Indiana Allows Police To Be Shot At

[Risottia]

And in the case of a domestic dispute or even a noise complaint where warrants aren't needed or required?

With consent.

Also, I dunno about the US, but in Italy there are special rules for circumstances of in flagrante delicto. But noises, or a domestic dispute, aren't crimes - unless it becomes battery in the case of the domestic dispute.

[Cestyr]

And in the case of a domestic dispute or even a noise complaint where warrants aren't needed or required?

We deal with those situations in the same way we do before the law was passed. By exempting the need for a search warrant in the first place.

Then how do you know if the police are entering lawfully or not if they don't have a warrant?

And in the case of a domestic dispute or even a noise complaint where warrants aren't needed or required?

With consent.

So justice can only be served if the perpetrator allows it? Sounds like anarchy to me.

And in the case of a domestic dispute or even a noise complaint where warrants aren't needed or required?

If they are not legally required, then they're not entering unlawfully

How do you know for what purpose the police have until they knock on your door, usually by which time they are already on your property?

[Wikipedia and Universe]

I can totally understand a law like this, but it is one that requires plenty of oversight and provisions to ensure that it does not bring harm to officers doing legit work. It needs to be made clear what constitutes a lawful and unlawful entry, for one.

[Trilobitia]

Then how do you know if the police are entering lawfully or not if they don't have a warrant?

The fact that they don't need one makes it lawful. Why would anybody expect a search warrant in a situation that does not require one?

[Trilobitia]

I can totally understand a law like this, but it is one that requires plenty of oversight and provisions to ensure that it does not bring harm to officers doing legit work. It needs to be made clear what constitutes a lawful and unlawful entry, for one.

The bill actually does outline when you can shoot at a public servant.

A person is justified in using reasonable force against a public servant if the person reasonably believes the force is necessary to:
(1) protect the person or a third person from what the person reasonably believes to be the imminent use of unlawful force;
(2) prevent or terminate the public servant's unlawful entry of or attack on the person's dwelling, curtilage, or occupied motor vehicle; or
(3) prevent or terminate the public servant's unlawful trespass on or criminal interference with property lawfully in the person's possession, lawfully in possession of a member of the person's immediate family, or belonging to a person whose property the person has authority to protect.
(j) Notwithstanding subsection (i), a person is not justified in using force against a public servant if:
(1) the person is committing or is escaping after the commission of a crime;
(2) the person provokes action by the public servant with intent to cause bodily injury to the public servant;
(3) the person has entered into combat with the public servant or is the initial aggressor, unless the person withdraws from the encounter and communicates to the public servant the intent to do so and the public servant nevertheless continues.

Source

[Cestyr]

Then how do you know if the police are entering lawfully or not if they don't have a warrant?

The fact that they don't need one makes it lawful. Why would anybody expect a search warrant in a situation that does not require one?

How do you know if they need one or not?

[Trilobitia]

The fact that they don't need one makes it lawful. Why would anybody expect a search warrant in a situation that does not require one?

How do you know if they need one or not?

Because common sense would allow you to know that police don't need a search warrant in emergency situations.

[Socialist Ecuador]

Yeah tell me how the Hell a cop will legally enter the home of a criminal?

With a warrant.

And no one is a criminal until they're actually found guilty, you're being presumptuous with the whole "guilty until proven innocent" schtick, but I'm assuming you're a communist so that's not rly surprising at all.

I'm a communist, and I think this is a good law. >_>

[Tsaraine]

Would it not be a good idea to also provide more police oversight? I mean, they really shouldn't be entering peoples' houses unlawfully. If they are, they're in the (ironic) position of being common criminals, and you should call the cops on them!

[Trilobitia]

Would it not be a good idea to also provide more police oversight? I mean, they really shouldn't be entering peoples' houses unlawfully. If they are, they're in the (ironic) position of being common criminals, and you should call the cops on them!

Oversight being what, exactly?

[Galla-]

Would it not be a good idea to also provide more police oversight? I mean, they really shouldn't be entering peoples' houses unlawfully. If they are, they're in the (ironic) position of being common criminals, and you should call the cops on them!

The problem with that is police officers cover their own asses, and they don't have a legal right to respond to your emergency, at least in the US.

If Sgt. John Public is walloping you with a nightstick, Officer Joe Average probably isn't going to be in any rush to help, and might even restrain you to keep you from resisting. Rather than being able to defend yourself, you're left to either get beaten (and unless it's caught on a dash cam, it's your word against theirs and you will lose), or get arrested for some bogus charges because you assaulted an officer.

Without this law, you're left at the mercy of "peace officers" who have the de facto authority to beat your face in, provided it is out of sight of any cameras.

[Northern Bavungria]

the law makes sense but at the same time it is has some flaws. the thing is i am pretty sure there are laws against police going into your homes in the first place. i think the only time they can come and check up on you is if they have a warrant or get a call. if they just abuse it in general then you can probably sue them in court.

[Transmaris]

...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.

I oppose the use of deadly force against ANYONE unless it's the only way to stop a threat to a person's life. Then again, one wonders why public servants and police should enjoy a special protection when committing an unlawful act. And I'm very worried that law enforcers would want to have the privilege to step over laws. Such people aren't fit to be part of the police forces of a democracy.

Yeah tell me how the Hell a cop will legally enter the home of a criminal?

Maybe you could have heard of things such as "warrants". It's a piece of paper, signed by a judge who, upon reviewing the consistence of the allegations about a citizen (see the concept of "habeas corpus"), orders the police to violate some of the suspect's rights (such as the right to privacy of his own domicile) to a given extent.

First sensible post in the thread.

[Laerod]

the law makes sense but at the same time it is has some flaws. the thing is i am pretty sure there are laws against police going into your homes in the first place. i think the only time they can come and check up on you is if they have a warrant or get a call. if they just abuse it in general then you can probably sue them in court.

The point is that while there were such laws, they were protected from facing what would otherwise be legal measures to prevent unlawful entry.

[Northern Bavungria]

the law makes sense but at the same time it is has some flaws. the thing is i am pretty sure there are laws against police going into your homes in the first place. i think the only time they can come and check up on you is if they have a warrant or get a call. if they just abuse it in general then you can probably sue them in court.

The point is that while there were such laws, they were protected from facing what would otherwise be legal measures to prevent unlawful entry.

so the cops were protected from getting prosecuted?

[Laerod]

The point is that while there were such laws, they were protected from facing what would otherwise be legal measures to prevent unlawful entry.

so the cops were protected from getting prosecuted?

The word "prevent" is key in the sentence you quoted.

[Northern Bavungria]

so the cops were protected from getting prosecuted?

The word "prevent" is key in the sentence you quoted.

ok well that makes sense. The next issue however is what if your house is on fire and firemen are going inside to do something like stop the fire. Technically they are civil servants, so could you actually beat them up or is it against the law to allow your house to burn?

To me the law is vague or i need to read up on Iandiana state laws so i can verify what is legal and not in indiana.

[Laerod]

The word "prevent" is key in the sentence you quoted.

ok well that makes sense. The next issue however is what if your house is on fire and firemen are going inside to do something like stop the fire. Technically they are civil servants, so could you actually beat them up or is it against the law to allow your house to burn?

To me the law is vague or i need to read up on Iandiana state laws so i can verify what is legal and not in indiana.

Why would it be illegal for firefighters to enter a burning house?

[Northern Bavungria]

ok well that makes sense. The next issue however is what if your house is on fire and firemen are going inside to do something like stop the fire. Technically they are civil servants, so could you actually beat them up or is it against the law to allow your house to burn?

To me the law is vague or i need to read up on Iandiana state laws so i can verify what is legal and not in indiana.

Why would it be illegal for firefighters to enter a burning house?

because the new law states that if any public servant to enter your property unlawafully. Unless another law states that burning houses are allowed to be entered by firefighters, with or without the consent of the owner. Then my point is pointless. If there is no such law or rule or whatever then technically firefighters would not be able to enter the house. I just think the law needs more substance instead of it being a one liner :/.

[L Ron Cupboard]

Would I be right in guessing that this, like Florida's stand your ground law, is another of those laws that the NRA lobbies for?

[Apynl]

I have a bit of an issue with anyone being shot just for being in someone else's home illegally (obviously if they present a threat then it's a bit different, but shooting them for just being there is a bit much). However there is no reason that a police officer should be above the law in this case - get a warrant, or don't get involved.

[Laerod]

Why would it be illegal for firefighters to enter a burning house?

because the new law states that if any public servant to enter your property unlawafully. Unless another law states that burning houses are allowed to be entered by firefighters, with or without the consent of the owner. Then my point is pointless. If there is no such law or rule or whatever then technically firefighters would not be able to enter the house. I just think the law needs more substance instead of it being a one liner :/.

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

[Laerod]

Would I be right in guessing that this, like Florida's stand your ground law, is another of those laws that the NRA lobbies for?

No, you'd be wrong for not having read the article and knowing that they did.

[Rakir]

I'm torn about this law. On one hand, police officers should not be above the law if they attempt unlawful searches or seizures, but on the other hand, deadly force should only be allowed when there is no other alternative, and this law might lead to the uninformed shooting law-abiding police officers because they wrongly believe them to be breaking the law. Ultimately, I think the law is well-meaning, but it might be going about it the wrong way.

[Risottia]

How do you know for what purpose the police have until they knock on your door, usually by which time they are already on your property?

Property =/= home, right? Home is a PART of property, afaik.
If you don't want someone to enter a place, place a door/gate with a doorbell, or an intercom.