Indiana First State to Allow Citizens to Shoot Law Enforcement Officers

[NC_Skins]

AllGov - News - Indiana First State to Allow Citizens to Shoot Law Enforcement Officers


Kudos to Indiana for passing such legislation. I think we've seen over the course of the past decade or so how cops are abusing their powers more and more. This puts some power back into the people of the land. It does create a bad situation, but no cop should be allowed to break the law, even if they are the law.

[dmek25]

this is a joke right? horrible legislation

[Lotus]

For once such a story is not about Mississippi. Yay!

[JoeRedskin]

The police are far from perfect ... but if you thought "Stand your ground" created blood in the streets, get ready for more. An underlying tenet in the rule of law is a bias against violence. This law takes a confrontational situation (law enforcment officials entering a home) and sanctions a violent response.

Rather than increase the likelihood of violence during a confrontational situation, the goal would be better served if the sanctions for unlawful entry created a strict liability for unlawful entries (i.e. - Don't care if you thought it was right and your improper action was not intentional), substantial monetary penalties and suspensions for officers who make such illegal entries - appealable to a citizen board as opposed to a board of officers, and - most importantly - swift and complete restitution for citizens subject to wrongful invasions, again, based on a strict liability standard.

Resorting "Let's just do some more shooting" is not conducive to peaceful resolution a situtation. Further, it - IMHO - will simply take a dangerous situation and increase the danger for all involved - police and citizens.

[NC_Skins]

I agree JR. I like the spirit of the law more than I do the law itself, but I think this was done in accordance to the Supreme Court's ruling the year prior that there is no right to resist unlawful entry by police officers. Really? **** THAT.

We hold that there is no right to reasonably resist unlawful entry by police officers.

http://bloximages.chicago2.vip.townn...903509.pdf.pdf


We've seen far too many coverups from cops and the legal system to continue on with the same course. You want to prevent legislation like this, start holding cops accountable for their actions and STOP defending them and acting as if they are in the right. I could go down a long huge list of cops and their illegal activities that have gone unpunished so it's high time we give the citizens a fighting chance to defend such erroneous behavior.


Something has to be done, and if the law enforcement agencies and legal system won't do it, I suppose the citizens will. This is what happens when you ignore bad behavior. I'm in favor of this law because the law refuses to acknowledge its bad behavior. JR brings up the best point about making these agencies liable.

In fact, I support this legislation 100%. Why? Until our legal system corrects its mistake, the people deserve a right to defend themselves.

[SmootSmack]

So if this had happened in Indiana...

Police raided wrong Alabama house searching for shooting suspect: FBI | Reuters

[NC_Skins]

Things like this is exactly why that law exists.

Jose Guerena Killed: Arizona Cops Shoot Former Marine In Botched Pot Raid


..and what do the cops and legal system do after they killed a innocent man unlawfully? They covered it up. They lied. They tried to seal it all away.

The Pima County Sheriff's Office has now changed its story several times over the last few weeks. They have issued a press release (PDF) scolding the media and critics for questioning the legality of the raid, the department's account of what happened, and the department's ability to fairly investigate its own officers. They have obtained a court order sealing the search warrants and police affidavits that led to the raids, and they're now refusing any further comment on the case at all. When I contacted Public Information Officer Jason Ogan with some questions, he replied via email that the department won't be releasing any more information. On Saturday, Pima County Sheriff Clarence Dupnik told Arizona Daily Star columnist Josh Brodesky that he may never release the search warrants and police affidavits. Dupnik rose to national prominence earlier this year after claiming combative political rhetoric contributed to Jared Loughner killing six people and wounding 19 others, including Rep. Gabielle Giffords, last January.

I agree with JR in that there should be VERY strict liabilities (both financially and criminally) involved for those in law enforcement that break the law themselves. Much like our government though, good luck with that shit ever happening. I find it funny and ironic they want criminals to be held accountable, but they sure as hell don't.

[mlmpetert]

Remember this incident. I never followed it through, i guess he got sentenced to 10 years in prision.

Ryan Frederick - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Just watch an episode of Cops. The amount of force police are using is wayyy beyond excessive, yet we have slowly come to terms that it’s okay to tackle the shit out of someone and to knee them in the back after they surrender.

People make a huge deal about protecting the safety of the officer; however, shouldn’t that be secondary to the safety and well being of the citizen. The officer is agreeing to put his life at risk when he goes to work, a person mistaken for a criminal has made no such agreement.

Police officers didnt make the top 10 list of most dangerous jobs. Curiously Ive never heard a public servant refuse collector referred to as a hero:

Top 10 Most Dangerous Jobs - Careers Articles

If aggressive tactics are putting people’s lives at risk then they should have the right to defend them. Otherwise Im with Joeredskins, exposing police agencies to additional liability would have been a better option.

Id bet the fear of monetary damages would force a lot more police departments to think twice before kicking down the wrong door than this law will. Unfortunately Id suspect most agencies could withstand the loss of several deputies much easier than the loss of several lawsuits. I doubt this law changes anything, perhaps it will keep people like Ryan Fredrick out of jail.

[CRedskinsRule]

I agree with NC_Skins. Listen to the ruling of the state Supreme Court(from article):

The first of its kind in the United States, the law was adopted after the state Supreme Court went too far in one of its rulings last year, according to supporters. The case in question involved a man who assaulted an officer during a domestic violence call. The court ruled that there was “no right to reasonably resist unlawful entry by police officers.”(emphasis mine)

That is a huge overstep by the state court, and I would think it's a good thing that lawmakers are backing the public's right to reasonably defend themselves from police misconduct.

[CRedskinsRule]

JR,

I disagree. 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.

[JoeRedskin]

Originally Posted by CRedskinsRule

JR,

I disagree.

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

Originally Posted by CRedskinsRule

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.

[saden1]

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?

[JoeRedskin]

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.

[JoeRedskin]

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%20...nt0582_000.pdf

[JoeRedskin]

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.