# Stuff and Things > Guns and Self Defense >  Its Now LEGAL to SHOOT POLICE in Indiana if you believe.......

## St James

Indiana Supreme Court ruled last year that the 4th Amendmentto the State Constitution was outdated and invalid and suspended it. However,with intense pressure from us, this is the result:
Published on Jun 12, 2012 
Its Now LEGAL to SHOOT POLICE in Indiana if you believe TheCop Is Unlawfully Entering Your Home!

----------


## The XL

Good stuff Indiana.

----------

St James (07-08-2013)

----------


## Trinnity

Oh lordy....the first incident is gonna be a - game changer. BTW, why should police be exempt from being shot for HOME INVASION??? Is this gonna exacerbate the friction between police and the public? I wonder.

----------


## The XL

> Oh lordy....the first incident is gonna be a - game changer. BTW, why should police be exempt from being shot for HOME INVASION??? Is this gonna exacerbate the friction between police and the public? I wonder.


Cops are thugs.  I'm sorry, I said it.  My dad was a detective.  I have many family members who are cops.  I still don't give a shit, and will call it like I see it.

When your superior tells you to invade someones home for a non violent drug bust/you invade without a warrant or probable cause, you're a criminal.  End of.

----------

Gemini (07-29-2013),St James (07-08-2013)

----------


## Trinnity

> Cops are thugs.  I'm sorry, I said it.  My dad was a detective.  I have many family members who are cops.  I still don't give a shit, and will call it like I see it.
> 
> When your superior tells you to invade someones home for a non violent drug bust/you invade without a warrant or probable cause, you're a criminal.  End of.


You. Are. Right.

----------

St James (07-08-2013),The XL (07-08-2013)

----------


## Trinnity

"amendment to the castle doctrine law" 

Listen to the viddy....very informative.

----------

St James (07-08-2013)

----------


## gamewell45

I see the potential for unnecessary deaths and/or inujuries on both sides from this law.

----------


## St James

only if the cops are in the wrong. If they are in the right, then it is no problem. There's an old saying, those who live by the sword, shall perish by the sword. You put on a badge, there is a certain amount of risk. That being said, we know from past experience, through news, that LEO aren't the fucking angels they are painted. They are foul mouthed fuckwads The good ones let the bad ones get away with murder, then testify on the bad cops behalf. Got no use for stinkin' LEO or their dick suckin buds............bullies with a gun. That worries me more than the fucking terrorists

----------

Gemini (07-29-2013)

----------


## patrickt

> only if the cops are in the wrong. If they are in the right, then it is no problem. There's an old saying, those who live by the sword, shall perish by the sword. You put on a badge, there is a certain amount of risk. That being said, we know from past experience, through news, that LEO aren't the fucking angels they are painted. They are foul mouthed fuckwads The good ones let the bad ones get away with murder, then testify on the bad cops behalf. Got no use for stinkin' LEO or their dick suckin buds............bullies with a gun. That worries me more than the fucking terrorists


Sorry, but if the cop is in the right he's still dead.

Does this mean people like XL can shoot firemen, too, or is it just limited to father-figures you hate? How about paramedics? Can you shoot them for coming in your house, too? 

St.James: "They are foul mouthed fuckwads The good ones let the bad ones get away with murder, then testify on the bad cops behalf. Got no use for stinkin' LEO or their dick suckin buds............bullies with a gun. That worries me more than the fucking terrorists"

Pure class, St.James.

----------


## St James

I've had my share of incidences with LEO. They are pigs. They arrest you for announcing your Rights, they murder children and try to cover it up, they pick on old people, handicapped, and gang up 20 on one. I got no use for street thugs or legalized gangsters. Back in the day, we had peace officers. You didn't get harassed or arrested for sitting on your porch with an icy cold one. They didn't kick your door in by mistake, and they weren't the trigger happy fuckwads as we have today. Peace officers respected the Constitution. You still have peace officers today, they're just a rare find.

----------


## The XL

> Sorry, but if the cop is in the right he's still dead.
> 
> Does this mean people like XL can shoot firemen, too, or is it just limited to father-figures you hate? How about paramedics? Can you shoot them for coming in your house, too? 
> 
> St.James: "They are foul mouthed fuckwads The good ones let the bad ones get away with murder, then testify on the bad cops behalf. Got no use for stinkin' LEO or their dick suckin buds............bullies with a gun. That worries me more than the fucking terrorists"
> 
> Pure class, St.James.


Are the firemen or paramedics hellbent on infringing on peoples liberties for "drug crimes" and the like?

What about all of those times the cops are on the wrong?  Do you care about those numerous instances?  Don't you cops have enough protections?  Hell, you're the only ones with protection, the citizen has none.

Get real.

----------


## patrickt

Still, pure class dressed up with nonsense.

----------

Belazure (07-25-2013)

----------


## The XL

> Still, pure class dressed up with nonsense.


Anyone who decides to become a police officer has agreed to enforce "laws" that are both Unconstitutional and a violation of natural rights.

Point being, anyone who decides to become an officer has essentially decided to become a criminal who has the protection of the government.

----------

St James (07-09-2013)

----------


## BleedingHeadKen

> Sorry, but if the cop is in the right he's still dead.


And, if he's in the wrong, the person acting in self-defense won't be put in prison for shooting an intruder.

----------

St James (07-09-2013)

----------


## patrickt

> And, if he's in the wrong, the person acting in self-defense won't be put in prison for shooting an intruder.


That's true and well said.

----------


## Anders Hoveland

Resist police at your own peril. A jury will decide whether you were in the right or wrong.

----------


## Calypso Jones

So now we're turning americans against the Cops. ANOTHER division introduced by this damned administration. Look at this lovely little piece

http://www.breitbart.com/Big-Governm...-Of-These-Kids

Illinois state rep says that maybe the cops are killing those Chicago kids.

Do you see what this administration is doing??!!

----------


## patrickt

This is what she said. 

"Davis, a House member from Chicago's South Side district, uttered the accusation on Detroit's WCHB-AM radio on July 16."I’m going to tell you what some suspicions have been, and people have whispered to me: they’re not sure that black people are shooting all of these children," Davis told the Detroit radio audience.


She continued saying, "There’s some suspicion -- and I don't want to spread this, but I'm just going to tell you what I've been hearing -- they suspect maybe the police are killing some of these kids."
One reason "there's some suspicion," Davis said, is because there have been few arrests for the dozens of murders perpetrated on the streets of the city. Lack of arrests leads Davis to believe police are the actual killers because there are no perpetrators being fingered. Once word got back to Chicago that Davis was making these accusations, Chicago's WBBM-AM radio tracked her down to ask if she stood by those claims."

No, I don't want to spread this so I will say it on the radio. Another ally of Barack Obama.

----------


## patrickt

> Oh lordy....the first incident is gonna be a - game changer. BTW, why should police be exempt from being shot for HOME INVASION??? Is this gonna exacerbate the friction between police and the public? I wonder.


As it's presented it isn't in a home invasion. It's where someone "believes" it's a home invasion. Good luck for all concerned.

----------

Belazure (07-25-2013)

----------


## President Peanut

Let me tell you all a story. I have horses. In the past, I had up to 20 horses, about 6 of those were rescues from abuse and neglect cases the President of the Indiana Board of Animal Health [BOAH] (a friend and fellow horse lover) asked me to take on. In Indiana, NO law enforcement agency--from local cop to state cop--has any, again that is ANY, authority over livestock or animal abuse cases. By law, this is what must happen in a suspected abuse/neglect of animal case: 

1.) Law enforcement will respond. If inside of a city/town with law enforcement (marshalls excluded), they respond. Outside of a town/city with their own police force, the county sheriff office has jurisdiction. NO OTHER LAW ENFORCEMENT AGENCIES HAVE THIS DUTY. 
2.) Upon arrival, if the officer/deputy suspect's neglect he is required to call an outside agency to verify that such neglect/abuse exists, depending on the type of animal. For traditional, non-livestock/agriculture pets this would be the county human society or private organization that has been approved via the BOAH. For agriculture/livestock, the only authority authorized to make a determination of abuse/neglect is the BOAH, who will send a vet out to conduct a physical of the animal and surroundings. 
3.) For livestock, the BOAH finds that neglect/abuse exists, they notify law enforcement who request a warrant for seizure. In the meantime, voluntary transfer of custody is requested of the owner. If they refuse, both BOAH and law enforcement are REQUIRED to leave until a warrant for seizure is granted. 

Now, this is a very basic set-up. So, I had about 6 of these rescue horses, taken on from the BOAH. Long story short, there was a lady in my area known for calling the sheriff on anyone with horses for any number of reasons from she couldn't *see* hay, abuse, no water, the horses are "too skinny in her opinion", etc. The majority are ridiculous claims and law enforcement is required to reply none the less. 

One day, the sheriff sent a deputy to my farm for neglect, concerning the 6 rescues. I was polite, shook his hand, etc. as I knew most of the deputies and my family paid the campaign for the sheriff. To say the least, we were all more than aquainted, but none had ever been inside my home. As soon as he arrived, however, he immediately began questioning me as to why I had not given proper care to the horses, where my feed was, what I fed them, when the last vet called was, etc. I told him the situation with the horses; he didn't care and proceeded to go towards my barn, which was shut up. I then told him what he was required to do, since he suspected neglect, and that he needed to contact a supervisor and the BOAH, and then gave him the President's number. He refused and continued towards the barn. I told him to leave the property or present a warrant. He decided stated he didn't need one for a neglect call and was going to conduct a "health and welfare check" of the property and home, as I have children. My blood boiled, but told the wife to go inside, lock the doors and let NO ONE in. The barn was already locked. I called the BOAH president, who lived about 2 miles up the road from me and came over. A supervisor showed up, and the situation was resolved. 

The point of this story is only to illustrate the importance of knowing the law as a citizen and both some good and bad ways to deal with over-zealous cops. The deputy is no longer employed as a LEO, but his intentions were to illegally enter my barn and, with his statement of health and welfare, my home. A bit long winded, but I think  this shows the importance of our local cops knowing the law and the limitations of their own conduct. In addition, there are several things he could have done differently, such as attitude and simply asking what was up with the horses, hey I received a call and am required to investigate it, etc. The BOAH has a list of questions they recommend an officer ask when responding to such calls. I know this story is more localized than it is applicable to a whole of this thread, but that was my incident in which I would have been placed in tough position under the doctrine this law is establishing. Sorry for the long tale!

----------

Gemini (07-29-2013),St James (07-25-2013)

----------


## St James

there still remains a small sense of right and wrong here in Indiana, but it is disappearing quick as the cops acquire more power and authority

----------


## patrickt

Sorry, StJames, but your grasp of "right and wrong" is bizarre.

----------

Belazure (07-25-2013)

----------


## President Peanut

No, stjames is right. A cop is not special because of his enforcement of the law. In fact, he should be held to an even higher standard, after the countless hours of training on the law of the state and federal as well as basic Constitutional law. Just because they hold authority does not give them exemptions to the United States Constitution. No one is higher than that document, except Jesus.

----------


## Belazure

> Good stuff Indiana.


Not really, police tend to come in groups, and often wearing body armor. And if a cop feels that their life is threatened, then hopefully they'll be protected when they fire back with much greater lethality, under Indiana's stand your ground laws.

So it goes both ways, as it should. Maybe we'll get lucky and this will just lead to some dead tin-foil hatters.

----------


## Belazure

> No, stjames is right. A cop is not special because of his enforcement of the law. In fact, he should be held to an even higher standard, after the countless hours of training on the law of the state and federal as well as basic Constitutional law. Just because they hold authority does not give them exemptions to the United States Constitution. No one is higher than that document, except Jesus.


You've missed the point entirely. The intent of 'justifiable homicide' is to prevent a danger to your life. If an average person breaks into your home, then that is a credible threat to your life. If a police offer enters your home illegally, then that is not a credible threat against your life. Unless you have a credible reason to believe that your life is in danger by a police officer (ex. an officer attempts to rape you), then shooting them is not justified. If they overstepped their authority, then they should be fired. People who fantasize about shooting someone who isn't a direct threat to their life are at best idiots, at worst psychopaths. The use of lethal force has to be proportionate to the situation at hand.




> No one is higher than that document, except Jesus.


People who think like you do is the reason that "the Constitution" is often mentally associated with terrorists and fringe groups. You do more damage to the document than anyone else in America.

----------


## Belazure

> Oh lordy....the first incident is gonna be a - game changer. BTW, why should police be exempt from being shot for HOME INVASION???


Because it isn't 'home invasion', unless the individual really believes the officer(s) intends to rob, rape, or kill him or his family. In general even when an officer overstepps their authority, there isn't grounds to assume a credible threat to your life, which is what the intent of 'justifiable homicide is'.




> Is this gonna exacerbate the friction between police and the public? I wonder.


If anything, the cops will just make sure to don Kelvar vests, and possibly lead to a few deranged people being killed when the cops return fire - which would be justifiable homicide under Indiana's stand your ground laws.

If some nut with no GED tries to open fire on a cop just because "he believes" they lack a warrant, then the homicide is justified, since he has proven himself a credible threat to the cop's life.

----------


## Belazure

> Anyone who decides to become a police officer has agreed to enforce "laws" that are both Unconstitutional and a violation of natural rights.


By your own standard then, anyone who enlists in the military is a murdering psychopath who kills children for the benefit of corporations  - you just don't have the balls to say it outright. This is why you side with group likes Code Pink and the Marxist ANSWER Coalition - you should just come out of the closet and openly admit that you hate America, and the military, and the Constitution for that matter (the real one, not the fictional one that exists only in their salvia-induced imaginations).




> Point being, anyone who decides to become an officer has essentially decided to become a criminal who has the protection of the government.


Says the twit who'd be the first to ring up 911 if he thought he or his family's life is in danger :lol:

And libertarians wonder why so many consider them anti-American traitors. If the "Constitution" really meant any of the nonsense that fringe libertarians say it does, we'd be better off burning it. Thankfully, if the founders were alive today though, they'd hang their heads in shame at them.

----------


## Belazure

> And, if he's in the wrong, the person acting in self-defense won't be put in prison for shooting an intruder.


Nor would the cops acting in self-defense, when they return fire- justifiable homicide.

----------


## The XL

> Not really, police tend to come in groups, and often wearing body armor. And if a cop feels that their life is threatened, then hopefully they'll be protected when they fire back with much greater lethality, under Indiana's stand your ground laws.
> 
> So it goes both ways, as it should. Maybe we'll get lucky and this will just lead to some dead tin-foil hatters.


Nothing tin foil worthy about defending yourself from police brutality.

----------


## St James

> Not really, police tend to come in groups, and often wearing body armor. And if a cop feels that their life is threatened, then hopefully they'll be protected when they fire back with much greater lethality, under Indiana's stand your ground laws.
> 
> So it goes both ways, as it should. Maybe we'll get lucky and this will just lead to some dead tin-foil hatters.


What you fail to grasp is that there is no stand you ground law in Indiana. We have the 4th Amendment intact. Hardly some bull shit law made up law by you.
If they come in without a warrant on a search without witnessing a crime, it is an illegal entry.
You're awfully self-serving for a fucking commie....................

----------


## Belazure

> Nothing tin foil worthy about defending yourself from police brutality.


Entering a home illegally isn't automatically 'police brutality' - again it'd have to be a credible threat to your life. If not then the police would be legally justified in shooting you back in self-defense

----------


## Belazure

> What you fail to grasp is that there is no stand you ground law in Indiana.


Yeah there is:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stand-your-ground_law




> We have the 4th Amendment intact. Hardly some bull shit law made up law by you.
> If they come in without a warrant on a search without witnessing a crime, it is an illegal entry.


Doesn't matter - whether the entry's legal or not, use of lethal force has to be in retaliation to a credible threat on your life - which would not be the case in the vast majority of these situations involving cops. If not then the cops are justified in firing back in self-defense, as they should.




> You're awfully self-serving for a fucking commie....................


Since when did supporting anarchism become "conservative"? I'm more right-wing than you are

----------


## St James

tis murder, then, without a warrant.  They don't have the Right to enter a dwelling just because.....
Hey, if you are a communist, you have no Right to Free Speech. There is no individualism allowed from the Party. all hail Biotch's Police State.   :Smiley ROFLMAO: 
I bet you think you're entitled to everything and everything should be free...............

----------


## St James

> Yeah there is:
> 
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stand-your-ground_law
> 
> 
> Doesn't matter - whether the entry's legal or not, use of lethal force has to be in retaliation to a credible threat on your life - which would not be the case in the vast majority of these situations involving cops. If not then the cops are justified in firing back in self-defense, as they should.
> 
> 
> Since when did supporting anarchism become "conservative"? I'm more right-wing than you are


oh, so you're a tyrant in waiting.................. and fuck your "wing" bullshit, Squealor

----------


## Belazure

> tis murder, then, without a warrant.  They don't have the Right to enter a dwelling just because.....


Point moot - justifiable use of lethal force has to be in response to a credible threat on your life. A cop or cops mistakenly entering your home isn't a credible threat on your life. Not very often that a cop or cops on patrol enter someone's home, and just decide on the spot to kill/rape/rob them and their family.




> Hey, if you are a communist, you have no Right to Free Speech. There is no individualism allowed from the Party. all hail Biotch's Police State.


What a bunch of uniformed bunk




> I bet you think you're entitled to everything and everything should be free...............


No I just call out seditionist views when I see it.

----------


## Belazure

> oh, so you're a tyrant in waiting.................. and fuck your "wing" bullshit, Squealor


More bunk. Force has to be justified. If lethal force is used on a non-lethal scenario, it is excessive force, therefore the cop would be the victim, and be justified in defending himself with lethal force.

The sane solution is to fire cops who ignorantly overstep their boundaries. Unless a cop is actually attempting to rape/rob/kill you or your family, then they aren't a 'credible threat' to your life, and lethal force isn't justified (and if the cop literally was attempting to take your life, then you would already be justified in defending yourself - if a cop is attempting murder, rape, etc then they don't get a free pass just because "they're a cop").

This is just an anarchist's wet dream.

----------


## St James

> Still, pure class dressed up with nonsense.


I've started a new thread based on the advancement of the Police State............

http://thepoliticsforums.com/threads...d-Their-Abuses

There are some many examples of police brutality..............shit, dude, there's thousands of examples of police over-stepping their bounds.

http://www.ksdk.com/news/local/story...storyid=202219

What the fuck is nonsense about murdering a 7 year old lying on a couch?

----------


## St James

> I see the potential for unnecessary deaths and/or inujuries on both sides from this law.


there are so many unnecessary deaths already being committed by cops............it has come down to a matter of survival for the average citizen

----------


## President Peanut

> You've missed the point entirely. The intent of 'justifiable homicide' is to prevent a danger to your life. If an average person breaks into your home, then that is a credible threat to your life. If a police offer enters your home illegally, then that is not a credible threat against your life. Unless you have a credible reason to believe that your life is in danger by a police officer (ex. an officer attempts to rape you), then shooting them is not justified. If they overstepped their authority, then they should be fired. People who fantasize about shooting someone who isn't a direct threat to their life are at best idiots, at worst psychopaths. The use of lethal force has to be proportionate to the situation at hand.
> 
> 
> People who think like you do is the reason that "the Constitution" is often mentally associated with terrorists and fringe groups. You do more damage to the document than anyone else in America.


So a cop is automatically granted a free pass because he is a cop? "Justifiable homicide" has also been proven in cases where an individual protects their property. A cop is an individual. One that would voluntarily break the Constitution is nothing more than a criminal in uniform. As for the Jesus comment, it was a joke numb-nuts. Calm the fuck down. Oh, and try to not lump people into groups. You know jack diddly about me. I have protected and served the United States and protected the Constitution, which is a shit ton more than 90% of the liberals I know, including your limp dick excuse of a President. So kindly fuck off!

----------


## Dan40

> Cops are thugs.  I'm sorry, I said it.  My dad was a detective.  I have many family members who are cops.  I still don't give a shit, and will call it like I see it.
> 
> When your superior tells you to invade someones home for a non violent drug bust/you invade without a warrant or probable cause, you're a criminal.  End of.


No such thing as a non-violent drug bust.  Selling drugs is a violent crime.  People die from drugs.  People's lives are ruined by drugs.  People become slaves to drugs.  How much more violent do you need?

----------


## Roadmaster

> More bunk. Force has to be justified. If lethal force is used on a non-lethal scenario, it is excessive force, therefore the cop would be the victim, and be justified in defending himself with lethal force.
> 
> The sane solution is to fire cops who ignorantly overstep their boundaries. Unless a cop is actually attempting to rape/rob/kill you or your family, then they aren't a 'credible threat' to your life, and lethal force isn't justified (and if the cop literally was attempting to take your life, then you would already be justified in defending yourself - if a cop is attempting murder, rape, etc then they don't get a free pass just because "they're a cop").
> 
> This is just an anarchist's wet dream.


They have came in and shot people at the wrong address before. If they don't have a warrant and someone is in my house late at night, they will get shot or  attacked by dogs. Most don't come in without their guns out.

----------


## Belazure

> They have came in and shot people at the wrong address before.


Accidents happen, what's your point? If they shoot first whether accident or not, you have a right to shoot in self-defense.




> If they don't have a warrant and someone is in my house late at night, they will get shot or  attacked by dogs. Most don't come in without their guns out.


If they don't have a warrant and they walk in unannounced in the middle of the night and get shot, then that's their bad luck it wouldn't be your fault. But that's not the intent of this law. I think the law was just passed to 'make a point'.

And I don't understand why so many 'conservatives' are jumping on the OWS bandwagon and demonizing the entire law enforcement profession, or pretending like locally-hired/elected law enforcement officials are somehow all 'govt cronies of Obama'. It's stupid.

----------


## President Peanut

> Accidents happen, what's your point? If they shoot first whether accident or not, you have a right to shoot in self-defense.
> 
> 
> If they don't have a warrant and they walk in unannounced in the middle of the night and get shot, then that's their bad luck it wouldn't be your fault. But that's not the intent of this law. I think the law was just passed to 'make a point'.
> 
> And I don't understand why so many 'conservatives' are jumping on the OWS bandwagon and demonizing the entire law enforcement profession, or pretending like locally-hired/elected law enforcement officials are somehow all 'govt cronies of Obama'. It's stupid.


 @Belazure:

I don't think all conservatives are doing that. I know I for one said I have faith and trust in my local departments, despite the incident with one deputy. I used it as an example of how quickly power can go to their head. Most cops are good guys and do their job right; it is that 5% threshold that make everyone else look bad, the Rodney Kings of the group. 

Yes, this overturning of law is to make a point and a damn good one. Law enforcement must exercise caution and be absolutely certain they follow procedure, local, state, and federal laws to a T, but most importantly that every action is in accordance with the United States Constitution that every single member of law enforcement, from the sole town marshall to the Director of the FBI, has sworn to uphold and protect. THAT is why Indiana has made this statement. Merely being a cop does not in any way, shape, or form negate your duty to the Constitution nor does it grant you super powers. This sends a clear message to law enforcement that oppression can be met with force and you are damn straight people will prevent unlawful entry into their homes from law enforcement just the same as they would a stranger.

----------

Belazure (07-30-2013)

----------

