Indiana Allows Police To Be Shot At

[L Ron Cupboard]

Think I am awake now - does the term 'home' specifically mean house or does it cover the entire property?

[Laissez-Faire]

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?

Depends on the level of threat. If it's threatening property to a certain degree, self-defense becomes just as much an option for civilians. This law protects it towards police officers.

[DO ALL THE THINGS]

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 detain a suspected baby-murderer without receiving a prior warrant from the court.

You can detain someone already without a warrent. All you need is to be able to properly articulate WHY you suspect him of baby murdering. You need a warrant/consent to search his house absent of exigent circumstances.

[Laissez-Faire]

Think I am awake now - does the term 'home' specifically mean house or does it cover the entire property?

All property. The barn, the house, and the fields.

Edit: Of course, unless part of that property is not yours to defend, I.e. depending on leasing agreements.

[Hippostania]

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.

Ok, let's say Mike is an innocent citizen and he doesn't have heroin and dead babies stacked behind is toilet. The police go into, perform a search and find nothing. The police officer apologizes the inconvinience and they leave, Mike eats his Doritos and goes to bed happy.

OH GOD THAT'S SO HORRIBLE OH GOD POOR MIKE IT'S LIKE HIS LIFE IS NOW OVER HIS HOUSE WAS SEARCHED OH GOD THIS IS UNFORGIVABLE OH MY JESUS CHRIST

[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?

Depends on the level of threat. If it's threatening property to a certain degree, self-defense becomes just as much an option for civilians. This law protects it towards police officers.

no it doesn't, it specfically endorses using force to prevent unlawful entry.

[Jafas United]

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

You can detain someone already without a warrent. All you need is to be able to properly articulate WHY you suspect him of baby murdering. You need a warrant/consent to search his house absent of exigent circumstances.

Yes, that's what I meant. Not concentrating, as usual.

[Hippostania]

You can detain someone already without a warrent. All you need is to be able to properly articulate WHY you suspect him of baby murdering. You need a warrant/consent to search his house absent of exigent circumstances.

Do you know what that takes? Time. And while Peter the Police Officer is in the station filing ''necessary'' paperwork to get a search permit, Mike has gone to the nearby kindergarten to butcher little babies. Ain't that nice?

[Laissez-Faire]

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.

Ok, let's say Mike is an innocent citizen and he doesn't have heroin and dead babies stacked behind is toilet. The police go into, perform a search and find nothing. The police officer apologizes the inconvinience and they leave, Mike eats his Doritos and goes to bed happy.

OH GOD THAT'S SO HORRIBLE OH GOD POOR MIKE IT'S LIKE HIS LIFE IS NOW OVER HIS HOUSE WAS SEARCHED OH GOD THIS IS UNFORGIVABLE OH MY JESUS CHRIST

Or let's say he has a stash of heroin. Doesn't give the police officer the right to search ever house whenever they desire just because one may or may not have something illegal. Police officers actively look for evidence, but passively look for actual criminals. That is the nature of their duty, and it is the best way, police officers would probably agree (not an officer), to make sure the arrest is if quality and substance rather than having any defense in court. You want the criminal caught red-handed, not on a whim.

[The UK in Exile]

You can detain someone already without a warrent. All you need is to be able to properly articulate WHY you suspect him of baby murdering. You need a warrant/consent to search his house absent of exigent circumstances.

Do you know what that takes? Time. And while Peter the Police Officer is in the station filing ''necessary'' paperwork to get a search permit, Mike has gone to the nearby kindergarten to butcher little babies. Ain't that nice?

if hes at a kndergarten why does the police officer need a warrant?

[Laissez-Faire]

Depends on the level of threat. If it's threatening property to a certain degree, self-defense becomes just as much an option for civilians. This law protects it towards police officers.

no it doesn't, it specfically endorses using force to prevent unlawful entry.

It's a right protected in most situations to other civilians.

[Codzania]

Does free speech directly kill people?

Do guns?

Are you fucking kidding me? Okay, let me clarify. People with guns.

[Laissez-Faire]

Do guns?

Are you fucking kidding me? Okay, let me clarify. People with guns.

Do people with guns directly kill people, even?

[DO ALL THE THINGS]

You can detain someone already without a warrent. All you need is to be able to properly articulate WHY you suspect him of baby murdering. You need a warrant/consent to search his house absent of exigent circumstances.

Do you know what that takes? Time. And while Peter the Police Officer is in the station filing ''necessary'' paperwork to get a search permit, Mike has gone to the nearby kindergarten to butcher little babies. Ain't that nice?

If they really suspect Mike of baby murdering they can and will post some officers outside of his house to detain him if he leaves. If they believe there are babies about to be murdered in the house they can go in there. Furthermore, getting a warrant doesn't take as long as you think. Especially, for suspected baby murders, o'lord of dramatization.

[Jafas United]

Do guns?

Are you fucking kidding me? Okay, let me clarify. People with guns.

On occasion, yes. But what are you trying to establish here?

[The UK in Exile]

no it doesn't, it specfically endorses using force to prevent unlawful entry.

It's a right protected in most situations to other civilians.

most other civilians can't obtain entry without consent officers can. leading to situations where an officer can enter legally, whilst the occupant believes it to be illegal.

[Hippostania]

Or let's say he has a stash of heroin. Doesn't give the police officer the right to search ever house whenever they desire just because one may or may not have something illegal.

Well it should. Mike has committed a crime by possessing illegal substances, and the police should use any means necessary to bring him to justice.

Police officers actively look for evidence, but passively look for actual criminals. That is the nature of their duty, and it is the best way, police officers would probably agree (not an officer), to make sure the arrest is if quality and substance rather than having any defense in court. You want the criminal caught red-handed, not on a whim.

Why? It doesn't matter how you catch a criminal as long as you catch him. It's better to arrest too many people than not enough people.

[Codzania]

Are you fucking kidding me? Okay, let me clarify. People with guns.

Do people with guns directly kill people, even?

The effects of gunshot wounds are generally fatal without medical care.

[Laissez-Faire]

It's a right protected in most situations to other civilians.

most other civilians can't obtain entry without consent officers can. leading to situations where an officer can enter legally, whilst the occupant believes it to be illegal.

And wherein the occupant is liable. Not to mention is it not recommendation already for officers to show a warrant to prevent confusion itself and, dare I say, resistance?

[Codzania]

Are you fucking kidding me? Okay, let me clarify. People with guns.

On occasion, yes. But what are you trying to establish here?

I'm answering his asinine questions.

[Hippostania]

If they really suspect Mike of baby murdering they can and will post some officers outside of his house to detain him if he leaves. If they believe there are babies about to be murdered in the house they can go in there. Furthermore, getting a warrant doesn't take as long as you think. Especially, for suspected baby murders, o'lord of dramatization.

Well, what if he has committed a smaller crime? Like possessing illegal substances? You can't have a squad of police officers monitoring every suspect 24/7. That's why it'd be a good thing if the police could just run in, do a search and if necessary, detain the person in question.

[Samuraikoku]

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.

Good idea. You look suspicious to me, I'm going to follow you to your house, search it and your belongings, and arrest you.

[L Ron Cupboard]

Think I am awake now - does the term 'home' specifically mean house or does it cover the entire property?

All property. The barn, the house, and the fields.

Edit: Of course, unless part of that property is not yours to defend, I.e. depending on leasing agreements.

Then I am confused as to how a police officer is going to get close enough to show the householder the warrant before being shot?

[Laissez-Faire]

Do people with guns directly kill people, even?

The effects of gunshot wounds are generally fatal without medical care.

Indeed they are. But before I continue to make the same statement, guns are a media for which a person achieves something, just like any other forum or media, including the Internet or a newspaper. The law is in agreement that just because a forum or media can result in bad things, those bad things do not entitle the forum or media to be banned. The Internet does not spread violence, and guns do not kill. People do those things.

[Codzania]

The effects of gunshot wounds are generally fatal without medical care.

Indeed they are. But before I continue to make the same statement, guns are a media for which a person achieves something, just like any other forum or media, including the Internet or a newspaper. The law is in agreement that just because a forum or media can result in bad things, does not entitle the forum or media to be banned, because the Internet does not spread violence, and guns do not kill. People do those things.

I'm not advocating the banning of guns. I'm saying that this law will result in some trigger happy moron shooting a cop.