Ind. Gov signs bill allowing deadly force against Cops.

If a bunch of armed masked dudes dressed in black run into your house without knocking, never declaring who they are and you haven't done anything wrong (ie no meth lab) you can do whatever you want. Good luck.

 

Nothing can be perfect, you are asking for a perfect law that can both stop crime and also give gun owners the privilege to shoot at anyone entering their home. The reality is we have to settle with something that makes the most sense, even if it has its shortcomings.

 

So, in order to ensure that the cops announce that they are cops and knock politely on your door, you should give people the power to kill whoever comes in their house.

Well, sanctity of life was a cool concept until you had to apply it.

 

You do understand that all of this is presuming that they would at least yell "POLICE!" or identify themselves when they entered. This thread isn't about just anyone busting into your house.

So would you still recommend shooting right away even if they yelled "POLICE!" ?

 

That isn't a no knock warrant. That is a Knock-and-announce.

 

So would you shoot first in that situation?

 

your questions are tedious. Will I shoot cops knocking on my door? no. Will you lay down for any guy who busts through your door unannounced?

 

Weslinder tried to explain but I will expand. No-knock warrants have reached an epidemic. They have increased by orders of magnitude (note for Northside storm that means 10^x) and although it is claimed they are carried out with much scrutiny, mistakes are increasing at a similarly alarming rate. There are cases where a drugged out inmate will point out a house and then the house is served a no knock.

There is no reason to have tens of thousands of no knock warrants being executed in this country every year.

 

What you don't seem to be addressing though is that a right to kill cops isn't an effective way (to say nothing of prudency) to curb no-knock warrants. I see no incentive for the police to reduce no-knocks, only more reasons to open fire.

Can you connect the dots for us to demonstrate how cops are going to choose to knock first because of this law?

 

It's not designed to curb no knock warrants. It's a 'clarification' of castle doctrine stuff that was put into question by an Indiana court ruling which said:

http://www.indystar.com/article/201...iana-police-fear-state-s-new-right-resist-law

Here's Daniels' statement on the law:

http://www.in.gov/activecalendar/Ev...ventDetails&information_id=109805&print=print

So...it's a limited 'castle doctrine' law adding the provision that you could only use deadly force to prevent serious bodily injury (not just property) and that you could use no force unless you reasonably thought the police were acting illegally. You cannot legally shoot the cop who bursts into your home unless you reasonable thought you had to do so to prevent serious bodily injury. (guess we'll let the lawyers sort that mess out).

This law is probably not that big a deal compared to most self defense and home is your castle laws. Mitchell's spin is that it decreases the legitimate use of deadly force against police...I suspect it keeps it the same -- just publicizes it more -- for better or worse.

 

It's hard to pick a side here. Basically it boils down to the following.

1. Criminals are not going to play by the rules and will use every advantage they have when confronting the police.
2. As a response, the police feel like they have to bend the rules a bit to keep things on an even level. Otherwise things would play out like trying to fight guerrillas with a regular army. It's simply very difficult.
3. But if the police screws up while not playing fair, innocent people are hurt as collateral damage. And there will always be screw ups, misunderstanding, and other problems that arise from certain police actions.

In the end, I can sympathize with both the police and innocent people that get caught up in these things. But for the life of me I can't see how telling people they can respond with deadly force make it better. All it will do is make people shoot first and ask questions later. And I can't think how this will make society better.

 

And we actually have a few people in this thread who think it is a good idea. I guess it's the they don't care until they become a victim mentality.

 

I already answered that since this thread is already predicated on that the people busting in are police and identified them as such. If they never identify themselves as police first I would try to get the hell out of there since I don't keep guns within easy reach and I don't like the odds of exchanging fire with multiple people.

Anyway since you have said that you wouldn't shoot cops announcing themselves then you should be against this law since this law is specifically saying you can if you think they are unlawfully entering.

 

No it isn't. The law is based on police entering without announcing and without warrants.

 

The problem that I have with this is that it is very vague what Daniels is saying, per Daniels:
[rquoter]“Moreover, unless a person is convinced an officer is acting unlawfully, he cannot use any force of any kind. In the real world, there will almost never be a situation in which these extremely narrow conditions are met.[/rquoter]
The problem that I see here is that if you feel a warrant is being wrongly served then that is technically unlawful so then anytime the cops barged in you could fire as long as you believed the cops had no legal reason to target you. Otherwise though if the law gives broad latitude for mistakes then the law is meaningless since police could barge into any house and then say they were mistaken about which house it was in.

The problem here is that it leaves it up the homeowner to make a snap decision about legality in what could be a heat of the moment situation.

Most self-defense laws specifically exempt the use of force against police when they are carrying out their duties so this is a big change.

 

The title of this thread is "Ind. Gov signs bill allowing deadly force against Cops" Not "Ind. Gov signs bill allowing deadly force against people who may or may not be Cops."

The presumption behind this law and this thread is that we know its cops coming.

Its not about entering without announcing or warrants. That is a separate issue.

 

read it again. This is for police entering without warrants.

 

The original ISC says
[rquoter]“The state Supreme Court found that officers sometimes enter homes without warrants for reasons protected by the law, such as pursuing suspects or preventing the destruction of evidence. [/rquoter]

But this law isn't about that police can only enter with warrants.

The law is "The new law allows citizens to use deadly force against police officers they think are illegally entering their homes. "

Also in the situation above it doesn't say that the police hadn't identified themselves.

You are arguing this based on something tangential.

 

I'm going to point out that CaseyH's argument just shows why this is a bad law. Casey is arguing this as a matter of having warrants but as the ISC noted police often have lawful reasons to enter a home without warrants. People might take this law to mean that people can open fire on a police entering without a warrant even though they have a legal reason to do so.