State Makes It Legal to Shoot Cops in Self-Defense If They Violate Your Rights

Via Anti-Media.org

(CCN) 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 Indiana 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?

Subscribe
Notify of
guest
10 Comments
wip
wip
September 29, 2015 11:20 am

Of course this is a good law. It is also a natural right. What’s not to like about it?

Anonymous
Anonymous
September 29, 2015 11:23 am

Ir’s always been that way in places like Texas.

At least in law, not always in practice.

As Gregorio Cortez could testify.

There is the law, then there is reality.

Always keep that in mind.

Southern Sage
Southern Sage
September 29, 2015 12:00 pm

This kind of law is absolutely necessary to bring to a stop the increasing militarization of the police and the growing tendency to use excessive force. A law-abiding citizen minding his business in his own home should have the right to defend himself and his family from armed yahoos, badges or not. Such laws will force the police to carefully plan out SWAT-type raids and maybe get the address right!

Anonymous
Anonymous
September 29, 2015 12:29 pm

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?

I think cops should be held to the same standard as we are held.

If I’m armed and I kick my way into someone’s home with no warning and I get shot down by the homeowner, then I deserve it.

They had a warrant – I’m still in shock that it was actually filled out – but smashing their way into someone’s home unannounced? Yeah, sorry. They fucked up and one of their ninja-clad goons got dead. Don’t hold dude responsible for their fuckup.

Shiny badges do not grant extra rights. Any “public servant” has only the same powers as we do – at least according to the bedrock foundational concepts of “delegation of authority” and “governed by consent of the governed”. If I don’t have the right to grab a gun, get dressed like a ninja and smash my way into someone’s home unannounced, then neither do they.

This shit happens from time to time, but you always hear about it after the fact – if at all.

Peaceout
Peaceout
September 29, 2015 5:03 pm

http://www.pressreader.com/usa/the-seattle-times-sunday/textview

Article from this weekends paper saying that there have been 213 fatal shootings by the Seattle Police ‘in the line of duty’ over the past 10 years. Only one officer has been criminally charged. The ‘I acted in self defense’ or ‘acted without malice or evil intent’ rational has given officers free reign to not be accountable.

anarchyst
anarchyst
September 29, 2015 6:23 pm

There is much angst and consternation against prosecutors and grand juries who refuse to bring charges against police officers, even when incontrovertible evidence is presented. Even with incontrovertible audio and video evidence, prosecutors are loath to prosecute rogue law enforcement personnel.
Let’s examine the reasons why it is so difficult to prosecute thug cops:
Most prosecutors are former police officers or have extensive dealings with police departments and have ongoing relationships with police departments in their respective jurisdictions. They are friendly with the judges in their jurisdictions, as well. This, along with “absolute immunity” makes it easy for them to “cover up” police abuses and behavior. Prosecutors cannot be sued for malfeasance…it takes a judge (who prosecutors are friendly with) to bring charges on a rogue prosecutor (which almost never happens).
In addition, prosecutors guide the actions of grand juries. Prosecutors are not required to introduce any evidence to grand juries, (can and do) easily “whitewash” the actions of rogue cops. On the other hand, prosecutors can (and often do) go after honest citizens who seek justice outside official channels…prosecutors have ultimate power and are not afraid to use it…their immunity sees to that.
Another aspect to a grand jury’s inability to prosecute bad cops is the fear of retribution…cops drive around all day, have nothing but time, have access to various databases, and can easily get the names and addresses of grand jurors…this, in itself can be a powerful deterrent against grand jurors who “want to do the right thing” and prosecute bad cops. There are many cases of cops parking in front of grand jurors’ residences, following them around, and threaten to issue citations to them, in order to “convince” them to “make the right decision”…the “thin blue line” at its worst…
The whole system has to change.
Eliminate absolute and qualified immunity for all public officials. The fear of personal lawsuits would be a powerful deterrent against abuses of the public.
Any funds disbursed to civilians as a result of official misconduct must be taken from the police pension funds–NOT from the taxpayers.
Grand juries must be superior to the prosecutor; ALL evidence must be presented to grand jurors. Failure to do so must be considered a felony and subject prosecutors to prosecution themselves.
No police agency can be allowed to investigate itself. Internal affairs departments must be restricted to minor in-house investigations of behavior between cops. All investigations must be handled by outside agencies, preferably at the state level.
Civilian police review boards must be free of police influence. Members of civilian review boards must have NO ties to police departments. Relatives of police would be prohibited from serving…Recently, the “supreme court” threw police another “bone”. The court ruled that police are not responsible for their actions if they are “ignorant of the law”…now, let’s get this straight–honest citizens cannot use “ignorance of the law” as an excuse, but cops can??
Revolution is sorely needed…..

AC
AC
September 29, 2015 7:17 pm

How about politicians and judges?

Overthecliff
Overthecliff
September 29, 2015 8:39 pm

If you count on this kind of law to protect you,you are a fool.