U.S. Constitution
See other U.S. Constitution Articles
Title: State Passes Law to Legalize Shooting Police
Source:
The Free Thought Project
URL Source: http://thefreethoughtproject.com/st ... se-police/#7wJMBSOvkKRX0ad4.99
Published: Feb 3, 2014
Author: Matt Agorist
Post Date: 2015-02-03 23:36:00 by Hondo68
Keywords: terminate the public servant, authority to protect, unlawful entry or attack
Views: 10310
Comments: 26
Finally some rational legislation is passed concerning ‘public servants’ unlawfully entering another person’s property. 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. Of course cops have already begun to fear monger the passage of this bill, “If I pull over a car and I walk up to it and the guy shoots me, he’s going to say, ‘Well, he was trying to illegally enter my property,’ ” said Joseph Hubbard, 40, president of Jeffersonville Fraternal Order of Police Lodge 100. “Somebody is going get away with killing a cop because of this law.” Instead of looking at the beneficial aspect of this law, which creates the incentive for police to act responsibly and just, Hubbard takes the ‘higher than thou’ attitude and is simply worried about himself. How about questioning the immoral laws that you are enforcing in the first place? Or how about sympathizing with the innocent people whose pets and family members have been slain, due to police negligence? Who’s to say that a cop pulling you over to extort money from you for the victimless crime of not wearing a seatbelt, isn’t an unlawful act? Or how about breaking down your door in the middle of the night to kidnap you and throw you in a cage for possessing a plant? Hopefully this legislation will lead to these arbitrary traffic and drug enforcement “laws” in place solely for revenue collection (aka theft), being brought into question. (i) A person is justified in using reasonable force against a public servant if the person reasonably believes the force is necessary to: It is through legislation such as this, which will empower people again and aid in bringing down these tyrants from their pedestals, who are given free rein to murder and pillage without consequence.
(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.
Post Comment Private Reply Ignore Thread
Top • Page Up • Full Thread • Page Down • Bottom/Latest
Begin Trace Mode for Comment # 19.
#14. To: hondo68 (#0)
Even though this is a couple years old, we must never forget that a police officer acting unlawfully deserves to be treated like a criminal if he threatens you, your home or your family. Badges don't grant special rights, no matter what the badge bunnies at LF claim.
The Castle Doctrine law says that if someone has entered or is attempting to enter your home without your consent, you're legally permitted to use a reasonable amount of force to expel the intruder from your residence. If you reasonably believe your life or members of your family are in danger, you can use lethal force. The revision to Indiana's law simply states that public servants aren't exempt from such treatment. Rutherford pointed out that the word "reasonable" appears throughout the revision to the Indiana law. "That's important. The amount of force you use must be reasonable," he said. "So if a police officer pokes his head inside your screen door because he heard something suspicious, no, you don't now have free rein to shoot him." Indiana residents must reasonably believe the public servant is attempting to enter their home illegally and use no more force than is reasonably necessary to dispel the threat to their lives or property. So Hoosiers can't use any force if the public servant isn't a threat and can't use lethal force unless there's good reason to believe the intruding police officer presents an immediate and significant threat to the safety of those inside. An Indiana resident's mere assertion that he shot a police officer because he thought the cop had entered his home illegally and presented a threat doesn't necessarily get him off the hook. If a prosecutor thinks the homeowner acted unreasonably, he or she can still press charges. And if members of a jury then determine that that the homeowner's assessment of the threat wasn't reasonable, they can still convict him. To see what the amendment does, consider the case of Cory Maye, one I've written about for several years. In 2001, police in Prentiss, Miss., obtained a warrant to search both apartments of a duplex. Maye lived on one side. On the other side lived Jamie Smith, who was facing drug charges. One night Cory Maye was asleep with his 18-month-old daughter. Maye claims he awoke to the sound of men attempting to break into his home. When the men went to the back of the house and kicked open the door to the bedroom where his daughter was sleeping, Maye shot and killed the first person to enter his home. Maye said when he realized the intruders were police, he immediately surrendered; there were bullets still left in his gun. The person Maye killed was Ron Jones, a Prentiss police officer. Maye had no criminal record and wasn't a drug dealer; police found one burnt marijuana cigarette in Maye's apartment. At his trial, Maye was prevented from arguing he acted in defense of his daughter. He argued he had acted in self- defense but the jury nonetheless convicted him of capital murder and sentenced him to death. The Mississippi Supreme Court eventually awarded Maye a new trial on the grounds that the trial judge improperly barred him from arguing that he was also defending his daughter that night. After that ruling, prosecutors allowed Maye to plead guilty to manslaughter. He was released from prison last summer. If the raid on Maye's home had occurred in Indiana after last year's state Supreme Court ruling, Maye would have been barred from arguing to a jury that he had been defending himself or his daughter. The jury would hear only that he had killed a cop. The revision to the state law that Gov. Daniels signed last week merely permits someone in Maye's position to argue self-defense in front of a jury. So why are Indiana's police officials so worried? Like any interest group, police organizations are designed to support policies that benefit their members. If you have a state court ruling that says citizens can never use force against police officers even when one flagrantly violates the law, it isn't difficult to see why police groups would aggressively oppose any legislation to override that ruling. Just last week, a police union leader in Arkansas absurdly called for a federal criminal investigation of citizens who criticize police misconduct, claiming such actions threaten officer safety. And in April, a police union official in Philadelphia called for disbanding a citizen review board that investigates police misconduct, calling the board "a direct threat to public safety." The fact that a police organization says a new policy will harm police officers or the public doesn't mean it is so. The other concern police have expressed is that the new law will encourage citizens to take up arms against officers with search warrants. But even this concern is unfounded. Any possible effect the new amendment might have on emboldening drug dealers to kill cops during drug raids is still likely to be offset by the reality that anyone who intentionally decides to take on a well-armed SWAT team isn't likely to live to see a courtroom. And if such a person is now permitted to argue self-defense in Indiana doesn't mean the argument will succeed. Maye, who was allowed to argue self-defense and is about as sympathetic a defendant as there can be in such a case, was still convicted by a jury and sentenced to death. In all but the most egregious cases of misconduct, a jury's sympathies will still lie with the slain police officer. The amendment's main effect on drug raid cases will be that if someone is by mistake considered a suspect -- and if in the confusion and volatility of the moment he mistakenly shoots and kills a police officer -- he'll now be permitted to argue in court that a reasonable person in the same position could easily have made the same mistake. In seven years of reporting on paramilitary-style drug raids, I've reviewed cases where police officers have shot and killed innocent people after mistaking a blue cup or a glinting wristwatch for a gun. In nearly all of these situations the officers were cleared because prosecutors determined that given all the circumstances, the officers had made a reasonable error in judgment. Now in Indiana, the citizens on the receiving end of these raids will be given the same consideration. "In the end, that's all this amendment does," Rutherford said. "It really just puts police officers on the same level as everyone else."
#21. To: hondo68 (#19)
Nah, it doesn't.
Top • Page Up • Full Thread • Page Down • Bottom/LatestSelf-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.
#17. To: Deckard (#14)
(Edited)
#19. To: Gatlin (#17)
Replies to Comment # 19.
End Trace Mode for Comment # 19.
[Home] [Headlines] [Latest Articles] [Latest Comments] [Post] [Mail] [Sign-in] [Setup] [Help] [Register]