Tuesday, June 12, 2012

Mitch Daniels, NRA Make It Legal to Kill Police

Gov. Mitch Daniels (Repug-IN) and the NRA have passed legislation to make legal the killing of police officers in IN.

Wow.

Of course, such laws probably just apply to fat white men.

49 comments:

  1. They have done nothing of the sort. Nice bait and switch.

    ReplyDelete
  2. Randolphus MaximusJune 12, 2012 at 5:27 PM

    This is interesting because the new law makes it legal for citizens to use deadly force against anyone, even the police, who unlawfully/illegally enters your home. I can see the rationale, the law was a direct response to an Indiana State Supreme Court ruling last year that said that people have NO right to resist an unlawful entry by the police. The ISSC ruling overturned common law principal that goes back to the Magna Carta and is spelled out in the Bill of Rights. Will this lead to a massacre of the police out there in Indiana? I suppose it would come down to how often the police out there are unlawfully/illegally entering peoples homes.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. No, Randy, it will depend on how many stand-yer-ground idiots SAY the police were entering their home illegally.

      Delete
    2. No mike b302000 whatever you are, I gues you have never witnessed illegal entry by the police like when they knock and get no answer then claim I heard a noise, I heard a scream, then the break the door down, when in fact, they heard nothing. The police lie all the time and the courts say it is legal as long as they do it as part of their job.
      The only problem is,the courts are wrong. The cops take an oath to uphold the law and lying violates that oath!

      Delete
  3. Anon; to the contrary. They have made it legal to kill police officers, firemen and other public servants. Take a look at the law. All one must have is a "reasonable" belief that a cop, fireman, social worker is doing something you think is illegal.

    So, if you're behind on your child support but you think you're being forced to pay too much and a social worker comes to your trailer---you now have the legal right to shoot her.

    Of course, this legislation probably is invalid if you're a minority.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Like Japete, you don’t understand the legal meaning of the “reasonable person standard”. Ultimately it comes down to the question of if a jury of your peers also would have had the same reasonable belief.

      Delete
    2. TS: You need to read the legislation. It isn't what others think is reasonable--it's what they think *you* thought was reasonable.

      For example, Let's say you kill a cop who comes to confiscate your machine gun arsenal. Now, I know machine guns aren't covered by your 2A rights but I also know many gunloons believe they are.

      Delete
    3. We’ll see. Is it safe to say that the next time anyone is prosecuted for causing harm to a police officer in Indiana that you will be proven wrong? Do you want to make that wager?

      Delete
    4. As I sagely noted, this legislation will only be applied to fat white males.

      Delete
    5. Ok, so then the first time a fat white male gets charged with assaulting or murdering an officer of the state, you will admit to being wrong?

      Delete
    6. That is fat, white, OLD and CRABBY males.

      I can't wait to see how the crazy fringie militias on the extreme right apply this.

      I know the right hates union members, including cops and firemen, but this is going to far, declaring open season on shooting them. If anything the penalties should be greater, not removed, for such a shooting.

      Delete
    7. The Jadegold wit was sorely missed. Welcome back.

      "Of course, this legislation probably is invalid if you're a minority."

      Delete
    8. Mikeb, that's not wit.

      Dog Gone, please post a current photograph of yourself so we can see what group you actually belong in.

      Delete
  4. RM: You've badly misread both the Magna Carta and BoR if you believe there's a principle that permits violent resistance to unlawful state act. Instead, both the Magna Carta and BoR champion due process--which includes remedies if you're the victim of state crimes or misdeeds.

    But the really troublesome of this IN law is the low standard: a "reasonable belief."

    Suppose it's your fervent belief that the Second Amendment permits you to own chemical and biological weapons or hand grenades or the like. You'd be within your IN rights to kill policemen who came to take those weapons.

    ReplyDelete
  5. Suppose that it is your fervent belief that a woman found dead in her own home, raped and strangled with her own pantyhose, is somehow morally superior to a woman explaining to police how her attacker got that fatal bullet wound.

    In your world it be A-ok if she were raped and strangled by a police officer.

    ReplyDelete
  6. It really is so much easier to make points when you care nothing about the truth. Jadegold, what part of reasonable don't you get? There is nothing in this law that permits the shooting of a social worker who's coming around to see about child support payments. This addresses the fact that police and bail bondsmen do occasionally burst into the home of an innocent person. Do try to put yourself into the situation. You hear a crash in the middle of the night. People have broken into your home. What would you think is the reasonable response?

    And by the way, a machine gun arsenal? Really? Are you capable of making a point without exaggeration?

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Greggy: It's important to understand "reasonable" is very low bar when talking about in a legal perspective. And when you're potentially talking about killing someone, a low standard shouldn't be employed.

      Yes, police and other public servants get it wrong sometimes. The answer, of course, shouldn't be the death penalty for what may be an error.

      Greggy, do you propose we amputate a waitress' hand for bringing you your steak well-done instead of medium rare?

      Delete
    2. If you're going to talk like a toddler, you should go to your room. Of course, it comes as no surprise, since you can't see the difference between getting an order wrong in a restaurant and a home invasion.

      Delete
    3. Greggy: there's really no difference. What you propose is allowing anyone to mete out punishment including death based on one's "reasonable beliefs."

      Delete
    4. Reasonable belief doesn't mean just anyone can just say they believed it. It is still subject to a judge and jury ruling that a reasonable person in the circumstances would act in a similar way. The way you portray the law in one sentence as a free pass at killing cops is beyond misleading and then make the unbased claim that it only applies to white men is disgusting.

      All the law does is reaffirm the fact that nobody is above the law. It takes away the special immunity the badge has offered in the past to bully citizens without fear of just resistence.

      Delete
    5. TF: You really ought to read the law. As I've clearly and repeatedly noted, the standard is what a "person reasonaly believes" as opposed to what others reasonably believe.

      What's missed, of course, is that while we're arguing about if someone can get away with murder or not--a murder was committed. Because some gunloon believed he was within his rights under the law.

      Delete
    6. You are the one saying that it within their rights under the law to commit murder- not us.

      Delete
    7. But, we know this already happens with those false DGUs. Indiana's just legitimizing it a bit.

      Delete
    8. Mikeb, we don't "know" that. You suspect it. I've asked you for evidence, and all you offer is that you feel it to be the case.

      Delete
    9. Greggy: The false DGUs is pretty well-established. What is giving you problems in comprehension?

      Delete
  7. jadegold said..."So, if you're behind on your child support but you think you're being forced to pay too much and a social worker comes to your trailer---you now have the legal right to shoot her."

    and

    "Suppose it's your fervent belief that the Second Amendment permits you to own chemical and biological weapons or hand grenades or the like. You'd be within your IN rights to kill policemen who came to take those weapons."

    NOT. I see you didn't actually read the Act.
    (j) ..a person is not justified in using force against a public servant if:
    (1) the person is committing or is escaping after the commission of a crime;

    It says nothing about if the person using force thinks he is not committing a crime or reasonably believes the law doesn't apply to him.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Billy: Better reading skills, please.

      The legislation clearly reads:

      "c) A person is justified in using reasonable force against another any other person to protect the person or a third person from what the person reasonably believes to be the imminent use of unlawful force. "

      My emphasis added.

      Note the words--it clearly states a person can interpret the law as however he wishes if he "reasonably" believes he is acting legally.

      There's really no legal precedent, if you cheat on your taxes--you really can't use "well, I thought it was ok to deduct my beer purchases."

      Delete
    2. Jadegold, you do realize, no, that reasonable means in many cases what a jury of one's peers would see as such? This isn't an unlimited license to kill.

      Delete
    3. Greggy; Actually, it is.

      Police associations and unions are against this law. Why?

      Not only do police organizations feel it's going to allow people to legally murder cops--they also know it's going to cause cops to be killed because some folks think they're within their rights to kill cops.

      Delete
    4. jaded: Better comprehension skills please.

      There are exceptions that I pointed out that clearly you are either too thick to understand or willingly turning a blind eye because you're been proven wrong.

      Delete
  8. Randolphus MaximusJune 12, 2012 at 7:11 PM

    @ Jadegold - Hardly, if you do some research, castle doctrine can be traced directly back to the Magna Carta and the 2nd Amendment recognizes that free citizens remain free only if they are armed. I take issue with your post because it implies that people should just take whatever the state wants to shove down the peoples throat like good sheep. And, if the government does something illegal against you, well, you can appeal to the government to make it right. Well, I guess it worked out for the Japanese-Americans interned during WWII 50+ years after the fact. Then again, I think the Indians are still waiting for redress of their grievances.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. @RM: Your misreadings of the Magna Carta remain.

      So, what do you suppose would have happened to Japanese-Americans if they elected to go NRA during WWII? Here are your choices:

      A.) They would have been left alone.
      B.) A bloodbath.
      C.) A bloodbath followed by decades of segregation.

      Delete
    2. Randolphus MaximusJune 12, 2012 at 8:03 PM

      OR

      D) Individual states could decide that what the Feds wanted to do was un-Constitutional BS and give safe haven to the Japanese-Americans. Similar to runaway slaves pre-Civil War or illegal immigrant in California.

      Who is to say what would have happened? Ideally, it would have been choice A. So now that you and I both agree that government isn't perfect and makes bad choices, why are you arguing that government should have a monopoly on the use of force?

      Delete
    3. Randolphus MaximusJune 12, 2012 at 8:05 PM

      *immigrants

      Delete
    4. RM: Or E.) Optimus Prime could have swept down and saved all the Japanese Americans.

      RM: Do you really believe that in the aftermath and hysteria of Pearl Harbor and our our existing state of racial attitudes in 1942 that some US state was going to give Japanese American safe haven? If you do, there are bridges I can sell you.

      Delete
    5. Big Randy, I suggest you read a whole lot more than what you know -- the Castle Doctrine going back to the Magna Carta and forward to accepted legal practice EVERYWHERE BUT HERE requires you to retreat, and only if you can not do so safely, or if you cannot do so at all, may you use deadly force --- and then NOT against law enforcement or other public servants.

      Someone thinking something is a crimen is not the same as it being a crime. The outright lunacy of what some people believe to be the law, including wrong ideas they pick up on television from fictional programs, or even from bad reality programming is not the basis for a good law or a good understanding of when it is acceptable to shoot a person in uniform.

      Delete
    6. Randolphus MaximusJune 12, 2012 at 8:43 PM

      Like I said previously, we don't know what would have happened. But we do know that the government made the choice to deny the Japanese-Americans by not following the Constitution. But you are avoiding my question to you. "So now that you and I both agree that government isn't perfect and makes bad choices, why are you arguing that government should have a monopoly on the use of force?"

      Delete
    7. Randolphus MaximusJune 12, 2012 at 9:07 PM

      "EVERYWHERE BUT HERE requires you to retreat, and only if you can not do so safely, or if you cannot do so at all, may you use deadly force --- and then NOT against law enforcement or other public servants."

      @dog gone -

      If you are in your home, then where is there to retreat to? I would conclude from the above quote that resistance/force against government agents is NEVER justified in your view. Is that correct?

      Delete
  9. Jade gold,
    Nice overt racism. You should be ashamed of yourself.

    ReplyDelete
  10. The real funny thing about your use of logic and misinterpretation of law, is that the same “reasonable belief” standard is used to justify the actions of police. So according to you, probable cause is meaningless. The police are under the same standard as being required to “reasonably believe” that a crime is being committed. Your claim is that “reasonable belief” is the sole product of one person’s feelings and emotions- essentially making all actions by that officer legal. You’ve created a catch-22 where this law can never be applied. Your logic also completely destroys the 4th amendment. Gone.

    Since you don’t understand the “reasonable person standard”, you think an officer who is a pedophile can legally feel up any 12 year old girl he sees and claim he reasonably believed she had drugs hidden on her person.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. TS: A "reasonable standard" for police and law enforcement is used because law enforcement is assumed to have some training and background in the law. Similarly, when police or other public officials violate the law they are held to a higher standard in terms of penalties and punishment.

      For example, to get a warrant, police have to work through several levels of law enforcement and the judiciary. This usually involves an attorney and a judge determining if a warrant is legally justified. All part of due process.

      Gunloons would destroy due process by simply allowing any idiot to interpret the law as he pleases.

      Delete
    2. You are not being consistent. You started off saying the law was written to legally allow a certain behavior. I pointed out to you that the standard which applies to that law is a common legal standard used all over the place- such as probable cause. Now you say that the difference is “training”? That rich considering you and your side are purposely spreading misinformation to the public about the reasonable belief standard.

      Jade: “Similarly, when police or other public officials violate the law they are held to a higher standard in terms of penalties and punishment.”

      No, it is the other way around. Police are operating under qualified immunity.

      Also, probable cause is used to make arrests without warrants all the time. Do you not know this?

      Delete
  11. If someone with hostile intentions tries illegally forcing their way into my home, I am going to defend my family, myself, and my property.

    The only people more dangerous than hardened criminals breaking into my home are people wearing blue costumes that have "qualified immunity" and will never face prosecution for using deadly force.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Cap'n; Actually, you're more of a danger to yourself and your family than your fantasies about criminals and cops.

      Delete
    2. Wow, what a persuasive argument.

      Since you are so knowledgeable, please explain how my family would be more safe if I am unarmed, rely on government for my family's security, and let anyone with a government costume do anything they want outside or inside my home?

      That arrangement worked out really well for the 10+ million people the Nazis executed, the 20+ million people the Soviet government executed, the 20+ million the Chinese government executed, the 1+ million the Cambodian government executed, and the 40+ million people who were victims of violent crime in the U.S. the last 20 years.

      If that's your idea of success, I don't want any part of it.

      Delete
    3. Capn Crunch, you and I are gun owners. That's enough for Jadegold. He's such a child that he fears anyone who has a power that he knows himself to be incapable of controlling.

      Delete
    4. Greg,

      It is apparent to me now that people like Jadegold and Dog Gone are irrational and seek to control your life and my life.

      I suspect you, like myself, simply want criminals to leave me alone. And that is the only reason I have firearms -- in case a criminal tries to harm me or my family. I do not wish for such an event. I do not fantasize about such an event. I have studied methods and prepared for such an event should it ever happen. This is no different that studying the effects of hurricanes and preparing in case one ever slams into your home. Of course no one fantasizes about or wishes for a storm to slam into their home. Neither do I fantasize about or wish for a criminal attack.

      Delete
    5. Exactly. I live in a region that gets tornadoes, and I pay attention to warnings. I know what to do if one comes through. Having experienced one already, I have no desire for a repeat performance. Being ready for a bad event doesn't mean that I want it to happen.

      Delete