Indiana legalizes shooting cops

Yes, which is part of the globe, isn't it?

 

Why not put this thread on track and tell us how do you feel about the Amended Castle Defense in Indiana.

 

Was not addressing you, and I speak for Britain, in that example.

 

The whole world isn't Governed by the US constitution though. And our state governments must perform within the federal bill of rights.

 

I have.

And I am bored with you.

I have tried to answer your pointless and often inane and boring 'questions'.

Happy to read what others have to say, and engage with them.

 

This thread will be pointless when the Mods delete your post because you have no Substantial opnion on the matter.

All you're doing is fishing.

 

You are so pathetic.

Anyone at all reading this can see you are no more than an irritating troll.

I have given my views, and your are like a parrot, going on and on.

You can scuttle away now..

 

And when I scuttle away this thread will die, because you're offering up nothing to debate.

 

If we're talking about the LAPD, yes. This isn't the case with most PDs in big cities though.

 

I can see how the police state champions would find this legislation distasteful. I would guess they believe you have “no right to reasonably resist unlawful entry by police officers.”

Based on the fourth amendment:

And based on Barnes v. State of Indiana

http://jonathanturley.org/2011/05/15/barnes-v-state-of-indiana-2011/

 

If that's true, then I'm sorry to hear that, but most of America has come a long way in addressing racism in police departments.

Now, profiling can still happen, but that's a very complicated issue.

 

Don't get me wrong.

We have here too.

However, it is incredibly hard to make anything stick against a cop, and less hard to make the same thing stick, if carried out by a non cop.

For example, if I worked for a private company, I would feel more likely to be fired quicker, if I made a racist joke to colleagues, than I would if I were in the police, and made that same joke.

Jack

 

I can agree with that. Some of the privilege we attach to cops is abused, but it seems like more recent events have shown a shift in the paradigm.

People in a lot of cities seem to trust cops less than before, and that translates into juries that sympathize more with non-cops than cops in certain cases.

I'm lucky enough to live in a city where the police force is relatively ethical and racially mixed enough that racism really isn't an issue, but there are definitely more rural areas where that can't be said.

 

I think it is a great step in showing Indiana is citizen 1st, state 2nd. Law enforcement will have to change tactics. This could be a good thing, something that actually saves cops lives. 99% smashing through the door with machine guns catches people by surprise, but that other 1% of the time an officer is shot, and sometimes, they can end up shooting each other from different entry points. This basically changes all situations to a siege from the start when warrants are involved. The only problem I see is the guaranteeing of hostage situations. With one state taking this stand, the 49 others will be able to see success or failure and go from there as to their own policies. Many states is beautiful.

 

Good point and good post.

Jack

 

I have an idea. Why don't we just distort what the Gov. signed into action, and then we can say "shooting a cop is legal". The Supreme Court in Indiana stated that you cannot deny an officer entry with or without a warrant. So the legislature of Indiana did the responsible thing and stated the police cannot enter now based on this new law. To say shooting an officer is now legal is simply just silly. Lets make sure we get the facts.

 

It's a fair point but I don't think it's a realistic one. It's all fine to say that a citizen cannot refuse an officer legal entry, but how good is that snap judgement going to be? Neither party is likely to be a legal expert. How about reasonable suspicion of a crime being involved? What about domestic violence? What about just bad judgement on one side or the other? We saw this with the "stand your ground laws" telling people they can shoot is rarely a good idea. It's a whole lot easier to handle things afterward when everyone is still alive to tell their side of the story. The possibilities for bad circumstances ending up with one/both people dead are almost inumerable.

How about the officers who knock on the door with a search warrant, the guy in the house is in the bathroom and doesn't hear. The officers enter the house and the guy starts shooting not knowing the legality. At least with the "no right to resist" law, there was a chance that everyone would be around afterward and things could be settled in court. As some of you know, if it is an unlawful search the evidence is going to tossed out by any halfway decent judge.

 

It is all settled in court anyway. Someone that shoots at cops that are serving a warrant have no justification to resist which is apparent in the law. Plain and simple.

 

Maybe if guns had not come to be so liberally owned and carried, by any cops and members of the public, this would all be a non issue.

Just a thought.

Hard to shoot anyone dead or make terrible mistakes, if you don't involve guns.

 

Then only law breakers would have guns.

 

And yet gun crime is so low, in countries across Europe.

That said, Canadians actually own more guns (in % terms), than Americans.

And they have much less gun crime.

 

The case that brought this to a head didn't include guns.

 

Just saying, and no offence, as I get the difference in outlook about guns in the US, to where I am, and appreciate a difference in culture can often appear unusual if you are not in it, and normal when you are. What it does speak about as a citizens right to shoot a cop, if that cop should enter their home illegally. Just making the point, that if people did not have guns in their home, there would be no chance of said cop getting shot through a misunderstanding, of some sort. And there would be less chance of innocent people getting shot by cops, if only armed response unit could carry firearms.

I appreciate this is not going to happen.

Jack

 

Banning guns is like banning drugs. Works every time for the law abiding.

 

I wonder what right homeless people have, who do not own any private property. Do they even have second ammendment rights when all the parks ban guns?