No announcement yet.

Indiana trying to leagalize killing police..WTF???


300x250 Mobile

  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • Indiana trying to leagalize killing police..WTF???

    My jaw dropped when I read this.

    I am so enraged I don't even know where to begin. God bless Indiana law enforcement, as if the job wasn't hard enough

  • #2
    Don't believe everything you see on the internet...
    Certified troll.


    • #3
      Youre right...I shouldnt. But even the mere suggestion is unbeliveable to me.


      • #4
        The bill most certainly does not specify police officers. It likely allows homeowners to use force against anyone they believe to be entering their home/property to commit a crime.

        There is a similar bill going through MN right now. It specifically says the right does not apply when the homeowner knows the person to be a police officer.


        • #5
          I don't see a problem with the bill. Because we can't predict the future, we have a checks and balance form of government.. this is just another form of that. Don't take it personal.

          Here's a better article..


          • #6
            I think the article is a bit misleading.


            • #7
              Ind. lawmakers back bill that OKs force against police officers
              The Indiana House voted 74-24 in favor of the 'right to resist' measure



              The Indy Channel

              INDIANAPOLIS — The Indiana House has approved a bill laying out when people are justified in using force against police officers.

              The House voted 74-24 Thursday in favor of the bill that's a response to the public uproar over a state Supreme Court ruling that residents could not resist officers even during an illegal entry.

              The measure specifies residents are protected by the state's self-defense law if they reasonably believe force is necessary to protect themselves from unlawful actions by an officer.

              Supporters said the proposal strengthens the rights of homeowners while also making clear that anyone who is committing a crime isn't justified in using force against an officer.

              "There are citizens of this state who understand … that they need to be protected," said Rep. Jud McMillin, R-Brookville.

              Opponents argued the Legislature shouldn't give people justification for attacking officers.

              "Fifteen thousand disagree with this bill. The men and women that are guarding the streets that you live on right now while you're sitting here, they disagree with this bill," said Rep. Linda Lawson, D-Hammond, a retired police captain.

              The House and Senate must still agree on a final version


              • #8

                If a private citizen believes that their fourth amendment rights are being infringed upon, they have the right to resist?

                I do not see any problems coming from this at all. Ever.
                This show is awesome, wrapped in supercool and smothered in bitchin. The only way it could be cooler is if he was riding a unicorn or something.



                • #9
                  Wow......I thought Indiana was better than this..


                  • #10
                    The uproar over the court's decision was unwarranted because it was based on false information. The ruling was not that law enforcement was no longer subject to the 4th Amendment, it was that people could not resist when they made an illegal entry. It doesn't mean that the officers involved, the department, and the town were not still liable and subject to lawsuits for constitutional rights violations, or that anything seized in the illegal search was now admissible.
                    "If the police have to come get you, they're bringing an @$$ kicking with them!"
                    -Chris Rock


                    • #11
                      Here is the recent wording of the statute IC 35-41-3-2, :

                      (h) A person is justified in using reasonable force against a law enforcement officer 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 law enforcement officer's unlawful entry of or attack on the person's dwelling, curtilage, or an occupied motor vehicle; or
                      (3) prevent or terminate the law enforcement officer's 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.
                      (i) A person is not justified in using deadly force against a law enforcement officer unless the person reasonably believes that:
                      (1) the officer is:
                      (A) acting unlawfully; and
                      (B) not engaged in the execution of the officer's official duty; and
                      (2) the force is reasonably necessary to prevent serious bodily injury to the person or a third person.
                      "Remember, democracy never lasts long. It soon wastes, exhausts and murders itself. There never was a democracy yet that did not commit suicide."
                      John Adams, April 15, 1814


                      • #12
                        ^Wow the intervening party better be right!!


                        • #13
                          If this passes, there's gonna be a lot more shootings in Indiana.
                          "Naw officer, I was hanging with my cousin"

                          "Sooo, real cousin or play cousins ?"

                          Originally posted by JasperST
                          I'm thinking a battalion of menstruating bearded women could kick some serious booty!


                          • #14
                            Originally posted by -Erik- View Post

                            If a private citizen believes that their fourth amendment rights are being infringed upon, they have the right to resist?

                            I do not see any problems coming from this at all. Ever.
                            Surely you jest.
                            Facts do not cease to exist because they are ignored. -- Aldous Huxley
                            Two things are infinite: the universe and human stupidity. -- Albert Einstein


                            • #15
                              This bill is poorly written and will cause some serious issues in the future. People will interpret this the wrong way. If the officers in good faith believe they are conducting a lawful arrest/search, the court(s) will likely rule in their favor. To me this appears to open the door to a ton of lawsuits and officers getting injured when the homeowner had no right to use force against them.


                              If a private citizen believes that their fourth amendment rights are being infringed upon, they have the right to resist?

                              I do not see any problems coming from this at all. Ever.
                              Most of the people we arrest with 100% certainty believe their rights are being infringed upon. You need to actually think about what you write before you post it.
                              Last edited by SgtScott31; 03-04-2012, 07:46 PM.
                              I'm 10-8 like a shark in a sea of crime..


                              What's Going On


                              There are currently 5927 users online. 317 members and 5610 guests.

                              Most users ever online was 19,482 at 12:44 PM on 09-29-2011.

                              Welcome Ad