Oh, OK, I thought you were speaking about non-automotive interactions there, as well.

You're either a liar and a troll or you must admit your opinions are wildly out of touch with mainstream American thought (ie; Whackjob ie crank)

The only possible way you would have a case in that scenario is if you can stand and confidently say you know without fail every law, every court precedent and all SCOTUS rulings.

If so, kudos to you. If not, pathetic hypocrite.

Obviously this is correct, but I would argue in this situation, he's not a cop, he's just some dude robbing your house.

What about situations where cops are serving a warrant and hit the wrong address?

What if a cop knocks on a door, and somehow the situation ends up with him entering the house under circumstances where it's not technically legal?

I don't agree with this law at all, but I do think there needs to be punishment for illegal police entry into homes that goes beyond "any evidence recovered can't be used in court". Something needs to be in place so that all cops will be heavily incentivized to make damn sure it's 100% without a doubt legal anytime they plan on entering a person's home without explicit permission or clear legal authority to do so. Them getting shot isn't the answer though.

You just love calling people names don't you.

The only opinion of mine that matters here is the one on the issue at hand, one that is in line with 90% of the Indiana Senate and 74% of the Indiana House. I'd say on this issue, you're the one "out of touch with mainstream".
There you go with the insults again.

BTW, a few posts up you said your opinion on the drug war was at odds with most of America. Does that, by your definition, make you a "whackjob" or "crank"?
The scenario I claimed was that you were uninformed about the issue at hand, and so rather than articulate an intelligible rebuttal based on factual information you chose to fling metaphorical monkey poo in the form of ad hominem insults.

When you responded to the information you lacked with "If that's the case then it's fine", you made the case for me that you substituted personal attack for informed argument.
That's a ridiculous red herring. Nobody knows "without fail every law, every court precedent and all SCOTUS rulings", and nobody needs to know them to substantiate the truth of what I claimed.
Lol Pot -> Kettle

This is ultimately the issue for me.

Obviously no one but a few ******s in black robes has a problem with you shooting down an armed home invader just because they happen to have a badge on.

The issue is completely non violent confrontations which would have ended up with evidence being toesed now end in a funeral for someone.

The sad part is, there are those here who desire the right to shoot and kill cops for technicalities.

As an aside, I concede this law doesn't sound that bad, when read in its entirety.

Johnny Methheads doesn't read laws in their entirety. He saw something on the news once about how now it's legal to kill cops in Indiana.
So the cops get a warrant and now they've got a gunfight.

The law uses the word "reasonable person". I'm not at all concerned about "reasonable persons".

I'd agree that "reasonable person" creates some ambiguity, but "reasonable person" and "reasonable belief" is pretty damn standard in laws like this. In fact, I'm pretty sure you've used phrases like "reasonable belief, from his perspective" in your defense of cops quite often. Should that be changed to "absolute truth, based on the totality of the circumstances whether known to the officer or not?" If not, and the answer is obviously not, then why should Joe public have a different set of standards when defending themselves than the police do?

Actually, I'm rereading your post and it doesn't say what I thought it said. Regardless, I wouldn't mind your thoughts on this. I do understand you're worried about nutjobs thinking they have free reign on cops, but nutjobs are going to nutter regardless of what some law says.

Lets imagine for a moment that cops busted into my home on a noknock tonight... what do you think my response is going to be?

That's my argument against the no-knock warrant. That being said, it really is a good point since now, in Indiana, criminals have the "maybe it's a bad warrant -fire away- card to play, which is obviously going to increase caution on the part of the police, and cause them to shoot faster to avoid being shot.

I could be wrong. My concerns here could turn out to be just like the unfounded warnings of gunfights in the street the anti-castle doctrine crowd used, but I think the large change is that now we're tossing a (perceived) license to kill into the hands of criminals facing imminent arrest in most cases.

My theory is the police are going to give a reasonable person justifiable reason to kill them in situations where they're in uniform infrequently enough that codification of such situations seems both a waste of time as well as making things much more dangerous for half informed criminals.

To speak specifically to the warrant issue, you wouldn't believe the number of search warrants I've been on where the person being searched earnestly believed the search warrant was invalid because they had a right to attend a hearing regarding their search warrant before it was served.

THESE are the people who see "reasonable man" and think that means "hey! that's me!"

Will1530, I hope that clarifies some of my concerns on this issue.

Did you watch the video posted about the complaint forms? Do you think a reasonable conclusion from watching that video is that "it's impossible for IDing yourself to be incriminating?"

Yikes, cops just are incapable of learning. Perhaps you could invade less homes or be more accurate when you're invading homes? Naaaa, just kill more civilians. Never gets back to you guys anyway amirite?

Sorry brah I live in reality, where people actually havè to be taken into custody and search warrants must be served.

Enjoy Academia. You'll discover reality soon enough.

I think you and I are using different definitions of the word "incriminating".

While I see the offensiveness of the situation, I don't see how providing ID, even in that situation, is "incriminating".

Wow another awful post, unsurprising that the guy who argued "if I can't high-speed chase jaywalkers then that means cops can't ever do anything" would also argue "if I can't invade houses hows I'm supposed to arrest nobody???"

Why do you keep responding to responses I make to Case Closed, then acting as though you're confused as to why I'm lumping you in with him in arguments?

Just following orders. I gotcha. When your only tool is a hammer, all your problems look like nails.

So you're saying there is a solution for searching the inside of occupied residences for evidence of criminal activity with a warrant that doesn't include entering the residence?

Go on......

Btw:

I said that? All I am saying is that instead of claiming that this will just increase the amount of civilians killed by cops you could find a better alternative. Like less ****ing up when it comes to serving warrants on the wrong homes. I don't think this bill gives legal authority to allow meth labs to start shooting at swat teams when they enter. Or maybe cops could stop using bull**** no knock warrants? There are other options besides murdering more civilians.

Yea, because what, 88% of all SWAT raids are on the wrong home, right?

And I agree on No Knock warrants. Can you honestly say that were you an Indiana cop, if the soundbite of "It's legal to shoot cops in Indiana" was floating about on the local news, you're not going to be more cautious?

I Guess not.

Yes. I'd probably check the address on the warrants a little more carefully. I'd respect the property rights of citizens more. I'd voice concern when my department wanted to put my life on the line so we could invade the home of a non-violent criminal offender. Those would all be my options before I thought about killing more civilians to protect myself.

Can you stop with the warrant address crap at a minimum? Seriously, you keep bringing this up, how common do you think this is statistically?

I mean, the US does what, 50k tactical warrant services annually and you hear this "wrong address" story once every year or two?

Also, your statement is vastly telling. Why in the world would you "voice concerns" about being sent to a serve a search warrant in the home of a "non-violent" offender, other than the knowledge most of you repeatedly lie about holding, which is your average drug dealer is about as "non-violent" as your average Hell's Angel. If you truly believed drug dealers to be as non violent as you claim, you not only wouldn't voice concerns about your life being risked, you'd likely go alone and unarmed to serve the court process to prove how non violent drug dealers truly are.

And this is coming from someone AGAINST the drug war.

I have not done an in depth analysis of this indiana bill, so I can easily be wrong. But I would assume that it aims to only cover those who are completely innocent of any crime protecting their home from police who are doing something very dangerous like the no knock wrong warrant scenario. I think it's same to assume that in practice this law will not provide a defense for anyone who is involved in any criminal activity if they shoot someone in LE when they enter their home. That's why I think that scenario is important. This goes back to our basic disagreements on this issue. You fully understand the number of normal routine interactions cops have with civilians. Most cops probably go years without having to deal with a situation that they would not want the general public to find out about. That's good, don't get me wrong. But I still want better results from LE, ASAs, judges, defense attorneys. Pretty much everyone involved in the legal system today is dropping the ball in some areas where there is just no excuse to drop the ball in such a way. The numbers may be small, but for the people who actually have to deal with these problems they are massive life changing events.

I am not trying to argue that drug dealers are non violent. They are certainly willing to go to the hilt for some petty bull**** and create awful situations for civilians. I think the entire legal system is responsible for unintentionally aiding and abetting these groups and creating more hazards than need to exist. It's just easier to expect more out of the judicial system + LE + everything else than it is to expect better behavior out of gangs and drug dealers.

Mods: plz change thread title to "We troll DBJ itt and rarely discuss matters of police or prosecutor abuse"

Just pull the armored SWAT vehicle right up on their front and tell them over the loudspeaker that everyone needs to come out with their hands up. Turn off the water and electricity right before you do this. If they don't come out, sit there and wait until they do. They'll get bored of the standoff eventually (especially without water and electricity) and you guys can pick up some nice overtime sitting in a truck on some guy's front lawn. Much less danger for the police officers this way, and less dangerous to the people being hit as well. IMO, it's much better to get the people out of the house then search it than it is to hit the door with a battering ram and come charging in at 5am scaring the living **** out of everyone there.

^As a non criminal tax payer I vote for the Ram.

^Solid reasoning.

As a non-Japanese American I vote for internment camps.

As a non-dissenting Soviet I vote for the Gulag.

As a non-terrorist American I vote for more drones, secret indefinite [but to end at some later date, of course] imprisonments, and torture.

etc.