SB1: Indiana’s “No Illegal Police Entry” Bill. Every State Needs This!

[rcawdor57]

http://conservativedailynews.com/2012/03/sb1-indianas-no-ilegal-police-entry-bill/

Snip: "Senate Bill 1, introduced by State Senator Mike Young and sponsored by numerous other state legislators, seeks to amend the Indiana Code to explicitly authorize the use of reasonable force against law enforcement officers who commit crimes against private persons."

 

[Herr Heckler Koch]

http://www.in.gov/apps/lsa/session/...ssion=1&request=getBill&doctype=SB&docno=0001

DIGEST OF SB 1 (Updated March 9, 2012 11:49 pm - DI 106)

Self defense. Specifies that a person may use reasonable force against any other person in certain circumstances. Provides that 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 unlawful force; (2) prevent or terminate the public servant's unlawful entry into the person's dwelling; or (3) prevent or terminate the public servant's criminal interference with property lawfully in the person's possession. Specifies that 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 injure the public servant; (3) the person has entered into combat with the public servant or is the initial aggressor; or (4) the person reasonably believes the public servant is acting lawfully or is engaged in the lawful execution of the public servant's official duties. Provides that 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 acting unlawfully or is 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.

 

[KBCraig]

Texas Penal Code 9.31, Self Defense:

(c) The use of force to resist an arrest or search is justified:
(1) if, before the actor offers any resistance, the peace officer (or person acting at his direction) uses or attempts to use greater force than necessary to make the arrest or search; and
(2) when and to the degree the actor reasonably believes the force is immediately necessary to protect himself against the peace officer's (or other person's) use or attempted use of greater force than necessary.
(d) The use of deadly force is not justified under this subchapter except as provided in Sections 9.32, 9.33, and 9.34.

Sec. 9.32. DEADLY FORCE IN DEFENSE OF PERSON.
(a) A person is justified in using deadly force against another:
(1) if the actor would be justified in using force against the other under Section 9.31; and
(2) when and to the degree the actor reasonably believes the deadly force is immediately necessary:
(A) to protect the actor against the other's use or attempted use of unlawful deadly force; or
(B) to prevent the other's imminent commission of aggravated kidnapping, murder, sexual assault, aggravated sexual assault, robbery, or aggravated robbery.
(b) The actor's belief under Subsection (a)(2) that the deadly force was immediately necessary as described by that subdivision is presumed to be reasonable if the actor:
(1) knew or had reason to believe that the person against whom the deadly force was used:
(A) unlawfully and with force entered, or was attempting to enter unlawfully and with force, the actor's occupied habitation, vehicle, or place of business or employment;
(B) unlawfully and with force removed, or was attempting to remove unlawfully and with force, the actor from the actor's habitation, vehicle, or place of business or employment;


So, in Texas, you are justified to use force, but not deadly force, to resist an arrest or search if, before you offer any resistance, excessive force is used against you. You may use deadly force to resist an unlawful entry by force into your habitation, vehicle, or workplace; or, to resist being unlawfully and forcefully removed from your habitation, vehicle, or workplace.

Before doing so, I suggest talking with your loved ones, so that they may read PC 9.31 as your eulogy.

 

[Citizen]

This Indiana bill is the heart of Castle Doctrine. About a case from 1572, commonly called Semayne's Case, Edward Coke, the Attorney General of England wrote that every man's home is his castle. This case specifically involved a sheriff breaking down a door to enter a dwelling.

So-called Castle Doctrine statutes that do not protect against unlawful entry by government are not genuine castle doctrine. As the saying goes (paraphrase): no matter how rude the dwelling, even though the wind may blow through and the rain may seep in, all the king's forces dare not enter unlawfully.

Real castle doctrine protects against unlawful government intrusion. Anything else is just called castle doctrine to make it sound good.

 

[DKSuddeth]

i was under the impression that lower courts had to follow USSC decisions. when did that change?

 

[Mike]

i was under the impression that lower courts had to follow USSC decisions. when did that change?

What are you trying to say? I do not follow this from the discussion above.

Here are the basics:

US S. Ct. holdings re federal law are binding on state courts. However state courts are generally not bound on federal law construed by federal district courts and federal courts of appeal, though in practice these authorities are considered very pursuasive.

Federal courts' constructions of state law are not binding on state courts even if that federal court is the US S. Ct.

However there is a small exception to that rule where a matter of federal law hinges on a state law interpretation and the federal court finds that the state law interpretation by the state court is plainly wrong and being used to manipulate the outcome of the case under federal law. See Fairfax's Devisee v. Hunter's Lessee; discussion at http://goliath.ecnext.com/coms2/gi_0199-2505967/Suspecting-the-states-Supreme-Court.html

 

[Gunslinger]

This is the legislative response to the incredible decision of the ISC allowing cops to act like the Gestapo in entry to citizens' homes on the smallest pretext. It has nothing to do with Federal Courts.
From the article:

Last night, the Indiana General Assembly passed Senate Bill 1, which, once signed into law, will resolve a nearly year-long deprivation of the civil rights of residents of the State of Indiana. Readers who have followed me for the last year will be aware of my previous “Outrage In Indiana” posts on this very subject. For those who haven’t, let me recap.

In Part One, on May 13th of last year, I described the appalling decision by Indiana’s State Supreme Court in the case of Barnes v. State of Indiana. The court determined that a private person had no right to resist unlawful police burglary of their home. I detailed the 800-year-old legal precedents which allow for such use of force, and the farce of the court’s decision. In Part Two, I published an open letter to Governor Mitch Daniels, imploring him to take whatever action he possibly could to provide relief to Hoosiers subjected to police lawlessness. In Part Three, I published the very thoughtful response I received from his office.

 

[DKSuddeth]

What are you trying to say? I do not follow this from the discussion above.

Here are the basics:

US S. Ct. holdings re federal law are binding on state courts. However state courts are generally not bound on federal law construed by federal district courts and federal courts of appeal, though in practice these authorities are considered very pursuasive.

Federal courts' constructions of state law are not binding on state courts even if that federal court is the US S. Ct.

However there is a small exception to that rule where a matter of federal law hinges on a state law interpretation and the federal court finds that the state law interpretation by the state court is plainly wrong and being used to manipulate the outcome of the case under federal law. See Fairfax's Devisee v. Hunter's Lessee; discussion at http://goliath.ecnext.com/coms2/gi_0199-2505967/Suspecting-the-states-Supreme-Court.html

so you're saying that when the supreme court of the US decides a case like 'john bad elk', and several state supreme courts follow this decision by acknowledging the common law right of self defense against unlawful arrest, how can the legislatures delete this right and the courts, having already acknowledged this right, then void it?