Bill to allow citizens to defend home against illegal entry by police.

[Tim Enyeart]

This bill is a reasonable response to a bad decision by the Supreme Court. It does nothing except define the standards everyone thought were in place before the Supremes' created a new standard for homeowners and police.

 

[Bill of Rights]

It seems to me that the easiest solution would be for officers to end or severely curtail no-knocks, and if curtailed, that facts be double, triple, and quadruple-checked before moving on such a warrant. Have each officer participating check the intel and the address, and assure him- or herself that all is correct. Have it checked by a Lt. or Captain as well, and maybe even a chief-level officer. If each of them check it as if they would be personally liable for the results (and more so if they actually were!) errors would be minimized. An officer in "hot pursuit" would be one of the few times that an officer might enter a home, and that's covered in the law. An officer on someone's front step requesting would not be initiating a rapid entry most of the time. It seems to me, and admittedly, I'm not a LEO, that the no-knocks are the root of the problem. Get rid of those and you get rid of most of the problem. And yes, the whole "open season on cops" thing is an emotional appeal not grounded in fact; hyperbole for the purpose of persuasion that works only in the absence of critical thinking.



Blessings,
Bill

 

[J_Wales]

I sure hope this passes. I am a law abiding citizen. I respect officers of the law and the job they are suppose to do. I pray I never have to fire in self defense, but if someone, anyone, intrudes into my home, they have two options. Submit or die. The last guy chose the first choice. I doubt any member of the law enforcement community would be so wise. It is on me to protect myself. My wife. My children. My dog. It is on me to ensure that I am available to the aforementioned to provide for whatever needs they have, for as long as I possibly can. To me this means being well armed and properly trained. To anyone entering my home without my consent, especially in the wee hours of the morning via a boot to the door, this action reaps sudden death.

Here is my biggest concern. Imagine a situation as has happened in the past where police serve a no knock on the wrong place, or force entry on the wrong place for whatever reason. Now imagine this happens at a house like mine where the people domiciled there are well armed and properly trained, and react as they have been "programmed" to do. One stupid mistake by guys trying to do their job, and a whole lot of people are dead as a result. The death(s) of the police officer(s) is not on the resident's hands. It is on their own heads. That is what this bill ensures. My concern is not for the lives of the officers who forcibly enter. My concern is for the citizen left standing with a pile of dead cops in his living room and a lot of explaining to do.

Also, resistance by deadly force will be met by deadly force. Indefinitely, the odds are not in the citizen's favor. Hopefully if this law passes, the police will exercise more caution as to whom and where they are serving their no knock warrants.

Well said.

 

[KLB]

It seems to me that the easiest solution would be for officers to end or severely curtail no-knocks, and if curtailed, that facts be double, triple, and quadruple-checked before moving on such a warrant. Have each officer participating check the intel and the address, and assure him- or herself that all is correct. Have it checked by a Lt. or Captain as well, and maybe even a chief-level officer. If each of them check it as if they would be personally liable for the results (and more so if they actually were!) errors would be minimized. An officer in "hot pursuit" would be one of the few times that an officer might enter a home, and that's covered in the law. An officer on someone's front step requesting would not be initiating a rapid entry most of the time. It seems to me, and admittedly, I'm not a LEO, that the no-knocks are the root of the problem. Get rid of those and you get rid of most of the problem. And yes, the whole "open season on cops" thing is an emotional appeal not grounded in fact; hyperbole for the purpose of persuasion that works only in the absence of critical thinking.



Blessings,
Bill

Sounds a lot like the rhetoric coming from the unions about the right to work bill.

 

[Compatriot G]

For the last two hours, I have been getting hammered by my cop friends on Facebook for actually supporting this bill. It has been stated that "I don't understand", "my rights were only taken from me in my mind", "no-knock warrants are necessary", "people will die", "it will be open season on cops by criminals" and the best one, "it is absurd to think the untrained, unknowledgeable public can make a rational decision regarding these types of situations".

The thin-blue line really is peeing all over themselves regarding this bill. The funniest thing I saw was an e-mail to the governor urging him not to sign the bill. It had more than a few typos. And this was from a "supposed" college graduate.

 

[Bill of Rights]

Sounds a lot like the rhetoric coming from the unions about the right to work bill.

Somewhat. I can see the LEO's position on this, that telling the public outright what some will hear as "Hey, you can legally shoot cops now!" is a problem, primarily because of the maxim, "Perception is reality", and in that context, yes, this is different from and problematic to police officers in a way that it was not before.

The Barnes case started a pendulum swinging. It had been fairly stationary, in that people knew and mostly accepted as a matter of course that if the police busted in your door, you did well to capitulate and let it be sorted out later. (It wasn't right, but that's what the majority would likely have done.) Then the Barnes case knocked the status quo for a loop and said, "For those of you who would have shot back, well, heh heh, you can't do that anymore, even if they're wrong. Deal with it in court."

Now the pendulum is swinging back the other way and we can't just stop it back where it was, it's going to have to swing a little first, and that means it's going to go a little too far a time or two because someone's going to think SB 1 means cops have targets on them now. The perception for such people will not include "...if the officer is acting outside the scope of his duties" or however it's phrased. That may not happen...I hope it doesn't... but realistically, we can't expect JQ Public to be able to define the officer's duty-related actions vs. any illegal activities.

All of that said, I do think we should all(everyone) be on the same playing field with the same rules. I can't go busting into someone's house without some exigent circumstance such as "I can see my patient through the window, lying on the kitchen floor, and she's blue." (Hint: My patient's name is not Smurfette.) Even then, I would likely have been pounding on the door for a few minutes before I started looking in through windows for something like that... It's not a no-knock warrant by any stretch of the imagination.

I also think this law, once it passes, will need to be explained to the public in great detail to minimize some of the bad swings of the pendulum. Of note: an email from Sen. Tomes says it will be debated in the Conference Committee today, 3/7, at 1500 hrs in the Senate Chamber and public testimony is invited.

Blessings,
Bill

 

[rugertoter]

The original bill, that was passed, is pure stupidity. So, if a couple of bad guys come kicking in your door yelling "police", and you comply, you die? Damn stupid whatever clown thought that one up.

 

[Goober135]

I find it hilarious how many of my sheeple friends on facebook posted news articles about this bill. Except the articles they posted were titled "Indiana House Approves Bill That Allows Homeowners To Kill Police Officers". Good thing the mainstream media isn't biased or anything!

I'm sure that someone has already posted this article in the thread, but just in case, here it is:
Sheeple news article

 

[DadOfFour]

I too have been getting hammered by my LEO friends for supporting this, which is especially perturbing as I used to be a LEO. I've tried explaining that this law simply codifies what has been Common Law practice and implicitly spells out the right protected by the 4th, but they're not having it, "It's going to be a blood bath," "good cops are going to quit." etc etc etc I understand that the biased media coverage might cause problems, but remove the rights of the many because of the possible actions of the few....no, sorry I don't think so!

 

[Kutnupe14]

For the last two hours, I have been getting hammered by my cop friends on Facebook for actually supporting this bill. It has been stated that "I don't understand", "my rights were only taken from me in my mind", "no-knock warrants are necessary", "people will die", "it will be open season on cops by criminals" and the best one, "it is absurd to think the untrained, unknowledgeable public can make a rational decision regarding these types of situations".

The thin-blue line really is peeing all over themselves regarding this bill. The funniest thing I saw was an e-mail to the governor urging him not to sign the bill. It had more than a few typos. And this was from a "supposed" college graduate.

A college degree really doesn't mean anything. I know people that haven't graduated from HS that are smarter than a number of graduates I know.

 

[KLB]

Somewhat. I can see the LEO's position on this, that telling the public outright what some will hear as "Hey, you can legally shoot cops now!" is a problem, primarily because of the maxim, "Perception is reality", and in that context, yes, this is different from and problematic to police officers in a way that it was not before.

The Barnes case started a pendulum swinging. It had been fairly stationary, in that people knew and mostly accepted as a matter of course that if the police busted in your door, you did well to capitulate and let it be sorted out later. (It wasn't right, but that's what the majority would likely have done.) Then the Barnes case knocked the status quo for a loop and said, "For those of you who would have shot back, well, heh heh, you can't do that anymore, even if they're wrong. Deal with it in court."

Now the pendulum is swinging back the other way and we can't just stop it back where it was, it's going to have to swing a little first, and that means it's going to go a little too far a time or two because someone's going to think SB 1 means cops have targets on them now. The perception for such people will not include "...if the officer is acting outside the scope of his duties" or however it's phrased. That may not happen...I hope it doesn't... but realistically, we can't expect JQ Public to be able to define the officer's duty-related actions vs. any illegal activities.

All of that said, I do think we should all(everyone) be on the same playing field with the same rules. I can't go busting into someone's house without some exigent circumstance such as "I can see my patient through the window, lying on the kitchen floor, and she's blue." (Hint: My patient's name is not Smurfette.) Even then, I would likely have been pounding on the door for a few minutes before I started looking in through windows for something like that... It's not a no-knock warrant by any stretch of the imagination.

I also think this law, once it passes, will need to be explained to the public in great detail to minimize some of the bad swings of the pendulum. Of note: an email from Sen. Tomes says it will be debated in the Conference Committee today, 3/7, at 1500 hrs in the Senate Chamber and public testimony is invited.

Blessings,
Bill

I still don't see this changing much. Most people will not even know the law exists and even more probably knew nothing about the court ruling it is trying to fix. People also won't be thinking about it if someone breaks into their home. Those that will be accused of wrongly using this law as justification for shooting, probably would have anyway.

The LEOs responding on the Internet sound just like the union members did. Most ofnthem seem to be parroting what they are told without actually looking at the facts. My cousins who are LEOs never did read the bill or ruling. Yet they gave me the same argument.

 

[Kutnupe14]

The original bill, that was passed, is pure stupidity. So, if a couple of bad guys come kicking in your door yelling "police", and you comply, you die? Damn stupid whatever clown thought that one up.

What bill are you talking about?

 

[jbombelli]

A college degree really doesn't mean anything. I know people that haven't graduated from HS that are smarter than a number of graduates I know.

Very true.

The biggest idiot I've ever met in my life had a PhD.

The richest man I know personally (makes $750K-a million a month, literally) dropped out of High School.

 

[ATOMonkey]

The original bill, that was passed, is pure stupidity. So, if a couple of bad guys come kicking in your door yelling "police", and you comply, you die? Damn stupid whatever clown thought that one up.

So are you saying that prior to this if someone kicked down your door and identified themselves as police, you would have done something different?

 

[nawainwright]

I've already had several conversations with some of Indiana's future finest and they seem apoplectic regarding the bill. Apparently they don't teach current events in police college, they hadn't heard anything about it till last week. Everyone wants to point out how this and that and the other is something, and blaming everyone and their aunt's uncle for this bill. But ultimately, the cause of this bills lies squarely at the feet of those officers who forced entry into a house they were not given permission to enter. To say otherwise is, at best, disingenuous.

 

[henktermaat]

Looks like the FOP is fighting against this bill. It needs my support. For you legal beagles who follow closely - who exactly would it be best to call today about this?

 

[KLB]

I've already had several conversations with some of Indiana's future finest and they seem apoplectic regarding the bill. Apparently they don't teach current events in police college, they hadn't heard anything about it till last week. Everyone wants to point out how this and that and the other is something, and blaming everyone and their aunt's uncle for this bill. But ultimately, the cause of this bills lies squarely at the feet of those officers who forced entry into a house they were not given permission to enter. To say otherwise is, at best, disingenuous.

Actually, I think that the officers involved in the original case were in the right. The problem was that the decision handed down by the judges went way beyond just the case before them to include any interaction with police at your home.

 

[bk5777]

Does anyone remember about 20 years ago when a IPD Officer forced himself into a house that was owned by a teacher? The teacher shot him with a shotgun and killed him. The court case drug on for awhile. But, the teacher was found innocent. The IPD Officer was not in pursuit of a felon nor did he have a warrant. However, when possible, cops will push their way into a home if you open the door. The best thing to do when an officer is knocking on your door...Dont open it. You now live in the United States and you have just as much rights as those who live in mexico.

 

[A 7.62 Exodus]

Hoe-ly crap! Talk about raising the dead!

​QUICK! INGO ACTION TEAM ASSEMBLE!! THAR BE ZAMBIES AFOOT!

 

[Frank_N_Stein]

Does anyone remember about 20 years ago when a IPD Officer forced himself into a house that was owned by a teacher? The teacher shot him with a shotgun and killed him. The court case drug on for awhile. But, the teacher was found innocent. The IPD Officer was not in pursuit of a felon nor did he have a warrant. However, when possible, cops will push their way into a home if you open the door. The best thing to do when an officer is knocking on your door...Dont open it. You now live in the United States and you have just as much rights as those who live in mexico.

If you are referring to Officer Matt Faber you might want to recheck some of your facts.