Indiana Law Gives Citizens Legal Right to Shoot Out-Of-Control Cops

Maybe this will kick up some heavy debate in the comments section…

Apparently the State of Indiana has passed a law allowing citizens to use deadly force against out of control officers of the state, including police officers, who unlawfully enter their home. This is a very touchy subject, especially for conservatives. Can we as law and order types agree that such a deadly force law is a good idea? Or should we defer to the police at every instance?

Well, I can’t speak for all conservatives, of course, but for me, I can’t agree with this law more.

Now, before you get all crazy about how I just don’t understand law “enforcement,” let me warn you that my father, a man I dearly love and respect, was in police work for most of his adult life. I am proud of his service. For the most part I respect and sympathize with our officers of the law. So,l et’s get beyond that.

So, while I most certainly sympathize with our law officials, I sympathize with our founders’ vision and the natural rights they invoked more than I do the expectation that officers of the law can act with impunity. That is why I put “enforcement” in quotes. Properly constituted our law officials don’t “enforce” anything. They really only investigate crime, they don’t and shouldn’t proactively try to “enforce” anything as that implies the power to stop something that has yet to occur.

Anyway, I rather feel that such a law as Indiana’s will temper the actions of our Ruby Ridge-prone law enforcement agencies forcing them to be far more sure than cocky when they arrive at the often necessary decision to forcibly enter a citizen’s home.

You see, much as I trust our policing agencies in many specific cases, there is increasingly no reason to trust them in general. With the increasing threat they pose to our rights to privacy, our freedom of movement, and our sacred property rights, well, let’s just say that we need a check on the apparently unchecked powers of the growing police state.

I know how that last bit sounds. It sounds tinfoil hat-worthy. But the fact is we are seeing policing agencies, most especially those of the federal government daily increasing their powers of coercion. Granted, I don’t blame the policing agencies. I blame our politicians. But it isn’t the politicians battering down our doors on their whim.

We are fast coming to a time when we can’t paint our homes the way we like, can’t put up a tool shed, or can’t erect a fence without the iron boot of the state coming down on your head. Not to mention be safe in our own homes from police battering rams.

I’m not going to bother with a dozen examples of the growth of the police state as they can be easily found on a million different websites from the most extreme and tinfoily, Alex Jonesist site to the Network News. The growth of the police state is undeniable, really, and I see no reason to try and chronicle it here in such little space to do it justice.

But what are we going to do about it? That is the real question.

The genius of the American system is its checks and balances, to be sure. Beyond that is the fact that we have a habit of swinging like a pendulum between times of peril and relative calm where our security polices are concerned. You can just look at history and see that when peril arrived at our collective doorstep we’ve swung toward a more secure state. It happened in the Civil War, WWI, WWII, Vietnam, and during the more recent War on Terror.

But in the valleys of that need for security, when wars were more distant and threats less virulent, we always swung back to that standard of liberty we all so cherish. But lately we’ve seen less back swing and more forward momentum toward the police state and that pendulum needs to be reversed back toward liberty once more.

A law like Indiana’s helps do this. It puts police on notice that they cannot just kick down any door they feel like kicking down and had better be awfully damn sure of themselves before employing their own deadly force.

… and before you ask, yes, I am sure my dad would be appalled at this article.

Finally, don’t go overboard and imagine that I am saying it should be open season on Cops, nor am I saying that cops should never be allowed to do their job and enter a home when it is truly necessary. Put your emotion in check, please, and listen to my argument. I am saying that as things stand, our law “enforcement” agencies have grown too used to acting with impunity and that attitude is what needs to be checked.

So count me as a fan of this new law and let us all hope that it is replicated across this overly policed society. It’s a much-needed check on “the man” and I welcome it.

Assoc. Press Now Pushing Anti-Scott Walker Story About… Beer?
Georgia: KKK Won't Be Allowed To Adopt A Highway
  • GarandFan

    You’ve got your head way up your anal orifice on this one.

    Some dumb cop “kicks in your door”, so your response is Full Rambo.  An 11-99 goes out and every cop in 3 counties shows up and uses your house as target practice.

    Yeah, you sure showed them!

    As a rookie I learned two lessons real fast.  Don’t fuck with an attorney in a courtroom – that’s his turf.  Don’t fuck with a cop on the street – that’s his turf.

    A cop oversteps their bounds, get a real good civil rights attorney.  They’re in the phone book and many are multi-millionaires because of the lawsuits they’ve filed.

    Just ask Rodney King.

    • Brucehenry

      I was hoping you’d weigh in early, Garandfan.

      I don’t know much about this specific law, and I’m not a huge fan of cops in general (sorry) but this seems way over-the-top to me. It seems to me that regular old self-defense laws and even SYG could be made to apply in the isolated cases where a law like this could be seen to be needed.

      • GarandFan

         There was a local case years ago, where the citizen decided to use the state law that specifically allows “resistance to an unlawful arrest”.

        He resisted.

        After he got out of the hospital, he sued.  While the jury agreed that the arrest was unlawful, he got nothing for his injuries.  A local defensive attorney commented to the affect ‘that law is nice, but sure is stupid’.

        • The guy got nothing?? But didn’t you just tell us earlier that it was ok if a cop overstepped, because you could sue him and make beaucoup bucks?

          • GarandFan

             He got bucks for the unlawful arrest.  Jury comments later where ‘why didn’t he just wait and get a lawyer’.

            Jury’s and their verdicts.  Go figure.

          • Usually I agree with you, however with the increase of “wrong addresses”, right addresses but the named occupant moved out 18 months ago, I subscribe to the “better be tried by 12 than carried by 6.”

          • GarandFan

            Yeah………there’s ONE of you and HOW MANY of them?

          • Gee you sound like a swell public servant. You’re used to throwing your weight around without pushback it seems. Behave or be shot.

          • GarandFan

            A lot of ASSumption on your part without even knowing me. Or is that just your PROJECTION showing?

          • I go by your attitude here. You’re the hired help- know your place

    • Then don’t fuck with someone in their home – that’s THEIR turf. I’m also not impressed with a (former?) cop telling citizens who’s “turf” the streets are. That’s what the Crips and Bloods do, nice one! And telling us lie back and take it now, because we can sue later? No thanks, I’d prefer you controlled yourself now as opposed to testify later thanks much.

      • GarandFan

         Be the first on your block to have you house used for target practice.

        As for my earlier comment.  Still goes.  You’re Joe Loud Mouth on the street and you know your rights and are going to exercise them at that moment – you’re stupid.  As Ron White observed “I had the right to remain silent.  I just didn’t have the ability.”

        • herddog505

          I think that this is beyond a case of “I know my rights!” when a police officer is, say, writing a ticket: I get the idea that it’s geared more toward the officer who has gone off the deep end and is threatening lethal force without any reasonable cause.

          The sad fact is that there have been some high-profile cases of police officers – SWAT teams – kicking in the door of an innocent person (or even an otherwise-harmless petty crook), who doesn’t live to file suit.

          I’m sorry that we’ve reached a point where it’s useful if not outright needed to give SWAT teams a moment of pause, but I fear that we have.  As the saying goes, it’s better to be judged by twelve than carried by six.

        • Damn right I know my rights. Sounds like you don’t. I really hate it when the help gets uppity and forgets its place

          • GarandFan

            You sound the familiar refrain of a guy drunk on his ass as he’s hauled off to detox.

  • Larry Brown

    Except in very limited cases, most of the SWAT attacks are unnecessary. They are used as shortcuts to normal policing procedure…carefully gathering evidence and arresting the bad guys on the streets. Instead, they want to bust down the door and capture the evidence all in one fell swoop with the benefit of getting to use their toys.

    I used to have a very high regard for anyone in blue. Now, they have to earn that respect one on one.

  • herddog505

    I’m rather puzzled why there needs to be a law for this.  Isn’t it self-evident?  Hey, maybe Indiana can pass a law stating that it’s legal to use deadly force against a man trying to molest your four year-old daughter.

    Warner Todd HustonFor the most part I respect and sympathize with our officers of the law.

    I agree.  I believe that the vast majority of American peace officers are honest, brave, and professional public servants, and we are very fortunate that this is the case (I often wonder if it’s even possible to be a “good cop” in places like the Soviet Union, nazi Germany, Saddam’s Iraq, etc.).

    However, when they abuse their authority to the point that they become an immediate menace to the very people and peace they are sworn to protect, then I say that it’s every American’s natural right to have his own Old North Bridge.

    • herddog505

      I should add that, on the other hand, I have no mercy for a crook who murders a police officer in the lawful performance of his duty.

    • “I’m rather puzzled why there needs to be a law for this. Isn’t it self-evident? ”

      It was self-evident before a 2010 (IIRC) ruling by the Indiana Supreme Court that stated that no one had the right to resist even an unlawful entry by police.

  • LiberalNightmare

    So how does this work?

    Do I have to get a license from fish and game and wear it on the back of my jacket?

  • ackwired

    I certainly agree that militarized police forces have gone too far. This is one of the negative effects of prohibition. But I am not sure that the answer is to legalize shooting police if they enter your home. Are they saying that there is no other way to regulate the police force?

    • Jay

      I believe what’s happening here is that this should make the police think twice in regards to filing paperwork. Unfortunately, since I’m not in Indiana, I can’t tell you the circumstances that allow the passage of this law. I do know that there was recently a shooting where the police used deadly force and were fired upon by one of the occupants. One of the officers were killed. Now they’re charging the man with
      aggravated murder and eight other felony counts related to the shooting and marijuana cultivation. Kind of sad that MJ can cause so much violence.

  • Commander_Chico

    I agree. Cops need to think twice before sending their military-style raids into houses. The CATO institute published a map of “death by SWAT,” too many reckless raids:


  • Pork Chop

    Back home again

    In Indiana

    Where I know that I am free.

    Conceal carry rights

    No labor union fights

    There’s the right to work

    For meeeee

    The new gun law

    Protects my dwelling

    If the SWAT boys bash my door

    So they better think so long and hard about it

    Or they will meet my trusty .44.

  • Garandfan is an appalling individual. Sounds more like an authoritarian than a public servant.