Indiana GOP introduces new Bill "Allowing the murder of Police/Law Enforcement"...

[Toorop]

Link to Article 1.
Link to Article 2. (A biased Website)

If this thread belongs somewhere else, then please move it to the correct spot and accept my apologies.

I am not so sure where to place this as it is a carry issue but discusses a possible situation we as gun owners might face. What if the police do come to our house and we don't believe they are legally allowed to be there? I don't think it happens that often but it is an interesting discussion.

I think there are many problems with this bill. What do you all think?

[DefensiveCarry.com]

[noway2]

Fortunately, I think that this type of situation would be rather rare. On the other hand, it is apparently a real problem or why else would the state legislature take the issue up?
I, myself, agree with the concept as stated in the article: "the idea that homeowners have the right to resist anyone, including police, who invades their homes." As this is one of those emotional topics that can devolve quickly, like no knock warrants, I will leave it at that.

I do think that this topic has an interesting twist to it, in that it pits the legislature against the courts. In a roundabout way, I would naturally expect the courts to uphold the "special rights" of police as I see them as being closely aligned with the police in terms of their operational relationships. The legislature, which is at least theoretically more beholden to the people may have a different view. In any case, it is the courts job to interpret the laws as written by legislature and it would appear that the courts may have misinterpreted the intentions of the legislature.

[retsupt99]

In the worst scenario, an innocent home owner who mistakenly shoots someone (using a no-knock warrant) breaking into his home (and the team has the wrong home), the home owner certainly cannot be held accountable because he was just defending himself and/or his family.OMOYMV

[Moops]

On the other hand, it is apparently a real problem or why else would the state legislature take the issue up?

Not necessarily true. Just look at all the "Kaylee's Laws" that legislatures drafted after the Kasey Anthony verdict. Knee-jerk legislation is rarely, if ever, based on anything other than emotion.

What bothers me is this quote: "Even though I know that factually, this is probably the right thing to do, sometimes law isn’t about fact – sometimes it’s about perception, and it’s that perception that I fear." If ever there was a reason to boot a joker out of office, it's this. He's all but admitting that he'll do anything to get re-elected.

[archer51]

Indiana GOP introduces new Bill "Allowing the murder of Police/Law Enforcement"...

I didn't see anything in the article that said it allows the murdering of police. What I read is it gives a homeowner to right to defend themselves and their home from unlawful invasion by the police. There is a BIG difference in the 2.

[paaiyan]

Interesting. I do like the idea of a homeowner who defends him/herself against a police invasion of the wrong house being protected. I feel like this could stir up hard feelings though. And possibly encourage actual criminals to shoot back at police in the hopes they can get the warrant thrown out on a technicality and maybe get away with killing a cop for free.

[gunthorp]

Am I hearing death rattles of the 4th amendment?

[OD*]

I would think it's keeping within the 4th.

Amendment IV

The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.

[gunthorp]

Agreed. My point was that the executive and judiciary have been eroding the constitution. The people's legislature here is trying to resuscitate the 4th. I wish I were more optimistic about its prognosis, but there are considerable forces at work to replace rule of law with rule of man.

[WD54241]

This is not a simple scenario to discuss. I'm imagining being at home with wife and 8 year old it's 6:15 am. Were sound asleep suddenly the door explodes suddenly a couple flash bangs go off! there's loud yelling, Kid is freaking out! Basset Hound howling! wife is screaming beside me! I'm dazed and scared to death! I have an adrenaline dump! through all that am I going to hear and understand "Police" "Warrant"? I'm going to protect the wife and son. I'm reaching for my handgun no two way's about it.

Outcome #1. They shoot me because they see me reaching for my gun. I'm dead, that really sucks! turns out tragically they went to the wrong house! they wanted the house next to me. Wife and son are traumatically affected for life.

Outcome #2. I have a rifle shoved in my face, thrown to the floor. Wife is also thrown to floor. Again they want to wrong house. Traumatic scars!

I don't know if there is a definitive answer to this.

I don't think there is a person here given that example who wouldn't try to defend their family's. I also think you can piss away any trust or faith in the local PD from that day forward.

I would have to agree, sounds like death rattles of the 4th Amendment.

[OD*]

Agreed. My point was that the executive and judiciary have been eroding the constitution. The people's legislature here is trying to resuscitate the 4th. I wish I were more optimistic about its prognosis, but there are considerable forces at work to replace rule of law with rule of man.

OK, I gotcha now sir.

[TaterSalad]

Maryanne Godboldo - Justice for Maryanne Godboldo

She opened fire on the police... (she denies that, the holes were already there in the door )

Charges dismissed by the judge... Invalid warrant (with his own name forged)

[Mike1956]

Very misleading title line.

[1911_Kimber]

Be careful guys... I think we are being baited .... The title line is very toxic

[1911_Kimber]

I would suggest this thread be locked and deleted