NRA-Backed Law Spells Out When Indianans May Open Fire on Police

[jamesrage]

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 assume the law treats police who violate the law no different than regular people who violate the law.

 

[Surtr]

can any of the pro-gun people on this forum give me a better understanding of what you think of this kind of law?

Sure. It's a meaningless victory with no teeth. Shooting a cop will still have the same end result in Indiana.

 

[joko104]

When a person may use deadly force against police is a very complex question. You do not just have to allow the police to gun down your or a loved one.

That is why is ordinary searches or arrests, police having guns drawn is very problematical. And example? The Feds making their point in Colorado that has legalized pot going after some location "with guns drawn" - when there is no reason to have them drawn.

You Tube and history are FULL of police imposters. It would seem the perfect way to assassinate anyone is for the assassin(s) to just put on police uniforms ala St. Valentine's Day Massacre, the same for robbery and rape.

Thus we have the question if someone bursts into your house with guns - when you have absolutely no reason to think the police have any reason to - despite their shouting "POLICE!" - do you REALLY just have to hope it actually isn't a home invasion and what your family beaten, raped and all of you murdered because they had on police uniforms?

There also are gun-crazed cops. It does not help a person if an officer is fired because he wrongly killed you or a loved one.

There is a growing attitude among police that better to just start shooting than take a 1 in 1,000,000 chance any of the officers might get hurt. And the public seems to largely agree if there is a 1 in 1,000,000 chance an officer would be hurt then the shooting is justified - even if the person was 100% innocent.

 

[joko104]

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.

That is excessive and I think just puff-talk.

 

[CalGun]

The mantra better judged by 12 (well 6 in Florida) than carried by 6 comes to mind.

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.

 

[CalGun]

Not sure. I know a lot of anarchial type libertarians that seem to want to 'dare' law enforcement to illegally enter their homes. The only time I perceive that would be a problem is if they didn't announce who they were and I figured it was the neighbor and his thugs....

That is excessive and I think just puff-talk.

 

[SMTA]

i'd rather that the problem is fixed before anyone's lives are ruined or harmed by any unintended consequences of this bill.

Prove that there is a problem other than one cop's observation.

His comments are overly negative, and his mindset is a problem by itself.

If cops follow the law, and do their job properly, then they have nothing to worry about.

If cops do not, then they deserve the same self defense from citizens afforded to anyone else.

Cops do not get a blank check to do whatever they want - there are laws that govern their behavior.

 

[LaMidRighter]

That is excessive and I think just puff-talk.

Absolutely not. If I don't get a very quick ID on the person I'm shooting, kicking in a door is a very aggressive action, when police serve a proper warrant it's legally justified. If I'm not committing any crimes I certainly don't expect them to barge into my house.

 

[LaMidRighter]

Not sure. I know a lot of anarchial type libertarians that seem to want to 'dare' law enforcement to illegally enter their homes. The only time I perceive that would be a problem is if they didn't announce who they were and I figured it was the neighbor and his thugs....

There is a difference between an officer asking permission to search and demanding to do so without a warrant. If the officer explains that he notices a violation in plain view and calmly enters that is one thing, of course I don't make it a habit of breaking the law so that wouldn't be a possibility. If the officer tries to push into my home they are no different than a burglar or assailant and will be addressed appropriately.

 

[SMTA]

That is excessive and I think just puff-talk.

Bull****.

You need to read the Bill of Rights, specifically the 2nd and 4th amendments.

You obviously have no clue regarding personal safety and castle doctrine laws.

I agree with LMR, and will do the same.

Come banging on my door and attempt entrance in the middle of the night, and rounds are coming through the door.

No puffery, but fact.

 

[SMTA]

There is a difference between an officer asking permission to search and demanding to do so without a warrant. If the officer explains that he notices a violation in plain view and calmly enters that is one thing, of course I don't make it a habit of breaking the law so that wouldn't be a possibility. If the officer tries to push into my home they are no different than a burglar or assailant and will be addressed appropriately.

Ding, ding, ding.

 

[Goshin]

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 am an ex-cop. While this particular law may be somewhat questionable (I'd have to read the full text of it and consider all the ramifications to really give a solid opinion), I think this is part of the push-back that is coming because of the expanded police powers from the war on drugs, and the recent proliferation of cases of police abuse of their authority making the rounds.


In short... government SHOULD fear the People. The Police are the enforcement arm of Government.

 

[SMTA]

I am an ex-cop. While this particular law may be somewhat questionable (I'd have to read the full text of it and consider all the ramifications to really give a solid opinion), I think this is part of the push-back that is coming because of the expanded police powers from the war on drugs, and the recent proliferation of cases of police abuse of their authority making the rounds.


In short... government SHOULD fear the People. The Police are the enforcement arm of Government.

You are damned right that they should.

The local Sheriff and I are good friends, and go back a long way.

He knows that if there is an issue with one of his folks that I am coming to him, and he appreciates the honesty.

I only had to once over a minor incident involving a poor investigation of a neighbor's theft, and the Sheriff pounced on the deputy hard, as it should be.

He also fired a deputy last year for arresting a guy on a known expired warrant - the guy's rights were violated.

I like full accountability.

 

[molten_dragon]

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?

It's sad, but I can kind of see a valid reason for this kind of law. With the increased use of no-knock warrants in the last few years, combined with the fact that they're sometimes served on the wrong property, and the fact that some criminals have taken to impersonating no-knock warrants and robbing people, I can see why someone who has no reason to believe the police would raid their house might shoot back, believing it to be a home invasion. And I would consider that shooting justified.

However I doubt it would really matter whether the law considers it legal or not. If you shoot a cop, even if it was legally and morally justified, you're either going to end up in jail or dead. If you aren't shot immediately by the other cops, you'll have an 'accident' later on for killing one of their buddies.

The majority of the problem could be solved much more neatly by simply banning no-knock warrants.

 

[Ikari]

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?

There are instances where it can be legitimate to fire on police. If they want to be "worried" about someone opening fire on them...they shouldn't be police. Cause criminals do that crap all the time, not even under legitimate circumstances.

 

[Jerry]

Can any of the pro-gun people on this forum give me a better understanding of what you think of this kind of law?

Cops are people too. We all play by the same rules.

Also, the fact that you chose not to link to the actual law in question is quite telling. Biased much?

IC 35-41-3-2
Use of force to protect person or property
Sec. 2. (a) In enacting this section, the general assembly finds and declares that it is the policy of this state to recognize the unique character of a citizen's home and to ensure that a citizen feels secure in his or her own home against unlawful intrusion by another individual or a public servant. By reaffirming the long standing right of a citizen to protect his or her home against unlawful intrusion, however, the general assembly does not intend to diminish in any way the other robust self defense rights that citizens of this state have always enjoyed.

Accordingly, the general assembly also finds and declares that it is the policy of this state that people have a right to defend themselves and third parties from physical harm and crime. The purpose of this section is to provide the citizens of this state with a lawful means of carrying out this policy.
(b) As used in this section, "public servant" means a person described in IC 35-31.5-2-129 or IC 35-31.5-2-185.
(c) A person is justified in using reasonable force against any other person to protect the person or a third person from what the person reasonably believes to be the imminent use of unlawful force. However, a person:
(1) is justified in using deadly force; and
(2) does not have a duty to retreat;
if the person reasonably believes that that force is necessary to prevent serious bodily injury to the person or a third person or the commission of a forcible felony. No person in this state shall be placed in legal jeopardy of any kind whatsoever for protecting the person or a third person by reasonable means necessary.

 

[TurtleDude]

i'd rather that the problem is fixed before anyone's lives are ruined or harmed by any unintended consequences of this bill.

That is a standard you ought to apply to say Obama care, and most of the idiotic democrat party gun control laws-the gun free school zones have already cost us dozens of lives

 

[Somerville]

Here's one real life incident, which got a lot of publicity because the dead man was an Iraq war veteran Marine

Arizona SWAT Team Defends Shooting Iraq Vet 60 Times

May 20, 2011

A Tucson, Ariz., SWAT team defends shooting an Iraq War veteran 60 times during a drug raid, although it declines to say whether it found any drugs in the house and has had to retract its claim that the veteran shot first.

And the Pima County sheriff, whose team conducted the raid, scolded the media for "questioning the legality" of the shooting.

Jose Guerena, 26, died the morning of May 5. He was asleep in his Tucson home after working a night shift at the Asarco copper mine when his wife, Vanessa, saw the armed SWAT team outside her youngest son's bedroom window.

"She saw a man pointing at her with a gun," said Reyna Ortiz, 29, a relative who is caring for Vanessa and her children. Ortiz said Vanessa Guerena yelled, "Don't shoot! I have a baby!"

The raid was aimed at Guerena's brother, who didn't live at the vet's residence.

When interviewed by a local reporter about whether or not the SWAT team had made a mistake, Pima County Sheriff Dupnik replied:

‘Dupnik: I don’t think anything was mishandled. Unfortunately, this individual points an assault rifle at cops. You do that, you are going to get killed

LOTS more on the case here

 

[American]

i'd rather that the problem is fixed before anyone's lives are ruined or harmed by any unintended consequences of this bill.

Sure in a perfect world.

 

[head of joaquin]

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.

Nothing like toughguyontheinternet rhetoric. Generally, when a real situation emerges, gun lovers pee their pants. It's a hell of a thing shooting a man, especially when he's breaking down your door and shooting at you. Anybody who says otherwise is full of boomsticklove. Witness Zimmerman and his girlyman screaming for help when an unarmed teenager confronted him.

If the police break down your door, comply, and deal with the problem in court, not in a shoot out. That's just plain stupid

Meanwhile I do think this is a good development: it's clear that the gun types don't like the police and want a license to shoot them whenever and wherever they can. Police officers are realizing more and more that the NRA are a domestic threat and may have terrorists asperitions. They certainly talk about shooting the police and government officials a great deal. Just look at the above post.

I expect this will help clarify the fact that gun lovers are a threat to the rule of law and ultimately need to be put in prison or deported.

 

[Sykes]

a misunderstanding does not need to end in a bloodbath.

Hell, cops have shot the family dog in front of the kids when they were at the wrong residence. Obviously the kids couldn't do anything, but it would have been nice to have an armed homeowner in place.

 

[SMTA]

Nothing like toughguyontheinternet rhetoric. Generally, when a real situation emerges, gun lovers pee their pants. It's a hell of a thing shooting a man, especially when he's breaking down your door and shooting at you. Anybody who says otherwise is full of boomsticklove. Witness Zimmerman and his girlyman screaming for help when an unarmed teenager confronted him.

If the police break down your door, comply, and deal with the problem in court, not in a shoot out. That's just plain stupid

Meanwhile I do think this is a good development: it's clear that the gun types don't like the police and want a license to shoot them whenever and wherever they can. Police officers are realizing more and more that the NRA are a domestic threat and may have terrorists asperitions. They certainly talk about shooting the police and government officials a great deal. Just look at the above post.

I expect this will help clarify the fact that gun lovers are a threat to the rule of law and ultimately need to be put in prison or deported.

You can come after me any time.

 

[TurtleDude]

You can come after me any time.

Let me know when that happens, I want to see the aftermath!!

 

[SMTA]

Let me know when that happens, I want to see the aftermath!!

Only DNA.

 

[BretJ]

Nothing like toughguyontheinternet rhetoric. Generally, when a real situation emerges, gun lovers pee their pants. It's a hell of a thing shooting a man, especially when he's breaking down your door and shooting at you. Anybody who says otherwise is full of boomsticklove. Witness Zimmerman and his girlyman screaming for help when an unarmed teenager confronted him.

If the police break down your door, comply, and deal with the problem in court, not in a shoot out. That's just plain stupid

Meanwhile I do think this is a good development: it's clear that the gun types don't like the police and want a license to shoot them whenever and wherever they can. Police officers are realizing more and more that the NRA are a domestic threat and may have terrorists asperitions. They certainly talk about shooting the police and government officials a great deal. Just look at the above post.

I expect this will help clarify the fact that gun lovers are a threat to the rule of law and ultimately need to be put in prison or deported.

That must have been quite a fight....:roll: another drive by to feel better about yourself perhaps? Not a clue what the discussion is about. Apparently you are happy to let police officers do a half ass job and endanger innocent people on your behalf. Seems to be your meme.