Indiana First State to Allow Citizens to Shoot Law Enforcement Officers

brutus1776 said:

People do lots of silly things in public.
Hell, the left thinks the mere fact that someone might possess a gun without a government examination of their mental capacity is grounds to conclude that the person is a danger to society, much like you are painting anyone who drinks in public

I had an alcoholic grandfather. He drove home hammered from the bar, about 10 miles every day, and never even once got a ticket in over 60 years. How can this guy be a threat to society? How can it be likened to pointing a firearm in condition zero at someone? How can a completely drunk person driving perfectly fine be in the same category as a guy who is reading the newspaper and eating lunch when driving, and swerving into people, hitting pedestrians and engaging in head on collisions? Its a silly notion.

I propose you run to lobby your legislature to pass laws against driving will medicated with cough medicine or while overly stuffed as well and call this criminal negligence. You must also lobby for removing car radios and all accessories as these are distractions from the task at hand and after all, since they exist, it means everyone will be fiddling with them incessantly.

Wait, I better shut up before anyone gets any ideas....

Click to expand...

Full of straw man arguments and fallacies . . . really not much to respond to.

Xulld said:

Not even close. Negligence starts with responsibility, and the examples of substances you give do not come even close if used properly to that of alcohol. Alcohol when consumed for recreation has as its sole purpose the intoxication of the individual. Small amounts are allowed, becuase we have found that in small doses the amount of impairment is mild, and not in and of itself a detriment to the safety of motor vehicle transit.

Just earlier I criticized someone for claiming a slippery slope fallacy when no distinction could be shown to exist between the examples provided. In this case your slippery slope argument IS a fallacy because alcohol just like cold medicine, if misused, or used in quantities which cause a loss of capability while driving are not comparative to other substances which do not cause this same level of loss of control.

Click to expand...

Cough Medicine, is predominately alcohol. Some people have been known to drink it for its 'drunk' like effects. In fact in the hills, cold medicine used to ALWAYS be a jar of honey, rock candy, and moonshine liquor.

No, alcohol is not evil in itself, but that is also a fallacy, no one was saying alcohol is evil, alcohol is not banned btw, in the same way that driving 100MPH on in 60MPH zone is reckless and dangerous, consuming too much alcohol and driving is dangerous even if nothing happens engaging in that behavior it is still negligent, and reckless. Experimental science can demonstrate the effects of alcohol on response times, the statistics are clear, our understanding of the interactions are clear, and all such substances should not be taken while engaging in a activities that put other peoples lives at risk.

Your right, we dont. The action of getting behind the wheel while impaired is what you are being changed for.

Click to expand...

I guess I'll wait around for the legislature to pass a law that allows someone to be charged with a crime for driving perfectly fine, but be guilty of the crime of being negligent and impaired for eating while driving, changing the radio station, or taking a drink of water.

I think we need to examine what a crime is and what it isn't.
In order for their to be a crime there needs to be a victim. When someone is charged with drunk driving/DWI, there is no victim, yet the State claims to be the victim in court. When a drunk driver maims someone because of his negligence, then you have a crime. A real crime. Mala in se, not a mala prohibita crime.

If you want to talk about public roads, and the 40K dead per year on them...I have the perfect solution.
Privatize them. We'll see what the real cause of road deaths are then, when we have competition.

Xulld said:

Full of straw man arguments and fallacies . . . really not much to respond to.

Click to expand...

hmmm
Ah yes, the 'fallacy' of my alcoholic grandfather never endangering anyone in his entire life of driving home drunk.
Got ya.

I need to re-examine everything and perhaps retroactively, if only in symbolism, call for his arrest and license revocation for engaging in the heinous act of driving home and doing no harm to anyone on a 'public' road which he was forced to both use and pay for.

porterhouse83 said:

Good. More states need to follow now. Cops are to serve us and they need to know their place in the system. Too many unlawful entries into peoples homes and vehicles by LEO.

Click to expand...

.

I remember Oregon having something similar for a few years now. All the reactionists were proven wrong as I think Washington State is ahead on the dead cop count.

brutus1776 said:

Cough Medicine, is predominately alcohol. Some people have been known to drink it for its 'drunk' like effects. In fact in the hills, cold medicine used to ALWAYS be a jar of honey, rock candy, and moonshine liquor.

Click to expand...

Just like alcohol if used properly you are fine. You can claim all day long that you are unaffected by higher doses of anything, but that claim is without merit. Reaction time is impacted, and what would have been a fender bender turns into a fatal accident because someone decided to take too much cold medicine, or drank too much at the bar. You seem to think there is a distinction here, but there is not. The law in most states treats a DUI as any intoxicating substance. So on this account, you are wrong. You have been told this detail previously in the thread.

brutus1776 said:

I guess I'll wait around for the legislature to pass a law that allows someone to be charged with a crime for driving perfectly fine, but be guilty of the crime of being negligent and impaired for eating while driving, changing the radio station, or taking a drink of water.

Click to expand...

No one is pulled over for drunk driving when nothing has occurred. If you are pulled over for a broken taillight and the officer notices you have 50 big macs piled on your lap preventing you from being able to safety operate the motor vehicle under the law he absolutely can arrest or cite you for reckless endangerment. Not likely, but he can, it is the absurdness of the comparison that should be noted here however.

If you have a BAC of .08 exactly and are driving fine, and can pass a field sobriety test, chances are you are fine. But this is not what people are typically arrested for when they get a DUI. Typically they have many times the legal limit and are CLEARLY impaired.

I think we need to examine what a crime is and what it isn't.
In order for their to be a crime there needs to be a victim. When someone is charged with drunk driving/DWI, there is no victim, yet the State claims to be the victim in court. When a drunk driver maims someone because of his negligence, then you have a crime. A real crime. Mala in se, not a mala prohibita crime.

Click to expand...

This is ridiculous.

Let me give you an example of why this is ridiculous.

Lets say you are at the gun range, and the rules are pretty standard, just like at most gun ranges today.

-Keep your muzzle pointed down range.
-Unloading and lock back the bolt when the line goes cold.
-Wear hearing and eye protection.
(other rules may apply but for this example this is enough)

Lets say someone keeps breaking these rules, loading there gun while people are changing targets during a cold line, pointing the muzzle at people, and generally just disobeying the safety rules.

Using your logic above we would be remiss to ask this guy to leave until he accidentally shot someone?

The rules of the range are there for the same reasons the rules of the road are there, and if there was no penalty for breaking those rules than many more people would be hurt.

This does not apply without an objective reckless behavior, so if the range created a rule that everyone must wear a jock strap and cup, and went around knocking on peoples private parts to check for it, I may end up agreeing with you. However alcohol consumption can objectively be shown to impair driving, so it hardly compares now does it?

Xulld said:

Just like alcohol if used properly you are fine. You can claim all day long that you are unaffected by higher doses of anything, but that claim is without merit. Reaction time is impacted, and what would have been a fender bender turns into a fatal accident because someone decided to take too much cold medicine, or drank too much at the bar. You seem to think there is a distinction here, but there is not. The law in most states treats a DUI as any intoxicating substance. So on this account, you are wrong. You have been told this detail previously in the thread.

Click to expand...

Im not denying alcohol, drugs (legal or illegal) can have ill effects. That is why I dont drink and NEVER have drank in my life.

Im not concerned what current alcohol laws are, Im critiquing it on a philosophical level. Of course I know what a DUI is, Im merely saying it SHOULDNT be a crime. It should only be a crime if you damage someone elses life or property. To which case, you are charged with said crime, NOT for DUI/DWI.

No one is pulled over for drunk driving when nothing has occurred. If you are pulled over for a broken taillight and the officer notices you have 50 big macs piled on your lap preventing you from being able to safety operate the motor vehicle under the law he absolutely can arrest or cite you for reckless endangerment. Not likely, but he can, it is the absurdness of the comparison that should be noted here however.

Click to expand...

You missed the point. I know a guy who almost instantly has to take a nap after a big meal. It is just as impairing as falling asleep at the wheel, or as you claim a drink of alcohol is, etc. So how should we address this? Ban driving after everyone takes a nap after a meal? No, you throw him in jail when or IF he aggresses against another's person or or property.

A cop can pull you over under whatever auspices he can concoct, OR they can set up 'safety check points' and attempt to ascertain if you have been drinking. They retain the right to detain you and/or arrest you if they suspect YOU HAVE THE WRONG CONTENTS IN YOUR BLOOD, NOT because you have committed an act of aggression against someone else or their property. Which is the proper definition of crime, infringements or aggression on ones life or property by another. Mala in se.

This is ridiculous.

Let me give you an example of why this is ridiculous.

Lets say you are at the gun range, and the rules are pretty standard, just like at most gun ranges today.

-Keep your muzzle pointed down range.
-Unloading and lock back the bolt when the line goes cold.
-Wear hearing and eye protection.
(other rules may apply but for this example this is enough)

Lets say someone keeps breaking these rules, loading there gun while people are changing targets during a cold line, pointing the muzzle at people, and generally just disobeying the safety rules.

Using your logic above we would be remiss to ask this guy to leave until he accidentally shot someone?

Click to expand...

Breaking the rules of a private shooting facility and presenting this as breaking a law enforced by government is a false dichotomy.

If you break the law of the govt, they retain the right to maim, cage, kidnap, fine and ultimately shoot you if you resist sufficiently enough, even if you committed no aggression against another person.
If someone breaks the rules of my range on my property, I throw them out, I do not claim the right to maim, cage, kidnap or shoot them if they do not do as I tell them. HUGE difference.
I can tell them to leave, but I cannot just plug them, claim 'officer safety' and demand my garrity, then get a paid vacation and a slap on the wrist after an 'internal investigation.'

I cannot charge this person breaking range rules with a 'crime' (even though he didnt shoot anyone), throw them in jail, take them to court, and have a jury throw them in jail for not listening to what I told him. I can just evict him from my property and my jurisdiction.

Of course the answer is not to prosecute victimless crimes on 'public' roads, it is to privatize the roads in order to properly manage them.

However alcohol consumption can objectively be shown to impair driving, so it hardly compares now does it?

Click to expand...

No where have I denied alcohol consumption CAN impair judgement, Im merely stating is not a crime and should not be prosecuted. Only actual crimes committed by drunk persons should be prosecuted. If you cannot point to a victim, how can you determine if a crime has been committed? It is the first thing in you learn in law school. For their to be a crime, there must be a victim. Then they spend the next 4-8 years explaining to you how the state is a victim if one doesn't comply with its authority or engages in a mala prohibita 'crime.'

Brutus: To me its quite simple, you don't prosecute someone for the content of their blood, you prosecute them for their actions. While alcohol and the like can make people do some dumb things, it is simply not an evil in its self. (mala in se). Because someone was impaired by an illegal or legal substance, it doesn't make the evil (the crime against person/property) any worse.

Maybe I'm over looking something, but I dont think anyone is any more dead if he is shot by a sober murderer or a stoned murderer. The end result is the same. And the crime is murder, not being intoxicated.

+1 to brutus, it is absolutely a form of pre-crime to allow someone's state of mind influence the punitive results of legal reason and the creation of new crimes. Damage to persons and property, then the remediation should be based on that and nothing else. Talk about slippery slopes, the advocacy of pre-crime would allow all manner of mischief to be fomented by the state esp when it comes to guns.

Very serious implications.

DWCook said:

I am not sure what to say on this! I'm not against it nor for it, I'm stuck in the middle on this. I will just state simply that even if you are a Law Enforcement Official, this does not make you immune to the laws. But personally in my opinion, you better have a damn good reason for shooting a police officer if you some how felt your life was at stake if that officer was actually doing something to threaten your life.

Click to expand...

I will say this: This law is not a very good idea and I'm a lifetime member of the NRA. Police officers should have a warrant to come inside your home unless they are responding to a 911 call, in which they do not need a warrant. you may have a right to defend yourself against unlawful entry, however that is going to be a very fine line to decide what that is. However a police officer is only doing their job when they do excersise a warrant or respond to a 911 call and if you pull a gun on police officers you will be shot (dead most likely), there are no if's and's or but's about it. It is best to go along with whatever happens and cooperate with police and live to defend yourself in court instead of you being 6 feet under. Even if you are not killed, the chances of you spending a large amount of time (if not life) in prison are astronomical and if you kill a police officer, it is most likely to get you the death penalty if your state still allows it.

brutus1776 said:

Im not concerned what current alcohol laws are, Im critiquing it on a philosophical level. . . .

Breaking the rules of a private shooting facility and presenting this as breaking a law enforced by government is a false dichotomy.

Click to expand...

Ohh the irony.

All rules must have punishments for breaking them. Most rules are about the safety of participation in the system being ruled. Some are rational, some are not rational. DUI is a rational law.

I do not see how my argument can be any more clear.

GRIFFIN GUN & SECURITY said:

I will say this: This law is not a very good idea and I'm a lifetime member of the NRA. Police officers should have a warrant to come inside your home unless they are responding to a 911 call, in which they do not need a warrant. you may have a right to defend yourself against unlawful entry, however that is going to be a very fine line to decide what that is. However a police officer is only doing their job when they do excersise a warrant or respond to a 911 call and if you pull a gun on police officers you will be shot (dead most likely), there are no if's and's or but's about it. It is best to go along with whatever happens and cooperate with police and live to defend yourself in court instead of you being 6 feet under. Even if you are not killed, the chances of you spending a large amount of time (if not life) in prison are astronomical and if you kill a police officer, it is most likely to get you the death penalty if your state still allows it.

Click to expand...

Paraphrasing the Indiana Supreme Court is not a opinion. You could of left it at "This law is not a very good idea."....which means that you agree with the Indiana Supreme Court.
Not knocking your view, just the number of words used to convey your view.

Lol.

I guess I get long winded. Must be the preacher coming out in me, lol.

No harm, no foul. +1 to you Sir.

GRIFFIN GUN & SECURITY said:

I will say this: This law is not a very good idea and I'm a lifetime member of the NRA. Police officers should have a warrant to come inside your home unless they are responding to a 911 call, in which they do not need a warrant. you may have a right to defend yourself against unlawful entry, however that is going to be a very fine line to decide what that is. However a police officer is only doing their job when they do excersise a warrant or respond to a 911 call and if you pull a gun on police officers you will be shot (dead most likely), there are no if's and's or but's about it. It is best to go along with whatever happens and cooperate with police and live to defend yourself in court instead of you being 6 feet under. Even if you are not killed, the chances of you spending a large amount of time (if not life) in prison are astronomical and if you kill a police officer, it is most likely to get you the death penalty if your state still allows it.

Click to expand...

This attitude, and others like it, are why we will continually live under the boot of uncle sam. It should be noted that a cop will shoot you dead at the word or actions of another cop and WILL be exonerated (no wrongdoing), but we the people seem to be too far back in the coward camp to band together or unite against the government, for you will not see another citizen shoot a cop at the word or actions of another citizen. we are destined for slavery.

GRIFFIN GUN & SECURITY said:

I will say this: This law is not a very good idea and I'm a lifetime member of the NRA. Police officers should have a warrant to come inside your home unless they are responding to a 911 call, in which they do not need a warrant. you may have a right to defend yourself against unlawful entry, however that is going to be a very fine line to decide what that is. However a police officer is only doing their job when they do excersise a warrant or respond to a 911 call and if you pull a gun on police officers you will be shot (dead most likely), there are no if's and's or but's about it. It is best to go along with whatever happens and cooperate with police and live to defend yourself in court instead of you being 6 feet under. Even if you are not killed, the chances of you spending a large amount of time (if not life) in prison are astronomical and if you kill a police officer, it is most likely to get you the death penalty if your state still allows it.

Click to expand...

I respectfully disagree with your view. If someone comes bursting into my house chances are there isn't enough time to determine who it REALLY is (ie cops vs criminals simply yelling cops) or if they are there lawfully. This law helps to put non-leo on the same footing as LEOs. Realistically we need to strip cops of all of their special immunities, but this is a step in the right direction to make them think twice about violating our rights. See, much like criminals, they will think twice if they think their life could be in danger.

It is best to go along with whatever happens and cooperate with police and live to defend yourself in court instead of you being 6 feet under. Even if you are not killed, the chances of you spending a large amount of time (if not life) in prison are astronomical and if you kill a police officer, it is most likely to get you the death penalty if your state still allows it.

Click to expand...

Isn't that what the law iw attempting to stop? Unlawful entry by officers? If we do what you are saying, where does it end? What happens to officers who break the law? They are generally slapped on the wrist, and the victim is generally bullied into signing a settlement that removes liability from the officers. That, my friend, is what needs to stop.

Police officers believe they have this shroud of blue surrounding them that will protect them on the premise "I was just doing my job." And most times they are right. The police need to have a boundary. And Indiana is the first state with the balls to do it.

Look at it this way. If you run a red light, at the same time a cop does the same thing, no lights no siren, who broke the law? I am guessing what your answer will be, but Ill let you say it.

This law is right. Indiana has it right. The police in Indiana have work to do.

It we continue to allow police to do whatever they want, and then fight it in court.....We. Will. Lose. Maybe not that case, but most officers will be exonerated, and be on the street the next day, doing the same thing.

We are fighting for freedom. Regardless if it is a war or not.

http://www.cato.org/publications/white-paper/overkill-rise-paramilitary-police-raids-america

There is a serious problem today with paramilitary raids on civilians. We have gained nothing from the war on drugs, kids are taking drugs at similar rates prior to the war on drugs. Dynamic entry raids should be so scarce as to be almost unheard of, rare ultra violent gangs, or organized crime should be the only niches which a dynamic entry is needed. More and more today judges will sign a no-knock type warrants with nothing but a criminal CI's say so, you get a situation where the police point to the judge who just points to the criminal and no one has any accountability.