- Joined
- Jan 24, 2013
- Messages
- 20,738
- Reaction score
- 6,290
- Location
- Sunnyvale California
- Gender
- Male
- Political Leaning
- Liberal
Every time police Sergeant Joseph Hubbard stops a speeder or serves a search warrant, he says he worries suspects assume they can open fire -- without breaking the law.
Hubbard, a 17-year veteran of the police department in Jeffersonville, Indiana, says his apprehension stems from a state law approved this year that allows residents to use deadly force in response to the “unlawful intrusion” by a “public servant” to protect themselves and others, or their property.
“If I pull over a car and I walk up to it and the guy shoots me, he’s going to say, ‘Well, he was trying to illegally enter my property,’” said Hubbard, 40, who is president of Jeffersonville Fraternal Order of Police Lodge 100. “Somebody is going get away with killing a cop because of this law.” Indiana is the first U.S. state to specifically allow force against officers, according to the Association of Prosecuting Attorneys in Washington, which represents and supports prosecutors. The National Rifle Association pushed for the law, saying an unfavorable court decision made the need clear and that it would allow homeowners to defend themselves during a violent, unjustified attack. Police lobbied against it.
The NRA, a membership group that says it’s widely recognized as a “major political force” and as the country’s “foremost defender” of Second Amendment rights, has worked to spread permissive gun laws around the country. Among them is the Stand Your Ground self-defense measure in Florida, which generated nationwide controversy after the Feb. 26 shooting of Trayvon Martin, an unarmed Florida teenager.
Asked about the Indiana law, Andrew Arulanandam, a spokesman for the Fairfax, Virginia-based association, said he would look into the matter. He didn’t return subsequent calls.
The measure was approved by the Republican-controlled Legislature and signed by Republican Governor Mitch Daniels in March. It amended a 2006 so-called Castle Doctrine bill that allows deadly force to stop illegal entry into a home or car.
The law describes the ability to use force to “protect the person or a third person from what the person reasonably believes to be the imminent use of unlawful force.”
Republican state Senator R. Michael Young, the bill’s author, said there haven’t been any cases in which suspects have used the law to justify shooting police.
He said “public servant” was added to clarify the law after a state Supreme Court ruling last year that “there is no right to reasonably resist unlawful entry by police officers.” The case was based on a man charged with assaulting an officer during a domestic-violence call.
Young cited a hypothetical situation of a homeowner returning to see an officer raping his daughter or wife. Under the court’s ruling, the homeowner could not touch the officer and only file a lawsuit later, he said. Young said he devised the idea for the law after the court ruling.
“There are bad legislators,” Young said. “There are bad clergy, bad doctors, bad teachers, and it’s these officers that we’re concerned about that when they act outside their scope and duty that the individual ought to have a right to protect themselves.”
Bill supporters tried to accommodate police by adding specific requirements that might justify force, and by replacing “law enforcement officer” in the original version with “public servant,” said Republican state Representative Jud McMillin, the House sponsor.
The sargeant begins with the premise that people are looking for a reason to shoot him, and now they have a law to support it. This is insane. What person, besides someone that is already willing to shoot a police officer would even attempt to take advantage of it? Most people I know do not wish to shoot an officer, and would probably still hesitate even after realizing that an officer is trying to harm them.
i guess there are some opponents of the bill who think that this bill will potential create more legal headaches and will make police officers jobs more complicated then it has to be.
I'm curious; if a police officer is trying to kill you and you have given him no reason to do so, should you just die or would it be prudent to defend yourself?
Why don't wait till it has created legal headaches?
Little over blown because it is supposed to shield people from wrongful or mistaken address warrants.
Say you live at 150 Peach and the warrant is for 150 Peachtree and the police get the wrong home to kick the door in on.
Which does happen, but pretty rarely.
Welp, once someone kicks my door in. Its on. I have the same training and equipment as well.so police make mistakes, don't we all make mistakes at some time or another?
surely a explination or a simple conversation could fix the mix-up?
Welp, once someone kicks my door in. Its on. I have the same training and equipment as well.
It would be a blood bath that I may not live through, but I am not dropping to my knees just because someone is yelling "police".
The police need to do a better job of getting the right place more than I need to do a better job preparing for them.
a misunderstanding does not need to end in a bloodbath.
Ever been up close and personal in a no knock warrant situation?
a misunderstanding does not need to end in a bloodbath.
no, and i don't intend to do anything to provoke someone in law enforcement.
Nailed it, end thread.Very true. So the onus is on the civil servants to perform due diligence prior to serving a no knock arrest warrant to ensure they do not cause an innocent person to use force to protect themselves. Why is the onus on an innocent person to determine who just busted their door down? The civil serveants are the supposed professionals and are ultimatley responsible for ensuring the safety of their innocent citizens first, themselves second.
Pretty simple. If an officer is operating in an illegal capacity the citizen has a right to self defense and the officer forfeits legal protection. This of course is only during the commission of the act, Louisiana has had a similar "no protection zone" for officers acting against constitutional protections, engaging in unlawful arrest/detainment, or commission of a violent act for quite some time.this may be considered old news, but i think the law discussed in the article is still relevent enough to discuss.
NRA-Backed Law Spells Out When Indianans May Open Fire on Police - Bloomberg
Now before people start criticizing me, allow me to state my reason for posting this story. before she became a lawyer, my mother served as a police officer in Wisconsin, so i am concerned about laws that may potentially harm police officers for no justifiable reason.
can any of the pro-gun people on this forum give me a better understanding of what you think of this kind of law?
I don't wish to shoot anyone, but no one should mistake that for passivity. If an officer asks entrance into my house sure, if he demands it he'd better produce a warrant, short of that any engagement by him will end in a fatality.The sargeant begins with the premise that people are looking for a reason to shoot him, and now they have a law to support it. This is insane. What person, besides someone that is already willing to shoot a police officer would even attempt to take advantage of it? Most people I know do not wish to shoot an officer, and would probably still hesitate even after realizing that an officer is trying to harm them.
Then he needs to start looking for another job.The sargeant begins with the premise that people are looking for a reason to shoot him, and now they have a law to support it. This is insane. What person, besides someone that is already willing to shoot a police officer would even attempt to take advantage of it? Most people I know do not wish to shoot an officer, and would probably still hesitate even after realizing that an officer is trying to harm them.
Not necessarily, they can't break any laws trying to get payback for their colleague acting in bad faith, any further crimes they commit they will be held responsible for and they know it.I have to say that reason tells me that if you get into a gun fight with a police officer, you're going to lose - either to that police officer or to one of the hundreds of his colleagues who are going to hunt you down. Even if you voluntarily surrender, chances are pretty good you're not making it to the police station alive or at least not conscious.
That said, it seems that this law will put in harms way people such as children's aid officers, by-law enforcement officers, meter readers, etc. Only a matter of time before some fool shoots and kills some innocent civil servant for no good reason thinking they could.
Someone kicks my door down unexpectedly I'm not asking questions.so police make mistakes, don't we all make mistakes at some time or another?
surely a explination or a simple conversation could fix the mix-up?
You have to remember, guys like John think that just because they are police they are crack shots. Same with criminals, all the antigunners think if you produce a gun to defend life and home, it will be taken from you and used on you by crimnals who are crack shots.Not necessarily, they can't break any laws trying to get payback for their colleague acting in bad faith, any further crimes they commit they will be held responsible for and they know it.
CJ is one of the good guys, he doesn't have experience with firearms but respects the right. Cops are all over the place when it comes to weapons proficiency but tend to be lackluster when compared to private citizens. Most criminals are laughably bad shots.You have to remember, guys like John think that just because they are police they are crack shots. Same with criminals, all the antigunners think if you produce a gun to defend life and home, it will be taken from you and used on you by crimnals who are crack shots.
Someone kicks my door down unexpectedly I'm not asking questions.
I shoot with some cops, and yea they are like most groups of people. Fair to real good. I dont shoot with criminals so I dont really know.CJ is one of the good guys, he doesn't have experience with firearms but respects the right. Cops are all over the place when it comes to weapons proficiency but tend to be lackluster when compared to private citizens. Most criminals are laughably bad shots.
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?