Indiana Senate Bill 0001

[jbull380]

Not sure where to post this. It is a self defense bill. Maybe it neeeds to go in the 2A Forum. Sorry if I should have put it there.
Anyone familiar with this bill? Had it sent to me and I guess the libs are using it to trash the NRA. As a cop I would like to know more about it as I can see this being used as an excuse resist on a legal and valid search warrant. Thoughts?

Senate Bill 0001

2012 Second Regular Session



Latest Information


DIGEST OF SB 1 (Updated March 1, 2012 11:52 am - DI 84)

Self defense. Specifies that a person may use reasonable force against any other person in certain circumstances. Provides that a person is justified in using reasonable force against a law enforcement officer if the person reasonably believes the force is necessary to: (1) protect the person or a third person from unlawful force; (2) prevent or terminate the law enforcement officer's unlawful entry into the person's dwelling; or (3) prevent or terminate the law enforcement officer's criminal interference with property lawfully in the person's possession. Specifies that a person is not justified in using force against a law enforcement officer if: (1) the person is committing or is escaping after the commission of a crime; (2) the person provokes action by the law enforcement officer with intent to injure the law enforcement officer; (3) the person has entered into combat with the law enforcement officer or is the initial aggressor; or (4) the person reasonably believes the law enforcement officer acting lawfully or is engaged in the lawful execution of the law enforcement officer's official duties. Provides that a person is not justified in using deadly force against a law enforcement officer who the person knows or reasonably should know is a law enforcement officer unless: (1) the person reasonably believes that the law enforcement officer is acting unlawfully or is not engaged in the execution of the officer's official duties; and (2) the force is reasonably necessary to prevent serious bodily injury to the person or a third person.
Current Status:



Returned to House of origin with Amendments

 

[hiram2005]

This bill is the result of our Indiana State Supreme Courts ruling last summer, that LE was entirely within their rights to enter a persons home for any reason. even illegally and that a homeowner had no right to resist in any manner. I did not make this up, that was their decision.

There was quite an uproar over that decision.

 

[novalty]

That is one crazy bill. I am sure the Law Enforcement community is thrilled.

 

[tomcatt51]

That is one crazy bill. I am sure the Law Enforcement community is thrilled.

Just means LEO's have to abide by the rules. It's the direct result of a crazy court ruling that said that they could do whatever they wanted and a citizen couldn't resist illegal actions by LEO's. The legislature apparently doesn't think their state should be a police state.

 

[640400obpd]

Just means LEO's have to abide by the rules. It's the direct result of a crazy court ruling that said that they could do whatever they wanted and a citizen couldn't resist illegal actions by LEO's. The legislature apparently doesn't think their state should be a police state.

Not true.

HOT POTATO DECISION. The legislation was drafted in response to a controversial decision by the Indiana Supreme Court last May in a domestic disturbance case, Barnes v. State of Indiana.

Back in 2007, a distressed woman in southern Indiana had called 911 during a heated argument with her husband. When officers arrived, the man, "very agitated and yelling," belligerently informed them that they were "not needed." When they tried to enter the couple's apartment to check on the complainant's wellbeing, he blocked the doorway and shoved one officer against a wall. He was subjected to a neck restraint, Tasered, and then arrested on 4 counts, including battery on a police officer.

In appealing his subsequent conviction, the defendant argued that the officers' forcible entry was illegal and that he had a common-law right to "reasonably resist unlawful entry" by law enforcement into his home.

The state Supreme Court acknowledged that such a right, sometimes called the "castle defense doctrine," can be traced back to the Magna Carta of 1215. On 2 occasions, the U.S. Supreme Court has recognized it: in Bad Elk v. United States [177 US 529 (1900)] and in United States v. Di Re [332 US 581 (1948)].

However, legislative and judicial thinking has changed significantly in recent years, the Indiana Supreme Court majority pointed out in its 3-2 decision. The Model Penal Code has now eliminated the right because "alternate remedies," including civil suit, now exist for an "aggrieved" party and because forceful resistance is "likely to result in greater injury." A "majority of states have abolished the right" to resist via statutes and judicial opinions, the Court stated.

"We believe...that a right to resist an unlawful police entry into a home is against public policy and is incompatible with modern Fourth Amendment jurisprudence," the justices declared. "[W]e find it unwise to allow a homeowner to adjudge the legality of police conduct in the heat of the moment. As we decline to recognize a right to resist unlawful police entry into a home, we decline to recognize a right to batter a police officer as a part of that resistance."

According to the Indianapolis Bar Assn., "the same issue has been ruled upon similarly" by courts in an overwhelming majority of other states.

I guess it is ok to kick your wifes *** and when she calls 911 you can just block the door way to your house and tell the police to go to hell. When the officers try to check on her from a 911 call you can shoot them for trying to "illegally" entering your house. I for one know a drunken wife beater knows more about the law than a trained officer. NOT. Wake up and step away from the TV. Police officers in the country are easy targets. They have a crappy job and get looked down on when they try to help people.