Page 2 of 11 FirstFirst 1234 ... LastLast
Results 11 to 20 of 110

Thread: Indiana House approves bill covering police entering homes.

  1. #11
    Join Date
    Feb 2008
    Location
    Somewhere between Nevada and Colorado
    Posts
    1,008
    Feedback Score
    0
    I see the arguement here, and agree to a point.

    But this is assuming that everybody the police encounters is a rational person.

    It seems like this is the same logic as posted "Gun Free Zones". Obviously, the rational law-abiding citizen will obey, while criminals will not.

    I can already see the loud drunk having an argument with his wife inside his home, techinically not illegal. It gets loud and neighbors call police reporting a "Domestic Violence" situation. Now officers, by law, are required to invetigate to determine if a DV crime has been committed. Sometimes these can be solved merely by telling Drunky Bob to be quiet, sleep it off and you are done.

    But now, Drunky Bob knows he has done nothing wrong besides being a drunk asshole. Upset because the neighbors don't mind thier own business and the "cops have no right" to be at his home, he decides to let the police know about it..

    You see where I am going. There are no easy answers to this one.

  2. #12
    Join Date
    Oct 2008
    Location
    Southern Indiana
    Posts
    4,354
    Feedback Score
    64 (98%)
    Quote Originally Posted by Oscar 319 View Post
    I see the arguement here, and agree to a point.

    But this is assuming that everybody the police encounters is a rational person.

    It seems like this is the same logic as posted "Gun Free Zones". Obviously, the rational law-abiding citizen will obey, while criminals will not.

    I can already see the loud drunk having an argument with his wife inside his home, techinically not illegal. It gets loud and neighbors call police reporting a "Domestic Violence" situation. Now officers, by law, are required to invetigate to determine if a DV crime has been committed. Sometimes these can be solved merely by telling Drunky Bob to be quiet, sleep it off and you are done.

    But now, Drunky Bob knows he has done nothing wrong besides being a drunk asshole. Upset because the neighbors don't mind thier own business and the "cops have no right" to be at his home, he decides to let the police know about it..

    You see where I am going. There are no easy answers to this one.
    Yeah but lets be honest. Drunk bob would probably do that anyway. It is kind of like saying that a Gun Free sign means there will be no guns. It only effects the good guys.

  3. #13
    Join Date
    Dec 2011
    Posts
    3,839
    Feedback Score
    10 (100%)
    Quote Originally Posted by kwelz View Post
    Yeah but lets be honest. Drunk bob would probably do that anyway. It is kind of like saying that a Gun Free sign means there will be no guns. It only effects the good guys.
    Drunk Bob may do that, he may not. No point in speculation.

    What this gives Drunk Bob is a "well I read on the news about this new law that said I can shoot cops if I believe they are in the wrong, and I believed they were in the wrong."

    Who wins here? Not our constitutional rights and not that police officer's family.

  4. #14
    Join Date
    Apr 2009
    Location
    Hillsboro, OR
    Posts
    505
    Feedback Score
    3 (100%)
    Our Officers have a very dangerous job. But they should sign up knowing that. "Officer Safety" needs to start taking a back seat to personal liberty. Our officers putting themselves in these dangerous situations is why we pay them so well.

    If it was supposed to be an easy job, we wouldn't honor them.

  5. #15
    Join Date
    Feb 2008
    Location
    Somewhere between Nevada and Colorado
    Posts
    1,008
    Feedback Score
    0
    Quote Originally Posted by Voodoo_Man View Post
    What this gives Drunk Bob is a "well I read on the news about this new law that said I can shoot cops if I believe they are in the wrong, and I believed they were in the wrong."
    This was my point.

  6. #16
    Join Date
    May 2008
    Location
    Colorado
    Posts
    17,381
    Feedback Score
    0
    Poorly written article in the OP. It never really says what the law is exactly, and it seems the devil is in the details.

    It does seem that the best way to deal with the SCoI ruling would be to go to SCotUS and get it overturned on 4th grounds?

    I understand LEOs concern, but charging homeowners with murder because a raid goes to the wrong house seems unfair.
    The Second Amendment ACKNOWLEDGES our right to own and bear arms that are in common use that can be used for lawful purposes. The arms can be restricted ONLY if subject to historical analogue from the founding era or is dangerous (unsafe) AND unusual.

    It's that simple.

  7. #17
    Join Date
    Dec 2011
    Posts
    3,839
    Feedback Score
    10 (100%)
    *sorry for the response tree*

    Quote Originally Posted by wake.joe View Post
    Our Officers have a very dangerous job. But they should sign up knowing that. "Officer Safety" needs to start taking a back seat to personal liberty. Our officers putting themselves in these dangerous situations is why we pay them so well.

    If it was supposed to be an easy job, we wouldn't honor them.
    Police officers did not take the job to get killed. The badge is not a death sentence.

    Quote Originally Posted by Oscar 319 View Post
    This was my point.
    Reiteration

    Quote Originally Posted by FromMyColdDeadHand View Post
    Poorly written article in the OP. It never really says what the law is exactly, and it seems the devil is in the details.

    It does seem that the best way to deal with the SCoI ruling would be to go to SCotUS and get it overturned on 4th grounds?

    I understand LEOs concern, but charging homeowners with murder because a raid goes to the wrong house seems unfair.
    Unfair to the homeowner who, hypothetically, shot and killed someone he had knew to be a police officer to a reasonable degree, or to the dead police officer?

  8. #18
    Join Date
    Oct 2008
    Location
    Southern Indiana
    Posts
    4,354
    Feedback Score
    64 (98%)
    Here is a bit better written article. Including the exceptions, etc.

    http://www.fox59.com/news/wxin-bill-...3183659.column

    One of the problems with the ISC ruling is that officers could do whatever they wanted. Literally under some interpretations and officer could,, while off duty, walk into your house if he wanted too. And if you resisted you went to jail.

    Also note that this isn't just about shooting an killing someone. It is about someone trying to force their way into your house and you stopping them.
    Last edited by kwelz; 03-04-12 at 22:31.

  9. #19
    Join Date
    Feb 2008
    Location
    Somewhere between Nevada and Colorado
    Posts
    1,008
    Feedback Score
    0
    Quote Originally Posted by wake.joe View Post
    Our Officers have a very dangerous job. But they should sign up knowing that. "Officer Safety" needs to start taking a back seat to personal liberty. Our officers putting themselves in these dangerous situations is why we pay them so well.

    If it was supposed to be an easy job, we wouldn't honor them.
    I appreciate your POV, but I almost choked when I saw this. Three of my co-workers were shot in 2011. We have not had a raise in 5 years. The majority of us, myself included, have part-time jobs and fight tooth and nail over OT. I do not work for a "podunk" agency. We face these risks because it is our duty. My primary duty is to come home safe to my wife and kids. Sometimes feelings may get hurt to accomplish this.

  10. #20
    Join Date
    May 2008
    Location
    Colorado
    Posts
    17,381
    Feedback Score
    0
    Quote Originally Posted by Voodoo_Man View Post


    Unfair to the homeowner who, hypothetically, shot and killed someone he had knew to be a police officer to a reasonable degree, or to the dead police officer?
    I just wrote a long, well reasoned response as to why your reasonable degree is an unreasonable risk to my family, liberty and life- but I don't think it would persuade you. Thanks for your service as a LEO, but it may be time for you try seeing things from a law abiding citizen's view. I think LEOs look at these things as if they are about to serve a warrant on a known drug dealer, and citizens see it as they, being totally innocent, get their home assaulted. That is two different viewpoints of two different scenarios being talked about as if they were one.
    The Second Amendment ACKNOWLEDGES our right to own and bear arms that are in common use that can be used for lawful purposes. The arms can be restricted ONLY if subject to historical analogue from the founding era or is dangerous (unsafe) AND unusual.

    It's that simple.

Page 2 of 11 FirstFirst 1234 ... LastLast

Bookmarks

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •