You reached inside my car! Pop pop pop!

This.

Good on ya!

This is one of my biggest fears, without question. I don't CCW every day because I am not allowed to carry on campus. To leave in my car for 4 hours when I only drive 10 minutes is not the best option so I will leave it at home in the safe on those days. But once I get home, I pull one of my firearms from the safe and have it on the coffee table in front of me or resting up against the couch beside me. That's where it stays until it comes to bed with me at night. If someone comes crashing through my front door, I am guaranteed to have a gun in my hand before they round the corner and see me in the living room pointing at them.

What I am afraid of is some cops coming to my house by mistake and me taking out the lead man because I think there is a home invasion going on. If I do happen to notice him to be a cop, I will lower my gun; giving him the opportunity to shoot me....guaranteed. Either situation ends with me shot. There are far more of them than me and even if I accidentally shoot the first one because they broke down the wrong door of the wrong house, the next or third guy will likely light me up. If I realize they're cops, they will only see a guy with a gun and shoot my ass.

They would be accountable for being at the wrong house but none of that will matter as I will be dead. My wife will be sitting right there next to me and could potentially take a bullet as well or witness me getting killed for doing nothing wrong. It's where we reside most of the evening and hearing about these mistakes being made at wrong addresses makes me nervous.

Outed.

What it did was revoke the common law right to resist unlawful entry, search & seizure, arrest, etc. by agents of the state with force up to and including deadly force. I'm pretty sure the court actually used language stating explicitly that they were revoking what was considered a right. The court had no legitimate authority to do what they did. This law was a reaction to this, although from what I recall it is a little watered down compared to the common law. I would have just written a bill that says that the common law right revoked by the court is restored, but what the legislature did was far better than doing nothing, so good on them.

It's actually unusual, as I understand it, for courts to try to revoke common law rights by themselves. It's usually the legislature or constitutional amendments (to State constitutions) that result in such, such as California's laws revoking the common law right of jurors to judge the law in a case or the right to resist unlawful arrest by a LEO with any sort of force.

This. I like it. Why should it always be the family that suffers for the Police officer's mistake? Will be a lot less dags dead in Indiana

That phrase defies reason itself. No right to take a reasonable action to resist something that is unlawful. Really.

Why? What's the logic behind this?

Because unlawful acts are totally permissible when committed by a policeman? Because a criminal in uniform has more right to property than it's owner?

Nonsense.

The judged by 12 versus carried by six theory applies.


9.32,33, and 34 are the same general provisions of deadly force use for anyone else. Namely, the actor must reasonably fear death or grave bodily injury.

Fine in theory. Where it breaks down in practice is that you basically have to get hit first. At which time, your chances of successfully resisting are about zero. If you THEN resist, it will be your word against the cop's.

Or the policeman could very reasonably cuff a compliant person... and then start kicking the shit out of them as happened to another member of this board.

The ruling revoking the rights of Indianans was good, in your opinion?

Considering how well police are trained (I know first hand) compared to the average arfcommer, I'm sure this whole thing is a recipe for success.

Here's the link to the archived Arfcom thread from the last time we did this topic a few months ago: http://www.ar15.com/forums/t_1_5/1296861_.html

Feel free to re-hash it.

Bottom line: It's not that big of a deal, it's common law in a lot of places. It's also not a license to kill LEOs. Lack of education on what the law really means will be the problem on both sides of the issue.

Now, I get the whole home invasion/wrong house thing. I agree to an extent that if unknown people kick in your door and you offer resistance before realizing they are police, you should not be held accountable.

However, you offer a lot of what if's but are beating around the bush on what you and a lot of others are hinting at. The common theme here from the replies is that police had better follow the Constitution... or else. Wonderful. I agree that the Constitution should be upheld and police should follow the law. Believe me when I tell you that cops have no more love for crooked cops than the public. A crooked cop may make one citizen's life harder, but he makes every cop's life just as bad if not worse.

Back to my point. Who is to judge when an officer is not following the law? The concern from the article is that Joe Citizen is going to declare himself a legal expert on a traffic stop and may decide to shoot an officer who is legally arresting him or another person.

"But citizens should only be able to shoot police making illegal arrests and not legally doing their job!"

About half the people I have arrested and nearly 100% of the DWI's I have arrested have declared that they were innocent, this is all a big mistake, that they are not drunk, that this is an illegal arrest, that they are going to have my badge/sue me/etc. One guy who I arrested for DWI and felony evading told me he ran because I was illegally arresting him for DWI and I of all people knew he wasn't drunk (he was drunk off his ass). So let us suppose this fine citizen had decided that I was illegally arresting him and he happened to have a firearm. Now, he interprets this law to mean that since this is an unlawful arrest, he has the legal right to shoot me and according to the poster whom I have quoted, he should be within his legal right to do so because once I put those cuffs on him, the poor citizen will not be able to legally resist otherwise. Basically, the poster I quoted is saying to shoot first and ask questions later, regardless of the circumstances.

In Tennessee the statute does allow the use of force to protect against unlawful force or detention by a police officer. I do NOT want to be the test case for this.

I see no problem with this...unlawfully enter get shot. These sort of things keep honest men honest.

Bingo. Been a lot of pomp and circumstance around here about the law. Note that the artical was published in Ohio as well.

To make a long story short, it isn't "LEGALLIZING" shooting LEO's as many are claiming. Instead, it offers legal protection to people who ultimately use justifiable deadly force on a LEO in situations such as posted above.


For most of the state, this is now old news, and just a few liberal areas seem to keep bringing it up as yet another form of oppression by the "Mitch Daniels Regime."

Like

Andy is a well known cop hater. Don't waste your time on him.

I am reminded of a news story from California wwhere police opened fire on an elderly couple while stopped in traffic because their van backfired. there was no prior police interaction between them.

all I can think, is that if I had been in that van, I should be allowed to defend myself against a barrage of bullets from an unprovoked attack by police.

if you are an officer, you better make damn sure that you are in the right when you decide to use deadly force. there is no way to correct an action if you make the wrong decision when using deadly force.

WHAT?


Dogs will be shooting cops next.

With out a doubt, you should be.

But this is the problem with this law and everyone who says, "I'm shooting to defend myself if I am wrongfully attacked by LEO's who came to the wrong address." I would shoot if I head the door crash open but I would stop when I saw it was police.

The problem is, if you start shooting at the cops and you are within your rights to defend yourself from unconstitutional conduct, they WILL shoot back. You will have to kill every cop there because they will be gunning for you. There is only one of you and many of them. Back up will come and you will be surrounded. They won't have any idea that they have the wrong guy because all they care about is the person shooting at them. We should be allowed to defend ourselves from illegal entry or other unlawful acts but I wouldn't ever expect to get out alive. Any one of us that has a situation like that old couple is screwed. The cops won't be put in jail because they "thought" and there will be no repercussions. We will be on our own fighting the force because only WE know we haven't done anything wrong. They won't know until they are cleaning up the mess. They will get to go home and their only burden will be the headache of the following investigation.

It's totally F'd and very unfair. But there's not much we can do about it. Either we give LEO's authority to conduct police operations or we don't. If they make a mistake, it's not realized until after the action. We're stuck with the system we have and if we start firing on LEO's because they messed up, we're likely to be killed by multiple shooters. If I was a cop, went to the house I was told to (but it was the wrong house) and someone started shooting at me (unbenounced to me that they think I am an intruder), I would be shooting to kill and so would my buddies. It sucks but it's the way it is. I just hope I am far away from a gun if a cop busts into my home by mistake. They would see me with a gun and shoot. I would do the same thing if I was in their shoes. But there should still be consequences for this shit happening. Only thing remains, none of it matters for you because you are no longer alive.

This law really changes nothing. These mistakes need to be stopped. But what happens during the mistake is not going to change and can only be made worse by drawing a weapon. Just hope you can quickly identify them as police before you do draw. In my home, as soon as I hear the front door crash, my gun is in my hand. That's enough for them to shoot me. So it's already too late for me. I won't know who they are until I see them; which in turn, they see me. I don't want to shoot now that I know who they are but that doesn't mean shit to them; I have a gun. It's a pretty bad situation that happens far too often.

Damn straight!

Realistically, doesn't the 2nd and 4th Amendments already cover this?

Topic was beat to death here when it was passed, and no, its NOT a "good idea"

Speaking of beaten, ol' Rodney had what happened to him because he failed to comply. The guys in his car who complied had nothing happen to them. Wonder what the difference was.

And Katrina? Really? One extreme example of a social crisis event and you want to condemn all of US LE? Your tune gets old