Two points: The couple obviously live in an urban or suburban community. Get away from that environment. With the government labeling everyone a terrorist, close neighbors can be a hazard. Two, sue the whole department and use the proceeds to move.
That this happened in Commiefornia is no huge surprise, but had these cops tried this in another state where Castle Doctrine applies along with a statutory affirmation of the Right to resist crimes committed under color of law (namely, Indiana); and these cops may have all gotten themselves killed!
Senate Enrolled Act 1 (signed into law in 2012) was a response to an activist court decision (Barnes v. State) that overturned hundreds of years of common law in Indiana and also ignored/undercut the state's 2006 “Castle Doctrine” statute.
It specifies that a person can use force against the police if they believe the force is necessary to protect themselves or another from imminent police force that is believed will be unlawful; terminate what is an unlawful attack or entry into the person’s residence or vehicle by the police; or prevent/terminate what is an unlawful trespass or interference with the person’s property.
This permission to use force against the officer is not allowed if the person is in the middle of committing a crime or escaping; the person provokes the action and intends to cause bodily injury to the police officer; or is the aggressor. The permission is also not granted if the person admits to believing the officer is acting lawfully.
Deadly force is permitted if necessary to prevent serious bodily injury or death to the person or a third party and the person does not admit to believing the police officer was acting lawfully.
The sticky part is the key word that's repeatedly used in this law is 'reasonable' or 'reasonably'. What is reasonable to you or me may not be reasonable in the minds of a jury of libtards selected from an area of the state that leans strongly collectivist (Gary and some parts of Indianapolis come to mind)...
Nonetheless, seeing how there are so many documented instances of baldfaced murder by the police against peaceable citizens who committed no act of aggression - even when provoked deeply by the police - and personal instances where cops that I have worked with in the past expressed a "kill 'em and save the taxpayers the cost of a trial" attitude, I know that every state desperately needs the same exact legislation that is already on Indiana's law books!
One never hopes that these laws will be taken advantage of, but it's nice to know that the law is on your side when push comes to shove and you just HAVE to kill that thug that's invading your home!!
** BETTER TO BE JUDGED BY 12 THAN CARRIED BY 6!!! **
2 comments:
Two points: The couple obviously live in an urban or suburban community. Get away from that environment. With the government labeling everyone a terrorist, close neighbors can be a hazard. Two, sue the whole department and use the proceeds to move.
That this happened in Commiefornia is no huge surprise, but had these cops tried this in another state where Castle Doctrine applies along with a statutory affirmation of the Right to resist crimes committed under color of law (namely, Indiana); and these cops may have all gotten themselves killed!
http://www.in.gov/legislative/bills/2012/SE/SE0001.1.html
Senate Enrolled Act 1 (signed into law in 2012) was a response to an activist court decision (Barnes v. State) that overturned hundreds of years of common law in Indiana and also ignored/undercut the state's 2006 “Castle Doctrine” statute.
It specifies that a person can use force against the police if they believe the force is necessary to protect themselves or another from imminent police force that is believed will be unlawful; terminate what is an unlawful attack or entry into the person’s residence or vehicle by the police; or prevent/terminate what is an unlawful trespass or interference with the person’s property.
This permission to use force against the officer is not allowed if the person is in the middle of committing a crime or escaping; the person provokes the action and intends to cause bodily injury to the police officer; or is the aggressor. The permission is also not granted if the person admits to believing the officer is acting lawfully.
Deadly force is permitted if necessary to prevent serious bodily injury or death to the person or a third party and the person does not admit to believing the police officer was acting lawfully.
The sticky part is the key word that's repeatedly used in this law is 'reasonable' or 'reasonably'. What is reasonable to you or me may not be reasonable in the minds of a jury of libtards selected from an area of the state that leans strongly collectivist (Gary and some parts of Indianapolis come to mind)...
Nonetheless, seeing how there are so many documented instances of baldfaced murder by the police against peaceable citizens who committed no act of aggression - even when provoked deeply by the police - and personal instances where cops that I have worked with in the past expressed a "kill 'em and save the taxpayers the cost of a trial" attitude, I know that every state desperately needs the same exact legislation that is already on Indiana's law books!
One never hopes that these laws will be taken advantage of, but it's nice to know that the law is on your side when push comes to shove and you just HAVE to kill that thug that's invading your home!!
** BETTER TO BE JUDGED BY 12 THAN CARRIED BY 6!!! **
Post a Comment