This page has been archived and commenting is disabled.
State Makes It Legal To Shoot Cops In Self-Defense If They Violate Your Rights
Submitted by M. David via TheAntiMedia.org,
Is it ever legal to shoot cops? A growing number of states are passing laws that say that yes, in fact, sometimes it is well within a citizen’s rights to shoot a police officer.
Other states have already ruled in favor of citizens shooting police officers in self-defense, (even hip-hop legend Tupac walked after shooting two cops in self-defense) now, in the state of Indiana, if a police officer initiates aggression without cause in someone’s home, violence can be used against them in self-defense – including using lethal force.
The new law was drafted to “recognize the unique character of a citizen’s home and to ensure that a citizen feels secure in his or her own home against unlawful intrusion by another individual or a public servant.”
This should hardly be seen as profound. In the past, self-defense was viewed as a human right. The Bill of Rights does not grant rights to the citizenry of the United States, it recognizes natural rights. One of those rights — a veritable law of Nature — is the right to resist.
No matter what one does, or takes from you, nothing can stop the innate right to follow our natural impulses of resistance. That does not mean all will exercise that right. But the right itself is natural, primordial, inborn.
The new amendment in Indian recognizes this. It makes it clear that badges do not grant special rights to break into someone’s house and commit acts of violent aggression. If they do, the resident has the right to resist those illegal actions and defend themselves.
The Free Thought Project notes that many police officers “have already begun to fear monger the passage of this bill,” saying “If I pull over a car and I walk up to it and the guy shoots me, he’s going to say, ‘Well, he was trying to illegally enter my property.’”
This fear mongering comes from Joseph Hubbard, 40, the president of Jeffersonville Fraternal Order of Police Lodge 100, who asserts “somebody is going get away with killing a cop because of this law.”
In spite of these statements, here’s what the law actually states:
(i) A person is justified in using reasonable force against a public servant if the person reasonably believes the force is necessary to:
- (1) protect the person or a third person from what the person reasonably believes to be the imminent use of unlawful force;
- (2) prevent or terminate the public servant’s unlawful entry of or attack on the person’s dwelling, curtilage, or occupied motor vehicle; or
- (3) prevent or terminate the public servant’s unlawful trespass on or criminal interference with property lawfully in the person’s possession, lawfully in possession of a member of the person’s immediate family, or belonging to a person whose property the person has authority to protect
What do you think about this law? Would you like to see more states adopt laws like this, or is this a recipe for disaster?
»
- 88257 reads
- Printer-friendly version
- Send to friend
- advertisements -
What if they shoot your dog for no reason? Can we use the wood chipper?
It would be fair to only put them in half way.
Feet first of course.
If Obama had a son...
Florida's Stand Your Law Ground protects your right to shoot a cop who chases you and fails to identify himself. This, of course, also covers punching neighborhood watchmen who chase you without identifying themselves.
Funny thing, punching enables him to kill you.
Yeah, if his dad is a judge who knows the attorney general who orders the cops to set him free and then the dumb ass prosecutor tries to go for a ridiculous second degree murder/hate crime conviction which can't possibly be proven in court while a manslaughter charge could have went down easy as pie. Toss in a political/media circus on steroids and suddenly the right to self defense is lying dead on the sidewalk too.
this may seem like a victory, but let's not rest until the state passes a law making it *mandatory* to shoot a cop.
This may be a good lesson in manners. Cops should always knock first and identify themselves.
Hey if the knock first they bring you to the door; they can then shoot you from the porch, problem solved.
This does not address those worrisome "no-knock" moments when they are trying to batter your door down for no apparent reason. Though pepper spray foggers hidden around your home's entrances that can be triggered remotely certainly can "diffuse" the situation, albeit probably only long enough to attempt to initiate civil, if terse dialogue. But pepper spray tends to control adrenally loaded police officers only a rather short period after which they are usually exceedingly agitated afterwards.
Caveat dominus terrae.
I live in my car, think i'll apply these same principles on the street.
I wouldn't get too wee wee'd up about this. The courts will not let their dogs get roughed up without taking action. You can be certain that decisions will still go in favor of the State's dogs. The courts will find some excuse 99.9% of the time...
;-D
"a cop is going get away with killing somebody without this law"
FIFY
Yes, speaking of manners, in Arizona the cops are much politer to people they pull over. Arizona is a constitusional carry state, much of the citizenry is packin' and the cops know it. Makes for very cordial interactions.
Ditto Nevada, where you do not need any permit to carry a loaded firearm inside your vehicle.
If I could back in time I would shoot that little thug wannabe as well.
"I shot the sheriff but I did not shoot the deputy" and now "Indiana wants me and I CAN go back there!"
Which is why police should be the only ones who can legally use guns. Otherwise, people who arm themselves for self defense would require a adjudication as to IF their lives are truly in danger before legally being able to discharge their weapon. The only way to be SURE is to remain unarmed. No person should have the right to decide when their lives are factually in danger. This should be left to the collective....maybe even Obama, given his insight as to when someone is acting foolishly or overreacting. Definitely something that SHOULD NOT be left to the individual. After all, what are we paying our government for, if not "protection" at substantial cost to our freedoms.
The sarcasm is a little thick, but tasty nonetheless.
Dead men tell no tails, said to me from a cop buddy in reference to defending my home from invaders.
Not bad, but not MDB epic...keep working at it.
close though
"This should be left to the collective". Very nice. That's MDB standard.
It's lacking the chain of frothing trollees all baying for his blood. MDB STILL gets those.
Paying for security at a substantial cost to our freedom.
And when they fail to protect us, can we stop paying them? Ah... well, no.
So, shooting ain't all bad. If anything, it culls the herd of aggessive or otherwise worthless sheep.
Oldwood
Stay afraid oldman.
Your passive sheeple generation took up spending wars, not RIGHTS.
No worries, you do not have much time left.
Do not care if sarcasm was intended.
Your tax paid education reforms of the past 40 yrs rendered viewer comprehension unavailable.
You're either an idiot, or trollololing but failing.
IN other news, I'm gonna go with this will not end well for anyone shooting a cop that is illegally in their home. Manily due to, how do you think the rest of the police force will treat you while you live in their area? Long home sales.
Punch harder. . .It's not rocket science.
The active expression of his genotype is what enables you to kill him.
The fewer protections afforded to the illegal activities of police the better.
John Bad Elk, bitchez.
Baloney. Florida will walk on burning coals to protect crooked cops.
Still sticks in yer craw, asshole? GOOD. Revisionist historians deserve to walk around with a mouth full of bile. "Follow" does not equal "chase". Nor does lying in wait equal fending off an aggressor. Your little purpa drank "no limit nigga" happened to be in a neighborhood that had been terrorized by feral blacks. Suck on it.
No Limit nigga found his limit.
Wish I could do a calculus equation: Limit of Trayvon Martin as he approached Zimmerman = 0
Hey Mister,
Your green arrow thingy is broken.
Regards,
Actually, it requires a special incantation known only to certain geeks. I gave him a greenie for you.
It always amazes me how people confuse the stand your ground statute with the self defense statute. No matter what preceded the altercation whether it be following a guy or words with a guy, here in Florida that does not give you the right to put your hands on some guy who you think has offended you. Got it? You cannot beat the shit out of some guy because of what he said or because he followed you. However when he starts to beat you and you come to that moment when you conclude that you are in risk of serious bodily injury or death at that moment, you have the right to use deadly force.
With that in mind, if you found yourself on the ground in the night with some guy on top of you beating the crap out of you, would you have reason to believe you were in danger of death or serious bodily injury? If the answer to that question is yes, then you would have the right to shoot the guy on top of you.
There are more than a million concealed carry permits here in Florida. That means that one out of twenty people you meet in Walmart are probably packing heat. The moral of the story: be polite and keep your hands off of people that have not given you permission to touch them.
Some people need incentives.
Some folks just hate the rule of law.
"Well, simply because if you carefully read the statute, which most of the critics have not, and read the legislative analysis, there's nothing in this statute that authorizes you to pursue or confront other people. If anything, this law would have protected the victim in this case; it could have." -- Dennis Baxley, author of the Stand Your Ground Law
If you put em in head first, it might make em smarter
Feet first of course.
Shooting a police officer has been legal for a very long time if its an "Unlawful Arrest" This just seems to be adding a few more reasons to it.
http://www.constitution.org/uslaw/defunlaw.htm
The original premise of the Founders was best quoted by Ben Franklin.
"it is better 100 guilty Persons should escape than that one innocent Person should suffer", so yes, the cops damn well better learn they cannot jerk around people anymore. Better we return to a time when citizens directly handled justice and no authorized and armed Government thugs driving around looking to rob and harass.
The Founders benefited by their knowledge of English common law which long recognized the right of the individual to defend himself and others even against those in authority.
From the Right To Resist
Anne Dekins was a loud-mouthed party girl — or at least, that’s what the arrest warrant suggested. Whatever she may have done in the past, Miss Dekins was quietly minding her own business when Officer Samuel Bray found her on the street and began to haul her away.
Dekins wasn't inclined to go quietly, and she put up a struggle. Her cries for help attracted the interest of several armed men led by an individual named Tooley, who confronted Bray and demanded to know what he was doing to the frantic woman. The officer produced his official credentials and insisted that he was making a lawful arrest for "disorderly conduct." When witnesses disputed that description, Bray called for backup.
Tooley and his associates ordered Bray to release the woman, and then took action to enforce that lawful order. After Bray's partner was killed in the ensuing struggle, Tooley and his associates were arrested for murder. The trial court threw out the murder charge, ruling that the warrant was defective. Since the arrest was illegal, the court pointed out, Dekins had a right to resist — and bystanders likewise had a right, if not a positive duty, to assist her. The defendants were eventually found guilty of manslaughter, but quickly pardoned and set free.
By trying to enforce an invalid warrant, Bray "did not act as a constable, but a common oppressor," observed the trial court. Tooley and the other bystanders were properly "provoked" by the act of aggressive violence against Anne Dekins, and their forceful but measured response — first demanding that the abductor release the hostage, then exercising defensive force to free her — was entirely appropriate.
Lawless violence against the helpless "is a sufficient provocation to all people out of compassion" in any circumstance, observed the court, "much more where it is done under a colour of justice, and where the liberty of the subject is invaded…." In fact, an act of that kind carried out by a law enforcement official is nothing less than "a provocation to all the subjects of England."
Every Englishman "ought to be concerned for Magna Charta and the laws," concluded the Queen's Bench in the 1710 case Queen v. Tooley. "And if any one against the law imprison a man, he is an offender against Magna Charta."
https://www.lewrockwell.com/2012/01/william-norman-grigg/from-the-right-...
Well well well
if his own personal sense of justice is served Mr. Absolutely Anarchist goes full statist.
Just.
Like.
That.
Yeah, Ive always said absolutists suck absolutely; welcome to the real world Willy.
"The Founders benefited by their knowledge of English common law which long recognized the right of the individual to defend himself and others even against those in authority" committing injustices (I assume)
Hey, I agree.
So in your opinion an anarchist is supposed to feign ignorance of all historic events in which a state actor participates? It sounds stupid to me but I guess that's just about your speed.
<-anarchy FTMFW!
<-elected legislative ass'y
there there Willy,FWIW I don't think you're feignin' any of your ignorance at all, especially when it comes to your own statist tendencies.
Your idea of fun is really quite a drag. Later.
<-elected legislative ass'y
<-instantaneous Kropotkin
Oh I bet it is a drag for you and the ZH league of useful-idiot-for-plutocrats statists (LUIPS) masquerading as 'anarchists'
Dorme bene William
"statist"
You keep using that word...I don't think it means what you think it means. How many fingers do you have?
statism is the belief that the state should be responsible for either economic or social policy, or both, to some degree
<emphasis mine>
In other words, scratch the surface of any of these loopy resident ZH self purported 'anarcho-capitalists' (little willy incl.) and you'll invariably find that they actually expect the state to undertake the enforcement of contractual obligations, at the very least, every. single. time.
IE technically that is "statist", not anarchist. In fact their knowledge of anarchism appears to be superficial at best, despite their loud claims to it.
Plutocratic sycophants, useful idiots, or duckspeaking employees quacking 'might makes right', and 'money talks', as if either one can provide the basis for the meritocratic society such types disingenuously promise they will.
Mammonites reserve the right to invoke buzz-words like 'statist' (ironically) in the pejorative in order to attack anyone who calls them on their sycophancy, or differs in opinion, however slightly, on how to employ the power of the state. Especially if that opinion seeks to use that strength to mitigate the power of concentrated wealth on behalf of the comparatively 'unpropertied' masses.
"Oh! What a giveaway!"
I'm merely applying the term 'statist' to them correctly in order to illuminate their nonsense. And, not surprisingly, that's "a drag" for them.
tu comprender, si?
That reminds me of something I wrote awhile back.....here it is:
Safely ensconced within the womb of the state,
the anarchists sit in the corner,
poutingly pontificating upon the utopia that could be,
if the state did not exist to bother them.
Now that is poetry
You say he was safely ensconced within the womb of the state? Bad premise, I say he was beaten and taxed into submission by the womb of the state.
The West's great Libertarian Centuries ran from roughly A.D. 500 to 700 or so.
Everthing since then has been the vilest oppression.
lol Yeah, 500 to 700 was such a great time to be alive... if you were the king.
Since when are libertarians monarchists too?
So for you the most glorous political era in history is when "strange women, lying in ponds, distributing swords" was a basis for a system of gov't.
....of course you are kidding...
')
Why stop with state actors? For that matter, why feign at all? You have proven above that your ability to be ignorant of historical events is first rate. Be "out and proud".
Police officers who act outside their official duties are personally liable for any injury to your enumerated Constitutional rights. When they violate their oath of office they give up their immunity from prosecution. Your rights are your private property and can not be seized without a warrant unless you are in the act or have committed an injury to the rights of someone else.
18 USC 242 and 18 USC 1983 already make illegal deprivation of your Constitution Rights under the color of law/authoritya federal offense, yet we all see it happen nearly daily. More sound and fury, signifying nothing.
Billy:
From your link;
"Because that search was patently illegal, the trial court granted a motion to dismiss all charges against Lusby. The State Supreme Court admitted that this was the case — but insisted that Lusby's resistance to the illegal invasion of her home retroactively legalized the unconstitutional search."
This country is fucked.
Yeah, but that was 1710. This is 305 years later, an idiocracy and a nation of pussies. Try that today and everyone on the street would be machine gunned, homes would be searched for a hundred mile radius, and pussies would be vilified.
For the most part, this article or not, cops are above the law. The ultra rich made that happen. Tell me the last time the cops raided a mansion on the north shore in Long Island to grab a rich crook.
B-I-N-G-O. +100
And thus.....it becomes patently obvious who the cops truly work to 'serve and protect'.
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bad_Elk_v._United_States
You are not entitled to use lethal force anywhere to resist unlawful arrest unless your life is threatened.
A case that old ALWAYS Needs to be Shepardhized. That is, checked against more recent case law.
Radio show hosts who aren't lawyers telling people this sort of thing are misinforming people.
Not my opinion - this is basic stuff.
By the way your link leaves out the fact Elk was not charged with murder - but with manslaughter. Still a felony, still generally do time.
And forfeit your ability to legally defend yourself with a firearm forever more.
Better get your facts straight. The ruling says it is lawful to resist unlawful use of force. Whole different animal.
You're welcome. The life you save might be your own.
The fact that this law is even necessary, which it is, shows where we've come. What about Citizen's Arrest? I'd have to retire from my job just to go and arrest everybody in congress, the fucking supreme court, everybody in Goldman Sucks, oh shit, don't get me started
It's coming.
fsa will come to their rescue
And the cops most of all know it, & they can not probably stop it...
I was looking into a little background into this. I followed a huff post link [yes yes I know.. was just browsing].
They pointed out a case in Miss. Was a raid on a duplex. One side of the unit had a drug dealer they were after. The other side had single guy and his young daughter. Single guy with no record at all heard people trying to get into his front door. He then heard his back door being kicked in next to his young daughter's room. He jumped up and shot the first person who came in the door. He realized they were cops and quickly surrendered. His first trial he wasn't allowed to point out that he was trying to protect his daughter. The second trial he was allowed to explain that. The jury still sentenced him to death.
The most disgusting thing about the huff post article was that while the new law was what it was, "you were not likely to survive firing back at a S.W.A.T. team busting into your house with guns blazing."
MAKE YOUR NEIGHBORHOOD, VALLEY OR COMMUNITY A NO GO ZONE FOR COPS. Full of guns and lawyers on retainer.
Only thing he did wrong was have too puny a firearm. .338 Lapua or .50 BMG. Cut that SOB in two pieces with the first shot. Like BIGGIE said thats the time to "kick in the door, wave in the .44".
That guy should have got a medal. Kicked his door in, burst in.....anyone should be shot for that.
But he got the death penalty. Welcome to the USSA. We're fightin' ISIS, coz they kill people 'n shit.
somebody crowd fund that man
Passing laws to reinforce laws that were already passed?
Overkill. Just keep adding layers of complexity until it's all meaningless. Just make sure the corporate loopholes are buried where they can find them when they need them.
Rather, the laws are psy-ops.
After all, it is illegal to abuse children, yet the elites do it systematically to their kids with complete cover from the courts + police. It is also illegal to conspire to defraud people, yet the banksters do it with complete cover as well. (+Etc.)
So when things look bad, it's always up to the politicians to show that they care and will fix it right! They makes an already illegal thing even more explicitly illegal, without mentioning that there will be no significant enforcement of any of the laws, as always!
---
It's all a joke anyway: the corrupt DA will create whatever BS story he wants, the media will amplify it, and any justified self-defense against violent, out-of-control roid-raging cops will get misrepresented as needed to protect the Goons in Blue.
So true. Rule of Law has become a sham, a hand-held curtain for the lawless to hide behind and wave around in from of the bull of public opinion. Laws exist to be bent, broken, and ignored as often as not, but only by the well connected or the State and its authorized actors.
If they don't start nothing, there won't be nothing. Come into my house unwelcomed, 00 buckshot is coming your way; I don't give two shits who pays your salary.
Love the way you think. My 12 gauge is loaded.
Even Chinese citizens feel this way.
http://filmingcops.com/china-police-beat-a-woman-men-begin-killing-cops-...
BEIJING (AFP) – A farmer in central China has turned his home into a fort equipped with a homemade cannon and fireworks to fight off government eviction in an ongoing land dispute, state media said Wednesday.
http://www.abc.net.au/news/2010-06-09/farmer-uses-cannon-to-fight-eviction/860894
Before we all jump for joy, wasn't self defense already Lawful no matter where your located or who is threatening you unlawfully? In your house, your back yard or a parking lot, what does it matter?
This law is a prime example of unnecessary laws that actually serve to limit the lawful actions of The People. Isn't this just another slippery slope?
when someone is unlawfully threatened by a Cop with bodily harm and they defend themselves, will they have to prove they were inside their home? Do they have this right if in the Neighbors home?
Cant we just repeal 90% of the laws on the books and issue everyone a copy of the Constitution and the Bill of Rights?
12 woulda f something coming thru the back door for sure, 5 rounds...
"00 buckshot is coming your way"
i prefer 12 gauge slugs, one less liar left standing to testify against me after they bust through the door unlawfully. buckshot might be stopped by their body armor
Thanks for the slugs tip!
.45 is loaded with frags, four extra mags filled with frags. AR15 is locked, loaded and has fifteen mags also loaded. .30 cal Carbine, holy shit, what I've got.
Wife is properly trained in loading. Last five mags had all bullets pointing in the same direction.
Cool wife who knows how to load!
would you welcome this guy agc?
Clearly, Indiana has been taken over by terrorists.
Everyone remain calm and in your homes, the National Guard will be doing a special state-wide exercise.
Dogs bite and shit on my lawn.
Dogs bite your lawn?
Must have been sheep dogs.
They apparently bite on his lawn.
You bite dog shit?
This is where the problem lies. From a Democratic legislator in Indiana.
It’s not clear under the law whether an officer acting in good faith could be legally shot for mistakenly kicking down the wrong door to serve a warrant, said state Senator Tim Lanane, the assistant Democratic leader and an attorney.
“It’s a risky proposition that we set up here,” Lanane said.
......kicking down a door to serve a warrant.
Wait... I forgot a bit of that in my emphasis...MISTAKENLY kicking down the wrong door to servea warrant. Because, you know... they should be able to do that.... then put you on the ground.. tie up your wife and kids.. leave without even saying sorry and never even get sued. 'cause they're cops. just protecting us.
There is one really easy way to get a handle on all of this within the psyche of the general public. It's quite simple. It just takes funding. Maybe, the Tyler's will be up to taking on the task. All you need to do is form a data base, for an area, of all the police officers who have been charged with a crime, on or off duty. I think just in Benton and Washington counties Arkansas alone there have been at least 4 dozen or more high profile in the news cases, in the last 5 years. I can't imagine all the off the press stuff. When people realize that cops have the same percentage of criminal behavior as just about any other group, per capita, they will come around.
They have a database on everything about us. There is now a database on how many people the cops shoot, every month.
WHY not a database on police misconduct? Every time a cop gets charged with a crime, it goes in. This keeping in mind that a cop must really fuck up in order to actually get charged. People start to see those numbers? Things will change.
"People start to see those numbers?"
As people see the oncoming vehicle they turn left in front of...?
Me thinks US will need a Kent State x100 before they even glance.
Talking the herd here, not 10% of 0hedgers.
Consider view to comment & arrow ratio.
The problem is, if you're a perfectly innocent citizen, no arrests, no warrants, no charges, you have no idea that cops are surrounding your house until they bust the door down (I had cops surround my house, prepare to bust through the door, twenty some odd cop cars in my yard, blocking every one of my vehicles, with another dozen or so down the street. Wife came and said there were people outside with flashlights, I sat here with a loaded 1911 .45, heavy armor nearby, a loaded .30 cal carbine with shit tons of mags, yet by the time I got to the door the cops realized they were at the wrong house, and moved two doors down to the drug dealer) in order to deal with an unexpected cop forced entry you would almost have to have a gun in each hand at every moment within your home. Life doesn't work that way.
That's why I'm a lot more paranoid these days than 2008, when I woke up. Having the FBI come knocking back in January just entrenched it.
So the FBI is working down the ZH list. Good to know!
and DHS
"What if they shoot your dog for no reason?"
Scooby no like!
Sweet!!
You'll have to survive cop buddies trying to murder you or burn you alive, but that shouldn't last more than 3 days.
After that, you're golden.
Legal? What's that mean?
Whatever you want to figure.
But wait! Some miscreats did put some stuff on paper and sign it. Doesn't that stand for somethiong?!
Thats an investment.
It means you have enough money to get out of it.
For us poors, it means whatever they say it means.
NotApplicable,$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$ NOT GUILTY !
Would you like to see more states adopt laws like this, or is this a recipe for disaster?
Yes.
The current course is for a guerrilla war between .gov employees and citizens resisting tyranny. I doubt that scenario is gonna work out well for anyone.
I forwarded this to one of my Statehouse reps. It's an important area for bolstering citizen's rights to defend against tyranny.
Worked out well enough in 1781.
Its a trap!
Well - since police have always been treated as if they're above the law or have definitely believed themselves to be above the law - I guess it now makes sense to have to have it codified - that they're NOT. I definitely believe all states should adopt this law.
Absolutely agree. +1 from me. I seldom give them.
If you're in a bar somewhere, and some drunk guy picks a fight and you can't resist or he won't stop, then you beat his ass in a fair fight.
Well, if he's an off duty cop, you just committed a whole bunch of felonies, just by fist fighing a guy that picked a fight while he was drunk.
If he were not a cop, you'd probably be able to claim self defense. Whether you knew he was a cop or not is immaterial. SEe, they are protected by their special status at all times. and it is illegal for citizens to treat them as they would a non-cop, even if they're off duty.
Check it out.
Violence begets violence. An eye for an eye and we both end up blind. Truly, theater of the absurd.
So says the guy from Philly.
Pretty sure you're on the wrong website Pops.
I dont plan to sit back, relax and enjoy the plight of my neighbor when a local thugcop decides to go full retard on some poor citizen. The cycle you mention MUST stop with the cop. They are trained to handle volatile situations and (in theory, def not practice) de-escalate. If they dont, but rather pile on, then they deserve death at the hands of citizens who refuse to stand idly by while the tyrants go to work.
Return fire mother fuicker
Actually, if you're real quick and can put out BOTH of their eyes at the same time, you're golden.
You should probably learn the difference between violence and self defense, Philly.
Wrong. Violence is golden. The gun is civilization.
Google both of those sentences and you'll find some nicely written prose.
The liberal kumbaya bullshit you just posted only works if you live amongst 100% white people, and maybe not even then.
In a diverse city, it will get you killed. If you;'re lucky, your fate may be preserved through the magic of video and Worldstarhiphop.com.
Colin Flaherty may even do a piece on you.
And yes, I downvoted you. I always downvote progressive, government propaganda inspired fantasies.
doubleplusgood
I'd shoot anyone who threatens for no reason my family, friends, strangers or me. I don't need some asshole judge to tell me this shit.
Get yourself an inexpensive 12 gauge with an 18.5" barrel and a revolver at least as big as a 38. Buy good ammo and practice.
Just understand the consequences.
I'd try real hard to get on any jury involving such a case. NOT FUCKING GUILTY.
Well gee, ain't this a boot on the other guys neck...
population control. theis is a recipe for civil war.
Revenge is a dish best served cold.
In Lilliput, in addition to punishing those who break the laws, the government also rewards good citizens for following the laws with a nice retirement plan.
US govt has part of the equation working.
Indiana... bastion of freedom!
Listen, it's every man for himself if the shit really hits the fan, and every alcoholic wife-beating government thug down to the local permit nazi and local/state cop will be looking to buy fake moustaches and plane tickets to Argentina.
Never a good idea to attack the government but still
.
its not a good idea, especially when they "legalize it"
Self defense has always been legitimate, but sloughing juries of ya peers, is the problem.
G. Gordon Liddy always said that masked people kicking in his door would be met with bullets. That is an occasion when shooting first and asking questions later is appropriate.
Exactly right. Get the most powerful rifle that will fit into your home (I prefer 50 bmg, but a .338 lapua will suffice in most cases) and make the first one count. They're less apt to get nervy if you cut the lead man in two with your first round.
LOL.
...just make sure its a soft or hollow point so the next 3 miles downrange are unaffected :)
Their body armor should slow the round down enough so that it will cut them it two, put a nice splatter (for future guests) on the wall behind them, go thru the wall, and still have enough velocity to ring the bell of the next thug waiting to step into the line of fire.
You can always go medieval on them. The bodkin tip was designed in the middle ages to penetrate armor and it does a great job on kevlar:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cQFevvCSsbw
Little Guy Wonder Weapon: A 12 gauge shotgun and a rather large stack of flechette rounds.
There is something about the thought of swarms of tiny steel darts coming at you at 1750FPS that will wilt the most ardent goon's approach.
50 bmg 3000-10000$ yeah right but like your ideal
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rC9LFLpHmeE
http://www.slickguns.com/category/rifles?caliber=25
Within that same comment from GGL, he said to take headshots as they would be wearing body armor.
Yep, and get them in a bottleneck, like coming through the front door. A 12g loaded with 8 1oz slugs would be devastating.
Or some sort of carbine, firing rifle rounds, in 30 round magazines.
Unless they're wearing plate, a 5.56 or a 7.62x39 will do the job quite nicely,
And where they bottleneck in their little stack, you may be able to score multiples for the price of one.
That bullshit tactic only works in pacified areas.
The first time they get ambushed as they assemble for their stack/raid, they'll just start using air strikes and destroy the house and the people inside because officer safety.
Pew. Pew. Pew.
Unless you're Palestinian, right, Champ?
Funny how selective you are with your principles.
Well - that's racism for ya.
Awesome. Time to start inviting cops to everyone's houses for the holidays. Recipe for disaster. Heck no. It's a recipe for Gravy !!!!
If I kill one, can I get unlimited paid vacation until the "investigation" is over?!?