Finally some rational legislation is passed concerning ‘public servants’ unlawfully entering another person’s property.
All too often, we see examples of cops breaking into the wrong house and shooting the family dog, or worse, killing a member of the family.
Well, Indiana has taken action to “recognize the unique character of a citizen’s home and to ensure that a citizen feels secure in his or her own home against unlawful intrusion by another individual or a public servant.”
This special amendment is no revolutionary new thought, only common sense.
Self-defense is a natural right; when laws are in place that protect incompetent police by removing one’s ability to protect one’s self, simply because the aggressor has a badge and a uniform, this is a human rights violation. Indiana is leading the way by recognizing this right and creating legislation to protect it.
Of course cops have already begun to fear monger the passage of this bill, “If I pull over a car and I walk up to it and the guy shoots me, he’s going to say, ‘Well, he was trying to illegally enter my property,’ ” said Joseph Hubbard, 40, president of Jeffersonville Fraternal Order of Police Lodge 100. “Somebody is going get away with killing a cop because of this law.”
Instead of looking at the beneficial aspect of this law, which creates the incentive for police to act responsibly and just, Hubbard takes the ‘higher than thou’ attitude and is simply worried about himself.
How about questioning the immoral laws that you are enforcing in the first place? Or how about sympathizing with the innocent people whose pets and family members have been slain, due to police negligence?
Who’s to say that a cop pulling you over to extort money from you for the victimless crime of not wearing a seatbelt, isn’t an unlawful act? Or how about breaking down your door in the middle of the night to kidnap you and throw you in a cage for possessing a plant?
Hopefully this legislation will lead to these arbitrary traffic and drug enforcement “laws” in place solely for revenue collection (aka theft), being brought into question.
(i) 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 what the person reasonably believes to be the imminent use of unlawful force;
(2) prevent or terminate the public servant’s unlawful entry of or attack on the person’s dwelling, curtilage, or occupied motor vehicle; or
(3) prevent or terminate the public servant’s unlawful trespass on or criminal interference with property lawfully in the person’s possession, lawfully in possession of a member of the person’s immediate family, or belonging to a person whose property the person has authority to protect.
It is through legislation such as this, which will empower people again and aid in bringing down these tyrants from their pedestals, who are given free rein to murder and pillage without consequence.
Source:
http://thefreethoughtproject.com/
Cops should use this as a wake up call to not bully and a chance to polish their images, and cities and counties could stop having to settle lawsuits because of overzealous officers.
If mr hubbard feels threatened, he can always quit his job. who needs cops anyway. They are more concerned with violating your rights, not protecting and serving.
We already have that right. However Indiana has made it more visible.
Under the 2nd. Amendment we already have that right. That is the main purpose of the Amendment. The right to protect ourselves against tyranny.
News Flash: You already have a right to defend yourself and the government didn’t give you that right. Our founding documents say we have the right to bear arms. The right to bear arms isn’t for hunting game, it is to defend yourself from a tyrannical government.
The only laws that matter are those of physics relating to projectiles. A good cop is a dead cop.
Nothing new here folks, this has been the common law forever. There are many court cases describing the same thing and this is new to most peoples minds. This legal doctrine has been in force forever and it is codified in statute makes the cops react, but only because it puts this legal doctrine into their consciousness. It publicizes what is already long established as a matter of law. To remind bad cops there is consequences to their wrong actions and the response may not allow time to resort to the courts would knowingly make bad cops fearful and complain. The rest of them don’t have a problem because this codification changes nothing.
Well the problem with .Gov passing a law is that it can be undone just as fast or faster – but at least they see that their Employee’s have become a problem.
You already have the right to defend yourself against them…
http://www.constitution.org/uslaw/defunlaw.htm
“Citizens may resist unlawful arrest to the point of taking an arresting officer’s life if necessary.” Plummer v. State, 136 Ind. 306. This premise was upheld by the Supreme Court of the United States in the case: John Bad Elk v. U.S., 177 U.S. 529. The Court stated: “Where the officer is killed in the course of the disorder which naturally accompanies an attempted arrest that is resisted, the law looks with very different eyes upon the transaction, when the officer had the right to make the arrest, from what it does if the officer had no right. What may be murder in the first case might be nothing more than manslaughter in the other, or the facts might show that no offense had been committed.”
“An arrest made with a defective warrant, or one issued without affidavit, or one that fails to allege a crime is within jurisdiction, and one who is being arrested, may resist arrest and break away. lf the arresting officer is killed by one who is so resisting, the killing will be no more than an involuntary manslaughter.” Housh v. People, 75 111. 491; reaffirmed and quoted in State v. Leach, 7 Conn. 452; State v. Gleason, 32 Kan. 245; Ballard v. State, 43 Ohio 349; State v Rousseau, 241 P. 2d 447; State v. Spaulding, 34 Minn. 3621.
“When a person, being without fault, is in a place where he has a right to be, is violently assaulted, he may, without retreating, repel by force, and if, in the reasonable exercise of his right of self defense, his assailant is killed, he is justified.” Runyan v. State, 57 Ind. 80; Miller v. State, 74 Ind. 1.
“These principles apply as well to an officer attempting to make an arrest, who abuses his authority and transcends the bounds thereof by the use of unnecessary force and violence, as they do to a private individual who unlawfully uses such force and violence.” Jones v. State, 26 Tex. App. I; Beaverts v. State, 4 Tex. App. 1 75; Skidmore v. State, 43 Tex. 93, 903.
More on the link above.