- Home
- Politics
- Entertainment
- Sports
- Health
- Religion
- Society
- Tech
- Money
- People
- Science
- Galleries
Guns
New Indiana Law Allows Citizens to Shoot Police Officers
In Indiana, police officers are upset over a new law allowing residents to use deadly force against public servants, including law enforcement officers, who unlawfully enter their homes.
The law was signed by Republican Governor Mitch Daniels in March, reports the San Francisco Chronicle.
The law was adopted after the Indiana State Supreme Court ruled that there was “no right to reasonably resist unlawful entry by police officers," after a man assaulted an officer during a domestic violence call.
The law's author, Republican state Sen. Michael Young, said there haven't been any cases [yet] in which people have used the law to justify shooting police.
The National Rifle Association lobbied for the new law, claiming that the Indiana State Supreme Court decision had legalized police to commit unjustified entries.
Tim Downs, President of the Indiana State Fraternal Order of Police, told Bloomberg News that 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. It just puts a bounty on our heads.”
Indiana is the first U.S. state to specifically allow force against officers, according to the Association of Prosecuting Attorneys in Washington, which represents prosecutors.
Sign up for the OV Daily Newsletter
Comments
OK Florida has had a law like
OK Florida has had a law like this for some 20 plus years. If you believe the officer is using force that could kill the individual , you may use deadly force to stop the cop. There have been no cases of this force being used but it sure makes the cops think. And lets face facts, all the police are about is force. They are not angels coming to save anyone. If that were the case, then in December when I called because of a bat swinging nut job, on my neighbors property, it would not have taken them 25 min to respond. Cops are like all Government employees, power hungry and abusive. They need to be like everyone else who would do evil,that is in fear for their lives, should they do wrong. Government is blow us not above. They serve us. When they step out of line we punish them!
cato.org/raidmap
cato.org/raidmap
The new legislation does not
The new legislation does not place a "bounty" on the heads of police officers. However, I'm guessing that the new statute WILL encourage officers to seek valid arrest and/or search warrants and double check addresses before kicking doors. A citizen should be secure in his own home from indiscriminate actions of ineptness, laziness, over zealousness, and incompetence.
Get it right or don't do it!
[W3]
The key part of this that
The key part of this that everyone seems to be skipping over is "who unlawfully [enter their homes]".
If you're in your home at 3:30am and a crowd of armed people suddenly break through your doors, your first thought isn't going to be "oh dear, that must be the police getting the address wrong again in their neverending battle against evil! I'd best let them do whatever they want and make myself as compliant as possible!", you're first thought will be to protect yourself and your family and home.
Shooting an armed threat that's invading your home is certainly a reasonable response when you've not done anything wrong, and it's farcical to think that you should delay your response until you can determine if they really are LEOs like they claim, because home invaders would *never* claim to be cops to make their intrusion go more smoothly.
Up until now, shooting one of these invaders that turned out to be a cop would mean murder or attempted murder charges against you when you've done absolutely nothing unreasonable or out of line. Yes, the cops had a warrant - one which was obtained by providing erroneous information to the judge who issued it (the practice of always assuming that a LEO is telling the truth seriously needs to end), which should make the warrant invalid, and thus the entry unlawful. With this law, you now have some protection against these charges.
If the police don't want to see all kinds of people shooting at them when they enter someone's home, all they really need to do is make sure that they themselves are not breaking the law at the time, and that they have the right address.
I have a hard time believing in the need for something like a no-knock warrant when the cops can't even get the address right. How real is their concern that evidence would be destroyed, when they don't have enough facts to know they're at the wrong building. If there's not even one person on the entry team that knows enough about what's going on to realize that they're at the wrong house, there's certainly no justification for their assertion that the people inside are going to be destroying "evidence".
Even a town's mayor isn't immune from bungled attacks by the police: http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2008/07/30/AR2008073003299.html
I've known a few police
I've known a few police officers in my life and have found most fit into two categories before they became cops, The nerdy wimp and the bully.
The nerdy wimps need and want power and becoming a police officer was the only way they could get that power.
The bullies already had the power but as they became adults, they could no longer get away with bullying. They would be sent to prison.
So, we get these two types and we see the results on television in cop car chases where the cop gets into a physical altercation with the citizen/suspect. We also see tremendous abuse by the police officers to the victims.
I've noticed that police officers uniforms are often all black. This signals aggression. I once saw police officers dressed in what appeared to be combat uniforms with boots and side arms. There is an old saying "The clothes make the man" and dressed like those were, the logical assumption was that they were out to "Kick some a**." They also walked with a swagger and had an attitude that couldn't be missed. I don't think I would want to meet one of those "nice" officers in a dark alley.
In another incident, a cop pulled a man over on the interstate highway. Both the man and the officer got out of their cars. The "perp" knew the officer would want to see his drivers license and as he walked toward the back of his car, he reached to his hip pocket for his wallet, the officer drew his weapon and killed the man. The officer claimed in court he thought the man was reaching for a gun.
.
Sigh, I feel sad for you
Sigh, I feel sad for you having based your entire outlook on cops on a movie generalization thing. That's right, the nerd/bully thing? Yeah, that came from a movie. I don't remember which one but I know I've heard it. Definetly. Even if it didn't, only a child or complete DOLT would base his opinion of officers on such a childish and black/white view.
Yes cops do dress aggressively and yes they do walk with a "swagger" more appropriately called "looking assertive." This is not for the purpose of looking menacing so that you don't want to meet them in a dark alley but for the purpose of always appearing ready. If you are in the presence of a police officer you are supposed to get the feeling that if you do something wrong in his presence that he WILL act on that. So please, stop trying to psychoanalyze our officers and belittle them with your condescending misunderstandings.
This law needs to be passed
This law needs to be passed in every other state of the nation as well as in Indiana. In 1973, when "no knock" (now called "dynamic entry" warrant service was first allowed, we were assured that it would be used only in high-risk cases or where there was a danger of evidence being destroyed while the police waited for the door to be opened. Now, nearly forty years later, the oh-dark-thirty KGB-style raid has become the normal method of making arrests or serving warrants for too many police departments. And, along with that, accounts of pets and citizens wantonly shot during these raids are also becoming common, as are reports of such raids on the wrong address. And when the facts come it that it was a mistake, like Lancelot at the wedding party we here lame apologies and the usual "normal proceedings were followed."
Add to that the fact that home invasions by criminals pretending to be police are becoming more common, especially in urban areas. Either the homeowner must submit and hope that the armed people breaking through her door are really cops or she must risk being charged if she defends herself and the do turn out to be cops. I think this law will go a long way towards encouraging police to ask themselves if it's really necessary to kick that door down at oh-dark-thirty instead of walking up during normal daylight hours and serving the warrant as they once did.
There are only 850,000 Law
There are only 850,000 Law Enforcement Officers separating 300 million citizens from absolute chaos. Increasingly, the war is being brought to the police and when criminals no longer respect or fear authority, then society has got a dangerous problem on its hands.
Let's imagine a crazed man high on 'bath salts' is being pursued by police. In an attempt to evade them, he runs into your house where your wife and small children are. If the Police Chief of the agency chasing the criminal is worth his salt, he will have instructed his officers to NEVER enter a home, under any circumstances, with out first obtaining a warrant. The risk to those who have sworn an oath to serve and protect is too great to do otherwise. So while this man is wreaking havoc on your family, the police are outside waiting. Pray the judge is on duty and at the bench in anticipation of such a scenario taking place. Pray the officer attempting to obtain the warrant is well-versed in the process and everything is dotted and crossed. If the stars are aligned, the warrant should arrive anywhere from 30 to 60 minutes later.
While the scenario above is unlikely and assumes you didn't invite the police in or call 911, the inability to do both could happen.
The citizens of Indiana can't have it both ways so I hope they're comfortable with decreased response times and a more cautious police force because that's their future. I'm sure those that support this law will be the first to criticize the police for not saying 'warrant be damned' and entering the home anyway. Too bad. The wives, husbands and children waiting for them to come home ALIVE aren't worth the risk of assuming you will not harm them if they enter your home without that warrant.
This is your bed, Indiana.
@MaddieKaddison, the law is
@MaddieKaddison, the law is not so blind as not to recognize a pursuit where visual contact is maintained. If you are now, or were an officer, then you already know that there are reasonable exceptions and they will be worked into the policies and the training as the law goes into effect. No officer worth a damn will stand by – Virginia Tech style -- and let a perpetrator harm an innocent citizen due to procedural policy. The purpose of this law is to define proper procedure and separate any entry into a home from what is becoming common carelessness and contempt by some officers and supervisors. Like somebody said before, too bad it had to come to this, but when law enforcement starts acting like the thugs we all deplore, then we're saddled with yet another problem to have to deal with.
State Law Enforcement 1988-2004, Operation Iraqi Freedom 2006-2007, Teacher 2010-Present, NRA Member -Life
Zactly!!
Zactly!!
Unfortunately these days
Unfortunately these days those officers who DON'T just sit around end up having charges pressed on them regardless of whether or not they ended up doing anything wrong. Everybody wants someone to sue and nobody likes the idea that cops have more authority.
You assume the police will
You assume the police will always know when perps are entering strangers homes as opposed to their own or a relative who may feel inclined to harbor them.
Harboring a suspected
Harboring a suspected criminal is not a true crime, it is a way of saying you believe in their innocence where the state might be maliciously & falsely trying to kidnap & hold that person ransom, or arranging for an impossible bail, to force the family to possibly lose the home over false 7 erroneous charges.
What a lame title for this
What a lame title for this article. I kept telling myself that the title was a set up -- and it was. I should have known when the police union and Bloomberg News were both mentioned in the same sentence. I am a 15 year veteran of law enforcement and a former academy instructor. We taught officers to not place themselves in danger by blindly charging into homes. I can say that because there are hyped up officers who endanger themselves and others every day. Any officer who does, accepts the consequences of his/her stupidity and his/her contempt for departmental policy and sound tactics created after decades of experience and fine tuning. Further, people have a right to defend themselves, and they will, especially in their own homes. There are just too many other methods of extracting suspects that range from peaceful discussion to non-leathal munitions. Any pre-planned method would take place only after the suspect was identified and the officers' intent to extract made known to the occupant. Nine out of ten, it will end peacefully.
State Law Enforcement 1988-2004, Operation Iraqi Freedom 2006-2007, Teacher 2010-Present, NRA Member -Life
The Indiana law was a
The Indiana law was a response to an outrageous decision by the Indiana Supreme Court, essentially stating that citizens had no right to resist any police officer who wanted to paw through their belongings - and an even more outrageous statement by an Indiana Sheriff that he would enforce the Supreme Court decision. Faced with the justifiable anger of the people, the Legislature made the law clear to the Court. And to Keystone Kops who cannot be bothered with things like obtaining and reading warrants, checking addresses, knocking before breaking down doors, and the other measures needed to comply with the Fourth Amendment. And the law.
Many police shootings occur when a cop on a testosterone high bulldozes his way into a citizens home without warning, reason, or authority. In that respect, the law will be a lifesaver - for the police. In every respect, it is a win for the law abiding.
Stranger
Stranger
The bad part is that the
The bad part is that the courts seem to be getting corrupted, instead of guarding the Constitution and our Rights, they are now throwing us under the bus!
The Supreme Court of the US seems to be a good example. This court has ruled in a couple cases that will have long lasting effects.
It's just sad we need a way to impeach some of these judges off the bench!
Yeah these jacked up wannabe
Yeah these jacked up wannabe swat guys will think twice before coming in and shooting someone's family dogs in front of little kids over some weed.
Absolutely mind blowing that
Absolutely mind blowing that this law would even need to be spelled out or that it is controversial. OF COURSE you should be able to defend yourself and your property! This is something that was always understood as a fundamental from within your will to live and be human in a so-called Land of the Free where certain inalienable rights are guaranteed protection.
In this country the government is supposed to exist for the sole purpose of keeping us free not to tell us what to do. Free from the very type of intrusion described in the above article. We are to be secure in our papers, person, houses.
This came about because after
This came about because after that court decision, a county sheriff announced publicly that he had carte blanche to kick in any door he felt like any time he felt like to seize and arrest anything and anyone he felt like, to crack down on "crime."
Thus, it was determined a law was needed to prevent said activity.
I'm glad that person got
I'm glad that person got slapped down legally. Some people with power tend to get a bit big for their britches. And at that point he should have been removed from his position too.
Climate changes, water
Climate changes, water pollution along with the over-breeding of people who should not have children is creating a society that is on the verge of anarchy. I know extremism is a hallmark for people in Indiana and there are a lot loose screws there, but this law is beyond any rational thinking. It's just plain insane. I'm boycotting Indiana and any product made in that State.
THE Real reason we have 2nd
THE Real reason we have 2nd amendment rights is to protect us from the tryanny of government , not the crackhead down the street(though this is a pleasant side effect of the real reason .) . we have the 2nd amendment is to protect us from the cops kicking in the door, shooting you, throwing planted evidence on you, then solving the city's drug problem while having his agents deal drugs & using a innocent citizen as a convenient scapegoat. there are millions of different scenarios where you need to prevent an officer from arresting & having you found guilty on false charges. End result??? about the same as the man in texas who mistakenly killed a man (hit him with his bare hands to save his daughters virtue) ,who was violating his daughter. killing a corrupt cop who might even kill you in your own home for defending it . you should be given a medal for ridding society of scum & not wasting tax dollars on a no brainer.
Yes, I'm sure Indiana will
Yes, I'm sure Indiana will miss you very much. Where is the insanity in being able to protect yourself and your home? This law is one of the more rational right now, frankly I'm surprised it went through in the present political climate. When was the last time you read our Constitution? I don't seem to recall there being anything in there about police officers having ultimate authority and being above the law.
Kerry,
Kerry, see:
cato.org/raidmap
In my own town (a city of 50,000), the local PD has blown three raids in two years - wrong house, wrong people, wrong information. Innocent people were injured and property was damaged, and untold fear inflicted upon thoroughly innocent citizens. No sanctions on the cops or PD because they were "trained" that way, and that was the "intelligence" they had.
The Cato Institute is no Faux News organization. I may or may not agree with Cato's positions on every issue, but in this case they appear to have simply gathered data from police reports and news reports from around the country.
I do own firearms and engage in the shooting sports on a regular basis - shotgun, rifle, and handgun. You won't be surprised to know I am also a strong supporter of the Second Amendment. That said, I am NOT a member of the NRA or any similar organization - I do not subscribe to their agenda of putting a gun (multiple guns) in the hands of as many people as possible regardless of fitness, nor to their rampant campaign of conspiracy theories.
As a shooter, I frequent firing ranges on a regular basis, and on occasion observe various local police and sheriffs and other LEOs engaged in official and unofficial practice sessions. Too often, the unofficial practice sessions are comprised of multiple off-duty cops turning out in full SWAT gear (though not part of nor assigned to a SWAT team) with non-standard (non-issue) weapons. These are exercises in hubris and a shoot-em-up mentality.
I believe that most botched police raids are comprised of the same ingredients - shabby intelligence, sloppy execution, and testosterone driven hubris.
Review the Cato data, and do your own research (Google the individual incidents in the Cato data). Draw your own conclusions, and hope you, your family, and your home are never the mistaken target of a botched police raid.
Not long ago I wouldn't disagree with you that "this law is beyond any rational thinking... [and] it's just plain insane." Unfortunately, our society - or in this case perhaps more specifically, "law enforcement" - has come to the point it has.
Not being a collar wearing
Not being a collar wearing slave I can't comment on you or your sad existence in the republican salt mines. Those that value freedom know that the police are very prone to major screwups, this law keeps the psychopaths on the force under threat of death.
This law wouldn't be needed if there were men of honor in the police force taking care of the rotten apples. Because the cops won't police their own they all have to treated as a dangerous threat in every way.
Those that can't or won't defend themselves can only be slaves.
Woooooow, you're obviously
Woooooow, you're obviously going to be unbiased. You sir sicken me. "anyone who values their freedom" This phrase is clearly just a rallying call as even someone who doesn't value their freedom would have this information. The idea that if there were "honorable" officers on the force that they would keep the screw ups in check is absolutely absurd. What? Do you think that All these pd's have loose cannon cops like out of 70's action flicks just just operating out in the open causing mayhem? Remember that even the good cops, your "honorable" cops are susceptible to mistakes and bad intel. This means that those great officers can be killed because someone misheard or misread a number. Hmm-officer enters the wrong house that he believes he has a warrant for=a dead cop. This is just FANTASTIC Logic here. Mistakes=death. Tell you what. Next time your dog has an accident in your house, or especially if he growls at you, why don't you just take him to the back yard and put a bullet in his brain? And then what you don't seem to realize is that "How does someone know if their home is being unlawfully entered?" "hey Margaret, some officers are kicking down our door. We have a meth lab operation going on but i can't think of how could possibly know so that means that they are doing this illegally. Go get the guns!" All of them have to be treated the same because they won't police themselves? Firstly they DO police themselves. To become an officer you have to pass a psychological exam. On top of that officers are held to very strict regulations. Most "rotten apples" don't last long, at least not the high profile ones that go around abusing people. We can't expect large parts of Afghanistan to police their Taliban presence so why don't we just drop the nukes on them? China refuses to police it's illicit trades and stolen properties as well as civil rights violations so why dont we treat all Chinese as thieving, poaching, con artists? This is exactly why short sighted imbeciles such as yourself must never be allowed political power. Enjoy the blisters.
Jacob, you call THAT logic?
Jacob, you call THAT logic? This law stops UNLAWFUL entry, in other words if someone is running a meth lab then it is not unlawful for the cops to enter, now is it? Are you really so clueless that you wouldn't be able to tell if your home is being unlawfully entered? And what difference does it make if the officer making a "mistake" doesn't last long on the force? It only takes one "mistake" to destroy property, traumatize family members, kill family dogs. No, police officers aren't allowed to have "mistakes" just like the doctor operating on your hernia isn't allowed to make mistakes--because their mistakes ruin lives!! Mabye they will be more careful about things like checking addresses and such now.
Sigh, I believe you
Sigh, I believe you misunderstood my point about the meth lab thing. I was trying to portray that the person running said meth lab believed that nobody else knew and so that there could not be a warrant out for him. In his reality of course someon had tipped cops off but he didn't know that do therefore assumed it was unlawful. You can unlawfully enter someone's house who is committing a crime if you don't have a warrant. My issue here is that since when do we give judicial power to the citizen to determine if something like this is lawful or not? That kind of decision making belongs in the courtroom.
Also, I would very much like you sit to find me one...ONE person who is absolutely perfect 100% of the time. The difference in your doctors analogy is that we don't give our citizens the right to KILL a sloppy surgeon. Every officer has made mistakes, just some more publicly than others. That's how it is and how it always will be. We're human, we may take responsibility for our actions but we will never be without mistakes or lapses in judgment.
Maybe they will check their addresses more thoroughly next time? That's brilliant because when new standards are applied to the communications and intelligence departments they generally become standard for all actions of that branch at least for a while. So tell you what, when someone breaks into your house and begins strangling you over the phone, you will be glad to know that it will take the police an extra 30 seconds to get there because they had to double check the address.
Insane? The right to defend
Insane? The right to defend yourself against unlawful entry is insane? I suppose you are one of those people who think police should be "above the law".
Your plans to boycott hint on your intelligence.
Then you're saying a police
Then you're saying a police officer breaking the law is OK? Is there some part of "unlawful search and seizure" that confuses you?
Breaking the law is breaking the law, no matter who is doing it. That's probably too difficult for you, too.
If you have not yet passed your stupid gene along, I urge you to be sterilized immediately. That will solve part of the problem you're complaining about and permit you to finally make a positive contribution to the world. Such a deal, how can you resist?
Cops using unlawful tactics
Cops using unlawful tactics is not ok, however as much as I love guns the idea of shooting a cop because you believe it is unlawful is simply absurd. Grievances such as these should simply go through the regular legal channels. This law ends up putting not only cops but citizens in heightened danger as well. If a cop sees a man with a gun pointed at him, regardless of whether or not the man has the RIGHT to, that officer is trained to shoot and will shoot to kill. That is something that is drilled in. And more often than not, guess who's going to win that exchange. I can imagine a few instances where someone doesn't believe that there is a warrant against them or believes that the warrant is not legal, though it is official. Then what do we have? A guy who had a proper warrant and went about his job...dead because someone disagreed with a law or was misinformed.
There are long-established
There are long-established procedures for entering. The first is to announce yourself as a police officer. The next it to have a warrant. Bursting down someone's door is a home invasion. It's illegal no matter who is doing it.
If the officer is trained to shoot to kill, so am I. You break down my door with no warning or announcement, you're going to die.
LOL I hope you placed
LOL I hope you placed yourself on your own list of who shouldn't breed. Have you ever even read the Constitution? No one cares about your boycott.
This will actually make
This will actually make police work better. They will pay closer attention to things like the address of the raid, yelling "POLICE" before they enter, and maybe they will get rid of the "Rules of Engagement" and go back to being police instead of kill squads.
QUESTION: How do you determine it's an illegal entry before you kill the police officer? Legal questions get answered in the court after a tort arises. True, but if you ask to see a search warrant and they say "We don't need no stinking warrant" it is a clue that it's an illegal search.
QUESTION: Why are you worried about a police officer coming into your home? It is NEVER in you best interest to be searched. It needs to be a matter of life and death to the police to observe your Constitutional rights or else you will continue to have problems with them. Has it happened to you before? No it has not happened to me personally, but I know someone who almost died due to "overzealouse" police tactics.
QUESTION: Does this mean I can shoot anyone in my home and claim they did not have permission to enter? Possibly, but you could have done this before. Does this allow people to kill prostitutes instead of paying them? No, if your strapped for cash you have to do with out.
QUESTION: Can I kill people entering my hotel room, too? You seem to want to kill a lot of people.
QUESTION: Doesn't this give a police officer all the more reason to shoot everyone when he or she enters a home? Now the paperwork involved in killing someone in an illegal search has got to be worse than the paperwork involved in getting the paperwork correct before the search. Police hate paperwork, so they are more likely to get the paperwork correct before the search. How else could you protect yourself? Police did it before the militarization of police departments. Remember David Koresh, he showed up at the Sheriff's office any time they wanted to talk with him. But the BATFE and the FBI had all this military gear that they wanted to show off and because of it a bunch of people were killed.
Don't take your Constitutional Rights lightly Billy, people in power will always overstep unless they have some self interest at stake. reply
And how is this actually a
And how is this actually a change in the law? The Fourth Amendment still affirms that people have rights on their own property and persons against an unlawful entry and taking by the government. It isn't there to protect citizens from citizens is it. Perhaps, it is time we look at a more civil police and less at a SWAT from television way of doing things. Grow the hell up. Torts are what happens after a wrong is committed. If every man had the power of the state we wouldn't need these protections.
QUESTION: How do you
QUESTION: How do you determine it's an illegal entry before you kill the police officer? Legal questions get answered in the court after a tort arises.
QUESTION: Why are you worried about a police officer coming into your home? Has it happened to you before?
QUESTION: Does this mean I can shoot anyone in my home and claim they did not have permission to enter? Does this allow people to kill prostitutes instead of paying them?
QUESTION: Can I kill people entering my hotel room, too?
QUESTION: Doesn't this give a police officer all the more reason to shoot everyone when he or she enters a home? How else could you protect yourself?
THere are well-established
THere are well-established procedures for police entering a home, hotel room or even a boat. "No knock" entries are never legal, despite what the "Patriot Act" may say.
Here is Brazil, which most Americans would think is a police state, human rights are more carefully observed. "No knock" entries are not permitted and warrantless searches are not permitted. Even taking someone in for interrogation requires written approval beforehand. I have worked with the police here on and off for eight years and with police in the USA for years before that. I have two relatives that were police chiefs in Indiana, so I am aware that the real police state is the USA.
The law was a result of the
The law was a result of the State Supreme Court not holding the police responsible for an illegal entry. If no one could protect their home or property from ILLEGAL entry of a public official then throw your constitutions along with all laws governing search warrants out the window. Big mistake on the Indiana Supreme Court's part for this one. The law would not be necessary if the court had shown comon sense, the least common of senses.
That should be the law of the
That should be the law of the land throughout all the "57" states. Police should think twice before storming someones home. Plus I think everyone should consider having a moat and a drawbridge put in. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_jOtVy3t7-Q
Katherine Johnson(RIP) this
Katherine Johnson(RIP) this law was designed for you. That's what you did and you were killed. Then drugs were planted and the truth came out. I support the 2nd amendment but not rogue cops.