A return to the "Wild West"?

[Gob]

Police officers in Indiana are upset over a new law allowing residents to use deadly force against public servants, including law enforcement officers, who unlawfully enter their homes. It was signed by Republican Governor Mitch Daniels in March.

The first of its kind in the United States, the law was adopted after the state Supreme Court went too far in one of its rulings last year, according to supporters. The case in question involved a man who assaulted an officer during a domestic violence call. The court ruled that there was “no right to reasonably resist unlawful entry by police officers.”

The National Rifle Association lobbied for the new law, arguing that the court decision had legalized police to commit unjustified entries.

Tim Downs, president of the Indiana State Fraternal Order of Police, which opposed the legislation, said the law could open the way for people who are under the influence or emotionally distressed to attack officers in their homes.

“It’s just a recipe for disaster,” Downs told Bloomberg. “It just puts a bounty on our heads.”

http://www.allgov.com/Top_Stories/ViewN ... ers_120611

[MajGenl.Meade]

I think it might actually reduce the risk to police.

Drunks and emotionally disturbed people are unlikely (when confronted by an illegal invasion of their home) to think "Oh wait - there's a law says I can tough these guys up". Drunks and edp's already assault police when under stress of sudden 'assault'

More significantly, police about to illegally enter a building will be far more aware of this law and will go in (if they go in) prepared and alert for aggression. As if they don't already.

The issue is not legal entry - it is illegal entry. The court declared that I have no right, when suddenly confronted by illegal entrants into my home to resist them. Roll over and die is the attitude. Take what's coming from any dude in a uniform. He may not have the right to be there getting tough all over you but that doesn't matter.

All this law does is put things back in balance. Come in legally (and that includes a reasonable belief that a felony is being committed in my 'castle' does it not?) and ready for possible trouble

Storm in a teacup

Meade

[Lord Jim]

General Meade is 100% correct....


(And I must say I find I that quite refreshing, since you've been 100% wrong about so much lately... )

[Guinevere]

What a complete and utter disaster. No, this doesn't put anything back in balance. The long-held common law rule is that you cannot use deadly force to protect a home or property. This just gives criminals and scoff-laws alike, as well as gun nuts or anyone who has a gripe with the police, one more reason to pull that trigger.

Do you really want the owner or occupier of the property to be the one who determines whether an entry is "lawful" or not? What if he or she decides an entry is "unlawful" and uses force, which results in fatalities to a law enforcement officer, and then it is subsequently determined that the entry was indeed lawful.

[Andrew D]

Long overdue.

Now if we can just scrap the rule -- a modern concoction -- that one does not have a right to resist an unlawful arrest, we'll be making real progress.

The long-held common law rule is that you cannot use deadly force to protect a home or property.

I cannot use deadly force to repel a home invasion? Where is that the law?

[Gob]

The National Rifle Association lobbied for the new law,

What's the point in being allowed to own guns unless you can shoot people with them?

[MajGenl.Meade]

General Meade is 100% correct....

(And I must say I find I that quite refreshing, since you've been 100% wrong about so much lately... )

It's a new direction......... Change you can believe in (not)