Indiana Law legalizes shooting cops in unlawful intrusion

Clyde gets at the heart of the issue, I am sure each of us could find a different story where a home/property owner both armed and unarmed were killed by LEO's who were mistakenly at their property/address.

I think the standards before any law enforcement officer knocks down a door need to be higher. If the suspect you are seeking is not the owner of the property you should be forced to have eyeballs on the suspect to get the warrant. Yes its more work but with todays optics and surveillance technology there is no excuse beyond a lack of funding.

Same goes for wrong addresses, again we have multiple sources to check someones address beyond DMV Records. In this day and age I see no excuse to not have two or three different locations where a suspects address can be verified and reverified before issuing a "no knock" type warrant.
 
It is symbolic mostly. I would also hope most people understand that this law is simply in place to offer a grounds for defense in a criminal trial. You are most certainly going to have to surrender afterword. Of course that being said once you have won your case you then will have the opportunity to file for liability against the dept and recoup your legal costs and let's not forget wrongful imprisonment, potential lost wages, etc. I would also hope most people have the sense to know when this law applies and when to simply cooperate with the police. Having a cop for a dad and having considered a career in law enforcement myself I can see where a lot of sheeple could get the wrong idea from this law. We must educate ourselves on such matters.
 
Interesting. Tennessee has a similar law on the books, I ran across it while researching our use of force laws. As I recall, it allows reasonable force (including lethal force) to be used on any officer who is acting unlawfully or using excessive force at any time and any place against anyone, not just within your home.
Click to expand...

Texas had that for a very long time as well, but not now. I think the OP issue is a very state specific issue related to a previous court case finding and should not be interpreted to the rest of the US.
 
Kathryn Johnston’s family got $4.9 million after Atlanta Cops killed her and planted marijuana to validate the no-knock break-in. Kathryn fired a warning shot after the Cops sawed off the burglar bars on her house and broke in. The Cops fired 39 rounds of which five hit Kathryn.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kathryn_Johnston_shooting

Yes, you can be legally right, but you may end up medically dead.
 
exactly...

That's a great point.
In the early 1990s, I was almost shot by a uniformed armed security officer holding a Beretta 92F 9mm.
He incorrectly thought I'd broken into my mother's house.
I had a Ruger SP101 .357magnum snub in my hand & had the drop on him due to his poor tactics.
He rushed through the side yard with his pistol pointing at me. When the lights came on I saw his metal badge & blue uniform. :eek:

If the guard killed me, there's no way to get a second chance or do-over.
 
Most of us here are probably very sympathetic to a homeowner who is awakened by the sound of his door being bashed in at 2:00 a.m. and, as it turns out, it was done "unlawfully" by police. Unlawfully simply means without proper legal authorization. It does not mean with ill will or malice.

Imagine a different scenario:
Trooper Allen and Sergeant Blake Stone were investigating a theft and were informed by two men that Johnson, Billy Deaton, and an unidentified man were observed acting suspiciously in the same area and at the same time that the theft was committed.

The officers went to Billy Deaton's residence to question Deaton. Trooper Allen knocked several times and identified himself as a police officer but received no response. The officers then observed an automobile in the driveway. With a flashlight, they looked into the car. At that time, the porch light came on and Deaton stood in the doorway of the residence yelling obscenities at the officers. Trooper Allen, in uniform, again identified himself as an officer and requested that Deaton exit the residence and respond to questions. Deaton then turned and ran back into the house.

Trooper Allen, who had previously been called to the residence in response to a domestic dispute and was aware that Deaton had previously threatened law enforcement officers, testified that he believed that Deaton might retrieve a weapon from the residence. He testified that as a safety precaution, Trooper Allen and Sergeant Slone pursued Deaton into the residence . . . .
Click to expand...

Commonwealth v. Johnson, 245 S.W.3d 821, 822-23 (Ky. Ct. App. 2008).

As it turns out, the courts thought the police officers did not have sufficient justification to enter the home but I think that is a very close question. Yet, under Indiana's law, the homeowner would have been justified in shooting the officers because their entry is "unlawful." IMO, there needs to be something more than unlawful entry, there has to be a real fear of death or serious injury.

BTW, the case above did not involve the homeowner injuring a police officer, but a different person inside the home assaulting the officer.
 
Most of us here are probably very sympathetic to a homeowner who is awakened by the sound of his door being bashed in at 2:00 a.m. and, as it turns out, it was done "unlawfully" by police. Unlawfully simply means without proper legal authorization. It does not mean with ill will or malice.
Click to expand...

It does not necessarily mean without ill will or malice either. While an extremely small minority, there are bad cops who abuse the law and the IN Supreme Court ruling made it easier for them to do so.

As it turns out, the courts thought the police officers did not have sufficient justification to enter the home but I think that is a very close question. Yet, under Indiana's law, the homeowner would have been justified in shooting the officers because their entry is "unlawful." IMO, there needs to be something more than unlawful entry, there has to be a real fear of death or serious injury.
Click to expand...

I don't think you entirely understand what the law actually says. Indiana Code 35-41-3-2 states in part:

A person is justified in using reasonable force against any other person to protect the person or a third person from what the person reasonably believes to be the imminent use of unlawful force. However, a person:
(1) is justified in using deadly force; and
(2) does not have a duty to retreat;
if the person reasonably believes that that force is necessary to prevent serious bodily injury to the person or a third person or the commission of a forcible felony. No person in this state shall be placed in legal jeopardy of any kind whatsoever for protecting the person or a third person by reasonable means necessary.
Click to expand...

This law does not change the standard that must be met for deadly force to be justified. Regardless of whether the person illegally entering your home is a police officer or escaped convict, you still must "reasonably believe that force is necessary to prevent serious bodily injury of the commission of a forcible felony" in order to legally shoot.

As a matter of fact, Indiana Code 35-41-3-2.5 specifically states in part:

A person is not justified in using deadly force against a public servant whom the person knows or reasonably should know is a public servant unless:
(1) the person reasonably believes that the public servant is:
(A) acting unlawfully; or
(B) not engaged in the execution of the public servant's official duties; and
(2) the force is reasonably necessary to prevent serious bodily injury to the person or a third person.
Click to expand...
emphasis added
 
Sorry ahead of time for necro-posting, but i felt this would be better served on this topic rather than starting a new thread.

OK, I was browsing around, and found this article concerning the aforementioned change in the law. It was posted today, in response to the most recent bout of voiced concerns over this law. It actually explains the changes to the new law very well, and their rationale.

The real kicker is, I found it in the Huffington Post:eek:

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/radle...ptions-_b_1596846.html?utm_hp_ref=gun-control
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top