Indiana law lets citizens shoot at police

reply to post by Screwed


I'll play devils advocate for you...

It has always been law that you can defend yourself against unlawful arrests.

Therefore, this law being passed is nothing more than an attempt to incite conflict. That is to say, it is nothing more than a means to entice people to start a war with police officers so that police officers will retaliate and start an all out war with citizens. It is a means to a police state and harsher rules.

reply to post by Bleeeeep


I'll double down and say that this is precisely what is needed in this country.
Let's go ahead and get this thing on and out of the way.
If it's going to happen then let's get the show on the road.

Originally posted by dayve
So if the police kick down your door your just gonna start shooting? I wonder who will win that firefight....

And if it isn't the cops that are the ones kicking your door, then what? It happens all the time. Armed citizens keep people honest.

Originally posted by Nietrick
reply to post by jiggerj

 

This law was in response to a horrid court decison making it legal for cops to burst in on folks with no knock warrants and too damned bad if it was the wrong house. As a Hoosier, I am THRILLED that this law got put into place. There is no downside to this that is half as grotesque as the erosion ( or complete annihilation ) of our 4th amendment rights. Militarized police are a thing to fear and loathe and any steps taken to roll back their power are to be applauded. Loudly.

Oh, I'm not knocking the law. I'm just saying (and you know as well as I do) that people are going to find a way to abuse it.

reply to post by nenothtu


Have to agree. And although eventually they will get us, the advantage goes to the defender. Depending on the layout of the house, and defense strategy, will take about ten with me.

Cops here are pretty good. Most of the citizens of Simi Valley are ex cops.

reply to post by Newbomb Turk


Retired Navy.

Don't need anything fancy. Mossberg 500 with a big box of 00 buck with cover upstairs is fine.

you can shoot at police today, the out come will be the same -- legal or not legal -- I wouldn't give a plug nickle on you making another car payment.

Originally posted by kawika
reply to post by Newbomb Turk

 

Retired Navy.

Don't need anything fancy. Mossberg 500 with a big box of 00 buck with cover upstairs is fine.

That's my fallback - a Mossberg 590A1 and an upstairs with a long, narrow, easily covered approach. I use #4 buck, though, instead of 00. Attackers have to approach one at a time, and with their backs towards me... it would suck to be the first several of them!

Originally posted by TrueAmerican

Originally posted by GoldenRuled
I always assumed you were allowed to kill in self defense despite what the bad guy was wearing. It's the whole reason for the 2nd amendment.

I believe the 2nd Amendment's intent was that the citizenry would have the ultimate power over its government. The premise was that if all wanted to, the combined might of their guns would be more than the government forces could even handle. Where the Constitution screws up is the lack of protection against federal concentration and control of obscenely powerful weapons that give it protection against even the most vicious uprisings. Face it, there is no overthrowing the government to stop insane taxes, outrageous inflation, military expenditures that could arguably be called thievery, and electronic voting systems. Not with today's weapons there isn't.

Welcome to "Screwed, Inc."

With an attitude like that we wont, storm by numbers is the key

Originally posted by TrueAmerican

Indiana law lets citizens shoot at police

www.sfgate.com

Indiana is the first U.S. state to specifically allow force against officers, according to the Association of Prosecuting Attorneys in Washington, which represents and supports prosecutors. The National Rifle Association pushed for the law, saying an unfavorable court decision made the need clear and that it would allow homeowners to defend themselves during a violent, unjustified attack. Police lobbied against it.

The measure amends the 2006 so-called Castle Doctrine bill that allows deadly force to stop illegal entry into a home or car.

(visit the link for the full news article)

I am a pro gun type of person. I am a lifetime member of the NRA and a firm believer of gun rights. However, I don't agree with the contents of this law. It should have been worded differently, IMO. I mean you should have the right to protect your home from ANYONE who comes into it without permission from you or legal documents stating they can enter without permission. I think the wording of the law just invites violence on law enforcement personnel and that isn't a good thing.

My few cents.

reply to post by Vardoger


I support the concept but think that it is like putting a finger to hold a cracking dam. As I'm reading it ti simply will result in an escalation, resulting in that the next time an error occurs all inhabitants will indeed be shoot dead...

reply to post by TrueAmerican


Alright, we need to bring this to Canada now. Some people say; how do you know if they're there to serve a warrant? Well. If you're as crooked as a politician and cops break down your door you asked for it and you know why they're there.