Indiana Legalizes Deadly Force Against Public Servants

[dc dalton]

Under the latest changes of the so-called Castle Doctrine, state lawmakers agree “people have a right to defend themselves and third parties from physical harm and crime.” Rather than excluding officers of the law, however, any public servant is now subject to be met with deadly force if they unlawfully enter private property without clear justification.

http://rt.com/usa/indiana-shooting-law-state-591/

 

[MErl]

so would this cover a "raid on the wrong address" type of thing?

The clear justification part is not so clear, is that better defined?

 

[Sam1911]

What a horribly bad article, and gross misunderstanding of the matter all-around.

This basically says a police officer's badge does not offer him immunity from being met with the same force any other violent criminal would face if he is indeed acting unlawfully. It removes the rare instances where a citizen could be prosecuted for injuring or killing a police officer (or other public servant) who was clearly acting in a life-threatening and illegal way.

So, if a couple of bad cops are using their official status to break in and rob people, (and criminals and criminal groups do occasionally exist among law enforcement), a citizen aware enough to effectively resist won't be convicted of a crime merely on the grounds that the criminals were also police officers.

What repercussions this might have for wrong-address no-knock warrants will be interesting to see.

 

[dab102999]

This has been circualating on a few different sites. This article is over a year old. I believe since this was passed only two officers have been killed and both of them K9.

 

[Arizona_Mike]

This is to overturn what an activist court did and restore the Common Law (and Federal law under the Bad Elk decision).

Some states like Texas have specifically taken away the right to resist unlawful resist and unlawful entry by police but in this case a court recognized the common law and declared it to be outdated.

Mike

 

[Frank Ettin]

It's basically old news. And before anyone gets too excited he needs to reflect that he better be right about the LEO's conduct being unlawful. He's not going to get a pass if he's mistaken, even if the mistake was reasonable.

So how well versed are you on the real life, applicable law of search, seizure and arrest?

 

[mister_murphy]

So how well versed are you on the real life, applicable law of search, seizure and arrest?

I would add, "and how well versed are you in analyzing and making a decision within seconds, (or less), whether the actions of LE were lawful or unlawful?" knowing that the result will be debated time and time again, even before it reaches the court system.

interesting to note:

“In the real world, there will almost never be a situation in which these extremely narrow conditions are met,” Daniels says. “This law is not an invitation to use violence or force against law enforcement officers.”

http://rt.com/usa/indiana-shooting-law-state-591/

as the article mentions, if this ever does happen, it ill be within "extremely narrow conditions"

 

[mgkdrgn]

so would this cover a "raid on the wrong address" type of thing?

The clear justification part is not so clear, is that better defined?

It might ... but it would be a "debate" point only for after the fact ... and the person who resisted would not be part of the "debate", as they would be dead.

 

[MIL-DOT]

I believe there was an Indiana State Supreme Court ruling just a couple years ago, that specifically denied the right to resist/defend against illegal assaults from law enforcement.

 

[316SS]

So how well versed are you on the real life, applicable law of search, seizure and arrest?

I would add, "and how well versed are you in analyzing and making a decision within seconds, (or less), whether the actions of LE were lawful or unlawful?"

Not just whether the actions of LE were lawful or unlawful, but whether the intruders are LE or not. A no-knock raid is initially indistinguishable from a home invasion.

 

[garymc]

I don't think the wrong address thing would fly. If you're talking about justifying the shooting of a cop by saying he was committing a crime, where is his criminal intent? Secondly, if they are there to search or effect an arrest, could you justify using deadly force by claiming a search would kill you? If a clerk typed the wrong address on a warrant, or an informant made a buy at 1344 Pine Street instead of 1244 Pine Street and a search warrant is executed at the address on the warrant, how would you justify pointing a gun or shooting at the cops? If they knocked on the door and showed you the warrant and you said Joe Blow doesn't live here and they said we're searching anyhow because this is the address on the warrant, would you stick a gun in their face or straighten it out later?

 

[Sam1911]

If they knocked on the door and showed you the warrant and you said Joe Blow doesn't live here and they said we're searching anyhow because this is the address on the warrant, would you stick a gun in their face or straighten it out later?

That's not the kind of instance that's really affected by such a law. In that case, 1) the cop is certainly acting under his lawful powers, and 2) (and most importantly) there is no credible threat of loss of life.

Where this has more impact is in the case of "no knock" warrants where an explosive, unannounced entry is performed (perhaps because the officers have your address confused with that of a potentially violent gang house, or something like that) and the residents are awakened/alerted only by the door being smashed open and armed men bursting in on them.

 

[lemaymiami]

I lived and worked down here in paradise (south Florida) during a period of time when police impersonators as well as just plain crooked cops were a serious problem. It got to the point that ordinary citizens were being advised publicly how to deal with "phony cops" (this was mostly during the eighties...). Just the thought of that kind of confrontation would make for a sleepless night... and I was one of the "good guys"...

The legal ramifications, as noted above, aren't going to be very good -if you survive the encounter. Thank heavens this kind of situation isn't very common. I must say that I couldn't predict how I'd react to a sudden forced entry into my house at night...

One thing that most Departments did insist upon was that officers acting on the street in any possibly violent situation be clearly seen as officers (in other words at least a raid jacket over any plainclothes officer - or you stayed out of the area...). Any situation where an undercover was needed to participate in a raid, and had his/her face covered were particularly covered by this rule. On my own Department we always tried to have at least one fully uniformed officer with marked vehicle present to reduce any opportunity for the targets to claim that "we didn't know they were cops"

Any place where dope rip-offs are possible make this kind of problem much more possible in my experience....

 

[TenDriver]

Where this has more impact is in the case of "no knock" warrants where an explosive, unannounced entry is performed (perhaps because the officers have your address confused with that of a potentially violent gang house, or something like that) and the residents are awakened/alerted only by the door being smashed open and armed men bursting in on them.

You're right. This law matters not in that case however. If you open fire on police while they're conducting a raid on the wrong address, you're most likely going to be leaving your house at room temperature. Close in fire fight with police? Odds aren't in your favor.

 

[Steve in PA]

So, the homeowner gets to determine what is "unlawful justification" for the officer? Based on what? The mere belief that he thinks the officer has no right to be there?

Sucks to be the dead officer or his family if he was there legally, but the homeowner thought he wasn't! So sorry, my bad!

 

[Frank Ettin]

So, the homeowner gets to determine what is "unlawful justification" for the officer? ...

No actually. The homeowner better be correct or he'll be spending a very long time in prison.

 

[the_skunk]

Private Investigators often use cops in south Florida. You can;t call a cop on a cop.

 

[lemaymiami]

skunk... I'd sure like to see some specific incidents that prove your point...

Here's what I do know about that stuff.... Some years ago myself and two others guys I worked with started a small investigation company while we were still working as cops for the same City... We weren't allowed to do any "investigating" since it would have been a serious conflict of interest. All of our work at the time was only serving process for the legal trade and each of us became legal process servers, obtained permission for these activities from our Department (in writing...) and agreed not to do any kind of work in the jurisdiction where we were employed as cops.... and not to use any kind of "police powers" in furtherance of process serving... The plan was to have one of us leave police work when the small business got moving, then the remaining two would "go private" one at a time as the work picked up.

Although the business never was viable enough to leave police work and eventually we ceased it, none of us even contemplated doing any investigative work while we were still cops since that's beyond sleazy....

Are there probably one or two small departments that turn a blind eye to that sort of stuff? I'm sure there are but any certified officer actually employed as a cop by some agency is risking both their job and their certification if they get involved in private investigations. Any chief of police that allows that sort of stuff is risking their job as well....

 

[316SS]

Sucks to be the dead officer or his family if he was there legally, but the homeowner thought he wasn't! So sorry, my bad!

It sucks no more or less than to be shot dead, or have your spouse or child shot dead, by officers entering the wrong house, or the right house based on bad information, etc.