Results 1 to 25 of 25

Thread: State Passes Law to Legalize Shooting Police

  1. #1
    Regular Member Freedom1Man's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2012
    Location
    Greater Eastside Washington
    Posts
    4,690

    State Passes Law to Legalize Shooting Police

    http://thefreethoughtproject.com/sta...mxMlbcHBUmg.01

    All too often, we see examples of cops breaking into the wrong house and shooting the family dog, or worse, killing a member of the family.

    Well, Indiana has taken action 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.”

    This special amendment is no revolutionary new thought, only common sense.

    Self-defense is a natural right; when laws are in place that protect incompetent police by removing one’s ability to protect one’s self, simply because the aggressor has a badge and a uniform, this is a human rights violation. Indiana is leading the way by recognizing this right and creating legislation to protect it.

    I think this is a great idea, someone is breaking into your home, you have a right to defend yourself without have to look for a shiny badge first.
    Last edited by Freedom1Man; 06-29-2014 at 04:13 PM.
    Provision for free medical attendance and nursing, for clothing, for food, for housing, for the education of children, and a hundred other matters, might with equal propriety be proposed as tending to relieve the employee of mental strain and worry. --- These matters obviously lie outside the orbit of congressional power. (Railroad Retirement Board v Alton Railroad)

  2. #2
    Regular Member Jack House's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2010
    Location
    I80, USA
    Posts
    2,661
    The title is sensationalized garbage.

  3. #3
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Feb 2013
    Location
    Thru Death's Door in Wisconsin
    Posts
    13,156
    Second Regular Session 117th General Assembly (2012)

    SENATE ENROLLED ACT No. 1



    AN ACT to amend the Indiana Code concerning criminal law and procedure.

    Be it enacted by the General Assembly of the State of Indiana:

    SECTION 1. IC 35-41-3-2, AS AMENDED BY P.L.189-2006, SECTION 1, IS AMENDED TO READ AS FOLLOWS [EFFECTIVE UPON PASSAGE]: Sec. 2. (a) 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. By reaffirming the long standing right of a citizen to protect his or her home against unlawful intrusion, however, the general assembly does not intend to diminish in any way the other robust self defense rights that citizens of this state have always enjoyed. Accordingly, the general assembly also finds and declares that it is the policy of this state that people have a right to defend themselves and third parties from physical harm and crime. The purpose of this section is to provide the citizens of this state with a lawful means of carrying out this policy.
    (b) As used in this section, "public servant" means a person described in IC 35-41-1-17, IC 35-31.5-2-129, or IC 35-31.5-2-185.
    (c) A person is justified in using reasonable force against another any other person to protect the person or a third person from what the person reasonably believes to be the imminent use of unlawful force.

    However, a person:
    (1) is justified in using deadly force; and
    (2) does not have a duty to retreat;
    if the person reasonably believes that that force is necessary to prevent serious bodily injury to the person or a third person or the commission of a forcible felony. No person in this state shall be placed in legal jeopardy of any kind whatsoever for protecting the person or a third person by reasonable means necessary.
    (b) (d) A person:
    (1) is justified in using reasonable force, including deadly force, against another any other person; and
    (2) does not have a duty to retreat;
    if the person reasonably believes that the force is necessary to prevent or terminate the other person's unlawful entry of or attack on the person's dwelling, curtilage, or occupied motor vehicle.
    (c) (e) With respect to property other than a dwelling, curtilage, or an occupied motor vehicle, a person is justified in using reasonable force against another any other person if the person reasonably believes that the force is necessary to immediately prevent or terminate the other person'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. However, a person:
    (1) is justified in using deadly force; and
    (2) does not have a duty to retreat;
    only if that force is justified under subsection (a). (c).
    (d) (f) A person is justified in using reasonable force, including deadly force, against another any other person and does not have a duty to retreat if the person reasonably believes that the force is necessary to prevent or stop the other person from hijacking, attempting to hijack, or otherwise seizing or attempting to seize unlawful control of an aircraft in flight. For purposes of this subsection, an aircraft is considered to be in flight while the aircraft is:
    (1) on the ground in Indiana:
    (A) after the doors of the aircraft are closed for takeoff; and
    (B) until the aircraft takes off;
    (2) in the airspace above Indiana; or
    (3) on the ground in Indiana:
    (A) after the aircraft lands; and
    (B) before the doors of the aircraft are opened after landing.
    (e) (g) Notwithstanding subsections (a), (b) and (c), (c) through (e), a person is not justified in using force if:
    (1) the person is committing or is escaping after the commission of a crime;
    (2) the person provokes unlawful action by another person with intent to cause bodily injury to the other person; or
    (3) the person has entered into combat with another person or is the initial aggressor unless the person withdraws from the encounter and communicates to the other person the intent to do so and the other person nevertheless continues or threatens to continue unlawful action.
    (f) (h) Notwithstanding subsection (d), (f), a person is not justified in using force if the person:
    (1) is committing, or is escaping after the commission of, a crime;
    (2) provokes unlawful action by another person, with intent to cause bodily injury to the other person; or
    (3) continues to combat another person after the other person withdraws from the encounter and communicates the other person's intent to stop hijacking, attempting to hijack, or otherwise seizing or attempting to seize unlawful control of an aircraft in flight.
    (i) A person is justified in using reasonable force against a public servant 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 public servant's unlawful entry of or attack on the person's dwelling, curtilage, or occupied motor vehicle; or
    (3) prevent or terminate the public servant's unlawful 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.
    (j) Notwithstanding subsection (i), a person is not justified in using force against a public servant if:
    (1) the person is committing or is escaping after the commission of a crime;
    (2) the person provokes action by the public servant with intent to cause bodily injury to the public servant;
    (3) the person has entered into combat with the public servant or is the initial aggressor, unless the person withdraws from the encounter and communicates to the public servant the intent to do so and the public servant nevertheless continues

    or threatens to continue unlawful action; or
    (4) the person reasonably believes the public servant is:
    (A) acting lawfully; or
    (B) engaged in the lawful execution of the public servant's official duties.
    (k) A person is not justified in using deadly force against a public servant whom the person knows or reasonably should know is a public servant unless:
    (1) the person reasonably believes that the public servant is:
    (A) acting unlawfully; or
    (B) not engaged in the execution of the public servant's official duties; and
    (2) the force is reasonably necessary to prevent serious bodily injury to the person or a third person.
    SECTION 2. An emergency is declared for this act.

    SEA 1
    Figure

    Graphic file number 0 named seal1001.pcx with height 58 p and width 72 p Left aligned
    Last edited by Nightmare; 06-29-2014 at 04:50 PM.
    I am responsible for my writing, not your understanding of it.

  4. #4
    Regular Member Freedom1Man's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2012
    Location
    Greater Eastside Washington
    Posts
    4,690
    Quote Originally Posted by Jack House View Post
    The title is sensationalized garbage.
    I used the title of the article.
    Provision for free medical attendance and nursing, for clothing, for food, for housing, for the education of children, and a hundred other matters, might with equal propriety be proposed as tending to relieve the employee of mental strain and worry. --- These matters obviously lie outside the orbit of congressional power. (Railroad Retirement Board v Alton Railroad)

  5. #5
    Banned
    Join Date
    Jan 2012
    Location
    earth's crust
    Posts
    17,838
    Quote Originally Posted by Jack House View Post
    The title is sensationalized garbage.
    I only read the titles ....

  6. #6
    Regular Member Primus's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2013
    Location
    United States
    Posts
    4,216
    Quote Originally Posted by Nightmare View Post
    Second Regular Session 117th General Assembly (2012)

    SENATE ENROLLED ACT No. 1



    AN ACT to amend the Indiana Code concerning criminal law and procedure.

    Be it enacted by the General Assembly of the State of Indiana:

    SECTION 1. IC 35-41-3-2, AS AMENDED BY P.L.189-2006, SECTION 1, IS AMENDED TO READ AS FOLLOWS [EFFECTIVE UPON PASSAGE]: Sec. 2. (a) 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. By reaffirming the long standing right of a citizen to protect his or her home against unlawful intrusion, however, the general assembly does not intend to diminish in any way the other robust self defense rights that citizens of this state have always enjoyed. Accordingly, the general assembly also finds and declares that it is the policy of this state that people have a right to defend themselves and third parties from physical harm and crime. The purpose of this section is to provide the citizens of this state with a lawful means of carrying out this policy.
    (b) As used in this section, "public servant" means a person described in IC 35-41-1-17, IC 35-31.5-2-129, or IC 35-31.5-2-185.
    (c) A person is justified in using reasonable force against another any other person to protect the person or a third person from what the person reasonably believes to be the imminent use of unlawful force.

    However, a person:
    (1) is justified in using deadly force; and
    (2) does not have a duty to retreat;
    if the person reasonably believes that that force is necessary to prevent serious bodily injury to the person or a third person or the commission of a forcible felony. No person in this state shall be placed in legal jeopardy of any kind whatsoever for protecting the person or a third person by reasonable means necessary.
    (b) (d) A person:
    (1) is justified in using reasonable force, including deadly force, against another any other person; and
    (2) does not have a duty to retreat;
    if the person reasonably believes that the force is necessary to prevent or terminate the other person's unlawful entry of or attack on the person's dwelling, curtilage, or occupied motor vehicle.
    (c) (e) With respect to property other than a dwelling, curtilage, or an occupied motor vehicle, a person is justified in using reasonable force against another any other person if the person reasonably believes that the force is necessary to immediately prevent or terminate the other person'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. However, a person:
    (1) is justified in using deadly force; and
    (2) does not have a duty to retreat;
    only if that force is justified under subsection (a). (c).
    (d) (f) A person is justified in using reasonable force, including deadly force, against another any other person and does not have a duty to retreat if the person reasonably believes that the force is necessary to prevent or stop the other person from hijacking, attempting to hijack, or otherwise seizing or attempting to seize unlawful control of an aircraft in flight. For purposes of this subsection, an aircraft is considered to be in flight while the aircraft is:
    (1) on the ground in Indiana:
    (A) after the doors of the aircraft are closed for takeoff; and
    (B) until the aircraft takes off;
    (2) in the airspace above Indiana; or
    (3) on the ground in Indiana:
    (A) after the aircraft lands; and
    (B) before the doors of the aircraft are opened after landing.
    (e) (g) Notwithstanding subsections (a), (b) and (c), (c) through (e), a person is not justified in using force if:
    (1) the person is committing or is escaping after the commission of a crime;
    (2) the person provokes unlawful action by another person with intent to cause bodily injury to the other person; or
    (3) the person has entered into combat with another person or is the initial aggressor unless the person withdraws from the encounter and communicates to the other person the intent to do so and the other person nevertheless continues or threatens to continue unlawful action.
    (f) (h) Notwithstanding subsection (d), (f), a person is not justified in using force if the person:
    (1) is committing, or is escaping after the commission of, a crime;
    (2) provokes unlawful action by another person, with intent to cause bodily injury to the other person; or
    (3) continues to combat another person after the other person withdraws from the encounter and communicates the other person's intent to stop hijacking, attempting to hijack, or otherwise seizing or attempting to seize unlawful control of an aircraft in flight.
    (i) A person is justified in using reasonable force against a public servant 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 public servant's unlawful entry of or attack on the person's dwelling, curtilage, or occupied motor vehicle; or
    (3) prevent or terminate the public servant's unlawful 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.
    (j) Notwithstanding subsection (i), a person is not justified in using force against a public servant if:
    (1) the person is committing or is escaping after the commission of a crime;
    (2) the person provokes action by the public servant with intent to cause bodily injury to the public servant;
    (3) the person has entered into combat with the public servant or is the initial aggressor, unless the person withdraws from the encounter and communicates to the public servant the intent to do so and the public servant nevertheless continues

    or threatens to continue unlawful action; or
    (4) the person reasonably believes the public servant is:
    (A) acting lawfully; or
    (B) engaged in the lawful execution of the public servant's official duties.
    (k) A person is not justified in using deadly force against a public servant whom the person knows or reasonably should know is a public servant unless:
    (1) the person reasonably believes that the public servant is:
    (A) acting unlawfully; or
    (B) not engaged in the execution of the public servant's official duties; and
    (2) the force is reasonably necessary to prevent serious bodily injury to the person or a third person.
    SECTION 2. An emergency is declared for this act.

    SEA 1
    Figure

    Graphic file number 0 named seal1001.pcx with height 58 p and width 72 p Left aligned
    Thanks for actually posting the act for us.

    Hope before everyone else gets excited they realize it still says that the person can't use this defense if in the commission of a crime (possession or drugs?) And/or the entry must be unlawful. So warrant for drugs.... Still can't shoot.

    Sorry try again...

    Sent from my XT907 using Tapatalk
    "The wicked flee when no man persueth: but the righteous are as bold as a lion" Proverbs 28:1

  7. #7
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Feb 2013
    Location
    Thru Death's Door in Wisconsin
    Posts
    13,156
    LOL Better judged by twelve men, good and true, than carried by six that are weeping and blue.
    I am responsible for my writing, not your understanding of it.

  8. #8
    Regular Member sudden valley gunner's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2008
    Location
    Whatcom County
    Posts
    17,338
    Quote Originally Posted by Primus View Post
    Thanks for actually posting the act for us.

    Hope before everyone else gets excited they realize it still says that the person can't use this defense if in the commission of a crime (possession or drugs?) And/or the entry must be unlawful. So warrant for drugs.... Still can't shoot.

    Sorry try again...

    Sent from my XT907 using Tapatalk
    Who was making that argument? Or is this another poor attempt at painting those who are glad a state is recognizing the right to resist unlawful actions by the cops as crooks doing illegal things?
    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 Rusty Young Man's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2013
    Location
    Árida Zona
    Posts
    1,648
    Quote Originally Posted by Primus View Post
    Thanks for actually posting the act for us.

    Hope before everyone else gets excited they realize it still says that the person can't use this defense if in the commission of a crime (possession or drugs?) And/or the entry must be unlawful. So warrant for drugs.... Still can't shoot.

    Sorry try again...

    Sent from my XT907 using Tapatalk
    Nobody suggested otherwise. If the homeowner is indeed guilty of a violent crime (or possession/sale of narcotics, I suppose), I have no complaint about LEOs entering the home (using paramilitary tactics is a discussion for another thread).

    IF, however, the LEOs enter illegally, be it with no warrant, be it the wrong house, or be it for "contempt of cop", then yes, I'd very much appreciate the homeowner be permitted () a fighting chance.
    Last edited by Rusty Young Man; 06-29-2014 at 08:04 PM.
    I carry to defend my loved ones; Desensitizing and educating are secondary & tertiary reasons. Anything else is unintended.

    “Life, liberty, and property do not exist because men have made laws. On the contrary, it was the fact that life, liberty, and property existed beforehand that caused men to make laws in the first place.” - Frederic Bastiat

    "When bad men combine, the good must associate; else they will fall one by one, an unpitied sacrifice in a contemptible struggle." - Edmund Burke

  10. #10
    Regular Member Jack House's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2010
    Location
    I80, USA
    Posts
    2,661
    Quote Originally Posted by davidmcbeth View Post
    I only read the titles ....
    Doesn't matter if you do or not. The title is see sensational garbage.

    The article title leaves people with the impression that Indiana is declaring open season on cops.

    I didn't read the article because of the title AND because of the Facebook popup. I don't like that crap. Want to encourage me to share your article on Facebook? Fine, do so at the end of the article and don't use horridly sensationalized titles. Most of my friends on Facebook are fence sitters and some are even hoplophobes, at least to an extent.

    I'm not about to share an article with a title, and probably body of text, that gives them the impression that I'm a gun toting, cop killing maniac.

    Which leads me to my next point:

    Quoting this article and using its title to celebrate what is quite possibly a very sensible piece of legislation designed to protect people who protect themselves from rogue cops, is just an invitation for Bloomberg and pals to associate us with the Vegas wackjobs.

    But no yeah, totally should read an article with a garbage sensationalized title. No way such a title could be used as an indicator that the article itself is probably sensationalized garage too that isn't worth my time.

    *drops the mic*

  11. #11
    Regular Member sudden valley gunner's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2008
    Location
    Whatcom County
    Posts
    17,338
    Quote Originally Posted by Rusty Young Man View Post
    Nobody suggested otherwise. If the homeowner is indeed guilty of a violent crime (or possession/sale of narcotics, I suppose), I have no complaint about LEOs entering the home (using paramilitary tactics is a discussion for another thread).

    He always likes to suggest people are saying things they aren't. Demagogue wanna be.

    I have a huge problem with that. It is a destruction of due process and very contrary to respect of a mans home as his castle. It endangers all involved, including the cops, but hey its "better than sex".
    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)

  12. #12
    Regular Member rightwinglibertarian's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2014
    Location
    Seattle WA
    Posts
    881
    Quote Originally Posted by Jack House View Post
    But no yeah, totally should read an article with a garbage sensationalized title. No way such a title could be used as an indicator that the article itself is probably sensationalized garage too that isn't worth my time.

    *drops the mic*
    Actually yes you should since you have pronounced judgement.


    Now granted I only skimmed the wording but it looks like there is a contradiction here.....




    (e) (g) Notwithstanding subsections (a), (b) and (c), (c) through (e), a person is not justified in using force if:
    (1) the person is committing or is escaping after the commission of a crime;
    (2) the person provokes unlawful action by another person with intent to cause bodily injury to the other person; or
    (3) the person has entered into combat with another person or is the initial aggressor unless the person withdraws from the encounter and communicates to the other person the intent to do so and the other person nevertheless continues or threatens to continue unlawful action.
    (f) (h) Notwithstanding subsection (d), (f), a person is not justified in using force if the person:
    (1) is committing, or is escaping after the commission of, a crime;

    The earlier text mentioned several crimes and goes on to mention others.
    "Which part of shall not be infringed is so difficult to understand"?

    "Any and all restrictions on the bearing of arms in public places are nullified as per the Second Amendment"

    Conservative Broadcast || Google Plus profile

  13. #13
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Oct 2008
    Location
    Baton Rouge, Louisiana, USA
    Posts
    125
    Quote Originally Posted by Nightmare View Post
    LOL Better judged by twelve men, good and true, than carried by six that are weeping and blue.
    If twelve jurors are good and true, someone has botched their voir dire.

  14. #14
    Regular Member WalkingWolf's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2011
    Location
    North Carolina
    Posts
    12,278
    Quote Originally Posted by sudden valley gunner View Post
    Who was making that argument? Or is this another poor attempt at painting those who are glad a state is recognizing the right to resist unlawful actions by the cops as crooks doing illegal things?
    To some statists EVERYONE other than a government agent is a drug user or dealer. They have to use that reasoning to justify the gross negligence that has plagued by these few maniacs with a badge.
    It is well that war is so terrible – otherwise we would grow too fond of it.
    Robert E. Lee
    The patriot volunteer, fighting for country and his rights, makes the most reliable soldier on earth.
    Thomas Jonathan "Stonewall" Jackson
    What separates the winners from the losers is how a person reacts to each new twist of fate.
    President Donald Trump

  15. #15
    Regular Member sudden valley gunner's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2008
    Location
    Whatcom County
    Posts
    17,338
    Quote Originally Posted by WalkingWolf View Post
    To some statists EVERYONE other than a government agent is a drug user or dealer. They have to use that reasoning to justify the gross negligence that has plagued by these few maniacs with a badge.
    Yep and I have even heard similar vocalized by PD, such as "everyones guilty of something" of course they don't apply that to themselves.
    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)

  16. #16
    Regular Member Primus's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2013
    Location
    United States
    Posts
    4,216
    Quote Originally Posted by Jack House View Post
    Doesn't matter if you do or not. The title is see sensational garbage.

    The article title leaves people with the impression that Indiana is declaring open season on cops.

    I didn't read the article because of the title AND because of the Facebook popup. I don't like that crap. Want to encourage me to share your article on Facebook? Fine, do so at the end of the article and don't use horridly sensationalized titles. Most of my friends on Facebook are fence sitters and some are even hoplophobes, at least to an extent.

    I'm not about to share an article with a title, and probably body of text, that gives them the impression that I'm a gun toting, cop killing maniac.

    Which leads me to my next point:

    Quoting this article and using its title to celebrate what is quite possibly a very sensible piece of legislation designed to protect people who protect themselves from rogue cops, is just an invitation for Bloomberg and pals to associate us with the Vegas wackjobs.

    But no yeah, totally should read an article with a garbage sensationalized title. No way such a title could be used as an indicator that the article itself is probably sensationalized garage too that isn't worth my time.

    *drops the mic*
    Just read this... Well said and explained

    Sent from my XT907 using Tapatalk
    "The wicked flee when no man persueth: but the righteous are as bold as a lion" Proverbs 28:1

  17. #17
    Regular Member Freedom1Man's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2012
    Location
    Greater Eastside Washington
    Posts
    4,690
    Quote Originally Posted by sudden valley gunner View Post
    Yep and I have even heard similar vocalized by PD, such as "everyones guilty of something" of course they don't apply that to themselves.
    Since it would take a lifetime to read all the laws that are out there, I can believe that everyone violates at least 3 laws per day.

    Most of us are doing in this forum even, something about not using our real names and only using 'handles.'
    Provision for free medical attendance and nursing, for clothing, for food, for housing, for the education of children, and a hundred other matters, might with equal propriety be proposed as tending to relieve the employee of mental strain and worry. --- These matters obviously lie outside the orbit of congressional power. (Railroad Retirement Board v Alton Railroad)

  18. #18
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Feb 2013
    Location
    Thru Death's Door in Wisconsin
    Posts
    13,156
    Quote Originally Posted by Freedom1Man View Post
    Since it would take a lifetime to read all the laws that are out there, I can believe that everyone violates at least 3 laws per day. Most of us are doing in this forum even, something about not using our real names and only using 'handles.'
    A Rule(5) request: Do you have a citation?
    I am responsible for my writing, not your understanding of it.

  19. #19
    Regular Member OC for ME's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2010
    Location
    White Oak Plantation
    Posts
    12,273
    You shoot at a cop expect to have your surviving family take up your cause. It does not matter at the time that the cops were wrong, they thought they were right. Cops investigate themselves...
    "I would rather be exposed to the inconveniences attending too much liberty than to those attending too small a degree of it." - Thomas Jefferson.

    "Better that ten guilty persons escape, than that one innocent suffer" - English jurist William Blackstone.
    It is AFAIK original to me. Compromise is failure on the installment plan, particularly when dealing with so intractable an opponent as ignorance. - Nightmare

  20. #20
    Regular Member sudden valley gunner's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2008
    Location
    Whatcom County
    Posts
    17,338
    Quote Originally Posted by Nightmare View Post
    A Rule(5) request: Do you have a citation?

    http://www.amazon.com/dp/1594032556/..._6rx04voz7g_bb
    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)

  21. #21
    Regular Member sudden valley gunner's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2008
    Location
    Whatcom County
    Posts
    17,338
    Quote Originally Posted by OC for ME View Post
    You shoot at a cop expect to have your surviving family take up your cause. It does not matter at the time that the cops were wrong, they thought they were right. Cops investigate themselves...
    Gang members protecting their own gang.

    The fox watching the henhouse.
    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)

  22. #22
    Campaign Veteran MSG Laigaie's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2011
    Location
    Philipsburg, Montana
    Posts
    3,137
    Quote Originally Posted by Primus View Post
    And/or the entry must be unlawful. So warrant for drugs.... Still can't shoot.
    So......you have a warrant for my neighbor, but you burst through MY door. Is this a "legal" act? Does it matter that you are assaulting the wrong house? Why yes it does. It would probably get the first "individual" in the stack shot and maybe more. I do not care if you are wearing a blue suit or naked, don't burst thru my door unannounced because there are consequences.
    "Firearms stand next in importance to the Constitution itself. They are the people's liberty teeth (and) keystone... the rifle and the pistol are equally indispensable... more than 99% of them by their silence indicate that they are in safe and sane hands. The very atmosphere of firearms everywhere restrains evil interference .When firearms go, all goes, we need them every hour." -- George Washington

  23. #23
    Banned
    Join Date
    Jan 2012
    Location
    earth's crust
    Posts
    17,838
    Quote Originally Posted by MSG Laigaie View Post
    don't burst thru my door unannounced because there are consequences.
    As well it should be.

  24. #24
    Regular Member OC for ME's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2010
    Location
    White Oak Plantation
    Posts
    12,273
    Quote Originally Posted by MSG Laigaie View Post
    So......you have a warrant for my neighbor, but you burst through MY door. Is this a "legal" act? Does it matter that you are assaulting the wrong house? Why yes it does. It would probably get the first "individual" in the stack shot and maybe more. I do not care if you are wearing a blue suit or naked, don't burst thru my door unannounced because there are consequences.
    At the time of the breech the assault team had a reasonable belief that your house is the correct house.

    It matters not that they can neither read nor comprehend the printed English word. Cops will simply say sorry, here is a number to call to fix your house. But, your survivors will need to make that call.

    So, the civil suit will succeed, they blew it. No criminal charges will be filed against the assault team because they believed they had the right house at the time. See how this works, the cops will not be held to account...ever.
    "I would rather be exposed to the inconveniences attending too much liberty than to those attending too small a degree of it." - Thomas Jefferson.

    "Better that ten guilty persons escape, than that one innocent suffer" - English jurist William Blackstone.
    It is AFAIK original to me. Compromise is failure on the installment plan, particularly when dealing with so intractable an opponent as ignorance. - Nightmare

  25. #25
    Regular Member sudden valley gunner's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2008
    Location
    Whatcom County
    Posts
    17,338
    Quote Originally Posted by OC for ME View Post
    At the time of the breech the assault team had a reasonable belief that your house is the correct house.

    It matters not that they can neither read nor comprehend the printed English word. Cops will simply say sorry, here is a number to call to fix your house. But, your survivors will need to make that call.

    So, the civil suit will succeed, they blew it. No criminal charges will be filed against the assault team because they believed they had the right house at the time. See how this works, the cops will not be held to account...ever.
    At least they'll be short a few that can do it again.
    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)

Posting Permissions

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