I’m going to clear this up right at the beginning because I can already see the comments being furiously typed: I am against shooting police officers. I am also against the initiation of force, and believe people must be allowed to protect themselves when someone unrightfully initiates force against them. Furthermore I don’t believe that anyone in a civilized society should be “above the law” or have special privileges. So if someone breaks into your home, I believe it is completely just to be able to shoot the intruder, since you do not know their intentions and have got to assume the worst if they are breaking in while the home owner is present. For this reason I see no difference between shooting an unlawful intruder in jeans, or an unlawful intruder with a blue suit and a badge.
The supreme court of Indiana seemed to think there was a difference between people unlawfully intruding into homes. For some reason, the court ruled that a person is not allowed to fight back against a police officer acting illegally. Again, I’m not the type to think its okay for a particular person or group of people to get special treatment, especially when that treatment puts other people’s lives and property in danger. What is the problem with police officers having a warrant before entering a home?
That is required by the Constitution under the Fourth Amendment in the Bill of Rights that protects individuals from oppressive government. This law just clarifies what everyone who believes individuals have rights already knew: that the Second amendment gives all the other amendments teeth. What’s the point of having the right against unreasonable search and seizure, and the requirement of law enforcement to have a warrant before entering your home, if you don’t have the same rights to refuse a government official entry as any other unlawful intruder?
Indiana passed a law that allows people to shoot a police officer unlawfully entering their home, the same rights that were already on the book allowing people to shoot any other intruder into their home. This changes nothing. You are still not allowed to shoot cops. You are allowed to shoot criminals entering your home. When a police officer enters your home by force without a warrant, he is committing a crime. Why should your right to protect yourself be contingent on who the offender is? It shouldn’t, and now in Indiana, it isn’t.
“There are bad legislators,” the law’s author, State Senator R. Michael Young (R) tells Bloomberg News. “There are bad clergy, bad doctors, bad teachers, and it’s these officers that we’re concerned about that when they act outside their scope and duty that the individual ought to have a right to protect themselves.”
Governor Daniels agrees with the senator in a statement offered through his office, and notes that the law is only being established to cover rare incidents of police abuse that can escape the system without reprimand for officers or other persons that break the law to gain entry.
“In the real world, there will almost never be a situation in which these extremely narrow conditions are met,” Daniels says. “This law is not an invitation to use violence or force against law enforcement officers.”
Law enforcement from the state on the other hand have said they believe “Somebody is going get away with killing a cop because of this law.” The only possibility of someone getting away with killing a cop under this law, is if the cop is acting in an illegal manner in the same way that could get any one of us killed. Any police officer that does not violate people’s rights should not be bothered by this law, as it will not affect them.
This is nipping a problem in the bud. There are not very many cases, relatively speaking, especially in Indiana, where police officers unlawfully enter a home. But now there is legal recourse to protect your home against any initiation of force–the very reason for much of the Bill of Rights, designed specifically to keep government officials from abusing their power. With great power comes great responsibility, so it only makes sense that shirking that responsibility should yield the same results as it would yield a criminal who doesn’t happen to have a badge.
Furthermore, every person who owns a uniform and a badge is not really a police officer. Less than a month ago in LA 3 home invaders posed as police officers to gain entry into a home with 2 women and three children, some of whom were tied up before the house was ransacked. For this reason, any police officer entering a home forcefully without a warrant should be assumed to be just as dangerous as a home invader in a ski mask. The reason this tactic currently works is because people are afraid not to comply with police orders. That’s why this legislation is important, to ensure that people have the tools they need to fight back against home invaders, whether they are posing as police or are actual police without warrants.
[On a side note, another home invasion listed in the article involved robbers fleeing without stealing anything or hurting anyone when the home owner fired at them with his handgun. In contrast ““America Next Top Model” director James Marcus Howe, 42, was fatally shot during a home invasion after a gunman knocked at his door posing as a solicitor, LAPD officials said.” Furthermore, most of the home invasions involved multiple suspects, another reason why a person might need more than ten rounds in a magazine, or a more powerful and accurate firearm to protect themselves, their family, and their property. This adds to the anecdotal evidence that supports the quantitative evidence in the CDC report that found guns are used more often (and effectively) in self defense than in crimes.]
This new law just keeps honest men honest. Anyone who believes in the benefits of individual freedom, natural rights, and the protections in the Bill of Rights should be thrilled by Indiana’s most recent development in protecting individuals from government overreach.