"That brings up an interesting philosophical question; is it okay to snitch to the police on the police?"

I mean on the one hand, no one wants the police to get blown away for just doing their damn job, of course. But on the other, it seems the police are developing a bad habit of assault, battery, and manslaughter themselves in many locales.

Hmmm. I have to admit, I'm conflicted.

...encouraging militia types to shoot at the police. You already know if a black man shoots a cop he's getting thrown in a dark cell for the rest of his life, but if it's a white man, he's gonna have to have a fair trial and all kinds of hoopla, he could have just been standing his ground.

Or anybody else. I know of police executions.

The moron who introduced that bill seems to have found a solution in search of a problem. Did he have nothing better to do that week?

(And yes, I read the whole article and saw his incredibly weak justification for introducing the law.)

P.S. Many peoples supposed "reasonable beliefs" are demonstrably irrational and false - your honor, I present as evidence: the State of Florida.

is based on zero evidence. I was part of the electronic lynching too. Trial by media, something Florida has a bad habit of lately, is too polite. Then I did some research. Based on this evidence, Zimmerman would walk under duty to retreat.

I don't disagree, but do you seriously think a person of color or a white person with a mohawk would get a fair trial under Duty to retreat? No, it was probably worse. That said, SYG is not relevant. In Zimmerman's case, it is either murder or justifiable under duty to retreat. Since he is not using a SYG defense, so far, it will not go to a SYG hearing. It will go to trial as murder. There all of the evidence will come out, and the state will have to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that it was not justifiable. Given Florida's sunshine laws, it could be on TV.

You and I know cops get away with crimes all of the time. Yes it was hypothetical, but you don't have the right to unlawful entry either.

...and this is why the Castle Doctrine and Stand Your Ground are totally antithetical to justice. They proscribe a presumption of innocence short before the question of reasonable doubt can even be broached. Fuck these laws and the NRA horse they rode in on - the solution to injustice is not more injustice!

Castle doctrine existed before the NRA. California has been a defacto SYG state for 110 years before Florida. Each castle doctrine law is different. Name one state that allows you to blow someone away for walking on your grass. Duty to retreat from your home, more or less giving a criminal the force of law, is antithetical to a civilized society.

Absolutely None. The idea that someone should have to run away from their own home to avoid shooting someone who violently enters their home is most assuredly injustice. If someone violently enters your home, you should be free to use deadly force.

The reason that people with your mindset have been losing over the last decades is that you and those like you apparently are more concerned about criminals getting their rights violated by the homeowner, than the homeowner getting their rights violated, or being injured.

post it on YouTube. With a "Judge Dredd" attitude like yours, I'm certain your results will be endless fodder for discussion for generations to come.

retreat from MY OWN HOME? If I'm in my home and someone comes in uninvited and I feel mine or my wife's life is in danger, I have every right to protect myself with deadly force despite your handwringing.

you have a valid point if, the trespasser broke into the garage while I am in the house and remains when the cops show up. However, invading the occupied home with ill intent, is quite different.

...so you have the right to go into it and shoot the person.

I can understand opposition to SYG or even carry altogether, but Castle Doctrine just seems like common sense. I work on merchant ships -- we have the legal and natural right to defend ourselves from pirates. We can spray them with firehoses, steer our ship into them to try and drown them, we can shoot them through with machine guns as they approach, or we can crush their skulls with fire axes, all because we can presume by their unauthorized entry that they intend to harm us. I cannot grasp why the right to repel boarders shouldn't be guaranteed in a person's home, and every portion thereof. We aren't obligated to wait until the pirates are on the bridge before we can counterattack.

Not even Florida's does if you read it closely. Wyoming's specifically does not.

If home owner confronts intruder, intruder attacks, legal occupant fires. That is legitimate anywhere. You are saying Castle Doctrine allows you to open fire through the window for no reason. It does not, just like SYG does not allow vigilantism. That is some bullshit written by bloggers who dislike the laws and never bothered to look them up.
Everything you read in Think Progress and Crooks and Liars on the issue is wrong.
Iverglas used to insist that Florida law allowed you to kill a stray ten year old sleeping on your couch. I proved her wrong.

Castle Doctrine simply means no duty to retreat in your home. Canada is mostly castle doctrine. Such DTR was unique to the US.

And I still think it's a BS law. Do you really think there's a jury ANYWHERE in the US who would find a person guilty against defending his family against a cop who was acting on ANY of the examples given as justifications?

Those are ridiculous scenarios, and this is a ridiculous law.

My initial reaction was "no shit, no one is above the law and proper behavior." Looking at it after some coffee, I am more ambivalent. I'm about was the rape scenario a logical extension or bullshit. That is a lawyer thing. I see your valid point about it being absurd and a solution in search of a problem. I get that ellisonz finds it too uncivilized and crazies and terrorists will use it to declare open season. A reasonable concern perhaps. I don't picture juries buying it. It could be a solution in search of a problem. Do I think a jury would? Depends on how many are willing to nullify. I would like to think that you are correct, but who knows. I try not to base too much on one short article. Don't always succeed, but I try.
The ironic thing is that Republicans in general and conservatives more so tend to put the power of the state and their functionaries above the individual. It is backwards in this case. In police brutality cases, who is usually defending the cops? Not us.
What I don't get is what does the NRA care? Is the NRA really backing it or is it the pol's idea and it has been standard to write "NRA backed".
here is another take on it. Please note, I did my best to check out liveleak to make sure it was not some crazy asshole site. If I failed, please let me know.
http://www.liveleak.com/view?i=45d_1327239522

Other than the possibility of the NRA "backing" the law, they didn't seem to have much to do with it. The inflammatory headline caused me to take the rest of the article with a grain of salt, but I still can't come up with a justification where it makes sense to me to say, "it's ok to shoot a cop under the following circumstances."

I believe that 1) if you're ever in such a dire situation that that seems like a good idea, you're really not gonna give a damn about the law at that point, and 2) if it ever came to a jury and they found that you shot a cop to stop him from raping someone, you probably don't have anything to worry about.

way back machine and see what happens to people who shoot at cops, it all happened at a place called Waco. This is a no win law for the civilian. First of all cops rarely show up by themselves so you will be engaging multiple targets. You will also be shooting at someone wearing a bullet proof vest, carrying pepper spray, a tazer and probably a back up gun. More importantly that after the first shot is fired a call for assistance will go out and in about 5 minutes you are going to have about 25 cops at your location with guns drawn. I looked at this from the mechanics side of it, not the legal. It is unlikely that you are going to survive the engagement so you won't be going to court. Go ahead and shoot at the cops if you want to but I would advise against it.

I am not sure what the NRA is doing except causing more friction between law enforcement and civilians. This is going to make the cops more nervous then they already are and they are nervous enough already. Shame on the NRA for backing this and shame on the legislators that would make it law. Just one more reason I am no longer an NRA member.

to give cops, pause, before doing something like this asshole describes:

CROWN POINT, Ind. – According to Newton County Sheriff, Don Hartman Sr., random house to house searches are now possible and could be helpful following the Barnes v. STATE of INDIANA Supreme Court ruling issued on May 12th, 2011. When asked three separate times due to the astounding callousness as it relates to trampling the inherent natural rights of Americans, he emphatically indicated that he would use random house to house checks, adding he felt people will welcome random searches if it means capturing a criminal.
http://smargus.com/indiana-sheriff-if-we-need-to-conduct-random-house-to-house-searches-we-will/

From the perspective of slowing down, sheriff ,"random house check" Hartman, i see no problem at all with this law, and think it's absolutely appropriate.

say I see the problems we have with law enforcement today. We have let the genie out of the bottle and now we can't get him back in. I just think that having a law allowing people to shoot at the cops is a bad idea. There is a problem between civilians and law enforcement and I think a law like this just aggravates the situation.

The issues we have between L/E and civilians is complicated. Cops tend to use too much force, they are arrogant, pushy and rude. Of course civilians don't obey the law, are disrespectful, rude and uncooperative...what are you going to do? We have given L/E too long a leash for a long time and now it's out of control. Not all cops are bad but there are some serious attitudes out there.

This IS a nation of laws. If they are "arrogant, pushy, and rude," there are other recourses. Guns just aren't the answer, unless of course, you happen to be an organization (here unnamed) that is a major front for gun manufacturers and sellers--then, by all means (and I mean ALL means), push the guns.

Amend that title before a jury does it for you.

"Doofus" is an acceptable term you can use when referring to another DUer.



edited for spelling.

Last edited Thu Jun 7, 2012, 05:06 PM - Edit history (3)

As much as anything else, I think this would deter unnecessary "no-knock raids" where police have gotten the wrong house, outright fabricated supporting evidence, failed to identify themselves, and behaved like pillagers in the homes of innocent people. If a gang of thugs wearing "police" ballcaps (which can be purchased without credentials) burst into my home unannounced, you can bet deadly force is on my plate. There is no case where it would protect an Indianan who simply shoots a cop because he doesn't like getting busted, or doesn't want to go to jail.

It sort of reminds me of 4th Amendment protections and technical acquittals. Our system isn't designed to dismiss illegally-obtained evidence because we want guilty people to go free -- it's designed that way because we don't want to reward prosecutors and officers who obtain and use dirty evidence. This law isn't designed to let aggressive cop-killers off the hook (and it wouldn't) -- it's designed to prevent LEOs from considering their badge a license to commit violent crimes against innocent people without the risk of being dealt with as a criminal.

don't call me doofus and secondly did you read my posts? I am against the law, I don't believe we should be shooting at cops. Maybe you responded to the wrong post.

If someone shoots him as he is merely walking up to the car during a lawful traffic stop, and they claim protection under an anti-intrusion law... they are LYING. The law was not designed to protect such actions. The officer was behaving normally during a traffic citation and there were no grounds for reasonable fear of unlawful intrusion or harm. If they get away with murder via anti-intrusion laws by LYING the problem is not the law they misused as a safehaven... it's that they lied to cover up the truth.

The person could just as easily lie by saying the cop tried to abduct and rape them. It's no different than the OP article in that they have untruthfully claimed the officer was acting in a manner which which the law warrants lethal defense. This doesn't mean that laws against sexual assault are safe havens for criminal actions and should be repealed... it just means that people lie. Dishonesty is the problem here - not NRA backed legislation.

Furthermore, the law only specified the use of deadly force in self-defense against unlawful police action. It doesn't say "guns" or "shooting" anywhere. This is not a "2A" issue as there are many numbers of ways to defend yourself without the use of a gun.

It's disgusting that you're openly supporting a pro-authoritarian police-state stance on a liberal discussion forum and unabashedly parroting a story from a Republican media website. Why do you hate civil liberties, ellisonz? I shouldn't be surprised... I guess this behavior is typical of anti-gun extremists.

That seems odd.






edit; is scared to death on the street. = is scared of his shadow.

Or any public service officer??

or death, would you allow the use of deadly force to defend against that crime? And if yes, are you "giving permission to shoot a cop"?

I haven't read the Indiana law so my comments are general, and as I said in the other thread I'm ambivalent, but it's at least as silly to paint this as 'permitting one to shoot an annoying cop' as it is to imagine that there are no risks of negative consequences...