Indiana Residents Right to Use Deadly Force

I read the article. It was definitely written with an anti-gun, anti-NRA perspective. Looks to me like the police will have to do their jobs right. However, I do see the strong possibility that the law could be misconstrued and mistakenly interpreted by civilians and lead to a disaster for a police officer doing his job correctly. I see a possibility for misuse of this law by lawyers.

BTW, I did not actually read the law only the article.
 
I just don't see how you end up on the "good' end of shooting a "rogue" cop.

I don't see this law being applied to the numerous situations where cops storm someones home in error, though I guess it does give them pause to double check the address on the warrant!

Best case, you shoot some rogue, straight up training day cop and you probably catch several beatings during the arrest, spend weeks or months in jail, thousands of dollars on a lawyer only to pick up the pieces of your life again after. MAYBE you get some kind of a settlement out of it, if the rogue cops family does not sue you.

Worst case, you shoot Mr. Rogue cop and his buddies light you up. Doesn't matter at that point what the law says, you are dead.
 
Patriot86 said:
I don't see this law being applied to the numerous situations where cops storm someones home in error, though I guess it does give them pause to double check the address on the warrant!
Click to expand...
Having that effect would not be a bad thing ...

Obviously, what's really needed is a law prohibiting "no knock," dynamic entry warrant "services" and clarifying that waiting 15 to 30 seconds when you're knocking on the door at 3:00 a.m. is not a reasonable length of time. Unless the subject is a fugitive who is known to be armed, dangerous, AND at that location (known to be there, not suspected on possibly being there), I don't see any possible justification for busting in doors and putting both the occupants of the premises AND the entry team at significant risk. The whole point of a warrant is that the occupant is supposed to have an opportunity to read it, understand it, and to stand aside and allow the officer(s) to enter. That's how things like incorrect addresses or "Sorry, but that family moved out six months ago" get discovered before the front door has been demolished.
 
not to mention firefighters who at times have to force entry into occupied homes and apartments via doors or windows.
 
There's a potential trap. Here's the text of the law (IC 35-41-3-2(i), (j) and (k), emphasis added):
(i) A person is justified in using reasonable force against a public servant if the person reasonably believes the force is necessary to:

(1) protect the person or a third person from what the person reasonably believes to be the imminent use of unlawful force;

(2) prevent or terminate the public servant's unlawful entry of or attack on the person's dwelling, curtilage, or occupied motor vehicle; or

(3) prevent or terminate the public servant's unlawful trespass on or criminal interference with property lawfully in the person's possession, lawfully in possession of a member of the person's immediate family, or belonging to a person whose property the person has authority to protect.​

(j) Notwithstanding subsection (i), a person is not justified in using force against a public servant if:

(1) the person is committing or is escaping after the commission of a crime;

(2) the person provokes action by the public servant with intent to cause bodily injury to the public servant;

(3) the person has entered into combat with the public servant or is the initial aggressor, unless the person withdraws from the encounter and communicates to the public servant the intent to do so and the public servant nevertheless continues or threatens to continue unlawful action; or

(4) the person reasonably believes the public servant is:

(A) acting lawfully; or

(B) engaged in the lawful execution of the public servant's official duties.​

(k) 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...

Okay, let's have a show of hands please. How well do any of you understand the laws relating to police procedure and search and seizure? How confident are you that you will be able to tell in an instant whether an officer's actions are legal or illegal or that he is not engaged in the execution of his official duties? How confident are you that if you are wrong you will still be able to convince people that your mistake was reasonable?

These are much more complex and difficult issues when claiming to be defending yourself against a police officer compared with self defense against an armed robber or burglar. A robber or burglar necessarily is acting illegally when he enters your property. A robber is necessarily acting illegally when he threatens or uses force against you.

On the other hand, there are circumstances under which an LEO may lawfully enter your property, stop you, detain you, threaten the use of force or even use force. Are you really sure that you can tell the difference between a police officer's lawful seizure of your person and his unlawful seizure of your person?
 
Unfortunately...

I expect that this will get changed, but not until there is at least one dead or severely injured public servant, and a homeowner, claiming their home was wrongfully invaded, who is on trial for their life, after assuming they had carte blanche to blast away.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top