Opem Season on Police In Indiana?

[The Mad Monk]

Indiana First State to Allow Citizens to Shoot Law Enforcement Officers
Monday, June 11, 2012

(graphic: traditioncreek.com) Police officers in Indiana are upset over a new law allowing residents to use deadly force against public servants, including law enforcement officers, who unlawfully enter their homes. It was signed by Republican Governor Mitch Daniels in March.

The first of its kind in the United States, the law was adopted after the state Supreme Court went too far in one of its rulings last year, according to supporters. The case in question involved a man who assaulted an officer during a domestic violence call. The court ruled that there was “no right to reasonably resist unlawful entry by police officers.”

The National Rifle Association lobbied for the new law, arguing that the court decision had legalized police to commit unjustified entries.

Tim Downs, president of the Indiana State Fraternal Order of Police, which opposed the legislation, said the law could open the way for people who are under the influence or emotionally distressed to attack officers in their homes.

“It’s just a recipe for disaster,” Downs told Bloomberg. “It just puts a bounty on our heads.”
-Noel Brinkerhoff

http://www.allgov.com/Top_Stories/ViewNews/Indiana_First_State_to_Allow_Citizens_to_Shoot_Law_Enforcement_Officers_120611

Um...wow.

[DinoDoc]

“no right to reasonably resist unlawful entry by police officers.”

Que?

[Felch]

The idea that the government is answerable to the same laws as the rest of us has been recognized for almost 800 years. ****ing police are the biggest cry babies in the world. And what kind of lying ass lawyer ever cooked up the notion that you can't reasonably resist and unlawful entry? That son of a ***** should have been tarred, feathered, and hanged by the neck until dead.

[DinoDoc]

And what kind of lying ass lawyer ever cooked up the notion that you can't reasonably resist and unlawful entry? That son of a ***** should have been tarred, feathered, and hanged by the neck until dead.

Found the opinion: http://www.in.gov/judiciary/opinions...5121101shd.pdf

[Felch]

Sounds like some police just wanted to barge into a home without any reason to believe a crime was in progress, and where nobody invited them. The ****ing cops should have been charged with home invasion.

[OneFootInTheGrave]

and shot for good measure, if the public will not teach them, noone will.

[Al B. Sure!]

Hmm... If you read the situation in that case, it's pretty iffy. If the man killed the woman while cops stood outside, there'd be national outcry.

The principle of resisting unlawful arrest/entry was clarified in a 1948 case (US v Di Re), mentioned in that opinion, but the judge ruled later cases placed the physical security of police officers above liberty.

This is an interesting stance for Republicans to take, though. On the one hand, Republicans tend to be pro-police in such circumstances but the emphasis on 'Don't Tread on Me' liberty won out.

[Flubber]

Interesting case-- its a 3-2 decision

Here to me is the key fact in the court case

Mary did not explicitly invite the officers in, but she told Barnes several times, ―don‘t do this‖ and ―just let them in.‖ Reed attempted to enter the apartment, and Barnes shoved him against the wall..

Since the apartment was Mary's -- Barnes was in the process of moving out-- Judge Flubber would have construed the above statment of fact to mean that an owner of the apartment-- Mary-- had invited them in-- thus rendering the police entry lawful and the remainder of the issue , moot. Mary HAD placed a 911 call and the officers were responding to a possible domestic violence report so if they had come there to a locked door and no answer they could have then argued exigent circumstances to kick in the door if needed.

The Model Penal Code eliminated the right on two grounds: ―(1) the development of alternate remedies for an aggrieved arrestee, and (2) the use of force by the arrestee was likely to result in greater injury to the person without preventing the arrest.‖ Hemmens & Levin, supra, at 23. In response to this criticism, a majority of states have abolished the right via statutes in the 1940s and judicial opinions in the 1960s. Id. at 24–25.

According to this, the Indiana courts are far from the first to take steps to eliminate this right.

The key pice of the majority decision is here.

Here, the trial court‘s failure to give the proffered jury instruction was not error. Because we decline to recognize the right to reasonably resist an unlawful police entry, we need not decide the legality of the officers‘ entry into Barnes‘s apartment. We note, however, that the officers were investigating a ―domestic violence in progress‖ in response to a 911 call. A 911 call generally details emergency or exigent circumstances requiring swift police action. In these cases, the officers are responding to rapidly changing or escalating events, and their initial response is often based on limited information. The officers cannot properly assess the complaint and the dangers to those threatened without some limited access to the involved parties. It is unrealistic to expect officers to wait for threats to escalate and for violence to become imminent before intervening. Here, the officers acted reasonably under the totality of the circumstances.

My problem is that IN THIS CASE, I see the actions of the officers as completely reasonable so Judge Flubber would want to find some way that a citizen cannot impede or assault an officer in these circumstances

From the dissent

It would have been preferable, in my view, for the Court today to have taken a more narrow approach, construing the right to resist unlawful police entry, which extends only to reasonable resistance, by deeming unreasonable a person's resistance to police entry in the course of investigating reports of domestic violence.

Judge Flubber concurrs

From the second dissent

But the common law rule supporting a citizen‘s right to resist unlawful entry into her home rests on a very different ground, namely, the Fourth Amendment to the United States Constitution. Indeed, ―the physical entry of the home is the chief evil against which the wording of the Fourth Amendment is directed.‖ Payton v. New York, 445 U.S. 573, 585 (1980). In my view it is breathtaking that the majority deems it appropriate or even necessary to erode this constitutional protection based on a rationale addressing much different policy considerations. There is simply no reason to abrogate the common law right of a citizen to resist the unlawful police entry into his or her home.

Judge Flubber sees no necessity to address this issue as the disposition is determined on the other arguments

[giblets]

The idea that the government is answerable to the same laws as the rest of us has been recognized for almost 800 years. ****ing police are the biggest cry babies in the world. And what kind of lying ass lawyer ever cooked up the notion that you can't reasonably resist and unlawful entry? That son of a ***** should have been tarred, feathered, and hanged by the neck until dead.

You would be a crybaby if your job involved entering the homes of hostile people.

[SlowwHand]

They're not supposed to break the law to enforce the law.

[Flubber]

They're not supposed to break the law to enforce the law.

Agreed.

But in the court case I don't see that they broke any laws to enforce the laws. They had a possible domestic violence situation where the dude was trying to go back in the house with the woman while she was saying "let them in". To me factually there was enough there for the police to require they be permitted access .

[Al B. Sure!]

Interesting case-- its a 3-2 decision

Here to me is the key fact in the court case



Since the apartment was Mary's -- Barnes was in the process of moving out-- Judge Flubber would have construed the above statment of fact to mean that an owner of the apartment-- Mary-- had invited them in-- thus rendering the police entry lawful and the remainder of the issue , moot. Mary HAD placed a 911 call and the officers were responding to a possible domestic violence report so if they had come there to a locked door and no answer they could have then argued exigent circumstances to kick in the door if needed.





According to this, the Indiana courts are far from the first to take steps to eliminate this right.

The key pice of the majority decision is here.



My problem is that IN THIS CASE, I see the actions of the officers as completely reasonable so Judge Flubber would want to find some way that a citizen cannot impede or assault an officer in these circumstances

From the dissent



Judge Flubber concurrs

From the second dissent



Judge Flubber sees no necessity to address this issue as the disposition is determined on the other arguments

Dearest Post Originator,

When my eyes first glanced upon your rather eloquently worded treatise regarding this particular subject, it did not require much time, nay, dare I say it was in fact almost instantaneous that I was able to surmise that your post- though masterfully written with such quality that it may indeed rival the quintessential prose of authors such as Dostoevsky, Baldwin or perhaps even Joyce- was quite prolix; based upon the aforementioned conclusion, I resolved that I would exercise no more of my mental faculties in the act of comprehending the text that you had written.

Sincerely, and wholly unequivocally yours,

Al B. Sure!

Post Scriptum,

In the future it would be most advantageous, not only for me but also the other members of this forum that you provide a brief summary of your text that emphasizes the more principle points of what you have composed.

[Berzerker]

looks like the woman called the cops and opened the door for them

that dont sound unlawful...now we did have a botched drug raid a few years back and the accused killed a cop breaking in during the bust but was acquitted because the cops did a lousy of job of identifying themselves

if cops wanna a safer country in which to work, stop pushing the drug war

oh yeah, that would mean fewer cops

[giblets]

http://forum.bodybuilding.com/showthread.php?t=136741161&p=725279811&viewfull=1#post725279811

Wow Albert, seriously?

[Berzerker]

I heard a news blurb yesterday - the homicide rate hit a 40 year low

thats about when Nixon was starting his drug war