Indiana Law lets you defend yourself from police

[Member 5605]

Too bad this didn't help Floyd and the bystanders

 

[Lilhigbee]

Floyd and the bystanders

Sounds like a country band!!

 

[Alexx1401]

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.

This is why I have LONG been VERY big on bad LEO's getting hammered. Some bad ones do slip through and when they are protected or hidden it just makes life miserable for the rest of them. Take that job and abuse it? You should get to spend time in prison as an example to others.

 

[Alexx1401]

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.

Yes. There is VERY seldom a "need" for this kick in the door crap that leads to so many problems.

 

[po18guy]

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

Just know that the ultimate goal of this is disarmament of the populace. Nothing else. Still like it? The stated intent does not matter. The road to hell is paved with good intentions.

Such laws will have the effect of greatly increasing the number and severity of armed government-civilian encounters. Does no one see this? For those who may have forgotten, there "ARE" legitimate and legal government entries. The neighbor's meth lab, or the local street gang for examples. Progressive activists - change agents who are always attracted to positions of power, will seize upon this as additional justification for "emergency disarmament legislation" based on selective enforcement.

We have recently been advised by der Führer on national television that "white supremacy" is a "clear and present danger" - he speaks us US. We are the target, not gangs and violent felons. Still sound like slice bread?

For all of his faults, during the Clinton era, Wayne Lapierre noted - to substantial media criticism - that the Clinton administration was enacting laws and then not enforcing them. Wayne correctly pointed out that the Clinton admin needed additional firearms violence to drive their disarmament agenda. I see this addition to existing law to have an extremely sharp double edge. IMO, it has less to do with castle doctrine (government hates castle doctrine), and everything to do with opening the door to armed violence - which then "justifies" forceful government reaction and ever more punitive laws, ultimately disarmament.

So, this is almost surely not the "great deal" that so many perceive it to be.

In addition to increasing the potential for violence, this knowledge and authority is added to the defund the police insanity and intense scrutiny of all police acitivy. The department I worked for for 31 years now has the unofficial job description of "see nothing, do nothing." While this may cause some relief to us conservative types, it grants immediate liv=cense to common and violent criminals. The crime stats bear witness to that. This sends the message to street gangs that they now have the 'right' to resist/shoot/kill police officers who are attempting to dismantle violent street gangs.

While appearing attractive to freedom lovers, it is even more attractive to freedom-loving criminals and power-seeking politicians. This is something worth pondering. Ever read 1984? Brave New World? "The Time Machine"? "Soylent Green"? Those were written by visionaries and prophets, who had a solid grasp of our failed human nature. Were those authors still alive, they would be shocked at just how near we are to their predicted dystopian future.

I have been watching the power hungry since the late 1960s. Their names, faces and job titles have changed. Their goal has not.

 

[Member 5605]

Sounds like a country band!!

Maybe but wrong demographic.

If speech wasn't neutered I'd tell you the real band name and it wasn't Hootie and the Blowfish.

 

[Caveman Jim]

Let's be honest here. A squad of FBI, ATF, or local SWAT raid your house, even if it being the wrong house and you defend yourself you were still going to die if you shoot officers. Hell, it'll all come out in the wash in the courts but you and your family will still be dead.
Now do you like that law?

 

[Alexx1401]

Let's be honest here. A squad of FBI, ATF, or local SWAT raid your house, even if it being the wrong house and you defend yourself you were still going to die if you shoot officers. Hell, it'll all come out in the wash in the courts but you and your family will still be dead.
Now do you like that law?

If you fire at one of those kind they are most likely going to dust you good. What makes me cringe is the no knocks that go bad when they were totally not needed. Best is when its the wrong damn house of course. One that happened here couple decades back was guy who was a SMALL time pot dealer. His brother was an LEO and had lived in the same house at one time. This was the "excuse" they used to kick in the door in the dark. Guy woke to this, came out with a gun and killed one LEO. Amazingly he lived. They of course sent him to prison. The lies and dancing the Police did to cover up this FUBAR was off the chart. They knew where he worked and when he worked. So instead of walking up to him at work, arresting him and going to his house they Rambo up and boot the doors and if cost a Cop his life and ruined the life of the pot dealer. Stuff like this should be criminal. Whoever gave the OK for that raid should have gone to prison for manslaughter for the dead Cop. Instead no one was punished.

 

[red442joe]

Just know that the ultimate goal of this is disarmament of the populace. Nothing else. Still like it? The stated intent does not matter. The road to hell is paved with good intentions.

Such laws will have the effect of greatly increasing the number and severity of armed government-civilian encounters. Does no one see this? For those who may have forgotten, there "ARE" legitimate and legal government entries. The neighbor's meth lab, or the local street gang for examples. Progressive activists - change agents who are always attracted to positions of power, will seize upon this as additional justification for "emergency disarmament legislation" based on selective enforcement.

We have recently been advised by der Führer on national television that "white supremacy" is a "clear and present danger" - he speaks us US. We are the target, not gangs and violent felons. Still sound like slice bread?

For all of his faults, during the Clinton era, Wayne Lapierre noted - to substantial media criticism - that the Clinton administration was enacting laws and then not enforcing them. Wayne correctly pointed out that the Clinton admin needed additional firearms violence to drive their disarmament agenda. I see this addition to existing law to have an extremely sharp double edge. IMO, it has less to do with castle doctrine (government hates castle doctrine), and everything to do with opening the door to armed violence - which then "justifies" forceful government reaction and ever more punitive laws, ultimately disarmament.

So, this is almost surely not the "great deal" that so many perceive it to be.

In addition to increasing the potential for violence, this knowledge and authority is added to the defund the police insanity and intense scrutiny of all police acitivy. The department I worked for for 31 years now has the unofficial job description of "see nothing, do nothing." While this may cause some relief to us conservative types, it grants immediate liv=cense to common and violent criminals. The crime stats bear witness to that. This sends the message to street gangs that they now have the 'right' to resist/shoot/kill police officers who are attempting to dismantle violent street gangs.

While appearing attractive to freedom lovers, it is even more attractive to freedom-loving criminals and power-seeking politicians. This is something worth pondering. Ever read 1984? Brave New World? "The Time Machine"? "Soylent Green"? Those were written by visionaries and prophets, who had a solid grasp of our failed human nature. Were those authors still alive, they would be shocked at just how near we are to their predicted dystopian future.

I have been watching the power hungry since the late 1960s. Their names, faces and job titles have changed. Their goal has not.

See, I knew you had something to say.
Now I need to figure out how to politely disagree...

Joe

 

[solv3nt]

That university of Idaho killer had a no knock raid with 50+ boots kicking in all doors and most windows of his parents house in Pennsylvania.

 

[Provincial]

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.

An incident exactly as you describe happened in Portland years ago. The police raided a house occupied by a biker gang that was dealing drugs. As officers thundered up a stairs, a biker came out of an upstairs bedroom and shot the lead policeman, killing him. He was tried for murder, but was acquitted when his claim of self-defense was accepted (I'm not sure if by jury or a bench trial), and this was upheld by the Oregon Supreme Court.

This did not sit well in some circles, and later (1982), when addressing an appeal relating to a street fight in Eugene, Justice Barbara Roberts (a politician appointed to the Supreme Court by the Governor, who was a member of the same political party) wrote a ruling (State v. Charles) that established a "duty to retreat" in the state. This was so unreasonable that in 2007 the Oregon Supreme Court addressed duty to retreat (State v. Sandoval) and reversed the earlier precedent, making Oregon a de facto "Stand Your Ground" state, without it being codified by law.

By the way, you are correct in pointing out that anyone can yell "Police!" when breaking down your door. They also can dress up as police, body armor and all, since the equipment (or something that resembles it) is readily available.

 

[Alexx1401]

That university of Idaho killer had a no knock raid with 50+ boots kicking in all doors and most windows of his parents house in Pennsylvania.

That too was a big why to me. FBI had been watching him while they collected enough evidence to get a warrant. Once they had it they knew where he was and could watch him. So instead of just stopping him again and arrest they do that? Some times its almost like they are hoping the guy will give them a reason to light him up. Which if he is guilty I would not care, save me some tax money. What if some family member wakes up to the sound of the doors and windows and comes up in bed with a gun in hand because they felt they needed to play cowboy here? These things are a disaster waiting to happen. When they go bad all the blame is never on the one who gave the OK to go play cowboys with the neat toys they have.

 

[po18guy]

See, I knew you had something to say.
Now I need to figure out how to politely disagree...

Joe

You just did. I see it from the back side of the badge. Maybe there is a bright side to this, but our opposition is much sneakier that we are, and dishonest.

 

[Texanna]

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

But most do believe anarchy = chaos. I did too. The word "anarchy" has been wrecked. We'll need to develop a new term that's easy for folks to "get."

 

[Caveman Jim]

If you fire at one of those kind they are most likely going to dust you good. What makes me cringe is the no knocks that go bad when they were totally not needed. Best is when its the wrong damn house of course. One that happened here couple decades back was guy who was a SMALL time pot dealer. His brother was an LEO and had lived in the same house at one time. This was the "excuse" they used to kick in the door in the dark. Guy woke to this, came out with a gun and killed one LEO. Amazingly he lived. They of course sent him to prison. The lies and dancing the Police did to cover up this FUBAR was off the chart. They knew where he worked and when he worked. So instead of walking up to him at work, arresting him and going to his house they Rambo up and boot the doors and if cost a Cop his life and ruined the life of the pot dealer. Stuff like this should be criminal. Whoever gave the OK for that raid should have gone to prison for manslaughter for the dead Cop. Instead no one was punished.

Exactly, rules for the and not for me (GOV).

 

[WillametteWill]

I can tell you that in the academy in 1985 (so nothing new) there were discussions about if you messed up (unlawful arrests and detentions) that people would be justified in using force to resist. This made sense and left an impression. Do you job well, respect others and don't mess up.

There have been many instances where this has been done and folks have been acquitted. Randy Weaver and Ruby Ridge come to mind.

Folks (officers) sometimes lose sight that they need to be thinking about the Constitution as the supreme law, not department policies, orders from clueless supervisors and even bad laws.

 

[No_Regerts]

I could have sworn I heard about this 10 years ago. This isn't new, is it?

 

[VinnieBoomBah]

I can tell you that in the academy in 1985 (so nothing new) there were discussions about if you messed up (unlawful arrests and detentions) that people would be justified in using force to resist. This made sense and left an impression. Do you job well, respect others and don't mess up.

There have been many instances where this has been done and folks have been acquitted. Randy Weaver and Ruby Ridge come to mind.

Folks (officers) sometimes lose sight that they need to be thinking about the Constitution as the supreme law, not department policies, orders from clueless supervisors and even bad laws.

You should look into modern training trends, I think you may be shocked how much things have changed

 

[kmk1012]

You should look into modern training trends, I think you may be shocked how much things have changed

LOL, we work closely with LEO's and can certainly say that human error and more importantly, complacency, are still a thing. No matter how much training and paper certificates on one's desk can ever change human nature. Those two problems can never, and I mean NEVER get trained out of an officer. I don't believe that newer is better like you are implying. Look at these school shootings, I remember when law enforcement officers still had balls and wouldn't wait in some cases hours for backup. They would improvise and help any way possible.

 

[VinnieBoomBah]

I don't believe that newer is better like you are implying.

That is literally the opposite of what I am implying The problem, and why I was vague in my suggestion, is that if I were to post links to the issue of the militarization of the police, the trainers that charge big bucks to scare rookie cops with the concept of 'Us Vs Them" and how the only goal of them is to murder police officers (despite police work being the 22nd most dangerous job in America) or the documented links between police trainers and . . . well, groups that some folks consider just fine and dandy and other folk consider troubling, if I were to post links to things like that I would be accused of all manor of "Group W Bench" things.