Results 1 to 22 of 22

Thread: "Why the GOP-backed Indiana Gun Law Is a Terrible Idea"

  1. #1
    Regular Member oldbanger's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2010
    Location
    beckofbeyond - Idaho
    Posts
    415

    "Why the GOP-backed Indiana Gun Law Is a Terrible Idea"

    "A new law authorizes citizens to use force against “public servants” (read police officers) whom they reasonably believe to be entering their home illegally.

    No one ever really wins a fight with the police, at least not for long. Even if our innocent homeowner manages to shoot a police officer or two and forces the others to retreat, it will only be a matter of time before the police muster additional firepower and resume their efforts, but now with even greater zeal . When a police officer has been shot, his colleagues are unlikely to be deterred by having it pointed out that they are at the wrong house. “Oh, you’re looking for 345 Lilac Circle? I’m afraid this is 347. Sorry about your friend there. Hope he’s up and around soon!”
    http://pjmedia.com/blog/gop-backed-i...inglepage=true

  2. #2
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Jul 2006
    Location
    SW Idaho
    Posts
    1,560
    Perhaps the experience of watching a fellow gang member bleed out is exactly what it will take to get the rest of the thugs to take their oaths seriously, and check their behavior accordingly...

    Total ignorance: an Obama supporter's stock in trade
    Quote Originally Posted by Beretta92FSLady View Post
    All the talk about Overthrowing Big Government, Revolution, etc., it's just another one of those nostalgic ideas that individuals have idealized.
    O RLY?
    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of...and_rebellions
    Quote Originally Posted by Beretta92FSLady View Post
    Books are overrated; and so is history.

  3. #3
    Regular Member hammer6's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2008
    Location
    Florida, United States
    Posts
    770
    well, maybe they'll be forced to double check their address next time..

  4. #4
    Regular Member Superlite27's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2007
    Location
    God's Country, Missouri
    Posts
    1,211
    It's all a matter of how strongly you adhere to your principles and what you're willing to risk doing it.

    The key to resolving this issue in the proper (I didn't say easy) manner is simply training and preparedness.

    If you apply yourself dilligently to proficient home defense and prepare accordingly, at some point the police will have to evaluate how many more corpses they wish to "spend" on their misguided attempt to storm the wrong house. (Regardless of their feelings about how the wrong house could become the right house once an officer is injured.)

    One would think, with a stack of bodies across the doorsill, an intelligent commander might examine how many more officers he wishes to add to the pile before sending more to illegally enter your residence regardless of how bad he wishes to "get the guy shooting back".

    It's all a matter of training and preparedness.

  5. #5
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Aug 2010
    Location
    America
    Posts
    2,234
    What is just as important is the need to strip the police of any immunity for murdering someone in such a situation.
    Don't believe any facts that I say! This is the internet and it is filled with lies and untruth. I invite you to look up for yourself the basic facts that my arguments might be based upon. This way we can have a discussion where logic and hints on where to find information are what is brought to the forum and people look up and verify facts for themselves.

  6. #6
    Regular Member F350's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2012
    Location
    Colorado Rocky Mountain High
    Posts
    664
    just like in Missouri (my prior location) the police arrested and the prosecutor prosecuted a man for illegal possession of firearms while intoxicated because he was drunk in his own home which had firearms.

    So the legislature acted..... You can now be falling down drunk in the middle of town while armed; and as long as you don't do something "stupid" with your weapon there is no firearms violation.

    Police excesses bred legislative counter action. If Indiana hadn't experienced police excess the legislature would not have enacted this law.

    Now to the article; the author is a typical @ that takes a situation to an extream and illogical conclusion. In his situation the police knocked and announced a search warrant FIRST then waited before breaking down the door. As in most laws reasonableness is included, in this situation no "reasonable" person would assume the police action to be illegal. Now IF they had broken down the door and announced while entering then a resident may well assume other than police were entering and may well be justified in shooting. Plus the suspect had been seen entering both apartments, the resident on the non target apartment HAD to know illegal activity was taking place and could reasonably expect a visit from the police.
    Last edited by F350; 06-13-2012 at 09:58 PM.

  7. #7
    Regular Member Dreamer's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2009
    Location
    Columbia, in the Peoples Republic of Murderland
    Posts
    5,369
    Criminals should NEVER be protected from the lawful self-defense actions of law-abiding citizens. And just because a criminal might also be wearing badges should not put them in a "protected class".

    If this law were enacted in all 50 states, AND applied to the US Code so that it applied to Federal officers as well, perhaps LEOs would think twice before pressing forward with dubious, dicey, or outright illegal raids, searches, and detainments...

    When your decision-making process could put your life on the line, your decisions tend to be MUCH more thoroughly considered, and better planned out.

    Just sayin'...
    It is our cause to dispel the foggy thinking which avoids hard decisions in the delusion that a world of conflict will somehow mysteriously resolve itself into a world of harmony, if we just don't rock the boat or irritate the forces of aggression—and this is hogwash."
    --Barry Goldwater, 1964

  8. #8
    Regular Member sudden valley gunner's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2008
    Location
    Whatcom County
    Posts
    15,189
    Quote Originally Posted by Dreamer View Post
    Criminals should NEVER be protected from the lawful self-defense actions of law-abiding citizens. And just because a criminal might also be wearing badges should not put them in a "protected class".

    If this law were enacted in all 50 states, AND applied to the US Code so that it applied to Federal officers as well, perhaps LEOs would think twice before pressing forward with dubious, dicey, or outright illegal raids, searches, and detainments...

    When your decision-making process could put your life on the line, your decisions tend to be MUCH more thoroughly considered, and better planned out.

    Just sayin'...
    +1
    I am not anti Cop I am just pro Citizen.

    U.S. v. Minker, 350 US 179, at page 187
    "Because of what appears to be a lawful command on the surface, many citizens, because
    of their respect for what only appears to be a law, are cunningly coerced into waiving their
    rights, due to ignorance." (Paraphrased)

  9. #9
    Regular Member Deanimator's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2007
    Location
    Rocky River, OH, U.S.A.
    Posts
    2,081
    It's a "terrible" idea because now when the police screw up, it's dangerous for THEM, and that's simply unacceptable.

    The underlying concept of opposition to the law is that it ONLY matters if the COP goes home safely. If he negligently blows a teenage girl in half with a shotgun at the WRONG address, "no harm, no foul". This law really messes with that.

  10. #10
    Regular Member Deanimator's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2007
    Location
    Rocky River, OH, U.S.A.
    Posts
    2,081
    In addition, we need a law which mandates the death penalty for ANY LEO who through fraud or deceit obtains a search or arrest warrant, and anyone is subsequently killed as a result of the service of said warrant.

    That would both deter crimes like the murder of Kathryn Johnston by the Atlanta PD, and ensure that the men who murdered her don't get the kind of sweetheart deals that ensure that they're back on the streets as a threat to the community.

  11. #11
    Campaign Veteran since9's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2010
    Location
    Colorado Springs, Colorado, USA
    Posts
    5,594
    Quote Originally Posted by Daylen View Post
    What is just as important is the need to strip the police of any immunity for murdering someone in such a situation.
    +1.

    If I can ascertain they're police (as opposed to criminals) before they unlawfully enter my abode, I'll lay down, as I'm not out to gun down the police, no matter how ignorant they may be.

    On the other hand, if I can't ascertain the ones who're unlawfully entering my home are cops, then they're going to die, and I really hate the idea of them getting away with murder simply because they're "the law."

    They are NOT the law. They're servants of the people.
    Haven't been a member of the NRA since 1991. Get a clue.

    "One of the best things about our Republic is that we're as free to have our own opinions as we are from having the opinions of others forced upon us."

  12. #12
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Jun 2010
    Location
    , ,
    Posts
    36
    A terrible idea? Sounds like a good one to me.

  13. #13
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Mar 2012
    Location
    Suffolk Virginia
    Posts
    686
    Quote Originally Posted by Deanimator View Post
    It's a "terrible" idea because now when the police screw up, it's dangerous for THEM, and that's simply unacceptable.

    The underlying concept of opposition to the law is that it ONLY matters if the COP goes home safely. If he negligently blows a teenage girl in half with a shotgun at the WRONG address, "no harm, no foul". This law really messes with that.
    I disagree with respect. What if my daughter was in mid reach of a toy when the cop blows down the door? All the cop sees is a kid reaching, and out of instinct pulls the trigger. It happens. If the police want safety for the officers they employ...do the paper work properly.

    Just be noted, i have a lot of repsect for peace officers.

    Sent from my DROID RAZR using Tapatalk 2

  14. #14
    Regular Member davidmcbeth's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2012
    Location
    earth's crust
    Posts
    12,060
    Quote Originally Posted by hogeaterf6 View Post
    A terrible idea? Sounds like a good one to me.
    I'll always defend my land and rights .. and if that means shooting at folks who want to illegally enter my house, then that's what will happen & who they are is no concern of mine ~ they're criminals.

  15. #15
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Oct 2011
    Location
    SC
    Posts
    1,851
    I think some folks need their sarcasm detectors calibrated.

  16. #16
    Regular Member Deanimator's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2007
    Location
    Rocky River, OH, U.S.A.
    Posts
    2,081
    Quote Originally Posted by mpguy View Post
    I disagree with respect. What if my daughter was in mid reach of a toy when the cop blows down the door? All the cop sees is a kid reaching, and out of instinct pulls the trigger. It happens. If the police want safety for the officers they employ...do the paper work properly.

    Just be noted, i have a lot of repsect for peace officers.

    Sent from my DROID RAZR using Tapatalk 2
    I presume you were being sarcastic.

    I have less respect for them every day... due entirely to their own words and deeds and their "circle the wagons" attitude toward even the most shocking crimes committed by other cops.

  17. #17
    Regular Member Dreamer's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2009
    Location
    Columbia, in the Peoples Republic of Murderland
    Posts
    5,369
    The following map illustrates why so many LEOs and politicians see this new law in Indiana as a bad idea.

    They are afraid that stupid, inept, and criminal LEOs will be lawfully killed by law-abiding citizens who are victims of their terrorism...

    http://www.cato.org/raidmap/
    It is our cause to dispel the foggy thinking which avoids hard decisions in the delusion that a world of conflict will somehow mysteriously resolve itself into a world of harmony, if we just don't rock the boat or irritate the forces of aggression—and this is hogwash."
    --Barry Goldwater, 1964

  18. #18
    Activist Member
    Join Date
    Dec 2010
    Location
    Ashland, KY
    Posts
    1,978
    I believe this law is excellent, although it should be unnecessary. Our 4th amendment right should be enough to protect us from this nonsense, however it seems the Supreme Court of Indiana disagrees. I find it odd how all these news outlets believe just because someone has a badge that they must be a good person. Apparently they haven't researched the statistics of criminal officers, they are rather shocking. Cops kill more innocent people every year than regular citizens, and there are less than a million officers. Even gun magazines make officers out to be all do-gooders, like when they mention the carry of firearms by cops and "law-abidding citizens." Why don't they put law-abidding before "cops" as well? I fully support this legislation, and believe this abuse of authority on the behalf of law enforcement has gone on for far too long. The people of Indiana should be grateful that they have a legislature that respects their right to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness, and their right to be free from illegal searches and seizures.
    "I never in my life seen a Kentuckian without a gun..."-Andrew Jackson

    "Guard with jealous attention the public liberty. Suspect every one who approaches that jewel. Unfortunately, nothing will preserve it but downright force. Whenever you give up that force, you are ruined."-Patrick Henry; speaking of protecting the rights of an armed citizenry.

  19. #19
    Regular Member tcmech's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2009
    Location
    , ,
    Posts
    369
    I have no reason for the police to kick in my door, I have nothing illegal in my home, I have committed no crimes, if someone were to kick in my door with their best all black swap meet clothing that said police, and their cute little neck chain badge wallets I could only think that it was someone impersonating the police and performing a home invasion robbery.

    In the case that I was downstairs and could not get to my larger artillery I go with the failure drill, two center of mass, one center of cranium. If I am where I can reach that browning chambered in 300wm I only have one question, what was that level of body armor again?

    The fourth amendment protects us from unlawful search and seizure, if a law enforcement officer kicks in the wrong door it is not an accident, it is a crime. If a civilian instead of a law enforcement officer were to do this that is how the courts would view it.
    If Obama is the answer; how stupid was the question?

  20. #20
    Regular Member William Fisher's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2011
    Location
    Oxford, Ohio
    Posts
    239
    Quote Originally Posted by tcmech View Post
    I have no reason for the police to kick in my door, I have nothing illegal in my home, I have committed no crimes, if someone were to kick in my door with their best all black swap meet clothing that said police, and their cute little neck chain badge wallets I could only think that it was someone impersonating the police and performing a home invasion robbery.

    In the case that I was downstairs and could not get to my larger artillery I go with the failure drill, two center of mass, one center of cranium. If I am where I can reach that browning chambered in 300wm I only have one question, what was that level of body armor again?

    The fourth amendment protects us from unlawful search and seizure, if a law enforcement officer kicks in the wrong door it is not an accident, it is a crime. If a civilian instead of a law enforcement officer were to do this that is how the courts would view it.
    Exactly. There are some people (And I know this is a far reach) who have the ability and money to set up an honest LEO. If his or her door were to be kicked in at 3 O'Clock in the morning, I hope they would assume that it was a Home Invasion Team. I hope they would want to protect Spouse, Children and other family members in the home and act accordingly. If they didn't, I would call them STUPID. I'm not envolved in anything illeagal and if my door gets kicked in at 3 O'Clock in the morning it is an Home Invasion Team. I would rather be judged by twelve than carried by six.
    Last edited by William Fisher; 06-24-2012 at 11:17 AM.

  21. #21
    Regular Member Titanium_frost's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2011
    Location
    Evansville, IN
    Posts
    54
    Quote Originally Posted by Dreamer View Post
    Criminals should NEVER be protected from the lawful self-defense actions of law-abiding citizens. And just because a criminal might also be wearing badges should not put them in a "protected class".

    If this law were enacted in all 50 states, AND applied to the US Code so that it applied to Federal officers as well, perhaps LEOs would think twice before pressing forward with dubious, dicey, or outright illegal raids, searches, and detainments...

    When your decision-making process could put your life on the line, your decisions tend to be MUCH more thoroughly considered, and better planned out.

    Just sayin'...
    You would think so, but you would be wrong. From the same town that originally gave us the infamous "Barnes v State decision" comes this, a mere three months after SB1 became law:

    http://www.courierpress.com/news/201...artner=popular

  22. #22
    Regular Member Titanium_frost's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2011
    Location
    Evansville, IN
    Posts
    54
    BTW in the new law, 'public servant' is defined as any Law Enforcement, local, state OR federal.

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •