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

Tyler Durden's picture

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?

Comment viewing options

Select your preferred way to display the comments and click "Save settings" to activate your changes.
Freddie's picture

What if they shoot your dog for no reason?  Can we use the wood chipper?

DOT's picture

It would be fair to only put them in half way.

Wahooo's picture

Feet first of course.

Billy the Poet's picture

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.

NidStyles's picture

Funny thing, punching enables him to kill you. 

Billy the Poet's picture

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.

 

 

stacking12321's picture

this may seem like a victory, but let's not rest until the state passes a law making it *mandatory* to shoot a cop.

Stuck on Zero's picture

This may be a good lesson in manners.  Cops should always knock first and identify themselves.

Wile-E-Coyote's picture

Hey if the knock first they bring you to the door; they can then shoot you from the porch, problem solved.

Theosebes Goodfellow's picture

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.

messymerry's picture

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  

One Day Only's picture

"a cop is going get away with killing somebody without this law"

FIFY


funthea's picture

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.

Theosebes Goodfellow's picture

Ditto Nevada, where you do not need any permit to carry a loaded firearm inside your vehicle.

NidStyles's picture

If I could back in time I would shoot that little thug wannabe as well. 

Took Red Pill's picture

"I shot the sheriff but I did not shoot the deputy" and now "Indiana wants me and I CAN go back there!"

Oldwood's picture

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.

Government needs you to pay taxes's picture

The sarcasm is a little thick, but tasty nonetheless.

froze25's picture

Dead men tell no tails, said to me from a cop buddy in reference to defending my home from invaders.

OldPhart's picture

Not bad, but not MDB epic...keep working at it.

Socratic Dog's picture

"This should be left to the collective".  Very nice.  That's MDB standard.

Zero Point's picture

It's lacking the chain of frothing trollees all baying for his blood. MDB STILL gets those.

j.tennquist's picture

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.

SilverDOG's picture

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.

firstdivision's picture

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.

kgw's picture

Punch harder. . .It's not rocket science.

jenniewadeguy's picture

The active expression of his genotype is what enables you to kill him.

Motasaurus's picture

The fewer protections afforded to the illegal activities of police the better.

redd_green's picture

Baloney. Florida will walk on burning coals to protect crooked cops.

Bendromeda Strain's picture

This, of course, also covers punching neighborhood watchmen who chase you without identifying themselves.

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.

Refuse-Resist's picture

No Limit nigga found his limit.

 

Wish I could do a calculus equation:  Limit of Trayvon Martin as he approached Zimmerman = 0

 

 

IRC162's picture

Hey Mister,

Your green arrow thingy is broken.

Regards,

GeezerGeek's picture

Actually, it requires a special incantation known only to certain geeks. I gave him a greenie for you.

Cloud9.5's picture

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.

 

 

mr3's picture

Some people need incentives.

Billy the Poet's picture

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

Pickleton's picture

If you put em in head first, it might make em smarter

Wahooo's picture

Feet first of course.

Doubleguns's picture

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

JLee2027's picture

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. 

Billy the Poet's picture

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-...

GoinFawr's picture

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.

Billy the Poet's picture

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.

GoinFawr's picture

<-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.

 

Billy the Poet's picture

Your idea of fun is really quite a drag. Later.

GoinFawr's picture

<-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

jughead's picture

"statist"

You keep using that word...I don't think it means what you think it means. How many fingers do you have?