Indiana Allows Police To Be Shot At

[Samuraikoku]

I think this will do more harm than good.

[Laissez-Faire]

@ Northern Dominus: I was actually editing my post when you posted your reply. This is how it looks now.

After reading a few replies to this topic I think it's time for me to leave my own opinion. I don't see why most of you have said what you have said. In my view, this is a really stupid law as it effectively leaves it up to the residents to decide wether or not a police officer entered their home 'unlawfully' or not. Here's an example.

The police are doing their routine patrol and whilst passing one house, they can hear sounds of fighting taking place within. Before they have a chance to stop their vehicle, a gun is fired and someone is lying bleeding to death on the floor. Now, being police officers, it is their duty to protect the public. So, with that in mind, they enter the house to arrest the shooter and defuse the situation. But because they weren't 'invited in', the same shooter guns them both down, just for doing their job. A call is then made to the authorites to inform them of the situation.

Is that, in your eyes, justified? As I said it is only an example, so please don't flame or troll me. I appreciate there may be, and there undoubtedly are, some flaws within this example, but I am sure it gets the point accross. Sometimes police officers have to enter properties without being invited in. This new law is full of holes and it just gives the people of Indiana an excuse to shoot officers of the law and get away with it.

The officer was invited by probable cause to protect the public, just like in any other situation. That would be probable cause to enter property. You stated it yourself.

[Greed and Death]

Again, why would it be unlawful for a firefighter to enter a burning house? This law doesn't touch that at all.

In Indiana, police officers are upset over a new law allowing residents to use deadly force against public servants, including law enforcement officers, who unlawfully enter their homes.

The law was signed by Republican Governor Mitch Daniels in March, reports the San Francisco Chronicle.

The law was adopted after the Indiana State Supreme Court ruled that there was “no right to reasonably resist unlawful entry by police officers," after a man assaulted an officer during a domestic violence call.

The law's author, Republican state Sen. Michael Young, said there haven't been any cases [yet] in which people have used the law to justify shooting police.

The National Rifle Association lobbied for the new law, claiming that the Indiana State Supreme Court decision had legalized police to commit unjustified entries.

Tim Downs, President of the Indiana State Fraternal Order of Police, told Bloomberg News that the law could open the way for people who are under the influence or emotionally distressed to attack officers in their homes: “It’s just a recipe for disaster. It just puts a bounty on our heads.”

Indiana is the first U.S. state to specifically allow force against officers, according to the Association of Prosecuting Attorneys in Washington, which represents prosecutors.

the underlined part states civil servants, i am fairly certain that firefighters are civil servants.

They can enter without a warrant if they believe delay would endanger lives.

Besides I doubt anyone is going to be in a position to shoot a fire fighter when theya re in a burning house.

[Laissez-Faire]

Jesus man. Really? Just march right on in? Violate one of the main tenets of the Constitution of the United States, a document every law enforcement officer is sworn to uphold all because it's "useless bureaucracy?"

Eighteenth amendment was repealed, why can't the fourth be repealed? Besides, that amendment just makes criminals' life easier and makes protecting people much more dangerous and difficult.

I'm a law enforcement officer and I think you're an idiot. You're on the same level of the genius screaming, "You can't doo that!! I know mah RIGHTS!!!" Believe it or not, but not every law enforcement officer is the shining beacon of morality and trustworthiness you seem to think that they are. Some are outright shitbags. This would open up all kinds of doors for abuse of power. Asking me to abandon everything I have sworn to protect because it's all just useless paperwork or whatever is, frankly, insulting.

A few bad apples slightly abusing their power is a much better choice than letting criminals run'n'gun down officers, hide and destroy evidence, all this with government support.

Do actually include reasons why it is protection. You are currently using a long round of loaded words.

[Greed and Death]

Jesus man. Really? Just march right on in? Violate one of the main tenets of the Constitution of the United States, a document every law enforcement officer is sworn to uphold all because it's "useless bureaucracy?"

Eighteenth amendment was repealed, why can't the fourth be repealed? Besides, that amendment just makes criminals' life easier and makes protecting people much more dangerous and difficult.

I'm a law enforcement officer and I think you're an idiot. You're on the same level of the genius screaming, "You can't doo that!! I know mah RIGHTS!!!" Believe it or not, but not every law enforcement officer is the shining beacon of morality and trustworthiness you seem to think that they are. Some are outright shitbags. This would open up all kinds of doors for abuse of power. Asking me to abandon everything I have sworn to protect because it's all just useless paperwork or whatever is, frankly, insulting.

A few bad apples slightly abusing their power is a much better choice than letting criminals run'n'gun down officers, hide and destroy evidence, all this with government support.

The law did not repeal the doctrine of Hot pursuit.

[Hippostania]

It will also lead to abuses and arrests of individuals suspicious without evidence. It rossly inflates the duty of an armed officer beyond their law enforcement capacity, which harms all parties involved. Would you rather arrests be made, or criminals be prosecuted? With your way, more arrests will be made. Doesn't make them criminals to be prosecuted.

Aww boo-hoo, some innocent guy is going to have to spend a night in a jail. More arrests will be made, and no arrest is done without a good reason.

Criminals have not taken on a lesser protection of rights, and it would be equally unfair to remove one's rights as a property owner in any capacity, simply to service a minority of cases.

No, it wouldn't, since in the end the officer is actually protecting your and other people's rights by infringing on your property rights.

[Codzania]

This is total bullshit. There are way too many idiots with guns in this country for this law to be reasonable. I'm against all laws that legalize the murder of individuals who may not be a threat to your life. Deadly force should only ever be used if you or another individual are involved with a person who is a direct threat.

[Laissez-Faire]

This is total bullshit. There are way too many idiots with guns in this country for this law to be reasonable. I'm against all laws that legalize the murder of individuals who may not be a threat to your life. Deadly force should only ever be used if you or another individual are involved with a person who is a direct threat.

There are way too many idiots with free speech. We need to ban speech right now.

[Codzania]

This is total bullshit. There are way too many idiots with guns in this country for this law to be reasonable. I'm against all laws that legalize the murder of individuals who may not be a threat to your life. Deadly force should only ever be used if you or another individual are involved with a person who is a direct threat.

There are way too many idiots with free speech. We need to ban speech right now.

Does free speech directly kill people?

[Insignificance]

After reading a few replies to this topic I think it's time for me to leave my own opinion. I don't see why most of you have said what you have said. In my view, this is a really stupid law as it effectively leaves it up to the residents to decide wether or not a police officer entered their home 'unlawfully' or not. Here's an example.

The police are doing their routine patrol and whilst passing one house, they can hear sounds of fighting taking place within. Before they have a chance to stop their vehicle, a gun is fired and someone is lying bleeding to death on the floor. Now, being police officers, it is their duty to protect the public. So, with that in mind, they enter the house to arrest the shooter and defuse the situation. But because they weren't 'invited in', the same shooter guns them both down, just for doing their job. A call is then made to the authorites to inform them of the situation.

Is that, in your eyes, justified? As I said it is only an example, so please don't flame or troll me. I appreciate there may be, and there undoubtedly are, some flaws within this example, but I am sure it gets the point accross. Sometimes police officers have to enter properties without being invited in. This new law is full of holes and it just gives the people of Indiana an excuse to shoot officers of the law and get away with it.

I agree with this 100%. Shooting another human being can never be justified, although, sadly, in many cases it is unavoidable. I do not live in Indiana but this new law should be repealed immediatley, hopefully before any police officers are shot. They Indiana government clearly didn't think this one through by effectively giving their citizens a 'commit murder and avoid jail' card.

[Jafas United]

Aww boo-hoo, some innocent guy is going to have to spend a night in a jail. More arrests will be made, and no arrest is done without a good reason.

Really, Hippo? Are you implying that innocent people haven't been arrested before, whether it was intentional or otherwise?

[Northern Dominus]

@ Northern Dominus: I was actually editing my post when you posted your reply. This is how it looks now.

After reading a few replies to this topic I think it's time for me to leave my own opinion. I don't see why most of you have said what you have said. In my view, this is a really stupid law as it effectively leaves it up to the residents to decide wether or not a police officer entered their home 'unlawfully' or not. Here's an example.

The police are doing their routine patrol and whilst passing one house, they can hear sounds of fighting taking place within. Before they have a chance to stop their vehicle, a gun is fired and someone is lying bleeding to death on the floor. Now, being police officers, it is their duty to protect the public. So, with that in mind, they enter the house to arrest the shooter and defuse the situation. But because they weren't 'invited in', the same shooter guns them both down, just for doing their job. A call is then made to the authorites to inform them of the situation.

Is that, in your eyes, justified? As I said it is only an example, so please don't flame or troll me. I appreciate there may be, and there undoubtedly are, some flaws within this example, but I am sure it gets the point accross. Sometimes police officers have to enter properties without being invited in. This new law is full of holes and it just gives the people of Indiana an excuse to shoot officers of the law and get away with it.

Well the fact of the matter is a mentally ill person with violent tendencies and a weapon will try and kill officers entering their home regardless of a warrant or not. Same can be said about dedicated drug traffickers. As you've pointed out, this law really applies to the "heat of the moment" offender with little regard for other human beings such as a violent abuser of some kind. This is where that grey area is going to lead to a lot of line of duty deaths.

[Awesomeland]

I am pretty sure there is nothing in this law that allows "stupidity" to be used as a valid defense for just randomly shooting a police officer for no good reason, so this law would ultimately result in the removal of said idiots from society as they go to jail for randomly shooting at policemen. I'm not seeing the problem here. They reveal their stupidity, they find that this defense they attempt doesn't hold up in court, and they go to prison. Problem solved. Meanwhile, the rest of us can worry slightly less about being abused by fascist uniformed thugs disguised as policemen.

[Laerod]

Really, Hippo? Are you implying that innocent people haven't been arrested before, whether it was intentional or otherwise?

He's stating he doesn't care.

[Hippostania]

Do actually include reasons why it is protection. You are currently using a long round of loaded words.

Mike the Murderer has currently stashed seven pounds of heroin and a dead baby behind his toilet. He is planning to go hunt for little babies tomorrow morning. Mike decides to go out to 7-11 to purchase a bag of Doritos before his bedtime. While Mike is walking back home from the 7-11, a police officer sees him; as Mike looks suspicious, the police officer decides to follow him.

In my ideal world, the police officer would be able to follow Mike to his home, search his house and belongings and then arrest him. In your ideal world, the police officer would have to go through huge amounts of permits to obtain a search permit, which is by then too late as Mike is already butchering children in the nearby kindergarten.

[Hippostania]

Aww boo-hoo, some innocent guy is going to have to spend a night in a jail. More arrests will be made, and no arrest is done without a good reason.

Really, Hippo? Are you implying that innocent people haven't been arrested before, whether it was intentional or otherwise?

Of course not. But there has always been a good reason for the officer to suspect that the person who has been arrested had commited a crime.

[Zijeme]

That's some nice freedom and civil reets, Hippo.

[Laerod]

Do actually include reasons why it is protection. You are currently using a long round of loaded words.

Mike the Murderer has currently stashed seven pounds of heroin and a dead baby behind his toilet. He is planning to go hunt for little babies tomorrow morning. Mike decides to go out to 7-11 to purchase a bag of Doritos before his bedtime. While Mike is walking back home from the 7-11, a police officer sees him; as Mike looks suspicious, the police officer decides to follow him.

In my ideal world, the police officer would be able to follow Mike to his home, search his house and belongings and then arrest him. In your ideal world, the police officer would have to go through huge amounts of permits to obtain a search permit, which is by then too late as Mike is already butchering children in the nearby kindergarten.

Hippo, why does your ideal world include massive amounts of people that routinely kill babies?

[Laissez-Faire]

There are way too many idiots with free speech. We need to ban speech right now.

Does free speech directly kill people?

Do guns?

[Hippostania]

Hippo, why does your ideal world include massive amounts of people that routinely kill babies?

It doesn't, that was just an example

[Jafas United]

Mike the Murderer has currently stashed seven pounds of heroin and a dead baby behind his toilet. He is planning to go hunt for little babies tomorrow morning. Mike decides to go out to 7-11 to purchase a bag of Doritos before his bedtime. While Mike is walking back home from the 7-11, a police officer sees him; as Mike looks suspicious, the police officer decides to follow him.

In my ideal world, the police officer would be able to follow Mike to his home, search his house and belongings and then arrest him. In your ideal world, the police officer would have to go through huge amounts of permits to obtain a search permit, which is by then too late as Mike is already butchering children in the nearby kindergarten.

Hippo, why does your ideal world include massive amounts of people that routinely kill babies?

Er...that was only his analogy. He said his ideal world would be one where police can search a suspected baby-murderer's home without receiving a prior warrant from the court.

[The UK in Exile]

if have a question, if a police officer invades your property why can't you just sue them? why do you need to shoot them?

[DO ALL THE THINGS]

Mike the Murderer has currently stashed seven pounds of heroin and a dead baby behind his toilet. He is planning to go hunt for little babies tomorrow morning. Mike decides to go out to 7-11 to purchase a bag of Doritos before his bedtime. While Mike is walking back home from the 7-11, a police officer sees him; as Mike looks suspicious, the police officer decides to follow him.

In my ideal world, the police officer would be able to follow Mike to his home, search his house and belongings and then arrest him. In your ideal world, the police officer would have to go through huge amounts of permits to obtain a search permit, which is by then too late as Mike is already butchering children in the nearby kindergarten.

Hippo, why does your ideal world include massive amounts of people that routinely kill babies?

Damn you beat me to it!

[Laissez-Faire]

Do actually include reasons why it is protection. You are currently using a long round of loaded words.

Mike the Murderer has currently stashed seven pounds of heroin and a dead baby behind his toilet. He is planning to go hunt for little babies tomorrow morning. Mike decides to go out to 7-11 to purchase a bag of Doritos before his bedtime. While Mike is walking back home from the 7-11, a police officer sees him; as Mike looks suspicious, the police officer decides to follow him.

In my ideal world, the police officer would be able to follow Mike to his home, search his house and belongings and then arrest him. In your ideal world, the police officer would have to go through huge amounts of permits to obtain a search permit, which is by then too late as Mike is already butchering children in the nearby kindergarten.

Let's say Mike is an innocent citizen. Even if he is a mass-murderer specializing in the serial killing of young children anhe abides he still has a full manner of rights to protect him. Right to legal counsel, right to trial by a jury of peers. It is in the best interests of a police officer to make the best arrests if quality, not improvised arrests of quantity.

[Jafas United]

Really, Hippo? Are you implying that innocent people haven't been arrested before, whether it was intentional or otherwise?

Of course not. But there has always been a good reason for the officer to suspect that the person who has been arrested had commited a crime.

Possibly. But whatever happened to innocent until proven guilty?