Thursday, October 1, 2015

Gotta love them Hoosiers.

Indiana Makes It Legal To Shoot Cops In Self-Defense If They Violate Your Rights.


Anonymous said...

Despite the naysaying, the only way this is a "recipe for disaster" is if a cop acts like a criminal. See, if a criminal is invading your home, your property, and you shoot him, it is clear self defense- defined plainly by the act of invasion itself. Absent a warrant, properly gained I might add, the reality is that even a cop busting into your home still amounts to nothing more than a criminal invader.

There is no love lost for the criminal invader of any stripe - cop or otherwise. So then, this is only a disaster for CRIMINALS. The solution for scared cops is pretty simple - don't invade property not yours acting like you are above the rule of law... Respect people's rights as your oath commands. No worries.

Indeed, rather than a disaster, I submit that this is actually a mutual respect building measure because it will keep cops a wee bit more honest both in what they police and how they police it. Cops are just gonna have to suck it up, and like, ummm follow the law like the rest of us or accept the negative consequences that result if they choose not to.

It seems to me that the "only ones" who should worry about this development are, well, criminals. So what does that say about those whining about it?

Meister said...

It's been on the books a while. Never been used as a defense for a shooting incident.

Anonymous said...

Part 1

Actually is was used in 1900. John Bad Elk v. United States. The Court said that it was lawful to stop an unlawful arrest up to and including the death of the officer. They also said that one could intervene as a third party in like circumstances and resist excessive force.

In 1973 at Wounded Knee South Dakota some FBI rolled up on some American Indian Movement folks and started shooting. The AIM people shot back and all but one was cleared on account of self defense. They moved him to a different venue where they had a judge that was more favorable to them and got the fellow convicted, Lenard Pelletier. You can read about the whole event in a book called "In the Spirit of Crazyhorse".

The right to do this was embodied in the Common Law. It was a cause that the colonists decried concerning the manner in which it was being stripped away from the People and the implementation of the commercial law, just like that which is going on today. See Declaration and Resolves, 1st Continental Congress, 1774.

It is the courts and the attorneys creating a monopoly of the law. The case above is an example of laws that no one is above. The Framers knew this and attempted to make sure that there was no aristocracy erected within the government. They spoke about it copiously in the Debates, Madison recorded it. In fact Madison states in Federalist 57 that congress can make no law that they and their friends are not subject to along with the general mass of the population. the Constitution itself states that there are to be no titles of nobility. In fact the limited immunity listed in the Constitution is for the legislature itself and they are still liable for Treason, Felony and Breach of the Peace. There is not such clause in Article II or Article III which is the Executive-president, his cabinet, officials and law enforcement or the courts, which includes attorneys as they are officers of the court.

Anonymous said...

Part 2

The Indiana thing was due to the state supreme court stating that "in a modern reading of the 4th amendment".... So who in God's holy name gave them the right to alter the Constitution absent an amendment process. Of course the Constitution states that "We the People".... not we the courts, we the legislature or me the president. They have no damned right or by the Constitution no authority to do such a thing. They have taken it upon themselves to create a privileged class for themselves, at our expense by the way.

SO consider this, under the Common Law the king of England himself could not enter the house of a commoner without a warrant. That will illustrate how damned far these two legged varmints have fallen from the tree.

tyrants are just that. I blame the People not the tyrant. It is the People who have been asleep at the wheel. It is their government, their right to live by or abolish it when it becomes destructive to their liberties. They have failed the test, become complacent and would rather load their brains with baseball or football stats, watch NASCAR or just plain become a vegetable on a couch.

I will leave you with these two phrases written by some pretty smart men.

"I believe there are more instances of the abridgement of freedom of the people by gradual and silent encroachments by those in power than by violent and sudden usurpations."
James Madison, 1787

"The People-the People are the rightful masters of congress and the courts. Not to overthrow the Constitution but those men who pervert it."
Abraham Lincoln, 1859

The liberal/Marxists say that the Constitution is outdated, times change. Well nearly 2000 years ago a well know carpenter form Galilee accused the lawyers of the day of perverting the Law and substituting the "traditions of men" in its place. He said they would not live the laws they made but required it of others and that they had closed up the keys of wisdom and would not suffer any to enter. He beat the money changers from the temple calling them thieves and he called the tax collectors extortionists. In nearly 2000 years just what has changed.

Time dose change when reckoned in a linear fashion, human nature... not so much. That is why the Constitution is a living document. its principles are timeless. It does not mean it is to be changed by light and transient fads or fallacious appeals that are contrary to the laws of logic.

God Bless

Anonymous said...

Here is a summary of the Indiana 1893 case:

Plummer v. State was an 1893 court case decided by the Supreme Court of Indiana. The case overturned a manslaughter conviction, ruling that the convicted defendant had been protecting himself from the illegal use of force by a police officer.[1] It is widely quoted on the internet, under the theory that it gives citizens the right to resist an unlawful arrest by force, including deadly force. The full citation is Plummer v. State, 135 Ind. 308, 34 N.E. 968 (1893).

Jonathan H said...

This law has already been tested up to the Indiana Supreme Court - Tam at View from The Porch had a piece on it a few months ago; I can't readily find it at the moment.