Indiana House Approves Bill That Allows Homeowners To Kill Police Officers

[Yo_Mama_Been_Loggin]

The NRA takes the "Right to bear arms" to a new extreme.

Republicans in Indiana are taking self-defense too far. In a move supported by the National Rifle Association, the Indiana House passed Senate Bill 1, which allows homeowners to shoot and kill police officers they believe are unlawfully on their property or in their homes. The bill could also extend to federal law enforcement officials.

According to the Evansville Courier Press, the bill is a response to a decision made by the Indiana Supreme Court in 2011. “The court ruled that homeowners do not have the right to use force against law enforcement officials who they believe are illegally entering their homes. That decision came in the case of Richard Barnes, who filed a lawsuit against police who followed him into his house while they were responding to a domestic dispute Barnes had with his wife.”

The key word there, is ‘believe.’ People have different beliefs when it comes to the police. Most people respect the boys in blue and understand that they are just trying to do a dangerous job that doesn’t exactly pay well. Some, on the other hand, have no respect at all for police and believe them to be the enemy at all time, whether they have a warrant or not. But it’s a particularly risky situation that Republicans are putting police officers in, because in some situations police officers enter homes when they have sufficient reason to believe that a crime is taking place. For example, if a police officer is walking by a home and a woman screams because her husband is beating her mercilessly, there isn’t time to wait for a court approved warrant to enter the home. Under Senate Bill 1, which passed by a 74-24 vote, the husband could shoot and kill the officer for entering his home and get away with it. And there are many other situations where police may deem it necessary to enter a home, such as the situation in which the Indiana Court ruled.

http://www.addictinginfo.org/2012/03/02/indiana-house-approves-bill-that-allows-homeowners-to-kill-police-officers/

[Skittles]

1. paranoid assholes' dream

[Gruntled Old Man]

2. Indiana

I spent a year there one weekend. (Props to Jerry Orbach.)

[aquart]

3. Law of Unintended Consequences?

[Politicalboi]

4. This is crazy

I can see if your house is being busted for illegal drugs of which you have none, and you shoot a cop thinking he's breaking in your house, but over a domestic dispute. This is just plain crazy. It could be a trap for the cop who has been coming to the same house time after time, and now someone shoots and kills him just for being there. How do they think they are going to get more people to be cops if it's open season on them.

[saras]

5. If it applies to the DEA I'm all for it, but not local cops

You have to keep in mind that it's not just crazy right-wingers, it's ordinary people with families who have their doors kicked in in the middle of the night by thugs who won't show ID or answer questions.

[unkachuck]

6. the law....

....would put more bite in the 4th Amendment....it saves the citizens harmless while defending their homes....it does side with the people over the state....

....of course, the police would simply respond with overwhelming amounts of force presence before they entered a home....and it would slow down needed response time during a legitimate crisis....

....the police have brought this upon themselves....we've all seen video of police battering a door down before the home owner even had time to open the door....

[Historic NY]

7. Thats just plain crazy.....

we already have cops getting whacked walking up to houses. If I was working out there I wouldn't respond to a private residence period. I'd sit in the car on the street & blow the siren a couple of times.

[Selatius]

8. I favor such a bill only in the case of wrongfully executed search warrants.

If they kick in the wrong door and charge into your home with a no-knock search warrant that wasn't meant for your home, you're either going to get killed for pulling a gun or go to prison for shooting a police officer under current law even though you committed no crime.

[TheKentuckian]

9. Good. No one should be deprived of the right to self defense.

The cop carve out is bad law that negates even broader self defense because how do you discern crook from cop?

You shoot a robber and it is within the law unless the robber turns out to have a badge and then you are up for life or more likely the chair. That is nonsense, the citizen is acting lawfully within context and situation and is guilty only in retrospect. That is a distortion of the law.

[Indiana]

10. Nothing really new here

Intersting how that article didn't actually include the short text of the bill. Here it is.

Notice that there really is not anything new here. Each clause in section one specifically reads that the law enforcement officer's actions against a person must be unlawful or criminal. That has always been true.

The second section dismisses the news spins about criminals' abuse. They are still held accountable. Again, nothing new.



Self defense. Specifies that a person may use reasonable force against any other person in certain circumstances. Provides that a person is justified in using reasonable force against a law enforcement officer if the person reasonably believes the force is necessary to: (1) protect the person or a third person from unlawful force; (2) prevent or terminate the law enforcement officer's unlawful entry into the person's dwelling; or (3) prevent or terminate the law enforcement officer's criminal interference with property lawfully in the person's possession. Specifies that a person is not justified in using force against a law enforcement officer if: (1) the person is committing or is escaping after the commission of a crime; (2) the person provokes action by the law enforcement officer with intent to injure the law enforcement officer; (3) the person has entered into combat with the law enforcement officer or is the initial aggressor; or (4) the person reasonably believes the law enforcement officer acting lawfully or is engaged in the lawful execution of the law enforcement officer's official duties. Provides that a person is not justified in using deadly force against a law enforcement officer who the person knows or reasonably should know is a law enforcement officer unless: (1) the person reasonably believes that the law enforcement officer is acting unlawfully or is not engaged in the execution of the officer's official duties; and (2) the force is reasonably necessary to prevent serious bodily injury to the person or a third person.