Another ” armed citizen ” issue, courtesy of Indiana –

By Senator Blutarsky,01/02/14 - 
Re-posted from OpposingViews.

indianagunlawIn Indiana, police officers are upset over a new law allowing residents to use deadly force against public servants, including law enforcement officers, who unlawfully enter their homes.

The law was signed by Republican Governor Mitch Daniels in March. It was adopted after the Indiana State Supreme Court ruled that there was “no right to reasonably resist unlawful entry by police officers,” after a man assaulted an officer during a domestic violence call.

The law’s author, Republican state Sen. Michael Young, said there haven’t been any cases [yet] in which people have used the law to justify shooting police.

The National Rifle Association lobbied for the new law, claiming that the Indiana State Supreme Court decision had legalized police to commit unjustified entries.

Tim Downs, President of the Indiana State Fraternal Order of Police, told Bloomberg News that 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. It just puts a bounty on our heads.”

Indiana is the first U.S. state to specifically allow force against officers, according to the Association of Prosecuting Attorneys in Washington, which represents prosecutors.

In Indiana, police officers are upset over a new law allowing residents to use deadly force against public servants, including law enforcement officers, who unlawfully enter their homes.

The law was signed by Republican Governor Mitch Daniels in March. It was adopted after the Indiana State Supreme Court ruled that there was “no right to reasonably resist unlawful entry by police officers,” after a man assaulted an officer during a domestic violence call.

The law’s author, Republican state Sen. Michael Young, said there haven’t been any cases [yet] in which people have used the law to justify shooting police.

The National Rifle Association lobbied for the new law, claiming that the Indiana State Supreme Court decision had legalized police to commit unjustified entries.

Tim Downs, President of the Indiana State Fraternal Order of Police, told Bloomberg News that 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. It just puts a bounty on our heads.”

Indiana is the first U.S. state to specifically allow force against officers, according to the Association of Prosecuting Attorneys in Washington, which represents prosecutors.

**********************************************

Maybe some of the senseless “no-knock” and assorted SWAT raids, and “pre-crime” nonsense will slow down.

“There are always risks in challenging excessive police power, but the risks of not challenging it are more dangerous, even fatal.”

—Hunter S. Thompson


		
Advertisements

3 responses

  1. The police should work under the same laws as everyone else, and be liable to deadly force if they enter a person’s home illegally, just like everyone else. At that point the police _are_ criminals too.

    Good law.

    lwk

    1. Senator_Blutarsky | Reply

      By contrast, Texas continues down a more ominous path – and dont expect your toady little state rep-King, or Senator Estes, to do anything to correct them.

      Texas Court Throws 2nd, 4th Amendments Under The Bus
      Read more at http://www.westernjournalism.com/texas-court-throws-2nd-4th-amendments-under-the-bus/#27B1Fe5AffXsOBor.99

      Texas courts have ruled that because legally owned firearms represent “a threat of physical violence” to police, officers may ignore the 4th Amendment rights of Texas residents by treating ALL legally issued warrants as “No Knock” warrants, even if the issuing judge has made it clear that officers “…must knock on the door and announce their identity and purpose before attempting a forcible entry.”

      In August of 2006, police in Collin County, Texas obtained a warrant to search the home of John Quinn, based on information that Quinn’s son might be keeping a controlled substance on the premises. Although the warrant “…did not authorize police to enter the residence without knocking and announcing their entry,” the County SWAT Team broke through Quinn’s door unannounced, “…based solely on the suspicion that there were firearms in the Quinn household.” Not aware of who had broken into his home, the suddenly awakened Quinn was shot by officers as he grabbed a nearby gun for the purpose of defending his life, family, and property. All firearms in the home were legally owned by Quinn. Police discovered less than 1 gm of cocaine on the premises.

      When Quinn took the Collin County SWAT Team to court for ignoring the terms of the search warrant by turning it into a “No Knock” warrant, the court ruled that “…because police had information that guns were present at the residence, they were justified in making a forced and unannounced invasion into Quinn’s home.” In short, a judge decided John Quinn represented a criminal danger based upon the legal exercise of his 2nd amendment rights.

      The Rutherford Institute has petitioned the Supreme Court to hear the Quinn case, writing to the Court that:

      “…in the absence of any evidence of actual danger to police, the legal possession of a firearm, as guaranteed by the Second Amendment, is not sufficient to justify allowing police to override the Fourth Amendment’s protection against unannounced “no-knock” home invasions when executing warrants.”

      The Supreme Court has ruled on a number of occasions that law enforcement may NOT look upon the free exercise of constitutionally protected rights as an inference of guilt. For example, police may NOT presume that because an individual asserts his right to remain silent or speak with an attorney, he is deserving of additional suspicion of guilt.

      Should Americans who exercise their God-given, constitutionally-protected right to keep and bear arms be refused the 4th Amendment protection against unreasonable searches and seizures? The suggestion by law enforcement, courts, or lawmakers that the exercise of one constitutionally protected right should somehow render an American ineligible for the free exercise of–or protection guaranteed by–another right is despicable, disgraceful, and a thoroughly unconstitutional assault on each of us.

      Law enforcement has been given the “legal” authority to view Texas gun owners as potential criminals and to treat them accordingly. Every armed Texan is therefore presumed guilty until proven innocent. Does this mean police may legally gun down the holder of a Concealed Carry license on site, based on the belief that being armed makes such a person likely to kill an officer?

      Courts have dramatically weakened our 4th Amendment protections during the past several decades. If this trend is not reversed, open warfare will eventually become the only means of reclaiming lost liberty.

      and THIS disgusting little incident right here in PARKER COUNTY !
      Texas Court Rules Warrants Can be Obtained on ‘Predictions of Future Crimes’

      A ruling by the Texas Court of Criminal Appeals last week opens the door for Texas law enforcement to obtain search warrants “based on predictions of the commission of future crimes,” an appeals judge has stated.

      The ruling came in the 2010 case of a man who police allege was “fixing to” cook methamphetamine.

      Parker County police had been staking out suspect Michael Fred Wehren’s house for over a month.

      When an informant tipped them off that Wehren and others were preparing to manufacture a batch of meth, police entered the home after midnight and detained Wehren and his friends outside his home in handcuffs.

      Police then entered the home and located pseudoephedrine, stripped lithium batteries and other materials typically used to cook meth.

      Only after police illegally entered Wehren’s home did they secure a search warrant from a judge. Of course, their request made sure not to mention the fact they had already entered the house and seized what they were looking for.

      During trial, Wehrenberg’s lawyers argued the evidence was inadmissible as it had been obtained through deceptive, unconstitutional means.

      “The motion was denied,” writes Eric Nicholson for the Dallas Observer, adding, “the trial court cited federal ‘independent source doctrine,’ which allows illegally seized evidence a third party told them about beforehand — and Wehrenberg pleaded guilty to one count of possession and one count of intent to manufacture, getting five years in prison.”

      Wehren’s lawyers appealed the verdict to the Second Court of Appeals in Fort Worth on the grounds that evidence used to convict him should have initially been excluded.

      While that court sided with Wehren’s lawyers, judges with the Texas Court of Criminal Appeals, which ultimately has the final say, agreed with the trial court’s decision, saying the confidential…

      Continue here: http://www.infowars.com/texas-court-rules-warrants-may-be-obtained-on-predictions-of-future-crimes/

      “The poorest man in his cottage may bid defiance to all the force of the crown. It
      may be frail — its roof may shake — the wind may blow through it — the storm may enter — but the King of England cannot enter. All his force dares not cross the threshold of the ruined tenement.”
      William Pitt

      The 4th amendment means nothing to abusive so-called “lawmen”……annd prosecutors – they obviously have become ” the ends justify the means ” statists.

      1. I agree with your views on how the 4th Amendment has largely become irrelevant to law enforcement. This seems to me to have come about in order to wage the War on Drugs. Perhaps they should rewrite the 4th Amendment:

        “The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, … [except in cases where the police or other authorities deem it necessary or convenient to do break into a private house, bug a phone, or read any private email or track citizens in any and all their activities.] ?

        regards,

        lwk

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: