Indiana First State to Allow Citizens to Shoot Law Enforcement Officers

[Ought Six]

Won't a law like this create even more dangerous situations for everybody? I mean, if the LEOs know that more people might fire at them, because they think they come under this law (rightfully or not), won't the LEOs draw their guns at a much earlier stage? Won't this just escalate many situations?

Shouldn't it be about preventing both LEO and civvies getting injured or killed?

We cannot go full-bore for safety at the expense of civil rights. Normally, we try to strike some sort of balance. This may not be the best solution, but is it better to just say LEOs have free rein to enter homes illegally with no real consequences other than a lawsuit against their department after the fact? Again, I do not see any good answers here.

[Dominique]

Won't a law like this create even more dangerous situations for everybody?

Yep. I'm serious when I say far to many idiots think they "know" the law, when they're dead fvcking wrong. All this is going to do is get someone killed.

[Dominique]

We cannot go full-bore for safety at the expense of civil rights. Normally, we try to strike some sort of balance. This may not be the best solution, but is it better to just say LEOs have free rein to enter homes illegally with no real consequences other than a lawsuit against their department after the fact? Again, I do not see any good answers here.

No one's saying LEOs have free reign, I need a valid reason to enter your home. I can't just barge in because I feel like it. I better have a warrant, or a valid reason I can explain to a judge, or I'm going to have some legal issues myself, and I'm not talking about a lawsuit. You might want to look at what happens when LEOs get charged with violating someone's civil rights.

[Hollis]

I can see valid points on both sides of this issue. A person should be able to defend their home against illegal intrusion, even by employees of the government. But I can also see that a wrong address on a warrant or other mistake could easily lead to tragic consequences for LEOs, residents of the address, or both. I do not see a good solution here.

I think you nailed, plus lawfulness is determined in a court. We have a shooting case right now where the media is playing it for all it can get out it and it is a mess. Thinking you are right is one thing, being right is another.

Cops are under their district policies, they actually do not decide if something is lawful or not. Arresting someone is under the belief a crime was committed, it is not under the notion that it is a fact a crime was committed. That is determined in the court.

Also if a cop commits a unlawful act, they can be charged with a crime. That can also be taken to civil court for any harm that they caused. They are not above the law or immune from the law.

So a Citizen shoots a cop who they believe entered their home unlawfully. The shooting is just the start of what will happen. The DA will look at the facts and if the cop was their lawfully, the citizen will probably face criminal charges. Also the Citizen can also be sued in a civil court for damages.

So a Citizen does not shoot a cop who they believe entered their home unlawfully. The citizen files a complaint with the proper authority. If it is a unlawful act, then the cops is charged with a crime, if it is not a unlawful act the citizen can still sued for damages. Either way, both cop and citizen are still walking

In the shooting situation, Out come can be, cop is killed, citizen is killed, other people could be wounded or killed. Everyone looses.

[muck]

I can see valid points on both sides of this issue. A person should be able to defend their home against illegal intrusion, even by employees of the government. But I can also see that a wrong address on a warrant or other mistake could easily lead to tragic consequences for LEOs, residents of the address, or both. I do not see a good solution here.

Imagine the following hypothetic situation - you're sitting at your favorite diner's and an armed perp walks in to rob the place. The guest next to you, however, is an armed law enforcement officer. Wouldn't you expect him to handle the situation, even if you were carrying a gun yourself?

The state has the monopoly on force. As I understand the 2nd Amendment and the surrounding court findings the United States Constitution grants a right to bear arms but not the monopoly on force.

How can you know for certain that the police action against you is unlawful - a question that, in the case of doubt, is referred to judges and a jury of twelve people? Would you shoot officers who are acting on good faith, believing they're lawfully serving a legitimate warrant?

"Presumption of innocence" often comes across in this debate. Wouldn't one's state and it's executive officers deserve the same privilege? The United States of America are one of the oldest and most advanced democracies history has ever seen. Unless proven otherwise, citizens should assume this state doesn't want to do them harm.

[Dirtydiaper]

Won't surprise me if this bill leads to a dead officer because of some crack-head 'protecting' himself from an "unlawful arrest" cause he read about being able to use deadly force to resist it on the internet.

[Dominique]

So a Citizen shoots a cop who they believe entered their home unlawfully. The shooting is just the start of what will happen.

The person who shoots the cop will probably be lucky if he survives long enough to be investigated by a prosecutor, as shooting at the police usually doesn't work out well for the shooter.

[Dominique]

Won't surprise me if this bill leads to a dead officer because of some crack-head 'protecting' himself from an "unlawful arrest" cause he read about being able to use deadly force to resist it on the internet.

I can guarantee every meth head in India is going to try to justify resisting the police by saying they didn't think it was a lawful arrest.

[shermbodius]

The person who shoots the cop will probably be lucky if he survives long enough to be investigated by a prosecutor, as shooting at the police usually doesn't work out well for the shooter.

True. The Seattle cops up here don't mess around. They are constantly blowing someone away. Don't mess with the Police.

[Dominique]

True. The Seattle cops up here don't mess around. They are constantly blowing someone away. Don't mess with the Police.

As many wannabe Hippies, tree huggers, and all around died in the wool leftist as you guys have, I'm surprised the SPD is even allowed to make an arrest, much less carry weapons.

[muck]

As many wannabe Hippies, tree huggers, and all around died in the wool leftist as you guys have, I'm surprised the SPD is even allowed to make an arrest, much less carry weapons.

Proper control of the police is necessary. But not at the cost of life and limb of a police officer. That new law is irresponsible in this respect. They should've rather spent the money on optimizing internal law enforcement procedures to minimize the risk of accidentally unlawful actions.

[shermbodius]

As many wannabe Hippies, tree huggers, and all around died in the wool leftist as you guys have, I'm surprised the SPD is even allowed to make an arrest, much less carry weapons.

No kidding they run the show.

[beNder]

Just FYI guys, that first link, allgov has a trojan. Might want to scan your rigs.

[PMI]

Yep. I'm serious when I say far to many idiots think they "know" the law, when they're dead fvcking wrong.

The part you are leaving out is the number of LEO's who fall into that category.

[muck]

Just FYI guys, that first link, allgov has a trojan. Might want to scan your rigs.

Confirmed!
@Mods Please delete the link in concern!