Indiana First State to Allow Citizens to Shoot Police.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Zundfolge

There's a HUGE difference between "having a gun" and "pointing a gun at officers".

You kick in my door I'll be POINTING my gun at you (and pulling the trigger), not simply standing there casually with it at my side waiting for you to produce a warrant.

Cop sees someone aiming a gun at them especially after they've geared up/psyched up for a dynamic entry raid in the middle of the night and the person with the gun will be shot. Probably repeatedly. Likely fatally.

As for "going rambo against the cops because you have a duty to protect your family" ... I'm not "going rambo against the cops" I'm "going rambo against the criminals pretending to be cops that just kicked my door in to rob me" because like I said before, statistical probability of them being criminals is significantly higher than of them being cops at the wrong house.

---

so true

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by lowspeed_highdrag

I wholeheartedly agree with this law, and I am flabbergasted and impressed that a government organization not only admitted that they can and are wrong, but also that a citizens home is his castle and even the government has no right to violate that illegaly. They then went one step further and said that the life of a law abiding citizen is more important than that of a government agent who is violating the law. I am impressed, surprised, and feeling a little giddy. Needless to say, our forefathers would be impressed as well.

But, I will say this. To those who believe they can engage in a shooting war with an agent entering your home illegally and come out the winner, you are sadly mistaken. If you are not killed or wounded by fire, you will be destroyed financially by the legal action they take against you, the court and lawyer fees to defend yourself against the cover up that WILL take place, and the stress of 5-10 years of constant litigation. Even if you win the case and are exonerated, you wont be the same man you were the day before they illegally no-knocked you. Im not saying not to defend yourself, Im just saying be mentally prepared for the consequences of every action you take. Its all about priorities, and if your priority is the safety and well being of you and your family, then there will be consequences.

---

Let's not forget that even if you are exonerated and all that good stuff there is a high chance that you might want to move out of that jurisdiction and never come back- cops hold grudges, you kill or wrong one of their brothers and they will hold it against you for the rest of your life (or a very long time)... been there, done that, and it was just a complaint, but I still look over my shoulder when I go through certain jurisdictions... slip up once in the wrong place and you'll have hell to pay.

Now, I'm in the camp that states if someone knocks down my door there is a very very very good chance it's not LE but criminals. If they yell police I guess that's something I have to take situation by situation. I honestly believe that no-knocks should require a lot more boxes to be checked before being undertaken than they currently are. If I get into a spat with my neighbor, and he knows I have guns, I don't want him saying I'm cooking meth or something in my apartment and one day have a battering ram tear my door off its hinges.

All the LEO's I know support this law. The day of no knocks for non emergency's should be at an end. No reason for the police to go STASI if they don't need to.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by cstone

US History is replete with examples of what happens when you shoot at government employees. Most people think of Waco and Ruby Ridge, but I prefer the Whiskey Rebellion and Fort Sumter.

---

agreed- but the public has short term memories- so, they remember the more recent events.

Like many other laws related to firearms, there is much anxiety that it will lead to a return of the "Wild West" with shootouts in the street on a daily basis (got news for you, it wasn't even like that in the "Wild West"- only the way Hollyweird portrays it.)

When I read the law, it seems that it doesn't really change what a jury would decide if, in the unlikely event a corrupt officer attacked a person and they defended themselves, would find in a court...(if that person survived to go to trial)
It simply spells out that public servants are NOT ABOVE THE LAW.

I believe the law was intended to never be tested, it's intended to send that message. But I could be wrong...
Mitch Daniels - “After close inspection, I have decided to sign Senate Enrolled Act 1. Contrary to some impressions, the bill strengthens the protection of Indiana law enforcement officers by narrowing the situations in which someone would be justified in using force against them” Daniels wrote in a prepared statement. “Senate Enrolled Act 1 puts into place a two-part test before a person can use deadly force against a law enforcement officer: First, it clarifies and restates the current requirement that a person reasonably believe the law enforcement officer is acting unlawfully. Second, it adds that the force must be reasonably necessary to prevent serious bodily injury to the citizen. This second requirement is not part of the current law.”

http://www.wbez.org/story/daniels-si...ntry-law-97521

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by 68Charger

Like many other laws related to firearms, there is much anxiety that it will lead to a return of the "Wild West" with shootouts in the street on a daily basis (got news for you, it wasn't even like that in the "Wild West"- only the way Hollyweird portrays it.)

---

I just had to address this...

THANK YOU!
I'm so tired of people thinking the wild west is a bad example of how "everyone carrying guns will end badly." The murder rate of today (nationally) is much higher than that of the west- per capita figures. So everyone walking around with a gun on their hip is not really all that bad, if you look at the "Wild West" era you will actually see that cops were more relaxed because they didn't really have to work as hard... ie: commit a violent crime and you're probably going to be shot by a bystander before the Sheriff even knows something happened. [Beer]
/hijack. Sorry folks, just had to cheers 68Charger for the historical accuracy.

I don't want to touch this one. Them LEO's work it packs and you mess with 1 there are others that I am sure will come after you at some point.

I think this law may make intel and making sure they have done their homework better.
No more bust in Oops wrong address, sorry, we are outa here, sorry to upset your family, give your grandpaw a heart attack, we shot your dog, etc, etc. and by the way your door is fucked, better get it fixed.

This was the law already in Indiana until a state Supreme Court decision overturned it. The legislation just overrides the court decision.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Ranger

While I have the utmost respect for the boys in blue, an unlawful entry is an unlawful entry and should be met with the same measure of deadly force that anyone else would get.

---

this.

just like the crackhead or drunken idiot that thought he was entering HIS home but decided to enter mine.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by T-Giv

That is completely false. Police are not just going to start shooting if they see a gun. They deal with people having guns a lot more than private Joe's. If you are holding a gun, follow their orders precisely, they will take it away from you with no fire being exchanged. They will then figure out that they royally f-ed up and are not in the right place. Going rambo against the cops because you have a duty to protect your family is not the right answer. Hell, I hope that the cops come unlawfully enter my home. Maybe they will hit me with a taser while they are in there! Then I can land a fat law suit and never work another day in my life....because being a cop sucks!

---

then why do they just shoot dogs that are barking?