• We are now running on a new, and hopefully much-improved, server. In addition we are also on new forum software. Any move entails a lot of technical details and I suspect we will encounter a few issues as the new server goes live. Please be patient with us. It will be worth it! :) Please help by posting all issues here.
  • The forum will be down for about an hour this weekend for maintenance. I apologize for the inconvenience.
  • If you are having trouble seeing the forum then you may need to clear your browser's DNS cache. Click here for instructions on how to do that
  • Please review the Forum Rules frequently as we are constantly trying to improve the forum for our members and visitors.

State Passes Law to Legalize Shooting Police

Freedom1Man

Regular Member
Joined
Jan 14, 2012
Messages
4,462
Location
Greater Eastside Washington
http://thefreethoughtproject.com/state-passes-law-legalize-self-defense-police/#IF52GmxMlbcHBUmg.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:

Primus

Regular Member
Joined
Oct 24, 2013
Messages
3,939
Location
United States
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
 

sudden valley gunner

Regular Member
Joined
Dec 13, 2008
Messages
16,674
Location
Whatcom County
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?
 

Rusty Young Man

Regular Member
Joined
Jun 19, 2013
Messages
1,548
Location
Árida Zona
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 :)rolleyes:) a fighting chance.
 
Last edited:

Jack House

Regular Member
Joined
Jun 12, 2010
Messages
2,611
Location
I80, USA
I only read the titles ....;):uhoh:
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*
 

sudden valley gunner

Regular Member
Joined
Dec 13, 2008
Messages
16,674
Location
Whatcom County
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".
 

rightwinglibertarian

Regular Member
Joined
Mar 22, 2014
Messages
827
Location
Seattle WA
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.
 

WalkingWolf

Regular Member
Joined
Jul 31, 2011
Messages
11,930
Location
North Carolina
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.
 

sudden valley gunner

Regular Member
Joined
Dec 13, 2008
Messages
16,674
Location
Whatcom County
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.
 

Primus

Regular Member
Joined
Oct 24, 2013
Messages
3,939
Location
United States
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
 

Freedom1Man

Regular Member
Joined
Jan 14, 2012
Messages
4,462
Location
Greater Eastside Washington
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.'
 

OC for ME

Regular Member
Joined
Jan 6, 2010
Messages
12,452
Location
White Oak Plantation
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...
 

MSG Laigaie

Campaign Veteran
Joined
Jan 10, 2011
Messages
3,239
Location
Philipsburg, Montana
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.
 
Top