Indiana Allows Police To Be Shot At

[Samuraikoku]

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.

http://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/Main/JaywalkingWillRuinYourLife

[DO ALL THE THINGS]

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.

Do we really need to monitor every suspect of possessing illegal substances? I mean you're about saving lives right? That is what you have stated several times. Trample on our rights to save lives. So now it's to stop pot smokers or are you just changing your message as it suits you?

[Hippostania]

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.

Well, arrest you if the police founds something. If nothing suspicious is found, all is well and you can continue living your life.

[Terruana]

This is ridiculous. How is the guy in the house going to know if it's a lawful entry or not? It's pretty much giving them an excuse. Not to mention, I don't see why they would need to use deadly force on any police officers entering their homes. It's not the same as a mad axe murderer breaking in. The worst thing the police are gonna do is arrest you :/

[Laissez-Faire]

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?

If he has a warrant, he can enter property. I highly doubt the rates of reckless shooting of police officers are going to raise just because of this law. Do you feel any more in danger of being recklessly shot just because self-defense and property defense laws exist walking down your neighboorhood street or local road? People won't start using guns any more than those who would.

[DO ALL THE THINGS]

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?

If they do a raid they just knock, yell Police, Sheriff's Office or whatever and knock the friggin door in. Paperwork is shown to the lawyers later.

[Samuraikoku]

Well, arrest you if the police founds something. If nothing suspicious is found, all is well and you can continue living your life.

I'm going to plant something at your house. Try proving otherwise.

[Risottia]

Excuse me, but if an armed guy tries to break in my house without any valid warrant, I'll consider him to be an armed and dangerous intruder.

....and you'll die....especially if it's SWAT. They have way more training and way better weapons than you have. Best thing to do is cooperate and then sue the shit out of them if it was unlawful.....no getting shot involved.

How can I know he's a policeman on his LAWFUL business if he breaks in, armed, uninvited and masked without so much as of a warning? Didn't qualify, didn't have an invitation or a warrant, he's an armed thug.
Anyway, I like your idea of why one should respect the law and its enforcers: not because they represent the democratically-chosen authority enforcing democratically-chosen rules, but just because they're more powerful and willing to shoot first.

Also: I'd like to see a policeman trying to bash down my door... they'd need at least 200 g of plastic. 10 mm steel in reinforced concrete.

[Laissez-Faire]

This is ridiculous. How is the guy in the house going to know if it's a lawful entry or not? It's pretty much giving them an excuse. Not to mention, I don't see why they would need to use deadly force on any police officers entering their homes. It's not the same as a mad axe murderer breaking in. The worst thing the police are gonna do is arrest you :/

Not necessarily. Unannounced raids can be threatening to property, and police officers are not above the law. Certainly routine does not justify an officer being shot, neither does being an officer serve as exemption.

I doubt people who weren't going to use a gun are suddenly going to because of this law. People who would shoot recklessly will likely still do so. People who have guns will use them according to their conscience, which is unlikely to be changed by this law.

[The UK in Exile]

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?

If he has a warrant, he can enter property. I highly doubt the rates of reckless shooting of police officers are going to raise just because of this law. Do you feel any more in danger of being recklessly shot just because self-defense and property defense laws exist walking down your neighboorhood street or local road? People won't start using guns any more than those who would.

when stand you ground laws where introduced in florida, justifed homicide verdicts increased. so more people aren't going to get shot but more people are going to get away wuth it.

[Risottia]

Well, arrest you if the police founds something. If nothing suspicious is found, all is well and you can continue living your life.

I'm going to plant something at your house. Try proving otherwise.

I think that's ENTIRELY the point of having a police state. If the police doesn't like you you're fucked. No proof needed.

[Laissez-Faire]

If he has a warrant, he can enter property. I highly doubt the rates of reckless shooting of police officers are going to raise just because of this law. Do you feel any more in danger of being recklessly shot just because self-defense and property defense laws exist walking down your neighboorhood street or local road? People won't start using guns any more than those who would.

when stand you ground laws where introduced in florida, justifed homicide verdicts increased. so more people aren't going to get shot but more people are going to get away wuth it.

Was self-defense (or something justifiably similar) the reason? If it was legally justified as such, then it does not constitute liable homicide, thus more people are not "getting away with it". They have not committed a crime. Killing a person is not a crime, the circumstances are.

[Risottia]

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?

No, it ain't nice. It is bullshit, Hippo. How do you fucking know Mike's a baby killer?
YOU DON'T.

[Samuraikoku]

I'm going to plant something at your house. Try proving otherwise.

I think that's ENTIRELY the point of having a police state. If the police doesn't like you you're fucked. No proof needed.

You know I'm not advocating for a police state, Risottia.

[Laissez-Faire]

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

Well, arrest you if the police founds something. If nothing suspicious is found, all is well and you can continue living your life.

Instinct is not a standard of the law. It is a good standard of action when warranted by the law.

Officers hold that duty of discretion.

[Terruana]

This is ridiculous. How is the guy in the house going to know if it's a lawful entry or not? It's pretty much giving them an excuse. Not to mention, I don't see why they would need to use deadly force on any police officers entering their homes. It's not the same as a mad axe murderer breaking in. The worst thing the police are gonna do is arrest you :/

Not necessarily. Unannounced raids can be threatening to property, and police officers are not above the law. Certainly routine does not justify an officer being shot, neither does being an officer serve as exemption.

I doubt people who weren't going to use a gun are suddenly going to because of this law. People who would shoot recklessly will likely still do so. People who have guns will use them according to their conscience, which is unlikely to be changed by this law.

Threat to property is worth killing over now? The difference between a police officer and a random person bursting into your home is that it' would be perfectly reasonable to assume the police officer isn't going to attack you. The only reason people should be allowed to shoot someone entering their home is if they feel threatened by them.

I disagree that less people will use their guns, too. People will think "Hey, this must be one of them unlawful searches, so if I shoot him I won't get into any trouble" as opposed to "Hey, I'd better not shoot him, cop killers get pretty harsh sentences". You really don't think that will cause more people to turn trigger happy?
And like I already said, how is the guy inside going to know if it's a lawful raid or not anyway?

[DO ALL THE THINGS]

....and you'll die....especially if it's SWAT. They have way more training and way better weapons than you have. Best thing to do is cooperate and then sue the shit out of them if it was unlawful.....no getting shot involved.

How can I know he's a policeman on his LAWFUL business if he breaks in, armed, uninvited and masked without so much as of a warning? Didn't qualify, didn't have an invitation or a warrant, he's an armed thug.
Anyway, I like your idea of why one should respect the law and its enforcers: not because they represent the democratically-chosen authority enforcing democratically-chosen rules, but just because they're more powerful and willing to shoot first.

Also: I'd like to see a policeman trying to bash down my door... they'd need at least 200 g of plastic. 10 mm steel in reinforced concrete.

If you read any of my other posts you will see that that is not how I feel about respecting the law and it's enforcers, guy. I'm just saying that if you automatically reach for a gun YOU WILL GET SHOT. You are outnumbered and out gunned. As for the whole not knowing they are police, as I said earlier they yell POLICE, SHERIFF'S Office and bust in your door. Generally, they continue to yell, Police, Sheriff's Office throughout the whole raid also. You should comply if you don't want to be thrown to the floor or shot if they think you pose a threat. It would definitely be in your best interest, guy. As for your "super door," that's what breaching charges are for. You know, the ones made with C-4?

EDIT: They do perform no knock raids in special circumstances where they believe the officers/agents could be endangered or where critical evidence could be destroyed by performing a "soft knock," raid where they identify themselves prior to breaching.

EDIT: Part Deux: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=05gLm6mSZ5M

Pretty standard raid right here.

[Roffeyopia]

This law is fucking stupid, you should let someone use deadly force, only reasonable force. Shooting should only be an option if your life depended on it, it's not like the police are going to kill you.

[Laissez-Faire]

Not necessarily. Unannounced raids can be threatening to property, and police officers are not above the law. Certainly routine does not justify an officer being shot, neither does being an officer serve as exemption.

I doubt people who weren't going to use a gun are suddenly going to because of this law. People who would shoot recklessly will likely still do so. People who have guns will use them according to their conscience, which is unlikely to be changed by this law.

Threat to property is worth killing over now? The difference between a police officer and a random person bursting into your home is that it' would be perfectly reasonable to assume the police officer isn't going to attack you. The only reason people should be allowed to shoot someone entering their home is if they feel threatened by them.

I disagree that less people will use their guns, too. People will think "Hey, this must be one of them unlawful searches, so if I shoot him I won't get into any trouble" as opposed to "Hey, I'd better not shoot him, cop killers get pretty harsh sentences". You really don't think that will cause more people to turn trigger happy?
And like I already said, how is the guy inside going to know if it's a lawful raid or not anyway?

And how likely were those willing to shoot without understanding the law to do so in conscience before?

Like any conductive procedure, they'd know by the officer stating cause or warrant.

Police officers can present an unwarranted threat.

[The UK in Exile]

when stand you ground laws where introduced in florida, justifed homicide verdicts increased. so more people aren't going to get shot but more people are going to get away wuth it.

Was self-defense (or something justifiably similar) the reason? If it was legally justified as such, then it does not constitute liable homicide, thus more people are not "getting away with it". They have not committed a crime. Killing a person is not a crime, the circumstances are.

because they changed the definition of self defence.

for example, two gangs went to a public area and opened fire on each other. self defence.

[Risottia]

It would definitely be in your best interest, guy. As for your "super door," that's what breaching charges are for. You know, the ones made with C-4?

Luckily I live in a country where they need a warrant from the judiciary before even THINKING of using explosives. Expecially explosives designed to take down whole blocks.

EDIT: They do perform no knock raids in special circumstances where they believe the officers/agents could be endangered ...

In the nightmarish police state you live in, that is.
Agents are ALWAYS endangered on their job. That's why they're given weapons and training. They can learn to cope with the fact... or choose another job.

[Big Jim P]

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.

The problem with this is that here in the States, we are presumed innocent until PROVEN guilty, not suspected to be guilty. See the difference there?

Oh, and your ideal world is a police state, whereas some of us prefer to live with at least a semblance of liberty.

[DO ALL THE THINGS]

It would definitely be in your best interest, guy. As for your "super door," that's what breaching charges are for. You know, the ones made with C-4?

Luckily I live in a country where they need a warrant from the judiciary before even THINKING of using explosives. Expecially explosives designed to take down whole blocks.

EDIT: They do perform no knock raids in special circumstances where they believe the officers/agents could be endangered ...

In the nightmarish police state you live in, that is.
Agents are ALWAYS endangered on their job. That's why they're given weapons and training. They can learn to cope with the fact... or choose another job.

Where did I insinuate that officers or agents can conduct raids without an warrant? I said nothing of the sort. I don't understand your second comment. Soooo basically they should approach every raid the same? No special considerations for the particular goals of the raid, targets of the raid, special equipment required (like flash bangs for no knock or hard knock raids or explosives for "super doors") etc.

EDIT: Also, I meant ESPECIALLY endangered by identifying themselves prior to breach. Every raid is dangerous. That is why each one must be approached differently. You should really watch that youtube video I linked. That was a "soft knock" raid and was very standard. It is by far the most common. Using explosives, flash bangs and doing a no knock/hard knock would not have made sense during that raid, hence why I suspect the officers conducted a soft knock.

[Greed and Death]

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?

No, it ain't nice. It is bullshit, Hippo. How do you fucking know Mike's a baby killer?
YOU DON'T.

The only way to be certain is to lock up all registered Democrats until after November.

[Terruana]

Threat to property is worth killing over now? The difference between a police officer and a random person bursting into your home is that it' would be perfectly reasonable to assume the police officer isn't going to attack you. The only reason people should be allowed to shoot someone entering their home is if they feel threatened by them.

I disagree that less people will use their guns, too. People will think "Hey, this must be one of them unlawful searches, so if I shoot him I won't get into any trouble" as opposed to "Hey, I'd better not shoot him, cop killers get pretty harsh sentences". You really don't think that will cause more people to turn trigger happy?
And like I already said, how is the guy inside going to know if it's a lawful raid or not anyway?

And how likely were those willing to shoot without understanding the law to do so in conscience before?

Like any conductive procedure, they'd know by the officer stating cause or warrant.

Police officers can present an unwarranted threat.

Because now anybody who misunderstands the law will also shoot. You'll have all the nutjobs who would start shooting anyway, the ones you've already acknowledged, but then you also have the idiots who *think* what they're doing is legal when it isn't.

And generally, once you're having a conversation with them about cause/warrants, there's no need at all to whip out a gun and start shooting. Like I said, if you're not in danger, you have no justification for shooting someone.

And a threat to what? Property? I think we've already established that threat to property is not a good enough reason to start shooting people.