Long Island Shooters Forum banner
1 - 6 of 6 Posts

·
Now an Ex NYer
Joined
·
24,861 Posts
Discussion Starter · #1 ·
http://www.courierpress.com/news/2012/mar/21/no-headline---ev_barnes

INDIANAPOLIS - Although he said it was a "close call" that took days of consideration, Gov. Mitch Daniels signed into law a measure that gives Hoosiers the right to use force to resist police officers who illegally enter their homes.

The new law is a reversal from last year's controversial Indiana Supreme Court decision. Advocates called it an effort to protect against rogue police - although Daniels acknowledged that the law might create perception problems.

"In the real world, there will almost never be a situation in which these extremely narrow conditions are met. So as a matter of law, law enforcement officers will be better protected than before, not less so," Daniels said.

"What is troubling to law enforcement officers, and to me, is the chance that citizens hearing reports of change will misunderstand what the law says."

It was the only bill the Indiana General Assembly passed during the 2012 legislative session that the Republican governor was seriously considering sending back with a veto. His signature means he rejected nothing lawmakers sent him this year.

The issue was sparked by the state high court's decision in the case of Richard Barnes, an Evansville man who fought a police officer who entered his house while responding to a call reporting a domestic dispute.

The court found that officers sometimes enter homes without warrants for reasons protected by the law, such as pursuing suspects or preventing the destruction of evidence.

"In these situations, we find it unwise to allow a homeowner to adjudge the legality of police conduct in the heat of the moment," the court said. "As we decline to recognize a right to resist unlawful police entry into a home, we decline to recognize a right to batter a police officer as a part of that resistance."

The new law only gives Hoosiers the right to resist officers who they believe are acting unlawfully. Using deadly force against an officer is only protected to prevent serious bodily injury.

Groups such as the Fraternal Order of Police and other law enforcement organizations had lobbied against the measure. Rep. Linda Lawson, the No. 2-ranking House Democrat and a former police officer, said it will create "open season on law enforcement."

In a statement announcing his decision to sign Senate Enrolled Act 1, Daniels sought to underscore that the law does not create what some opponents said would be an open season on law enforcement officers.

"Today is an important day to say: Indiana's outstanding law enforcement officers put their lives on the line every day to protect all Hoosiers. The right thing to do is cooperate with them in every way possible. This law is not an invitation to use violence or force against law enforcement officers," he said....

more on web site
 

·
Now an Ex NYer
Joined
·
24,861 Posts
Discussion Starter · #2 ·
http://www.courierpress.com/news/2012/mar/21/no-headline---ev_barnes

INDIANAPOLIS - Although he said it was a "close call" that took days of consideration, Gov. Mitch Daniels signed into law a measure that gives Hoosiers the right to use force to resist police officers who illegally enter their homes.

The new law is a reversal from last year's controversial Indiana Supreme Court decision. Advocates called it an effort to protect against rogue police - although Daniels acknowledged that the law might create perception problems.

"In the real world, there will almost never be a situation in which these extremely narrow conditions are met. So as a matter of law, law enforcement officers will be better protected than before, not less so," Daniels said.

"What is troubling to law enforcement officers, and to me, is the chance that citizens hearing reports of change will misunderstand what the law says."

It was the only bill the Indiana General Assembly passed during the 2012 legislative session that the Republican governor was seriously considering sending back with a veto. His signature means he rejected nothing lawmakers sent him this year.

The issue was sparked by the state high court's decision in the case of Richard Barnes, an Evansville man who fought a police officer who entered his house while responding to a call reporting a domestic dispute.

The court found that officers sometimes enter homes without warrants for reasons protected by the law, such as pursuing suspects or preventing the destruction of evidence.

"In these situations, we find it unwise to allow a homeowner to adjudge the legality of police conduct in the heat of the moment," the court said. "As we decline to recognize a right to resist unlawful police entry into a home, we decline to recognize a right to batter a police officer as a part of that resistance."

The new law only gives Hoosiers the right to resist officers who they believe are acting unlawfully. Using deadly force against an officer is only protected to prevent serious bodily injury.

Groups such as the Fraternal Order of Police and other law enforcement organizations had lobbied against the measure. Rep. Linda Lawson, the No. 2-ranking House Democrat and a former police officer, said it will create "open season on law enforcement."

In a statement announcing his decision to sign Senate Enrolled Act 1, Daniels sought to underscore that the law does not create what some opponents said would be an open season on law enforcement officers.

"Today is an important day to say: Indiana's outstanding law enforcement officers put their lives on the line every day to protect all Hoosiers. The right thing to do is cooperate with them in every way possible. This law is not an invitation to use violence or force against law enforcement officers," he said....

more on web site
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
15,416 Posts
I guess you have to be there? There must be more to this story as to why they think they need this measure.
Police are trained to do a job under adverse conditions and expected to make to right decisions/interpretations in a split second. Do they always make the right decision and do their job perfectly - no.
On the other hand a civilian does not typically have this training and therefore would be less likely to make the right choices in a spilit second. It sounds like they are trying to further clarify the Castle Doctrine in a way but I think it may end up confusing things. For civilians I think it needs to be kept simple (fight or flight) - protect yourself/family and home from any intruder that is not identified as LEO.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
15,416 Posts
I guess you have to be there? There must be more to this story as to why they think they need this measure.
Police are trained to do a job under adverse conditions and expected to make to right decisions/interpretations in a split second. Do they always make the right decision and do their job perfectly - no.
On the other hand a civilian does not typically have this training and therefore would be less likely to make the right choices in a spilit second. It sounds like they are trying to further clarify the Castle Doctrine in a way but I think it may end up confusing things. For civilians I think it needs to be kept simple (fight or flight) - protect yourself/family and home from any intruder that is not identified as LEO.
 

·
Banned
Joined
·
19,574 Posts
Identified as LE is not good enough. If some cops break into your house for some reason (wrong house warrant) and you shoot them, this would theoretically protect yu from a murder charge.

the downside as i see it, is that if some guys are cooking meth and the cops break in and there is a firefight, and subsequently the warrant is found to have some issue or technicality, it could vacate the convictions of the meth lords who gunned down the cops. then we need a new law to reverse this law,m which reverses the other law. Sometimes "legislating from the bench" is actually fairer than making so many laws that justice isn't served anymore, only the interests of the lawyers.
 

·
Banned
Joined
·
19,574 Posts
Identified as LE is not good enough. If some cops break into your house for some reason (wrong house warrant) and you shoot them, this would theoretically protect yu from a murder charge.

the downside as i see it, is that if some guys are cooking meth and the cops break in and there is a firefight, and subsequently the warrant is found to have some issue or technicality, it could vacate the convictions of the meth lords who gunned down the cops. then we need a new law to reverse this law,m which reverses the other law. Sometimes "legislating from the bench" is actually fairer than making so many laws that justice isn't served anymore, only the interests of the lawyers.
 
1 - 6 of 6 Posts
Top