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: 10309
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 # 6.
#3. To: All (#0)
The article is dated February 3, 2014. The author wishes to leave the impression this is a new law, when it is not. The article intentionally fails to mention the law was signed into effect in March 2012. The law is 3 years old and designed to “remedy” a controversial decision of the Indiana Supreme Court. (I hate yellow journalism). It is important to read what the author said, but it is more important to read the actual wording in the full section for a better and more complete understanding of the law: I say it is important to understand what this legislation does and does not do to see if the law really changes anything. The law states that “a person is justified in using reasonable force against a public servant.” Who determines if the person was justified? If you were to shoot and kill a public servant and the state decided to prosecute you for murder (or manslaughter or whatever), your defense would be self-defense and it would be up to a jury to decide if your use of force was justified. What has this law changed?
"Amends IC 35-41-3-2 to provide 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 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. Amends IC 35-41-3-2 to provide 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 (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."
I saw that. Contrary to the impression one might get from reading the headline, the Indiana self-defense law passed in March 2012 does not authorize Hoosiers to wantonly open fire on police officers.
There are posters here who don't want any facts interfering with their feeeelings.
#7. To: Palmdale (#6)
(Edited)
There are posters here who don't want any facts interfering with their feeeelings. The always use confirmation bias to search out or interpret any and all information in such a way to validate their own preconceptions while failing to realize or completely ignoring the fact that confirmation bias is the same as cognitive bias and represents extremely faulty error of inductive inference.
Top • Page Up • Full Thread • Page Down • Bottom/LatestThe law states:
(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. (i) A person is justified in using reasonable force against a public servant if the person reasonably believes the force is necessary to:
The author ends the article with his summation, saying:
(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. 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.
#4. To: Gatlin (#3)
#5. To: Palmdale (#4)
"Amends IC 35-41-3-2 to provide that a person is not justified in using force against a public servant if:
#6. To: Gatlin (#5)
Contrary to the impression one might get from reading the headline, the Indiana self-defense law passed in March 2012 does not authorize Hoosiers to wantonly open fire on police officers.
Replies to Comment # 6.
End Trace Mode for Comment # 6.
[Home] [Headlines] [Latest Articles] [Latest Comments] [Post] [Mail] [Sign-in] [Setup] [Help] [Register]