The Glade 4.0

http://banoosh.com/blog/2013/07/15/new- ... -officers/

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, reports the San Francisco Chronicle.

The law 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.

_________________
"...but there exists also in the human heart a depraved taste for equality, which impels the weak to attempt to lower the powerful to their own level and reduces men to prefer equality in slavery to inequality with freedom." - De Tocqueville

I'll defer commenting on the law, but dang, you should apply for a job writing headlines for CNN or MSNBC.

Wait, so is this an admission that they were doing a bunch of unlawful entry?

Since it allows use of force for an unlawful entry, I think the only thing is really does is incentivize the police to make sure they knock down the correct door.

_________________
“The duty of a patriot is to protect his country from its government.” - Thomas Paine

If you're going to make the assumption that citizens are never criminals, drunk, ignorant of what is and isn't a lawful entry, or mentally disturbed.

In any case, I'm pretty sure we discussed this topic a while back.

_________________
"Hysterical children shrieking about right-wing anything need to go sit in the corner and be quiet while the adults are talking."

In which case they'd go to jail for using force during a lawful entry. Probably, what, aggravated assault on a police officer or something?

Mentally disturbed are committing a crime by having a gun in the first place, presuming such a diagnosis actually exists.

_________________
“The duty of a patriot is to protect his country from its government.” - Thomas Paine

I think you may be missing the point here.

_________________
"Hysterical children shrieking about right-wing anything need to go sit in the corner and be quiet while the adults are talking."

It's not often that DFK! misses a point, I think he just disagrees. His main point is that cops shouldn't be able to unlawfully enter a home without consequence.

Law enforcement is a dangerous profession. If you don't want to be shot while enforcing the law, perhaps you should choose another vocation. If you're willing to accept the risks, you should also make sure you don't screw up and get shot for the wrong reasons. Like you invaded the wrong person's house. If you get shot because you're in the wrong place, that's on you. If you get shot because you're in the right place, rest assured that whoever shot you will get that added on to their charges.

_________________

Uh, Pretty sure NO ONE wants to be shot while enforcing the law. Or doing anything else. Just because some jobs are inherently more dangerous than others does not justify failing to steps to minimize the risk to those doing that job.

Your hatred of all things law-enforcement not withstanding, someone in your house is NOT grounds for killing them unless they're a threat to life, health (or in some cases) property.

Yes.

And, as I understand it, DE's counterpoint is that the homeowners may (potentially even often) get it wrong and use violence against a team conducting a lawful entry. I grant that point (even the "often" portion).

My counter-counterpoint is that anybody who does get it wrong would themselves be subject to the exact same penalties they were before this law.

The only different now is that law enforcement need to be sure they're hitting the right door, and may want to reconsider "no-knock" type policies, because should they take a door unlawfully and the occupant uses force (including potentially lethal force) and demonstrates that the entry was unlawful, they now have a legal defense. The previously did not, apparently, in Indiana. There were, it seems, literally no consequences to police who conducted an unlawful entry, prior to this new law.

_________________
“The duty of a patriot is to protect his country from its government.” - Thomas Paine

I don't disagree with you DFK at least in your first two points, but creating a law like this does open the door for every yahoo who THINKS he has an understanding of the law to open fire on someone without assessing the threat.

Well, first of all, in regards to fatality rate, law enforcement isn't really all that hazardous. I will, naturally, grant that the risk is higher; however, by and large it is not that deadly a profession.

http://www.bls.gov/iif/oshwc/cfoi/cfch0010.pdf

Go to page 8 for fatality rate by profession for 2011, police isn't even on the list. I will not deny, that it is a profession with a high level of injury, though. The stats certainly support that.


The point shuying is making, though, is one I agree with. Mitigating the risks within a high risk profession should not justify the suppression of rights.



Police conducting an unlawful entry are a threat to my life, health, and property.

_________________
“The duty of a patriot is to protect his country from its government.” - Thomas Paine

As a hypothetical? Sure.

As a practical reality? I doubt the incidence rate on such events would be that much higher than it is now. I don't have a crystal ball to tell the future, of course, but in my estimation the evidence doesn't lend itself to me believing an increase in the rate. Basically, those "yahoos" are going to "open fire" regardless of this law.

_________________
“The duty of a patriot is to protect his country from its government.” - Thomas Paine

Rarely does not mean "never."



I don't see that accepting the risk of getting shot means that any arbitrary public policy that increases the risk of getting shot is a good idea. If the concern is police raids on houses, a far better means would be to prohibit no-knock warrants in the first place.

The problem with this law is that when an incident actually happens, both the police and the homeowner will perceive themselves to be in the right. This is likely to end badly for the homeowner, because he's usually alone and outnumbered, and the police, already believing themselves to be in the right, are likely to end up shooting him even after he's already shot one of them.

While the police (if they are in the wrong) might eventually end up fired or in jail, this will be of small comfort to a homeowner who is dead. If the police are in the right, on the other hand, the judgement of the drunk, angry, disturbed, or misinformed householder is more likely to be swayed towards shooting by the perception that a legal escape is available. In that case, they're far more likely to end up seriously wounded or dead, and with more charges (if still alive) than they would have originally faced.

The police are the ones with body armor and training, and likely numbers. This is likely to get quite a few people of varying degrees of innocence killed. It also provides a way out for cops that are in the wrong - dead men tell no tales, so if the householder is dead because he started shooting, it's a lot easier to cover up a mistake.

_________________
"Hysterical children shrieking about right-wing anything need to go sit in the corner and be quiet while the adults are talking."

Yes. However, the risk to the officers isn't significantly greater than it already was; either they're there as an entry teak in which case they're prepared for this, or they're there on some other business in which case they should know that serving warrants and other approaches to residences are hazardous activities.



And if you engage in a gunfight with them, are you more or less likely to lose or damage your health, life, and property?

_________________
"Hysterical children shrieking about right-wing anything need to go sit in the corner and be quiet while the adults are talking."

I think you misunderstand. There's a list of priorities that any individual needs to reconcile. When your chosen profession is law enforcement, "I don't want to be shot" and "I want to enforce the law" come into conflict, and you have to choose which one takes primacy. As to making law enforcement safer, no. I don't want law enforcement to feel safe. They should be really nervous when pursuing their sworn duties. The first thing they should be really nervous about is making sure that the activity they're engaging in is, in fact, their sworn duty.

I'm not sure how you have arrived at the conclusion that I hate all things law-enforcement. And someone's mere uninvited presence in my house certainly IS grounds for killing them. You know why? Because I have a wife and kids, all of whom are less capable than I of defending themselves. I don't have time to figure out who they are, what they're doing, or if they're alone.

_________________

You might want to re-word that. Let's suppose they have a warrant for your house issued by a judge.

Also, I think you might want to reconsider whether the number of opponents you're facing is something you need to figure out before getting into a firefight. What they're doing is also something to concern yourself with. How do you think it's going to go for you if you get into a firefight with a number of men with body armor, rifles and shotguns? Assuming your wife and kids are unharmed, wouldn't it be better for them to have you alive and able to fight the intrusion in court than dead?

_________________
"Hysterical children shrieking about right-wing anything need to go sit in the corner and be quiet while the adults are talking."

If they go into 201 north XYZ Street instead of 201 south XYZ street, covering up who shot first won't do them any good. Will the homeowner be dead? Probably. However, one hopes, those cops would be going to jail for murder (using this law for precendent and grounds for the lethal force used by the homeowner) and the municipality would be paying out huge in a civil suit.



That's actually an interesting question in the modern police environment. I'd go with equal odds, overall, based upon the statistics for erroneous SWAT raids and the killing of civilians, dogs, damage to property without recompense, etc. To be fair, my odds of loss of life go real high in that case and property go way down, while complying keeps my odds of loss of life low(er), but my odds of loss of health and/or property much higher. In aggregate, it's probably a wash. It'd be hard to say without relatively intense statistical analysis based on the historical evidence.




Look, the point is this: there was no disincentive to [edit, retained original for quotation reasons]do no-knock, to over-use SWAT, going into a residence unlawfully or to go into an incorrect door in Indiana. Now there is. Meanwhile, as you said (and I agree with):



Where is the negative here?

_________________
“The duty of a patriot is to protect his country from its government.” - Thomas Paine

First, it's not an arbitrary public policy. It has been put in place to protect a homeowner in certain cases.

As to your point about yahoos opening fire indiscriminately, I don't think you've correctly valued the effects of this law. This law is not going to protect any who are unlawfully resisting invasion. It is only to protect those who are lawfully resisting invasion. As such, anyone who is being lawfully invaded is probably aware of what they've done to warrant the invasion, and are going to either open fire or not according to their inclinations anyway. By the same token, anyone being unlawfully invaded is going to open fire or not according to their inclinations. Anyone who is an indiscriminate yahoo is unpredictable anyway and this law will not change that.

_________________

I don't see any need to reword that. A warrant for my house issued by a judge is irrelevant to the scenario. Either I have been doing something to warrant (hah) such an issuance, or I haven't. If I have, then I know the score, and would make sure to not be around my wife and kids. If I haven't, then law enforcement has **** up. If law enforcement has **** up, they deserve no protection.

As to how I'd fare against some number of opponents, either they've already invaded my house and that's an unknown, or they're standing around where I can count them which would probably mean there's been no invasion yet. Or are you assuming that I have some foreknowledge of the invasion otherwise?

_________________

Due process in getting a warrant means there is strong enough evidence that you committed/or are committing a crime. If they're executing a warrant legally and you open fire, you're in the wrong.

Say your child or spouse committed the crime and lied to you about it? If you 'know' they're innocent, you feel you have the right to prevent, with deadly force, police from acting on a legal warrant?

Nobody is arguing this in any way whatsoever, or anything even close to it.



Nobody is saying this either, or anything close to it.


Additionally, the law, in no way whatsoever (to my knowledge), changes how legal warrants and legal entry are conducted.



Slight derail, but I feel related:

http://reason.com/archives/2013/07/02/t ... aaron-hern

_________________
“The duty of a patriot is to protect his country from its government.” - Thomas Paine

Shyung seems to be saying his judgement supersedes that of the legal system. If he feels there is no crime going on in the house, he's free to defend himself.

But worse than that-- if someone makes a clerical error, you're suggesting the best option, is deadly force against those executing that order? Seriously?? are you aware how psychotic that sounds?

I can't speak to his personal stance, but that is nothing anywhere close to how I read his stance (hence my response). Obviously, I may have misinterpreted. I doubt it.



Best option? No. Didn't say that, am not saying it.

Does it need to be an option? Most certainly.

_________________
“The duty of a patriot is to protect his country from its government.” - Thomas Paine

You would hope that due process in getting a warrant means there is strong enough evidence. You would hope. If they're executing a warrant lawfully and I begin shooting, yes, I'm in the wrong. I'm not sure where you think I've disagreed with that. At that point, I'm just one of the population who is willing to shoot cops. If you're a police officer, I'd hope you're well aware of the existence of that portion of the population.

In my case, I am the homeowner of record. If the police need to invade my home in the execution of a warrant for someone who is not me, either they've obtained my cooperation, or they've **** up. There's really no other ways about it.

_________________