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

[ATOMonkey]

If that is the case, why does it mention having permission from an adult occupant of the household?

Also, if it intended to protect against prosecution for use of deadly force, why does the bill only state reasonable force is permitted to terminate unlawful entry when in other areas of the IC it specifies "to include deadly force"?


I'm not arguing, just asking. If what you say is the intent of the bill, why is that intent not specified, or even addressed in the text?

Permission - If you invite the police into your home, it is no longer an ILLEGAL entry, therefore, you may not resist them legally. If you do, you will be prosecuted. Furthermore, existing statutes determining exigent circumstances and probable cause still apply. If the officer has probably cause to enter your domicile, it is LEGAL and therefore, you may not LEGALLY resist them.

Reasonable force is determined by the circumstances, and the law does state to "terminate" the entry. The courts will fill in the blanks as cases are prosecuted. If someone is shooting at you, it is reasonable to shoot back.

Indiana law regarding the protection of your house has ALWAYS sided with the occupant over the invader when "use of force" is determined to be reasonable or not.

 

[LegatoRedrivers]

I would say that the bill itself definitely needs to be re-written. There isn't enough specificity to protect all parties involved. I hate to say it, but one of the biggest problems I have is this section:

(c) A person may use force in accordance with this section to prevent or terminate a law enforcement officer's unlawful entry into the person's dwelling or into the dwelling of a member of the person's immediate family under one (1) or more of the following conditions
(1) The person does not have actual knowledge that the officer is a law enforcement officer, and the officer:
(A) has not identified himself or herself as a law enforcement officer; or
(B) is not wearing a distinctive uniform or badge of authority.

So that still leaves situations such as this:

(1) I wake up in the middle of the night to a loud crash as my front door is broken down. I do not hear any shouts identifying that it's the police, but that may simply be because I was half asleep and the identification was covered up by the battering ram/chainsaw opening my front door.
(2) I grab my sidearm from the nightstand and point it at the bedroom door.
(3) I see a shadowy figure move in front of the open bedroom door and identify the outline of a gun.
(4) I open fire.

Unfortunately, it was too dark to note that the cops serving a no-knock warrant at the wrong address were actually wearing badges on their hips. Under the wording of this bill, I could (and most likely would) still be prosecuted.

Maybe in some cases it goes to far, but in other cases I would say it still doesn't go far enough. I still think that no-knock warrants are dangerous for everyone involved, and a bad idea in any situation. Just my

 

[serpicostraight]

Montgomery resigns from EPD - 14 News, WFIE, Evansville, Henderson, Owensboro maybe they are passing this because of incidents like this.

 

[ATOMonkey]

All of this is kind of pie in the sky, because if you do resist with lethal force, you'll most likely end up dead.

I have no illussions that I'll be able to fight off 3 or 4 men armed with rifles or carbines against my sidearm or even shot gun. Especially when they have the element of surprise.

 

[LegatoRedrivers]

All of this is kind of pie in the sky, because if you do resist with lethal force, you'll most likely end up dead.

I have no illussions that I'll be able to fight off 3 or 4 men armed with rifles or carbines against my sidearm or even shot gun. Especially when they have the element of surprise.

I agree completely. That's part of my issue with no-knock warrants in the first place. I know the officers aren't coming in with malicious intent, but with a history of getting incorrect addresses (even if those cases are the exception rather than the rule) knowing that I'm just one wrong address away from the possibility of getting gunned down in my own home does not sit well with me.

 

[jsgolfman]

I agree completely. That's part of my issue with no-knock warrants in the first place. I know the officers aren't coming in with malicious intent, but with a history of getting incorrect addresses (even if those cases are the exception rather than the rule) knowing that I'm just one wrong address away from the possibility of getting gunned down in my own home does not sit well with me.

I disagree with the bolded part. You know nothing of the sort. You assume, and in many cases, you would be wrong.

 

[Stschil]

This law is only intended to protect people who take action against ILLEGAL no knock entries into their home.

For instance, police get wrong address and bust down the door. Home owner opens fire. The home owner would be protected against prosecution (if he survives).

IF the police get the right address with their legal no-knock warrant, and the occupants open fire, the occupants will not be legally protected from prosecution.

In either case, the law does not make it "open season" on police, anymore than it already is. It merely keeps the innocent out of prison, which is the entire point of government, is it not?

Permission - If you invite the police into your home, it is no longer an ILLEGAL entry, therefore, you may not resist them legally. If you do, you will be prosecuted. Furthermore, existing statutes determining exigent circumstances and probable cause still apply. If the officer has probably cause to enter your domicile, it is LEGAL and therefore, you may not LEGALLY resist them.

Reasonable force is determined by the circumstances, and the law does state to "terminate" the entry. The courts will fill in the blanks as cases are prosecuted. If someone is shooting at you, it is reasonable to shoot back.

Indiana law regarding the protection of your house has ALWAYS sided with the occupant over the invader when "use of force" is determined to be reasonable or not.

How is one supposed to give permission for a No-knock warrant?

If the Castle Doctrine and Stand Your Ground are to be applied, why does there need to be another law one the books to apply them?

If (hypothetical here) a no knock is mistakenly served at my house, I defend (legally) and am killed, where is the remedy? Will the courts restore my life because there was a mistake?

The Courts revisited statement was something to the effect of 'don't resist, let the Courts sort it out'. In some ways, this is better than trying to provide "guidence" without substance, thereby giving some the thought that immediate escalation is the best course.

When all is said and done, if this should become law, will it change the fact that it is still going to end up being the Courts deciding? I doubt it.

The issue needs to corrected Before hand in procedural changes, training, and attitudes not only of Police Officers, but in the Citizenry in general, not after the fact with a reactive bandage legislative action. The issue is systemic and cannot be steered from rear.

 

[ATOMonkey]

This is not just no-knock raids, but ANY illegal entry. Police come to your door fishing for info. You don't have to let them in. If they try to force their way in, you can legally resist. If someone says, sure come on in, then you can't throw them out after the fact.

Well, dead is dead, and wrongful death is still wrongful death, regardless of who did the shooting. This law only applies to the living.

If you get dead, your survivors (if there are any) can bring suit against the municipality.

 

[henktermaat]

Bottom line: It's my home.

I could care less about officer safety. Don't break into my house if you want to remain safe.

This bill is great in that is returns freedom to the citizens on their own property.

 

[GBuck]

This, as has been already said, o is not going to suddenly make logical people go nuts and start shooting cops for nothing. However, in the case of the fbi hitting the wrong apartment with a chain saw, in Indians the occupant would have been covered if she opened fire.

Note: Who uses a chainsaw for a warrant? ! I would have shot the dumb asses.

 

[IndyDave1776]

The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.

That said, unless you present me a warrant, as far as I am concerned, you do not have one. Further, if you come breaking through my doors or windows unannounced, don't think for a second that I am going to request identification before launching lead. There have been too many abuses of this concept, and there should not be any effort at entry ever without a warrant unless there is either an immediate emergency, which usually has nothing to do with crime on the part of the occupant(s), or the police AND THE JUDGE ISSUING THE WARRANT know that the know that they know that presenting a warrant before entry would be unacceptably dangerous and therefore ABSOLUTELY necessary. the Fourth Amendment has take far too much abuse, and the abuses have been far too egregious to say 'sort it out in court' with someone who prior to defending his own home standing charged with the murder of one or more unknown persons who turned out to be wayward police or else dead. In either case, the judge either will not or cannot do anything about it, and an innocent person suffers greatly entirely due to circumstances beyond his control.

 

[M1 carbine dad]

How is one supposed to give permission for a No-knock warrant?

If the Castle Doctrine and Stand Your Ground are to be applied, why does there need to be another law one the books to apply them?

If (hypothetical here) a no knock is mistakenly served at my house, I defend (legally) and am killed, where is the remedy? Will the courts restore my life because there was a mistake?

The Courts revisited statement was something to the effect of 'don't resist, let the Courts sort it out'. In some ways, this is better than trying to provide "guidence" without substance, thereby giving some the thought that immediate escalation is the best course.

When all is said and done, if this should become law, will it change the fact that it is still going to end up being the Courts deciding? I doubt it.

The issue needs to corrected Before hand in procedural changes, training, and attitudes not only of Police Officers, but in the Citizenry in general, not after the fact with a reactive bandage legislative action. The issue is systemic and cannot be steered from rear.

So, I have a newbie question to all this: If a no-knock warrant is served on my home and its the wrong home and I am a good little sheeple and I "don't resist and let the courts figure it out" and I allow my kids and wife to see me get carried away in handcuffs, is the state going to then pay all my expenses WHEN it's determined that the cops screwed up?

I mean, lost wages, lawyer fees, bail/bond, pain and suffering. That's just financial. Is a police representative going to come to my house and talk to my wife and kids and explain that the police were wrong and they are very sorry to have done that to them?

What if the warrant is for a real POS (like a cop-killer) and the officers serving the warrant want to "soften up" the perp (AKA me) a bit before hauling him away?

I'm not sure this law is the complete answer, but the judge's decision that I cannot protect my home from unlawful entry was so over the top ridiculous that I certainly like the law more.

<< donning flame suit in 5,4,3,2 >>

 

[LegatoRedrivers]

I disagree with the bolded part. You know nothing of the sort. You assume, and in many cases, you would be wrong.

Ok, maybe I shouldn't assume that the officers aren't intentionally entering the incorrect house on their no-knock warrant for no more reason than they don't like the cut of my jib.

 

[henktermaat]

I'll make this "general" comment:

The cries of "blood will flow" are asinine. Was blood flowing before Jackass Judge made his ruling last year?

No.

Just like it never happened when we got lifetime carry permits, etc etc

 

[M1 carbine dad]

I'll make this "general" comment:

The cries of "blood will flow" are asinine. Was blood flowing before Jackass Judge made his ruling last year?

No.

Just like it never happened when we got lifetime carry permits, etc etc

Couldn't have said it better myself! thanks Henktermaat!

 

[Stschil]

This is not just no-knock raids, but ANY illegal entry. Police come to your door fishing for info. You don't have to let them in. If they try to force their way in, you can legally resist. If someone says, sure come on in, then you can't throw them out after the fact. Earlier, you stated the intent was only for No Knocks.
Also, in a Consent Search, I can withdraw my consent at any time, or limit the scope of search. If I say "Yeah, Officers, come on in and check it out" Then change my mind, I can also say "Stop, I've changed my mind" If the LEO's continue without a warrant, anything and everything found after I withdraw consent is inadmissable.

Well, dead is dead, and wrongful death is still wrongful death, regardless of who did the shooting. This law only applies to the living. My question was rhetorical, Meant to illustrate the fact that this Bill offers no protections, nor does it clarify anything.

If you get dead, your survivors (if there are any) can bring suit against the municipality.

Again, Sir. I am not intending to argue with you. I just dont see this Bill as a fix for anything.

So, I have a newbie question to all this: If a no-knock warrant is served on my home and its the wrong home and I am a good little sheeple and I "don't resist and let the courts figure it out" and I allow my kids and wife to see me get carried away in handcuffs, is the state going to then pay all my expenses WHEN it's determined that the cops screwed up?

I mean, lost wages, lawyer fees, bail/bond, pain and suffering. That's just financial. Is a police representative going to come to my house and talk to my wife and kids and explain that the police were wrong and they are very sorry to have done that to them?

What if the warrant is for a real POS (like a cop-killer) and the officers serving the warrant want to "soften up" the perp (AKA me) a bit before hauling him away?

I'm not sure this law is the complete answer, but the judge's decision that I cannot protect my home from unlawful entry was so over the top ridiculous that I certainly like the law more.

<< donning flame suit in 5,4,3,2 >>
Not flaming, but questioning. Was it any different before? If LE wrongs a citizen, where can he/she go? The Indiana Supreme Court made a statement that is in conflict with our Natural Rights, as explained in the 2nd, 4th, and 5th Amendments.

To all who are supporting this as some sort of 'Champion of the People' legislation ask yourselves;

Does this add to Indiana Castle Doctrine?
I don't see how. In fact it is weaker. "reasonable force, to include physical force" is written in this bill. It stops short, in my mind because the authors are still thinking 'lets protect the cops'.
It places the burden of proof of the unlawful nature of LE action on the victim, a person, who undoubtedly will have already suffered injury or worse. The State becomes the defendant. Innocent until proven guilty?

Does this add to Federal statute?

Can the Indiana Supreme Court override the 4th Amendment?

Will it change the policies, practices, and procedures of Law Enforcement ?

I doubt it.

If it cant change policy, it cant change an existing law, it cant change the Constitution, what good is it?

Ultimately, the Courts will be the deciding factors in all cases involving alledged unlawful acts by LE and alledged resiting by citizens. This bill ensures that the people that caused the uproar with a stupid decision in the first place, will be the people that will have to rule on future cases. So, it comes full circle, with a legislative detour along the way.

 

[jsgolfman]

Ok, maybe I shouldn't assume that the officers aren't intentionally entering the incorrect house on their no-knock warrant for no more reason than they don't like the cut of my jib.

lol, knew you'd see it my way

 

[redpitbull44]

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.

 

[88GT]

Its a horrible response that simply goes the opposite direction. The "too broad" ruling of the original decision has simply gone the other way.

This decision is being viewed by many LEOs, either rightly or wrongly, as Rep Lawson stated as "open season on law enforcement." Guys are taking this very seriously, and turning in the "kid gloves."

I myself am torn. I always handled issues of non-compliance, verbally, as often as I could; even when knowing that "putting hands" on someone would be completely justified. Now, with this decision, I'm wondering if that may be a thing of the past. I'm certainly not going to try explain a situation to a guy who thinks that my actions, concerning him, may be illegal, and that he has the right to physically resist because he reasonably believes his position is correct.

Tell me, what the hell was going on before this monstrosity of ruling? You know, when the common law right to resist illegal entry DID exist. Was it open season then?

Why do you think this is going to make people who weren't shooting at cops before suddenly do so? You're smarter than this. I can't believe you're falling for that idiotic line.

We talked about this is the other thread. There is zero evidence that this legislation is going to create anything but pre-Barnes status quo again. The law-abiding will still be law-abiding, and the criminals will still be criminals, who, regardless of the courts' or legislators' actions, will suddenly find their "give a damn" in short supply when their criminal activities are interrupted. The law-abiding, on the other hand, are usually classified as such because they don't go around concocting ridiculous schemes of entrapment and assault on LEO for the sake of claiming "right to resist."

Think about it.

Show me the text of that law. It was a court ruling, not a law.



By the way, the bill in question is in the process of being rewritten.

A court ruling is case LAW.

I'll make this "general" comment:

The cries of "blood will flow" are asinine. Was blood flowing before Jackass Judge made his ruling last year?

No.

Just like it never happened when we got lifetime carry permits, etc etc

Thank you. All this does is codify what had already existed for a helluva long time. This simply returns Indiana to pre-stupid.

 

[WC Deer Hunter]

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.

Couldn't have said it any better.