Citizens of Indiana may now protect themselves against...
unlawful intrusion from public servants. This is a big WIN for the people of Indiana. Hopefully other states will follow suit
Hold onto your holsters, folks: shooting a cop dead is now legal in the state of Indiana.
Governor Mitch Daniels, a Republican, has authorized changes to a 2006 legislation that legalizes the use of deadly force on a public servant — including an officer of the law — in cases of “unlawful intrusion.” Proponents of both the Second and Fourth Amendments — those that allow for the ownership of firearms and the security against unlawful searches, respectively — are celebrating the update by saying it ensures that residents are protected from authorities that abuse the powers of the badge.
Others, however, fear that the alleged threat of a police state emergence will be replaced by an all-out warzone in Indiana.
Under the latest changes of the so-called Castle Doctrine, state lawmakers agree “people have a right to defend themselves and third parties from physical harm and crime.” Rather than excluding officers of the law, however, any public servant is now subject to be met with deadly force if they unlawfully enter private property without clear justification.
“In enacting this section, the general assembly finds and declares that it is the policy of this state to recognize the unique character of a citizen’s home and to ensure that a citizen feels secure in his or her own home against unlawful intrusion by another individual or a public servant,” reads the legislation.
Although critics have been quick to condemn the law for opening the door for assaults on police officers, supporters say that it is necessary to implement the ideals brought by America’s forefathers. Especially, argue some, since the Indiana Supreme Court almost eliminated the Fourth Amendment entirely last year. During the 2011 case of Barnes v. State of Indiana, the court ruled that a man who assaulted an officer dispatched to his house had broken the law before there was “no right to reasonably resist unlawful entry by police officers.” In turn, the National Rifle Association lobbied for an amendment to the Castle Doctrine to ensure that residents were protected from officers that abuse the law to grant themselves entry into private space.
“There are bad legislators,” the law’s author, State Senator R. Michael Young (R) tells Bloomberg News. “There are bad clergy, bad doctors, bad teachers, and it’s these officers that we’re concerned about that when they act outside their scope and duty that the individual ought to have a right to protect themselves.”
Governor Daniels agrees with the senator in a statement offered through his office, and notes that the law is only being established to cover rare incidents of police abuse that can escape the system without reprimand for officers or other persons that break the law to gain entry.
Officers in Indiana aren’t necessarily on the same page, though. “If I pull over a car and I walk up to it and the guy shoots me, he’s going to say, ‘Well, he was trying to illegally enter my property,’” Sergeant Joseph Hubbard tells Bloomberg. “Somebody is going get away with killing a cop because of this law.”
This was a very bad idea. Most people will be quick to think they can just "shoot" a cop which is why we are not happy about it. I can't speak for other departments, but my department doesn't ever enter a house unless we have a lawful reason to be in a house in the first place. Any 911 call from someone's house, we are lawfully allowed in the house. Does this mean that the drunk guy that just beat his wife (she called 911 and he hung up), and read this artical a day ago, can shoot at the police because they are coming in his house when he tells them they can't? Nope. Not at all. Just because this person "thinks" it is unlawful intrusion, doesn't mean that it in fact really is. Warrants, consent to search, or active calls to protect the welfare of citizens that are inside all establish lawful entry (note: doesn't mean we can search for anything other than people for safety reasons and to figure out the facts of the 911 etc.) That is point 1. Point 2. Even citizens must follow the use of force rules like police. They must ask the officer not to enter if the officer truely wouldn't be lawful in doing so. They can't just bring the guns out and start shooting unless the officers are in the house "illegally" and they Truely feel in danger of death or serious bodily harm. You see the problem on why this new law is broken? Name an example when the police have went into a house illegally. I would say this is indeed very rare, and can't name one time it has happened in my city. But, every body we deal with that doesn't like us, thinks that we are at their house illegally even if we are not. -- I would rather people take us to court and sue us for illegal intrusion than to come out thinking they can shoot. I know that if I have been called to a house, I have a professional, moral, and legal duty to protect the people in that house. If someone brings a gun out in that situation, it isn't going to end pretty in most cases. If they "bad guy" kills a cop who was lawfully there, he is going to charged for murder. The cop, on the other hand, will be dead, and his/her family will have to suffer because some guy thought he was right in shooting the cop when infact he was wrong. Which sounds better? I vote for it being dealt with in court, where there are 2nd chances and an opportunity to have an informed decision on if the entry was lawful or not....