Indiana Law lets you defend yourself from police

[Texanna]

Hey folks, peace officers (whoops, 'scuse me, old habit) ... err, law enforcement officers ARE "civilians" just as much as Janie the yoga instructor and Frank the mechanic. We are all citizens.

Active military may call us "civilians," including their own mom & pops.

 

[Stomper]

I know huh? I have never been raided by police but I am raped 24/7 by unjust laws.

That's 'cuz we're bent over and have no "standing"….

 

[red442joe]

Hmmmm, I seem to have been watching a lot of videos of raids, and such, by L.E.
I find it disturbing how hard officer try to eliminate video record of their behavior...

Joe

 

[Stomper]

Hey folks, peace officers (whoops, 'scuse me, old habit) ... err, law enforcement officers ARE "civilians" just as much as Janie the yoga instructor and Frank the mechanic. We are all citizens.

Active military may call us "civilians," including their own mom & pops.

I'm not a civilian, I'm a citizen.

 

[Stomper]

Hmmmm, I seem to have been watching a lot of videos of raids, and such, by L.E.
I find it disturbing how hard officer try to eliminate video record of their behavior...

Joe

Check out the YT channel, "Audit the Audit". I can only watch one video every so often because I can barely make it through watching one without just about flying into a spitting rage…. some of the SHEITE that some LEO's pull should get them a minimum of 3-5 behind bars, if not a proper a$$-whoopin' right there on the spot.


LEO's should first and foremost be peace-officers, then curb-stompers second when actually called for.

 

[FireArm]

just wait for them to come out of their house or car, free game then.

 

[VinnieBoomBah]

I wonder what the reaction around here would be if the thread title was:

Indiana Law lets you defend yourself from ATF

 

[po18guy]

That's 'cuz we're bent over and have no "standing"….

The Indiana law that lets citizens shoot cops

The Hoosier State now allows people to use deadly force to keep public servants from illegally entering their homes or cars. Police, of course, are not pleased

theweek.com

Curious peoples thoughts, have a feeling itll be split. I agree a way to prevent no knock raids, or makes the police get a warrant. Keeps them honest.

"The Week" appears to be "rather" leftist. They claim that the NRA has been promoting "lax gun laws" as if rape, robbery, assault and murder were not illegal?

Beam me up Scotty!

 

[po18guy]

Hmmmm, I seem to have been watching a lot of videos of raids, and such, by L.E.
I find it disturbing how hard officer try to eliminate video record of their behavior...

Joe

Law enFORCEment is often not an elegant endeavor. While video can certainly help, it judges only actions and not reasoning or the officer's mental state (unless explicitly expressed). In a video-based culture that is substantially incapable of critical thinking, we are judged on appearances. This leads to injustice. Video is not the final solution, and its effect has been to intimidate officers and has lead to injuries and even deaths out of fear of perceived over-reaction. The foregoing is particularly true if there is a racial disparity involved.

This addition to the Indiana law, if accurately described, now places "soveriegn citizens" in a position of power and judgment over those entrusted with maintaining order in soceity. Considering that police are trained in search and seizure, as well as being updated with stare decisis (case law), how is the citizen to know what is lawful entry? Their opinion? Which criminal wants police to enter under any circumstances?

As we see from rapidly increasing crime statistics, the only thing worse than government is lack of government.

 

[RVTECH]

Check out the YT channel, "Audit the Audit". I can only watch one video every so often because I can barely make it through watching one without just about flying into a spitting rage…. some of the SHEITE that some LEO's pull should get them a minimum of 3-5 behind bars, if not a proper a$$-whoopin' right there on the spot.

YA beat me to it ! And DITTO every thing you say about it!

I literally can hardly believe some of the sheeit I have seen !

I think the worst part is when the 'subject' - the one challenging/testing the LEO at the scene is aware of the laws, the legality of what he is doing and is NOT threatening is obviously being lied to, or told misinformation by the LEO who is obviously making it up as he/she goes. This is verified by interjections by the narrator during the interaction.

 

[American123]

Law enFORCEment is often not an elegant endeavor. While video can certainly help, it judges only actions and not reasoning or the officer's mental state (unless explicitly expressed). In a video-based culture that is substantially incapable of critical thinking, we are judged on appearances. This leads to injustice. Video is not the final solution, and its effect has been to intimidate officers and has lead to injuries and even deaths out of fear of perceived over-reaction. The foregoing is particularly true if there is a racial disparity involved.

This addition to the Indiana law, if accurately described, now places "soveriegn citizens" in a position of power and judgment over those entrusted with maintaining order in soceity. Considering that police are trained in search and seizure, as well as being updated with stare decisis (case law), how is the citizen to know what is lawful entry? Their opinion? Which criminal wants police to enter under any circumstances?

As we see from rapidly increasing crime statistics, the only thing worse than government is lack of government.

The rapidly increasing crime statistics is also because of "too much" government, it's against the law to shoot people for most criminal behavior and therefore it is because the government has hamstrung the citizenry while also not fulfilling its responsibility to prosecute and jail criminals that crime has so rapidly increased.

In fact, if you take the government entirely out of the equation and let humans handle these issues without government interdiction. It'd be handled pretty rapidly and crime would quickly become far less frequent.

 

[solv3nt]

I have to admit I'm 50-50. I'm a LE supporter, but then again, there have been far too many times in the news over the years of LEO's making bad calls, abuses of authority and innocent citizens ending up dead while officers largely enjoy immunity.

It seems only fair that citizens should have the same immunity when defending themselves in a castle doctrine state.

I understand that any law can be abused though and somewhat agree with LE concerns about officers being killed unjustly and the perp getting away with it, but isn't that what happens when LEO's kill someone unjustly too??

All in all... I guess I do go along with the idea of having an "even playing field". LEO or civilian abiding by the same rules and having the same protections.

They really need to stop no-knock warrants and require body cameras that can't be disabled by the user, and I think the problem would be mostly solved.

 

[solv3nt]

I'm not a civilian, I'm a citizen.

 

[Nosferatu]

Pretty sad sign of the times that the citizens of this country need a law to specifically permit them to defend themselves from citizens of this country.

 

[dangerranger60]

I'm old enough to remember when it was not illegal to fight the police. It was just considered a fair fight. And police at that time were hired for their ability to dish it out as well as take it.
These days looking at you wrong is police brutality. Don't take this as supporting bad cops, But I think people need to see how far they have come in 50 or 60 years! DR

 

[RyanG90]

I feel like this should be law everywhere. Cops are just people, I definitely think todays cops for the most part need to have something to Humble them. Might end up with less un necessary trigger happy cops.

 

[red442joe]

Law enFORCEment is often not an elegant endeavor. While video can certainly help, it judges only actions and not reasoning or the officer's mental state (unless explicitly expressed). In a video-based culture that is substantially incapable of critical thinking, we are judged on appearances. This leads to injustice. Video is not the final solution, and its effect has been to intimidate officers and has lead to injuries and even deaths out of fear of perceived over-reaction. The foregoing is particularly true if there is a racial disparity involved.

This addition to the Indiana law, if accurately described, now places "soveriegn citizens" in a position of power and judgment over those entrusted with maintaining order in soceity. Considering that police are trained in search and seizure, as well as being updated with stare decisis (case law), how is the citizen to know what is lawful entry? Their opinion? Which criminal wants police to enter under any circumstances?

As we see from rapidly increasing crime statistics, the only thing worse than government is lack of government.

Uhhhh....ahhh....umm?
So much to....
Not sure where to start.
I got some smartass replies, however, I do believe you are sincere, and deserve reasonable, considered responses.
To whit...I truly believe anarchy to be far better than tyranny. Let's not confuse anarchy with chaos.

Joe

 

[red442joe]

Pretty sad sign of the times that the citizens of this country need a law to specifically permit them to defend themselves from citizens of this country.

Defend themselves from agents of tyranny.

Joe

 

[red442joe]

I'm old enough to remember when it was not illegal to fight the police. It was just considered a fair fight. And police at that time were hired for their ability to dish it out as well as take it.
These days looking at you wrong is police brutality. Don't take this as supporting bad cops, But I think people need to see how far they have come in 50 or 60 years! DR

Perhaps "mutual combat" with L.E.?

Joe

 

[bradsteen]

I'm not an attorney and don't play one on TV, so this is just my opinion...

There is a fine line between unlawful activity by the police and what attorney Andrew Branca refers to as "awful but lawful". For example, let's say law enforcement raids the wrong house with a no-knock warrant - this has happened in the past, and law abiding citizens have been killed in the process. In that situation the police have made a terrible mistake, but it's just that - a mistake. They are not willfully committing an unlawful act. They are executing their duties as law enforcement officers with the understanding that their actions are within the bounds of the law. A court may find the police guilty of negligence for not validating that the home they raided was the correct one, but they would probably not be found guilty of murder because there was no intent to cause harm.

Now in that same situation let's say a law-abiding citizen defends themselves from police during that raid and in the process injures or kills an officer. Their actions would also probably be justified under the law because they subjectively and objectively believe that they are responding to a threat of death or serious bodily harm - police did not announce themselves or communicate to the affected person their intentions or authority. In my opinion, shouts of "Police!" as the officers conduct the raid are not adequate for a citizen to identify and acknowledge the legitimacy of the police action - anyone can shout "Police!" while kicking in a door.

In short, it's a sh!t sandwich any way you slice it. The way the law is worded does not help the average citizen understand what is permissible under the law and what is not. Well-intentioned or not, I think this law will place officers as well as law-abiding citizens in jeopardy because some people, both criminals and law abiding citizens, will undoubtedly interpret this as something they can use to justify resistance to police action that they perceive as unlawful but is actually lawful, and that incorrect interpretation may result in violent conflict that could otherwise be avoided.

Eliminating no-knock warrants would undoubtedly help reduce risk to law abiding citizens, but on the flip side it also has a direct impact on officer safety. All it takes is a few seconds of advanced notice for an armed criminal intent on taking violent action to prepare an ambush for responding officers. I can't speak to current law enforcement processes surrounding no-knock warrants, but if it does not already exist I would argue adding a very clear intelligence-gathering requirement to ensure the subject of the warrant is really at the location in question before such a warrant could be executed would probably help avoid some (not all) of those problems.