Indiana Governor Signs Bill Into Law, Allowing Citizens To Use “Deadly Force” Against Police Officers

truther April 12, 2012 14

Republican Governor Mitch Daniels has signed Senate Enrolled Act 1 into law in Indiana. The new law allows citizens to use deadly force against police officers they think are illegally entering their homes. Earlier this month, Addicting Info reported  that the bill had passed the Senate. Republicans say the bill is designed to keep police safe, but Democrats say the bill will lead to the wanton killing of police officers.

Rep. Craig Fry, a Democrat, says the bill “is going to cause people to die and it’s too late after somebody dies for a jury to sort it out. Somebody’s going to die, whether it’s a police officer or an individual who thinks a police officer is entering their home unlawfully. People are going to die.”

Fry’s colleague, Democratic Rep. Linda Lawson, a former police captain, says the bill would create an “open season on law enforcement,” and it is opposed by “1,250 state police officers and 14,000 men and women in blue, brown and green.”

The new law reverses a state Supreme Court ruling that homeowners do not have the right to use force against law enforcement officials who they believe are illegally entering their homes. According to the Evansville Courier Press, an Evansville resident fought a police officer who followed him into his house during a domestic dispute call. “The state Supreme Court found that officers sometimes enter homes without warrants for reasons protected by the law, such as pursuing suspects or preventing the destruction of evidence. In these situations, we find it unwise to allow a homeowner to adjudge the legality of police conduct in the heat of the moment,” the court said. “As we decline to recognize a right to resist unlawful police entry into a home, we decline to recognize a right to batter a police officer as a part of that resistance.”

While announcing his decision to sign the bill into law, Governor Daniels tried to claim that the law doesn’t declare an open season on police officers.

“Today is an important day to say: Indiana’s outstanding law enforcement officers put their lives on the line every day to protect all Hoosiers. The right thing to do is cooperate with them in every way possible. This law is not an invitation to use violence or force against law enforcement officers. In fact, it restricts when an individual can use force, specifically deadly force, on an officer, so don’t try anything. Chances are overwhelming you will be breaking the law and wind up in far worse trouble as a result.”

But Governor Daniels is merely attempting to put political spin on a bad bill. Indeed, Daniels admits that he nearly vetoed it precisely because the bill could be grossly misinterpreted and could lead to killings of police and citizens. This law is basically a loophole for citizens to kill police officers and claim self-defense. There are many people out there who think no police officers have the right to enter homes or property, even if there is a warrant.

As the state Supreme Court said, sometimes police officers have to enter homes to prevent the destruction of evidence or to prevent someone from grabbing a weapon in their home to use against police or someone else. Sometimes police must pursue suspects in their homes. But this bill reverses that ruling and gives those suspects the legal authority to slay police officers. It’s the equivalent of Florida’s ‘Stand Your Ground’ law that led to the killing of Trayvon Martin. In that incident, George Zimmerman believed he had the legal right to gun down a kid for walking through the neighborhood simply for being a young African American male strolling around the community at night. Zimmerman, believing the innocent boy to be a threat, followed him and then shot him to death. Because of the Florida law, Zimmerman remains a free man because he can claim self-defense. This Indiana law will allow people to do the same thing to police officers on their property and in their homes. It makes the already dangerous job of law enforcement even more dangerous and will ultimately lead to the legal murder of police officers who are just trying to do their job.


Add To The Conversation Using Facebook Comments


  1. Ryan Lewis August 23, 2012 at 1:25 am - Reply

    This is dumb as hell.

    • Ryan Lewis August 23, 2012 at 1:26 am - Reply

      This is why I think Republicans are stupid.

  2. Robert Hauser July 7, 2012 at 1:07 pm - Reply

    Perhaps this law is somewhat extreme….but so are the current antics of sociopaths in blue and khaki who sneer at the Constitution. In America the pendulum swings from one pathological extreme right to the other—-the cops, by their fully documented conduct—-have asked for this. It has been estimated by Richard Mack that fully 70% of all law enforcement personnel in America have never read the Constitution and those who have all too obviously don’t give a rat’s ass for it and look upon it as an impediment to their thrills and advancement—–well, perhaps this will force some of them to seriously reevaluate. If cops won’t honor the Constitution…we citizens will—forcefully. if and as necessary.

  3. Steve June 13, 2012 at 1:10 am - Reply

    People who think this is a great law, have no idea OF the law and should open a book sometime. This law is equivalent to taking guns away from people – it only hurts the innocent, law abiding citizens (in the case Police Officers); while the bad guy will use this law Officers and claim self defense. Get a clue, this is a bad, bad law.

  4. Ken May 29, 2012 at 5:23 am - Reply

    I think this is a good law as well. If Police have reason to enter a home, then they should bring enough people and methods to document the event such that no homeowner could possibly think that they would get away with fighting a legal entry/arrest. The argument that “police officers have to enter homes to prevent the destruction of evidence or to prevent someone from grabbing a weapon in their home to use against police or someone else. Sometimes police must pursue suspects in their homes” is false. If authorities know of wrongdoing, why is it necessary to wait until the suspect is in a house? It leaves open the possibility of innocents also in the house being placed in unnecessary danger. If a suspect is in a house destroying the only evidence that might exist — well that’s too bad. Police need to take the side of caution. Why? because we the people pay their salary and we say so, idiots.

  5. john April 25, 2012 at 3:01 pm - Reply

    This is a great law, it is an equalizer. Everyone knows cops think they can do anything and have killed innocent people for a belief they had or they were roid raging. Fry claims Zimmerman killed Martin for just walking? What a bunch of crap that is.

  6. Joe Sr. April 19, 2012 at 12:24 pm - Reply

    Here where I live Troopers do whatever they want without any fear of reprisal. To justify their violence they write up a charging document full of lies! Therefor, this is a badly needed law everywhere in America and long overdue. Prior to the early 1900’s police did not even exist in our cuntry. from their birth untill present they have practiced coruption on a general level. We would be safer as a nation and as an individual without their lies, violence, and coruptions. Every time an arrest is made a bond is issuedl. That bond is reissued several times before it is sold at auction to a select few of government authorized companies like Freddy May. Its slavery with a face lift. The cops are the hired guns doing the slave catching. People think they are investing in just another stock but they are inslaving an inmate who acording to a DA to me personaly – “whom offten (1/3 to 50%) times does not belong in jail”. It makes trillions though for various investers. The police are constantly hunting citizens and that is why we get stoped for not having bright enough tag lights even though it was a bright and suny day! We need to totoly arm American citizens and fire all local slave hunting police.

  7. Fill Bord April 14, 2012 at 7:28 am - Reply

    Excellent job, it’s about time cops had a little bit to think about before they start throwing their weight around.

  8. sad sap April 13, 2012 at 10:14 am - Reply

    A balance of power must exist.
    As long as government and police have guns we should have guns.
    Case Closed!
    Good job Indiana…

  9. sad sap April 13, 2012 at 9:48 am - Reply

    people should be allowed to choose to defend themselves and their rights, by force, from those who would take their rights from them, by force.

    While the best decision may be to defend one’s rights peacefully, no one can make this choice if they do not have another option. In order for non-violence to be a meaningful choice, violence must be an option. I wouldn’t want people to run out of options, before they run out of rights.

  10. Bill Ford April 13, 2012 at 12:18 am - Reply

    George Zimmerman believed he had the legal right to gun down a kid for walking through the neighborhood simply for being a young African American male strolling around the community at night. Zimmerman, believing the innocent boy to be a threat, followed him and then shot him to death.

    Thisn statement is a complete fabrication, twisting of the truth and boldface lie. Travon was not a boy. That is a racially prejudice remark. He was a late teen and was dressed as if he was in a ‘hood. he was a practicing punk. Further he did not stroll down the street but was observed going house to house looking in windows by Zimmerman. An altercation between him and Zimmerman in tresponse to these observations led to the shooting. So he was not innocent. He may or may not have been armed That has not been made public record yet and had he been white and Zimmerman black no charege would have been broiught. So much for equal protection of the laws.

    • Jim Kelso April 13, 2012 at 9:45 pm - Reply

      A late teen is still a boy. He was in his neighbourhood. Bill I think you are a fool and you don’t appear to need any practice.

      • john April 25, 2012 at 3:07 pm - Reply

        Bill Ford is absolutely correct Jim. At 17 yrs old Martin would have been considered legally a child but anyone with half a brain knows the difference between the definition of law and reality.

    • Old Man Wylie April 25, 2012 at 11:57 am - Reply

      Are you a professional idiot?

Leave A Response »

jebol togel
Slot Gacor