right to resist now law

[mainjet]

New law allows Hoosiers to sometimes resist police

Governor signed it last night.

 

[wizard_of_ahs]

 

[45calibre]

what is it with july 1st? why do laws begin on that date?

+1 for mitch signing it instead of just letting it become law

 

[woowoo2]

Here.....
"w"

 

[GodFearinGunTotin]

I gotta stop by and get me some new rubber boots...with all that blood in the streets about to start flowing and having to step over all the corpses of dead LEO's and all...

Just kidding...

This seems to be a reasonable first step in reversing an abhorent court decision.

 

[Stubz]

Wow a safe guard against potential corruption in an official capacity? . Now to sit and listen to all those saying it'll cause riots

 

[TaunTaun]

Wow a safe guard against potential corruption in an official capacity? . Now to sit and listen to all those saying it'll cause riots

The police'll start riots about this?

Does that mean we can defend earlier than July 1st?

 

[Hogwylde]

"Senate Enrolled Act 1....... permits a person to use reasonable force against a public servant, including police officers, to protect themselves from injury caused by the imminent use of unlawful force........"

IC 35-45-2-1
Intimidation
Sec. 1. (a) A person who communicates a threat to another person, with the intent:
(1) that the other person engage in conduct against the other person's will;
(2) that the other person be placed in fear of retaliation for a prior lawful act;
commits intimidation, a Class A misdemeanor.
(b) However, the offense is a:
(2) Class C felony if, while committing it, the person draws or uses a deadly weapon.

So.....A police officer that THREATENS to arrest you (or actually DOES arrest you ) for legally OC commits the crime of INTIMIDATION and it's a felony because he has a deadly weapon AND it's now legal to use force to resist the imminent use of unlawful force against you, RIGHT????????????????

 

[J_Wales]

The right to resist has always been natural law.

Glad to see the legislature and executive did the right thing.

 

[mainjet]

"Senate Enrolled Act 1....... permits a person to use reasonable force against a public servant, including police officers, to protect themselves from injury caused by the imminent use of unlawful force........"

IC 35-45-2-1
Intimidation
Sec. 1. (a) A person who communicates a threat to another person, with the intent:
(1) that the other person engage in conduct against the other person's will;
(2) that the other person be placed in fear of retaliation for a prior lawful act;
commits intimidation, a Class A misdemeanor.
(b) However, the offense is a:
(2) Class C felony if, while committing it, the person draws or uses a deadly weapon.

So.....A police officer that THREATENS to arrest you (or actually DOES arrest you ) for legally OC commits the crime of INTIMIDATION and it's a felony because he has a deadly weapon AND it's now legal to use force to resist the imminent use of unlawful force against you, RIGHT????????????????

No.

 

[Denny347]

"Senate Enrolled Act 1....... permits a person to use reasonable force against a public servant, including police officers, to protect themselves from injury caused by the imminent use of unlawful force........"

IC 35-45-2-1
Intimidation
Sec. 1. (a) A person who communicates a threat to another person, with the intent:
(1) that the other person engage in conduct against the other person's will;
(2) that the other person be placed in fear of retaliation for a prior lawful act;
commits intimidation, a Class A misdemeanor.
(b) However, the offense is a:
(2) Class C felony if, while committing it, the person draws or uses a deadly weapon.

So.....A police officer that THREATENS to arrest you (or actually DOES arrest you ) for legally OC commits the crime of INTIMIDATION and it's a felony because he has a deadly weapon AND it's now legal to use force to resist the imminent use of unlawful force against you, RIGHT????????????????

An illegal arrest would actually be "Criminal Confinement" (among other charges). It is a serious felony and fits the act MUCH better than the above.

 

[jbombelli]

This is a strike against tyranny and the police state.

Contrary to the opinions of many, the government does not have the authority to do anything it wants to anyone it wants without the fear of armed resistance.

This is the reason we have the 2nd Amendment in the first place.

 

[88GT]

Anxiously awaiting the rash of resistance to any and all efforts of LE that will now not happen.

Thank you, Mike Young and the rest of the Indiana General Assembly. And thank you, Mitch, even if you had to waffle over it. Shame we have to codify such things as the only means of preservation.

 

[CarmelHP]

Don't forget, there is a judicial retention vote coming up.

 

[88GT]

Don't forget, there is a judicial retention vote coming up.

I was thinking about that the other day. That doesn't take place during the primary vote, does it?

 

[GodFearinGunTotin]

Don't forget, there is a judicial retention vote coming up.

You know, that's a good point. Is there a resource out there that summarizes the various judge's records, I wonder?

 

[John Galt]

You know, that's a good point. Is there a resource out there that summarizes the various judge's records, I wonder?

I'll bet one of our wonderful fiat Federal Reserve Notes that this topic will light up the boards before election time and will provide some of the best entertainment to be found ...

 

[rw496]

There are so many scenarios this can be applied to that its hard to tell what will happen. I have served hundreds of warrants and found that the person either is the type to resist or is not; this law won't change that..when dealing with criminals anyway. When dealing with the average citizen, say a domestic like Barnes, I see it ending badly for the citizen. You just are not going to win. The more you escalate the more force the police will use and nobody is going to try to sort out who's right or wrong on the scene. All I see this law doing is providing some amount of legal recourse after it is all said and done, which is what the Supreme Court was trying to say, but they went a little too far.

 

[KG1]

There are so many scenarios this can be applied to that its hard to tell what will happen. I have served hundreds of warrants and found that the person either is the type to resist or is not; this law won't change that..when dealing with criminals anyway. When dealing with the average citizen, say a domestic like Barnes, I see it ending badly for the citizen. You just are not going to win. The more you escalate the more force the police will use and nobody is going to try to sort out who's right or wrong on the scene. All I see this law doing is providing some amount of legal recourse after it is all said and done, which is what the Supreme Court was trying to say, but they went a little too far.

I think with the Supreme court ruling in the Barnes case was what they were basically saying for the sake of everyones safety involved just go along with it even if the LEO's actions were not legal and then seek out recourse after the fact.

My question was always and where I think they went to far is: How could they base a legal decision on a possible illegal act ?

 

[KLB]

There are so many scenarios this can be applied to that its hard to tell what will happen. I have served hundreds of warrants and found that the person either is the type to resist or is not; this law won't change that..when dealing with criminals anyway. When dealing with the average citizen, say a domestic like Barnes, I see it ending badly for the citizen. You just are not going to win. The more you escalate the more force the police will use and nobody is going to try to sort out who's right or wrong on the scene. All I see this law doing is providing some amount of legal recourse after it is all said and done, which is what the Supreme Court was trying to say, but they went a little too far.

Exactly.