Indiana First State to Allow Citizens to Shoot Law Enforcement Officers

19 posts / 0 new
Last post
Tom C
Offline
Joined: 01/03/2006 - 6:00pm
Indiana First State to Allow Citizens to Shoot Law Enforcement Officers

Police officers in Indiana 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 adopted after the state Supreme Court went too far in one of its rulings last year, according to supporters. The court ruled that there was “no right to reasonably resist unlawful entry by police officers.”

Indiana First State to Allow Citizens to Shoot Law Enforcement Officers

Citizens getting fed up.

BC-SPM
Offline
Joined: 04/21/2008 - 9:26am
I agree with the police on

I agree with the police on this one. Its relying on the dregs of society to reasonably know the exceptions to search warrants, what constitutes an unlawful entry, and other finer points of that state law as described. Otherwise its open season on the police.

Anybody that has any experience at all dealing with bottom feeders can tell you that these people are clueless, even thought they think they are Rhodes Scholars, and this is a recipe for disaster.

I can see it now. Tyrone Doe, who is wanted by the police for a drive by, was last seen by several witnesses with an AK-47 running into a house that belongs to his half brother, Jerome Doe. The police show up, take a defensive posture with guns drawn while another goes up to the door looking for Tyrone. Well, Tyrone never bothered to tell his half brother about the aforementioned felony, and when asked by Jerome why the cops were there, denied any knowledge.

Jerome asks through the door what they want. They want his brother and they want him now. So Jerome uses the excuse that he reasonably believes the cops are about to use imminent unlawful force, which happens to be deadly force from the looks of all the guns he can see through the mail slot, in order to make an unlawful arrest on his brother. After all, his brother has never told him a lie in all his days spent together when their parents shared custody of them every other weekend. Jerome opens the door with his gun drawn. In a split second shots ring out from both sides.

Who is right?

Any police officer now employed in Indiana would be justified in quitting and pursuing his/her carer in another state. Anybody considering a police career in Indiana needs to be subject to the equivalent of Maine's Title 34-B, Article 3...

NancyEH
Offline
Joined: 12/12/2010 - 8:23pm
Nicely written, BC-SPM. To

Nicely written, BC-SPM. To think that anyone whose home is being entered into by law enforcement would think it anything BUT illegal is infinitesimal; to have a law enforcement professional lose her/his life because someone "believes" the invasion to be illegal is absurd. Two or three years down the line, when a court determines the belief to have been unreasonable, the officer is still dead.

Tom C
Offline
Joined: 01/03/2006 - 6:00pm
In a split second shots ring

In a split second shots ring out from both sides.

Who is right?

Well, in that senario, if Jerome is right, he is dead right. Anyone who opens fire in that case because they think the law will give them bullet-proof protection will be surprised. I really don't think that would have been a factor in the situation you describe. This relates to sorting out the legal aftermath.

Nancy, why aren't you at the polls for Dill? You know, at lot of AMG is cheering for her!

thejohnchapman
Offline
Joined: 03/21/2000 - 1:01am
Not exactly a new issue here

Not exactly a new issue here in Maine. Maine Law used to permit resisting unlawful entry by the police.

http://mainelaw.maine.edu/academics/maine-law-review/pdf/vol45_2/vol45_m...

In 1992, Andrew Clisham was found justified in threatening Law Enforcement Officers who tried to illegally enter his home. He used steak knives. He was not shot, nor were the police cut.

However, the law was changed shortly after this It currently states:

http://www.mainelegislature.org/legis/statutes/17-A/title17-Asec108.html

1-A. A person is not justified in using nondeadly force against another person who that person knows or reasonably should know is a law enforcement officer attempting to effect an arrest or detention, regardless of whether the arrest or detention is legal. A person is justified in using the degree of nondeadly force the person reasonably believes is necessary to defend the person or a 3rd person against a law enforcement officer who, in effecting an arrest or detention, uses nondeadly force not justified under section 107, subsection 1.
[ 1997, c. 351, §1 (NEW) .]

http://www.mainelegislature.org/legis/statutes/17-A/title17-Asec110.html

§110. Threat to use deadly force against a law enforcement officer
A person otherwise justified in threatening to use deadly force against another is not justified in doing so with the use of a firearm or other dangerous weapon if the person knows or should know that the other person is a law enforcement officer, unless the person knows that the law enforcement officer is not in fact engaged in the performance of the law enforcement officer's public duty, or unless the person is justified under this chapter in using deadly force against the law enforcement officer. A law enforcement officer may not make a nonconsensual warrantless entry into a dwelling place solely in response to a threat not justified under this section. [1997, c. 289, §1 (NEW).]

Mike G
Offline
Joined: 02/17/2000 - 1:01am
The harm from police entree

The harm from police entree comes from much NO-Knock war on drugs BS and now extended to war on terror. Should not have been allowed in the first place, can you imagine Indiana though? taking a step?

Amazing maybe there is hope, Tom C?

BC-SPM
Offline
Joined: 04/21/2008 - 9:26am
Maybe there is hope? Taking

Maybe there is hope? Taking a step? Just what specifically are you advocating?

When you speak of no-knock, are you referring to no-knock search warrants? By far and away those kinds of warrants are in the minority and have to be justified by the likelihood of evidence being destroyed, to minimize known danger(s) to the police executing the warrant, and so forth, all of which have to be supported by affidavit. And all legal.

Maine Constitution: Section 5. Unreasonable searches prohibited. The people shall be secure in their persons, houses, papers and possessions from all unreasonable searches and seizures; and no warrant to search any place, or seize any person or thing, shall issue without a special designation of the place to be searched, and the person or thing to be seized, nor without probable cause -- supported by oath or affirmation.

Indiana Constitution: Section 11. The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable search or seizure, shall not be violated; and no warrant shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the person or thing to be seized.

Mike G
Offline
Joined: 02/17/2000 - 1:01am
I'd specifically advocate

I'd specifically advocate that police show a warrant before entering someone's castle, unless a known-felon was pursued into that residence.

"By far and away those kinds of warrants are in the minority and have to be justified by the likelihood of evidence being destroyed, to minimize known danger(s) to the police executing the warrant, and so forth, all of which have to be supported by affidavit. And all legal."

There is the rub

Reaganite
Offline
Joined: 06/21/2008 - 4:05pm
I'm not too concerned about

I'm not too concerned about no knock warrants and the like here in Sagadahoc county. I've seen the sheriff's department SWAT team in action. Ever see the SWAT team from the Blues Brothers movie? These folks would likely shoot themselves while trying to take down the front door. HUT HUT to you, too.

I was certainly proud to see my tax dollars at work, yesiree.

BC-SPM
Offline
Joined: 04/21/2008 - 9:26am
Mike G, found this

Mike G, found this interesting article for you from 2007 that explains court rulings on knock vs no-knock service of search warrants.

Also some reading explaining search warrant exceptions . Random searches as a condition of pre-conviction and post-conviction bail is also allowed in Maine.

Perhaps thejc can provide some links to case law where the above was not followed in Maine, there has to some examples.

Bottom line is police misconduct with respect to the above is a rare issue in Maine. No justification to adopt what Indiana has done.

taxfoe
Offline
Joined: 03/22/2000 - 1:01am
I am squarely with the people

I am squarely with the people of IN on this one. It's unfortunate that the IN supreme court forced the legislature to pursue this law. Regardless of the weight of the prior challenges and exceptions to the 4th amendment, there are too many instances where the cops abuse their authority. Whether it's a failure to articulate a legitimate cause to enter, it's the wrong address, hair trigger tactical teams or the innocuous charges that seem to merit a SWAT response. To this day, I'm convinced that, had the cheif of the Greenland, NH, PD simply called that guy and said "we need to talk . . " he and the perp and the perfectly innocent XGF would all be alive today.

A few days ago, the Aurora, CO, PD detained and cuffed either 19 people or the occupants of 19 vehicles while in pursuit of a bank robber. Simply stated, the cops are not being taught the rules. I'll go find a link. Here's one with a slightly anarchist bent that I find appealling. And it was 19 cars, 40 people.

taxfoe
Offline
Joined: 03/22/2000 - 1:01am
I heard this one on the

I heard this one on the radio, yesterday . . ZERO OUTRAGE?

Tom C
Offline
Joined: 01/03/2006 - 6:00pm
The woman was told she would

The woman was told she would be reimbursed for the damage to her door.

Just to clarify: The woman was told the taxpayers would reimburse her for the damage to her door.

So where's the incentive for the police to stop doing this?

BC-SPM
Offline
Joined: 04/21/2008 - 9:26am
Looks like there is no

Looks like there is no incentive to stop, or at least reimburse for damages. Blame this interesting 8-1 ruling from May 22, 2007...

The Supreme Court ruled the police can break into your home, rouse you from sleep, hold you naked at gunpoint, and—even if you're completely innocent—you have no recourse, so long as the warrant was valid.

The court ruled "Valid warrants will issue to search the innocent and people like Rettele and Sadler unfortunately bear the cost. The resulting frustration, embarrassment and humiliation may be real, as was true here. When officers execute a valid warrant and act in a reasonable manner to protect themselves from harm, however, the 4th Amendment is not violated."

One has to wonder just how long it took to get around to putting together the affidavit for the search warrant if in the meantime the black suspects moved out and the new white owners had been living there for several months. Sloppy, but apparently legal w/o repercussions.

pmconusa
Offline
Joined: 04/20/2000 - 12:01am
The description is what

The description is what causes confusion. If I understand the law, shooting a policeman you believe is invading your home is not allowed but will not be prosecuted as a crime. Under our Constitution, the government cannot take property without due process. Destruction is the same as a taking. It is incumbent on the government to go out of its way to exercise its due process privelege without destruction of someone's property. It is also a person's right to defend their property in any manner they deem appropriate. Unless the officer properly identified himself, gave the individual the reason for his request for entry and was refused the prudent coarse of action would be to wait out the occupant and then serve the warrant. After all, there is supposed to be a presumption of innocence.

Calvin
Offline
Joined: 05/15/2001 - 12:01am
Taxfoe : So if I promise to

Taxfoe :
So if I promise to pay the expence, it's okay I guess to break your door down.

Not exactly a comfortable reassurance is it ?

There are some Barney Phifes out there. Also some Larrys, Darrells and the other Darell with a badge.

Tom C
Offline
Joined: 01/03/2006 - 6:00pm
If I understand the law,

If I understand the law, shooting a policeman you believe is invading your home is not allowed but will not be prosecuted as a crime.

Well, in 99% of the cases, there wouldn't have been a prosecution, anyway, because the homeowner would be dead, killed by return fire. However, this may give the homeowner's estate some protection - since he wouldn't have been killed conducting an illegal act, this may open the way for his widow and orphaned children to be compensated for their loss.

Which is an improvement over most situations nowadays where an innocent civilian is killed by police who make a fatal error. Now, the citizen's family is merely told by the police: "S#cks to be you! At least I went home safe that night! "

taxfoe
Offline
Joined: 03/22/2000 - 1:01am
Police: 'Threat matrix'

Police: 'Threat matrix' dictated SWAT team response at Powell Avenue home

Taxfoe: 'Common Sense matrix' would have dictated otherwise.

Ira Milan said the perpetrator of the threats likely used Stephanie’s Internet service connection from an outside location, which led police to the East Powell Avenue address.

But Police Chief Billy Bolin said, “We have no way of being able to tell that,” and the concerning Internet posts “definitely come back to that address.”

So, what the heck? It isn't every day we get to break out the goon suits and besides, we've got a news crew . . we'll be famous!

Mayor Lloyd Winnecke said Friday he spoke to Bolin about the incident and was satisfied that police were justified in forcibly entering the home . . He said police told him that the Milans’ storm door and window were being repaired at city expense.

There. All better.

Tom C
Offline
Joined: 01/03/2006 - 6:00pm
He said police told him that

He said police told him that the Milans’ storm door and window were being repaired at THE TAXPAYERS' expense.

There, all better.

Log in to post comments