1. #1
    Forum Member
    PD602's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2006
    Location
    Florida
    Posts
    114

    Bill on right to resist police

    Indiana House backs bill on right to resist police
    comment
    Share
    favorite

    Vote (0)
    By TOM DAVIES

    The Associated Press

    INDIANAPOLIS —
    The Indiana House approved a bill Thursday laying out when people are justified in using force against police officers, a measure reacting to the public uproar over a state Supreme Court decision over the rights of the public to resist police.

    The House voted 74-24 in favor of the proposal that says residents are protected by the state's self-defense law if they reasonably believe force is necessary to protect themselves from unlawful actions by an officer.

    It also states that a person who is committing a crime is not justified in using any force against a police officer — a change made this week after police and prosecutor groups told lawmakers they worried the proposal as previously written would spark more violence toward officers.

    Supporters said the proposal strengthened the legal rights of people against government agents improperly entering their homes.

    "This is the bedrock of all the freedoms that every United States citizen enjoys," said Rep. Jud McMillin, R-Brookville.

    Last year's Supreme Court ruling that residents couldn't resist officers even during an illegal entry brought Indiana law in line with most other states. But about 250 people rallied at the Statehouse, contending the decision infringed on their constitutional rights and contradicted centuries of common law precedent regarding homeowners' rights and the limits of police power.

    Some lawmakers argued Thursday that the Legislature shouldn't give people justification for attacking officers,

    Rep. Ed DeLaney, D-Indianapolis, said the Supreme Court had drawn a "bright line" protecting police and that the public can contest illegal police actions in court or seek to have rogue officers disciplined.

    "I believe this goes much too far and is capable of being misunderstood," DeLaney said.

    Democratic Rep. Linda Lawson of Hammond, a former police officer, told House members they shouldn't back a measure that could lead to an "open season" by criminals against officers who are willing to sacrifice their lives to protect the public.

    The Senate approved a different version of the bill in January, and House and Senate negotiators must agree on a single version of the bill by the end of next week, when legislative leaders expect to adjourn this year's session.

    The Supreme Court's decision stemmed from a case in which an Evansville man was convicted of misdemeanor resisting arrest for blocking and shoving a police officer who tried to enter his home without a warrant after his wife called 911 during an argument. The man was shocked with a stun gun and arrested. His wife told officers he hadn't hit her.

    The House bill outlines circumstances when a "person is justified in using reasonable force against a law enforcement officer," which include protecting oneself or another person from the use of unlawful force and preventing an illegal entry of one's home or vehicle.

    It also specifies that the use of deadly force against a police officer is not justified unless the person reasonably believes the officer is acting illegally and the deadly force is needed to prevent serious injury to themselves or another person.

    Republican House Speaker Brian Bosma said the Legislature can't stop people intent on attacking police officers, but that the proposal would better guide courts and juries in cases where an officer's actions are questioned.

    "This clarifies that we're back to the same standard that we had in this country, in this state, for more than 200 years," Bosma said.

    Copyright The Associated Press

  2. #2
    Forum Member

    Join Date
    Mar 2010
    Location
    south
    Posts
    563
    Well,,,, this well lead to nothing but substantial injuries every time a perp THINKS that the police are violating their rights.

    Most of the time when we search a vehicle on PC, the subject is yelling about how we are violating their rights.

  3. #3
    Forum Member

    Join Date
    Nov 2006
    Location
    Maryland
    Posts
    913
    Quote Originally Posted by PD602 View Post
    ...The House bill outlines circumstances when a "person is justified in using reasonable force against a law enforcement officer," which include protecting oneself or another person from the use of unlawful force and preventing an illegal entry of one's home or vehicle.

    It also specifies that the use of deadly force against a police officer is not justified unless the person reasonably believes the officer is acting illegally and the deadly force is needed to prevent serious injury to themselves or another person...
    Really, Indiana?!?!

    So if Mr. Crackhead with multiple felonies, high, drunk, and/or mentally ill, "reasonably believes" the police are coming to hurt him, he can fight back and possibly use deadly force?


    How often do we deal with morons that for whatever reason think we are acting illegally, against their rights or even coming to hurt/kill them? All the time!!!
    This is most absurd legislation I've ever heard of.

  4. #4
    Forum Member
    LawFowl's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2007
    Location
    Southeast TX
    Posts
    401
    So an officer responds to a house because his wife called 911 for an assault, and he denied the police entry into home?!


    But if an officer responds, doesn't make sure she's ok because the husband refuses and she winds up dead, HER FAMILY WILL WANT TO SUE THE DEPARTMENT, THE OFFICER AND ANYONE ELSE THAT THEY CAN!!

  5. #5
    Forum Member

    Join Date
    Apr 2006
    Location
    southern CA to the northeast
    Posts
    1,717
    Quote Originally Posted by LawFowl View Post
    So an officer responds to a house because his wife called 911 for an assault, and he denied the police entry into home?!


    But if an officer responds, doesn't make sure she's ok because the husband refuses and she winds up dead, HER FAMILY WILL WANT TO SUE THE DEPARTMENT, THE OFFICER AND ANYONE ELSE THAT THEY CAN!!
    Exactly, if I lived in Indiana, I would never enter any house on a 911 call, ever again.

  6. #6
    Forum Member
    marauder85's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2010
    Location
    was
    Posts
    176
    I don't see how this really changes much. People already have the right to resist an illegal arrest, as they should, probably not a good idea but they can.
    "You wish to know the traditions of the Navy, Sir? They are rum, sodomy, and the lash.” Winston Churchill

    "Laws that forbid the carrying of arms . . . disarm only those who are neither inclined nor determined to commit crimes . . . Such laws make things worse for the assaulted and better for the assailants; they serve rather to encourage than to prevent homicides, for an unarmed man may be attacked with greater confidence than an armed man."
    --Thomas Jefferson

  7. #7
    Forum Member

    Join Date
    May 2006
    Location
    AZ
    Posts
    1,283
    Quote Originally Posted by marauder85 View Post
    I don't see how this really changes much. People already have the right to resist an illegal arrest, as they should, probably not a good idea but they can.
    In Indiana or Georgia? They don't in New Hampshire.

  8. #8
    Forum Member
    marauder85's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2010
    Location
    was
    Posts
    176
    Quote Originally Posted by JLee View Post
    In Indiana or Georgia? They don't in New Hampshire.


    There's case law in GA that allows a person to resist arrest if they are in fact being placed under arrest illegally.

    Finch Vs. State (1960) "the arrest is illegal and is "an assault by the arresting officer upon the person arrested. It constitutes legal justification for the employment by the person arrested of force sufficient in amount to avoid an arrest and repel the assault."

    I ***-umed most states had something to this effect. The main difference with Indiana I assume is the ability to resist a violation of their 4th Amendment. They can always make the claim in court, it'll just determine how the courts see it I guess.
    "You wish to know the traditions of the Navy, Sir? They are rum, sodomy, and the lash.” Winston Churchill

    "Laws that forbid the carrying of arms . . . disarm only those who are neither inclined nor determined to commit crimes . . . Such laws make things worse for the assaulted and better for the assailants; they serve rather to encourage than to prevent homicides, for an unarmed man may be attacked with greater confidence than an armed man."
    --Thomas Jefferson

  9. #9
    Forum Member

    Join Date
    Jan 2011
    Location
    Washington State
    Posts
    22
    I can't think of a search warrant where the suspect didn't say "you have no f^$%@#g right to be in my house". Just think what the sovereign groups would do. Looks like there will be more phone details in Indiana, it'll give more time for traffic/parking enforcement near the capitol.

  10. #10
    CSI Sucks
    5031OKC's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2009
    Location
    Oklahoma City
    Posts
    663
    This bill has now passed both the House and the Senate in Indiana and is on its way to the governor. One last chance for sanity to prevail here. I don't see that happening though.
    Anything worth shooting is worth shooting 3 or 4 times.

    M-11

  11. #11
    Forum Member

    Join Date
    Dec 2003
    Location
    midwest
    Posts
    1,736
    What this will do is end up getting some citizens killed. I don't know about you guys but when I serve a search warrant and or force entry into a home we are typically ready to deal with someone wanting to act stupid. Of course that don't mean they can't conceivable get a couple of us first but ultimately they are most likely to lose.

    This is bad law. As others have said most criminals don't have the sense to know if an entry is legal or not. Being from Indiana our brass has threatened to revamp our SOG's that limit our entry into homes. And we all know that can be a very bad thing for certain citizens in need or in trouble. Hey they want it they might get it.
    "Laws that forbid the carrying of arms. . . disarm only those who are neither inclined nor determined to commit crimes. . . Such laws make things worse for the assaulted and better for the assailants; they serve rather to encourage than to prevent homicides, for an unarmed man may be attacked with greater confidence than an armed man." - Thomas Jefferson

  12. #12
    Forum Member

    Join Date
    Aug 2003
    Location
    Indiana
    Posts
    336
    Here is the latest verbage I could find. I think this is what acutally passed and will be added to the current statute on self-defense:

    (h) A person is justified in using reasonable force against any law enforcement officer 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 law enforcement officer's unlawful entry of or attack on the person's dwelling, curtilage, or occupied motor vehicle; or
    (3) prevent or terminate the law enforcement officer'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.
    (i) Notwithstanding subsection (h), a person is not justified in using force against a law enforcement officer if:
    (1) the person is committing or is escaping after the commission of a crime;
    (2) the person provokes action by the law enforcement officer with intent to cause bodily injury to the law enforcement officer;
    (3) the person has entered into combat with the law enforcement officer or is the initial aggressor, unless the person withdraws from the encounter and communicates to the law enforcement officer the intent to do so and the law enforcement officer nevertheless continues or threatens to
    continue unlawful action: or
    (4) the person reasonably believes the law enforcement officer is:
    (A) acting lawfully, or
    (B) engaged in the lawful execution of the law enforcement officer's official duties.
    (j) A person is not justified in using deadly force against a law enforcement officer who the person knows or reasonably should know is a law enforcement officer unless:
    (1) the person reasonably believes that the law enforcement officer is:
    (A) acting unlawfully; or
    (B) not engaged in the execution of the officer's official duties; and
    (2) the force is reasonably necessary to prevent serious bodily injury to the person or a third person.
    "Remember, democracy never lasts long. It soon wastes, exhausts and murders itself. There never was a democracy yet that did not commit suicide."
    John Adams, April 15, 1814

  13. #13
    Forum Member
    akflyer's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2008
    Location
    Alaska
    Posts
    335
    I gotta say this is BS. Every wife-beating idiot out there thinks I need a search warrant to come into their house. There are multiple exceptions to the need for a search warrant, one of which is exigent circumstances. Someone in imminent danger is gonna bring me into that house and I'll own it until I leave. Indiana lawmakers need to go on ride alongs with their local PD and respond to a few DV calls where the perp has intimidated the significant other so bad they won't say a word and then the assaulter answers the door with all the physical and legal bluster he can muster. Screw him, he's going down!

  14. #14
    Forum Member

    Join Date
    Aug 2003
    Location
    Indiana
    Posts
    336
    Governor Daniels signed the bill into law and in goes into effect immediately. He said that he believes it is a good law that protects police.

    http://www.indystar.com/article/2012...t|IndyStar.com
    "Remember, democracy never lasts long. It soon wastes, exhausts and murders itself. There never was a democracy yet that did not commit suicide."
    John Adams, April 15, 1814

  15. #15
    Forum Member

    Join Date
    Apr 2008
    Location
    Washington
    Posts
    380
    Quote Originally Posted by headonstraight View Post
    Well,,,, this well lead to nothing but substantial injuries every time a perp THINKS that the police are violating their rights.

    Most of the time when we search a vehicle on PC, the subject is yelling about how we are violating their rights.
    One guy once told me, after I arrested him, "I plead the fourth." He probably thought he knew his rights...

  16. #16
    Forum Member

    Join Date
    Jan 2010
    Location
    Indiana
    Posts
    33
    I have had multiple suspects within the last weeks tell me "it is OK, after that law passes you are not going to be allowed to arrest people anymore." Thanks GOV

  17. #17
    Hell on Wheels
    t150vsuptpr's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2005
    Location
    the big road
    Posts
    4,544
    There's some non reading LEOs that read what they want into this. If the arrest or other action is in fact illegal, citizens are empowered with the right to resist. It's not when they just claim to believe the officer's actions are illegal, the actions actually have to be illegal. If the officer's actions are illegal, they are not protected. The law doesn't change anything ....
    The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.
    An illegal search or seizure is by definition, "unreasonable".

    That is Amendment IV of the Bill of Rights which is part of The Constitution of The United States which all officers swore to uphold and protect.
    "That's right man, we've got mills here that'll blow that heap of your's right off the road."

    "Beautiful Daughter of the Stars."(it's my home now)

    >>>>> A Time for Choosing <<<<<

    Retired @ 31yr 2mo as of 0000 hrs. 01-01-10. Yeah, all in all, it was good.

Posting Permissions

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

Log in

Click here to log in or register