Ind. Gov signs bill allowing deadly force against Cops.

No it gives someone the ability to defend themselves against bad cops.

 

I see most of the arguments I get into here about self defense and police as being contradictory. I support the police and generally get buried for it here.

Limit powers, make police think twice, make a person's home special (legally), this all makes sense to me as being in agreement. No conflicting arguments like people who hate police yet want them to be the only one with guns. I don't want police to be able to illegally enter homes and then not allow someone to even defend themselves.

 

Not so sure about that.

Force is only allowed here if you reasonably believe the police are acting unlawfully (so likely outside of carrying out their duties), and deadly force only if necessary to prevent serious bodily harm with a few other significant conditions. And none if you're carrying out criminal activities. Are there places where if the police are acting unlawfully, there's no way to retreat, and deadly force was the only way to prevent serious bodily harm that you would necessarily be forbidden from using it? Lots of definitions for the lawyers to fight over, but seems like a commons sense intention of a law.

I think the law narrows what would otherwise be allowed. I can see why the police union would be unsettled by any acknowledgement that force, or deadly force might be allowed at all...but I'm unconvinced this expands what's legal or was meant to instill any kind of fear or caution in the police.

And this coming from a guy who hates the gun culture and has no qualms about restricting ownership etc.

The addicitinginfo article has mucho spin....you'll notice this isn't getting picked up by the usual sources...

 

Also potentially shooting good cops who have legal reasons to enter a home but the homeowner doesn't see it that way.

 

Nobody wants that but even without laws there are still remedies to this. The Bill of Rights protects us and if a cop enters illegally you can still always sue. The problem with a law like this is that it is very likely to escalate the possibility of death and injury to homeowner and police alike.

My solution to the problem of illegal entries by police is to demand better oversight of police and increase civil penalties for such actions not empower people to shoot it out with the police.

 

Since I have been looking at the FL law recently it specifically exempts force against the police while carrying out their duties, MN's law is the same and MN is based off of common law which many states follow, obviously IN's law was like that or at least this law wouldn't be needed.

The problem though still is that its vague because the determination falls on the homeowner decides what is lawful. As was cited in the original article this is a problem when there are many people who believe that police cannot enter even with a warrant along with people who interpret this as police always need a warrant to enter. Both of those are not true.

As you note lots of definitions for the lawyers to fight it out but the problem is those will be after the fact.

 

Again, just like the Stand Your ground law, these things do not change peoples behavior. We had this same argument and we disagree. None of your solutions are mutually exclusive with this law. They are not happening though, you still have thug cops.

 

Then they won't be protected and they will be charged with murder or assault of a police officer.

 

Next time you wade into a debate about economics, remind me to destroy every single shred of terminology you use, discredit the flawed macroeconomic model you are basing your assumptions on, and pile on paper after paper that you have no way of understanding, and then ask you thank me for my graciously delivered education.

A friendly reminder that we all have our strengths and weaknesses, and as long as you don't reference mine, I won't reference yours.

 

I don't recall too many people making this argument, you might want to bring out where posters who "hate the police" also want them to be the only one with guns.

I, in fact, dislike the police, and would rather they not have guns at all, but of course, if you're going to allow civilians to have them, and give them the legal right to kill cops, well, there goes that. How this doesn't turn routine "police abuses" into bringing the SWAT team in on minor felonies is beyond me. The cops will still get the suspects they want, and damn the taxpayer cost. They'll just have an excuse to be even more brutish about it.

 

I am not really very scared of your economic prowess considering you don't understand the basics of statistics. But please give it a shot.

 

Seriously though Northside, you are an undergrad student still. Most of us are not. When you graduate, you still won't know much. So I'm just farking with you.

(and I hardly ever use smileys)

 

Sure, post anything in any of the topics out there. I'll be glad to correct all of your assertions.

(Given that I believe I admitted in the other thread that I didn't understand HOW the data was collected, I have no problem with interpretation. Your problem is that you assumed I don't know how Z-scores work. I was referencing 95% confidence intervals, not 2 Z-scores and 2 standard deviations. Who in the hell in statistics uses 95.45% as an alpha value? 1.96 Z-score, and 95% confidence intervals are the norm. Just putting that out there.)

 

Yeah, I realize that, but I really don't like it when people call me out in threads, and I have a bit of arrogance in me. sue me on the last part, I suppose.

 

It's a joke, you're famous. Be happy.

And understatement of the decade below

 

tranqs will take a couple of secs to act and you could end up killing the person if they have complications or genetic disorders

 

Fair enough.

Anyways, personal pleasantries/bickering aside, to get back to the point---

This law is a very bad law, and even if one were to think that it would deter cops from entering houses willy-nilly, is that worth the breakdown in trust between the community and the police?

I think it would be best if nobody had guns, but we have to think this through realistically. Does increasing the amount of guns and the power they hold make any sense in terms of the solution? The core issue you are trying to solve is ending no-knock warrants. If you're willing to embrace such a radical overhaul as allowing people to kill cops legally, why not try civil reforms first?