,
the Court overstepped and didn't limit its finding. I disagree with the court's overreaching but think the statute is an equally imperfect solution to the problem.

FYI -

Here is the search warrant affidavit in the Guereno case. His brothers were significant local drug dealers and the police suspected he, too, was involved in the drug dealing.
http://www.kvoa.com/files/Scanned%20Document0582_000.pdf



You'll forgive me if I refuse to believe anything from a lying police agency. You want me to believe these guys were criminals, even though the police agency covered up their wrong doing and outright lied about what happened....lol


I have no doubt cops plant and falsify evidence, and I strongly would bet they are doing it here as well to cover their asses.

Jose Guerena's Family Sues Pima County Over SWAT Raid Killing (http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2011/08/17/jose-guerena-pima-county-lawsuit_n_926454.html)

Family's ties to alleged pot ring detailed : Welcome to StarNet - Tucson, Arizona (http://azstarnet.com/news/local/crime/family-s-ties-to-alleged-pot-ring-detailed/article_7aa21b04-49b9-5338-92bb-3092969902b8.html)

As to the opinion in the Barnes case (just read it), IMO the Court went too far and effectively emasculated the need for a search warrant to enter my home. Barnes said you are not permitted entry and that should have been it - unless Ms. Barnes specifically invited them in or articulated a fear for her own safety.

How do idiot judges even make it that far up bringing down decisions like that? It goes against everything the law stands for. It's mind boggling and the moment those judges made that decision to pretty much make search warrants dispensable, they should have been removed from office.

Even if I have the right to shoot back I think I'll listen to their comands and when the dust settles take care of any problems.

Did you read the second article concerning the widespread nature of the conspiracy by the brothers? I am in no way suggesting that the actions that occurred in regards to Jose Guernrico's home invasion were proper police actions. At the same time, a little context goes a long way.

If you think the drug conspiracey is all a manufactured figment of the police's imagination ... fine. On the other hand, to me, and from the extent of the drug ring alleged, that's one hell of a paper trail to cover up (for example - creating hand written notes of one brother detailing sails of 10K pounds of marijuana). Is it your suggestion that the police planted over half a ton of marijuana in someone's home? Or that they are lying when they allege that the various family relations had property and assets worth $100K's with no verifiable form of legitimate income.

A lazy, dishonest police force- which is what this appeared at first blush - is one thing ... an actively corrupt force that is creating this kind of evidence with the expectation that it will hold up in court - which is what you appear to be alleging - is another. Not saying it couldn't happen, just saying it requires a lot of energy & competence to do.

Did you read the second article concerning the widespread nature of the conspiracy by the brothers? I am in no way suggesting that the actions that occurred in regards to Jose Guernrico's home invasion were proper police actions. At the same time, a little context goes a long way.

If you think the drug conspiracey is all a manufactured figment of the police's imagination ... fine. On the other hand, to me, and from the extent of the drug ring alleged, that's one hell of a paper trail to cover up (for example - creating hand written notes of one brother detailing sails of 10K pounds of marijuana). Is it your suggestion that the police planted over half a ton of marijuana in someone's home? Or that they are lying when they allege that the various family relations had property and assets worth $100K's with no verifiable form of legitimate income.

A lazy, dishonest police force- which is what this appeared at first blush - is one thing ... an actively corrupt force that is creating this kind of evidence with the expectation that it will hold up in court - which is what you appear to be alleging - is another. Not saying it couldn't happen, just saying it requires a lot of energy & competence to do.


My reference was in the two articles I posted. Sure I believe they had a or suspected some of his family of drug dealing, but last time I checked, they didn't have any evidence from Jose Guernrico raid that ended up killing him. They may even been correct on the fact his family members were dealing drugs, but I also believe that they would implicate him to cover their tracks as to make their unlawful killing look legit. Not saying they did, just that I wouldn't put it past them.

Any police department that is willing to lie and coverup, is definitely willing to lie and manufacture evidence. I'm saying I don't believe anything they say in regards to Jose Guernrico.