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: 9614
Comments: 26

Finally some rational legislation is passed concerning ‘public servants’ unlawfully entering another person’s property.

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.”

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:
(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.

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 image)

There is already case law and legal precedent to buttress a citizen's right to resist a FALSE ARREST to include the Citizen's use of deadly force if neccesary in defense of his person or property. Bad Elk v. Killsback (no shit, that the name LOL!) comes to mind.

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.”

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.

"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."

"The biggest mistake that libertarians make is the way they view government and private sectors. Government is the root of all evil, and the private sector is the source of all good. Libertarians have never figured out that people are the same whether in the government or in the private sector." --Paul Craig Roberts

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.

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.

Yep. When confronted with the other side of the argument they invariably respond with anger and confusion. They are afraid to have their preconceptions challenged.

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.

Well, the amendment passed in March 2012 still bars a Castle Doctrine defense if the homeowner is in the act of committing or escaping from a crime, provoked a police officer into using force or should have known the police officer was acting legally.

"Who’s to say that a cop pulling you over to extort money from you for the victimless crime of not wearing a seatbelt".

I'm surprised an article about Miranda hasn't been posted. Alert, Alert, if you confess to a boot licker nazi thug, he can't use that against you to extort your money for that victimless meth lab charge.

Every society gets the kind of criminal it deserves. What is equally true is that every community gets the kind of law enforcement it insists on. Robert Kennedy

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.

Americans who have no experience with, or knowledge of, tyranny believe that only terrorists will experience the unchecked power of the state. They will believe this until it happens to them, or their children, or their friends.

Indiana changed nothing, the law was reworded the law for clarity.
You attack or shoot a cop in the performance of his lawful duty....
you can still be arrested and brought to trial.

Indiana law, Castle Doctrine, and common sense

Last spring, Indiana passed a new law (Senate Enrolled Act 1) that breaks new ground for the Castle Doctrine. When Governor Mitch Daniels signed this new Indiana law, not many people heard about it. They are hearing about it now. The new Indiana law gives ordinary citizens a right they never had before. Now a person may shoot a police officer who exceeds his authority. An excitable police union steward fears that Hoosiers will declare open season on the police. A little common sense, and plain reading of the Indiana law, shows that this should not happen.

What the Indiana law says

Before Act 1, Indiana already had the “Castle Doctrine” as part of its criminal laws. That Doctrine says that any person under a deadly attack may counterattack, even with deadly force, inside his home. In some States, a person’s “castle” includes his workplace or his car. Indiana law, since 2006, goes further: a person under deadly attack anywhere he goes may counterattack with deadly force if he has to, to save his own life or the life of a third person. A person can also resist with deadly force any attack on his house, the land around it, or his car (while he is in it).

Act 1 goes further still. Before it, “public servants” could attack people with impunity. A judge actually said so in a memorable case (Barnes v. Indiana, cause #82002-0808-CM-759, Indiana Supreme Court). Richard Barnes was beating his wife, or so the police believed. They barged in. At trial, he argued that the police had no right to barge in. The Indiana Supreme Court eventually said that a civilian had

no right to reasonably resist unlawful entry by police officers.

Several Indiana senators took exception to that in a friend-of-the-court brief. They wanted the Court to re-hear the case. The court said no. Hence Act 1.

Now, any public servant who is not merely “doing his duty,” or who exceeds his lawful duty and authority, may face the same kind of deadly counterattack that any ordinary burglar, robber, or assailant would. That includes a police officer kicking in a door (or shooting out a lock) and barging in, guns drawn or blazing, without a warrant. But this would not apply to someone:

Doing something criminal,
Running away after having done something criminal,
Forcing the officer to defend himself, or
Who knows, or should know, that the officer has a warrant and is doing no more than his sworn duty.

What the Indiana law does not say

Flag of Indiana. Note the torch of liberty. The new Indiana law recalls the
ideals of this flag.

Flag of Indiana. The torch with the stars around it stands for liberty.

The new Indiana law does not make open season on police officers. Sadly, many police officers don’t understand or won’t admit this. Sergeant Joe Hubbard of the police in Jeffersonville, IN, says,

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.” Somebody is going get away with killing a cop because of this law.

No, Sergeant Hubbard. If you read the law more carefully, you’ll note that before that driver can shoot you, he must reasonably believe that you are doing more than giving him a speeding ticket.

In fact, cops can, and often do, attack people who haven’t provoked them. In one Ohio case last year, a cop threatened to kill someone at a traffic stop. That someone had a permit to carry a concealed gun. Anyone carrying a concealed weapon in Ohio must tell any officer who stops them that he has one. This person tried to tell the cop about his gun, but the cop interrupted him and would not let him talk.

F___ing talking to me with a G_dd___d gun! You want me to pull mine and stick it to your head? … I tell you what I should have done. As soon as I saw your gun I should have taken two steps back, pulled my Glock 40 and put ten bullets in your ___ and let you drop. And I wouldn’t have lost any sleep!

Even worse was the rumor that someone pretending to be a cop was stopping people on the highway, robbing them, and killing them. Now, under Act 1, anyone facing that kind of attack, or tirade, could protect himself, or someone else.

Common sense rules

A little common sense will remind everyone that:

Cops are people, too, and are not perfect.
Cops do bad things sometimes.

More than that, the Fourth Amendment to the Constitution protects people, as well as their property, from “unreasonable searches and seizures.”

Note that the law still does not protect anyone doing something criminal, or trying to run away from that. And any court will know the kind of exigent circumstances will let an officer break into a home anyway. If someone inside is screaming for help, anyone outside can figure out that maybe someone is hurting or trying to kill that person (or someone else). The new Indiana law will not stop an officer from breaking in to offer that kind of help. But it will let a homeowner defend himself against a SWAT team breaking into the wrong house. That happens, too, and sometimes innocent people die that way.

Next steps

The new Indiana law does nothing more than say that “public servants” have to obey the law, too. If they break it, someone who isn’t a public servant can still defend himself.

A law like this is only the first step. The next step is to ask whether our police already act too much like soldiers in battle. Some argue that a free people shouldn’t even have “police” as we know them today. Others say that police officers have started acting too much like soldiers recently. One thing a free person can’t argue with: when the police forget that they are part of the community, they’ll start acting like an occupying army. The new Indiana law will check this. Other States should copy that law.

If the laws are immoral then it's up to the people, acting through their elected representatives, to change them.

How to Get Away With the Murder of Innocent men, women, children, the elderly, and helpless house pets?

Dirty Cops! Practice! Memorize! "I Was Afraid For My Life" <--- The universal code used by heavely armed, sniveling cowards and psycopaths in uniform.

("This is the way the world ends..This is the way the world ends..This is the way the world ends. Not with a bang but a whimper" - T. S. ELIOT)

("We sing about God because we believe in Him. We are not trying to offend anybody, but the evidence that we have seen of Him in our small little lives trumps your opinion about whether or not He exists". ~ Jeff Foxworthy)

The cops coming in here (gatlin, Palmdale, SOD, Yukon and GrandIsland SUCK---They are delibertly LYING and trying to mischaracterize the FACTS and stupidly are implying falsely that cops never attack or falsely arrest people without warrant or probable cause.

The reason the US Constitution was adopted and ratified was to protect innocent people from porker pig cop scum like Gatlin, Yukon, SOD, Palmdale and GrandIsland!

Every society gets the kind of criminal it deserves. What is equally true is that every community gets the kind of law enforcement it insists on. Robert Kennedy

“Truth is treason in the empire of lies.” - Ron Paul

Americans who have no experience with, or knowledge of, tyranny believe that only terrorists will experience the unchecked power of the state. They will believe this until it happens to them, or their children, or their friends.

Indiana law, Castle Doctrine, and common sense

What the Indiana law says

What the Indiana law does not say

Common sense rules

Next steps

The D&R terrorists hate us because we're free, to vote second party

The D&R terrorists hate us because we're free, to vote second party

“Truth is treason in the empire of lies.” - Ron Paul

Americans who have no experience with, or knowledge of, tyranny believe that only terrorists will experience the unchecked power of the state. They will believe this until it happens to them, or their children, or their friends.