You can shoot cops in Indiana

The state of Indiana has passed a law that allows citizens to shoot police officers if they reasonably believe the cops have entered their home illegally.

PJ Media » Why the GOP-backed Indiana Gun Law Is a Terrible Idea.

Conservatives used to make a point of saying, “I support my local police.”  Is anti-government and pro-gun sentiment so strong now that it’s all right to shoot police officers who have made a mistake?  Aren’t there legal remedies that will click in when cops enter the wrong house, which is much different than when a criminal breaks in.  This will surely endanger policemen.  In my day, it was the SDS and other hard left groups that fantasized about killing “pigs.”  Now alleged conservatives have actually, under certain circumstances, legalized it!

UPDATE:  Thanks to Bike Bubba for linking to the actual law.  Here is the summary of Indiana SB0001:

Specifies that a person may use reasonable force against any other person in certain circumstances. Provides that a person is justified in using reasonable force against a public servant if the person reasonably believes the force is necessary to: (1) protect the person or a third person from unlawful force; (2) prevent or terminate the public servant’s unlawful entry into the person’s dwelling; or (3) prevent or terminate the public servant’s criminal interference with property lawfully in the person’s possession. Specifies that a person is not justified in using force against a public servant if: (1) the person is committing or is escaping after the commission of a crime; (2) the person provokes action by the public servant with intent to injure the public servant; (3) the person has entered into combat with the public servant or is the initial aggressor; or (4) the person reasonably believes the public servant is acting lawfully or is engaged in the lawful execution of the public servant’s official duties. Provides that a person is not justified in using deadly force against a public servant whom the person knows or reasonably should know is a public servant unless: (1) the person reasonably believes that the public servant is acting unlawfully or is not engaged in the execution of the public servant’s official duties; and (2) the force is reasonably necessary to prevent serious bodily injury to the person or a third person.

So it isn’t just about a cop entering your house.  It also allows shooting a police officer who is using “unlawful force” and interfering with one’s property.

Most of the comments so far are defending the law on the basis that an individual has a greater authority in his own home and, above all, that police officers can’t be trusted and abuse their power.  Which kind of proves my point that conservatism has changed.  This is the kind of thing that SDS members and Black Panthers were saying back in my day. Or has the country or the government or police officers changed, to the point that we fear them as the “bad guys”?

Shall we throw off all lawful magistrates and legal systems in favor of free market principles applied to the social order, in which individuals just take care of themselves, including protecting their own property and avenging their own wrongs?  That’s what those Anarchists in masks and hoodies who riot at international gatherings are advocating.  I guess they are conservatives too.

Certainly, the police don’t like this law, either the one I linked to initially or the one who says,  “It’s just a recipe for disaster.  It just puts a bounty on our heads.”

Two cases of self-defense

I’ve been in my native Oklahoma last weekend to see my new granddaughter and to be there for her baptism.  Localists have a point:  There really are regional differences.  It’s nice to be back in my old stomping grounds.

It’s interesting to read the local newspapers.  You may have heard about the 18 year old single mother in Oklahoma who greeted the man who broke into her mobile home by killing him with a blast from her 12-gauge shotgun.  She’s receiving all kinds of acclaim.  That’s the Oklahoma spirit.

But that has brought up a case from a few years ago, with people here discussing whether it is similar or different.   A robber was holding up a pharmacy in Oklahoma City.  A worker shot him.  The thief was down but still alive.  So the worker re-loaded and finished him off.  Whereupon he was tried and convicted of first-degree murder.

I can’t believe an Oklahoma jury convicted him!  Do you see a line being crossed?  Or should criminals face a special jeopardy when their victims fight back?

For details see ScissorTales: No comparison between killings | NewsOK.com.


CLOSE | X

HIDE | X