{{
`${userDetail.user.displayName}${userDetail.user.cachedBungieGlobalDisplayNameCode ? `#${standardizeBungieGlobalCode(userDetail.user.cachedBungieGlobalDisplayNameCode)}` : ""}`}}
{{getUserClans()}}
Edited by Britton:
7/9/2015 12:51:33 AM
33
Good law or bad law?
Indiana has passed a new law in the interest of allowing citizens to better protect themselves.
[quote]In enacting this section, the general assembly finds and declares that it is the policy of this state 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 [b][u]public servant.[/b][/u] By reaffirming the long standing right of a citizen to protect his or her home against unlawful intrusion, however, the general assembly does not intend to diminish in any way the other robust self defense rights that citizens of this state have always enjoyed. Accordingly, the general assembly also finds and declares that it is the policy of this state that people have a right to defend themselves and third parties from physical harm and crime. The purpose of this section is to provide the citizens of this state with a lawful means of carrying out this policy.[/quote]
What it allows.
[quote] 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.
However, a person:
(1) is justified in using deadly force; and
(2) does not have a duty to retreat;
if the person reasonably believes that that force is necessary to prevent serious bodily injury to the person or a third person or the commission of a forcible felony. No person in this state shall be placed in legal jeopardy of any kind whatsoever for protecting the person or a third person by reasonable means necessary.[/quote]
Also,
[quote]if the person reasonably believes that the force is necessary to prevent or terminate the other person's unlawful entry of or attack on the person's dwelling, curtilage, or occupied motor vehicle.[/quote]
The bill goes onto explain more, but that's the important part.
So basically if you [b][u]feel[/u][/b] that unlawful force upon you or a present third party, unlawful entry to your home or vehicle is imminent, you have the right to take appropriate action including the use of lethal force against [b][u]any other person.[/u][/b] (this includes cops, firefighters, etc)
I certainly understand the reasoning, however I worry that this create more "kill or be killed" scenarios, so I'm on the fence about this.
Discuss.
-
1 ReplyI agree with the principle of being able to use force and potentially lethal force to defend yourself and/or others around you, but it's that "feel" clause that has me a bit wary. "Feeling" that you or another person is in danger is a lot different from you or another person actually being in danger. Take an intruder in your home for example. I believe that in such a scenario, there are too many variables for a one-size fit all approach. Did you know the intruder? Was he or she armed? etc. Now I don't believe in those spineless progressive laws which state that you cannot use force unless they use/attempt to use force first, and/or you cannot escape (bullcrap if they think I'm going to flee my own home), but I also don't believe that you should be able to wake up one morning and decide to shoot your cousin or really close neighbor who always visits your home even uninvited without being guilty of some crime. I think maybe a better law instead of the "feel" clause would be to define some general requirements in order for danger to be recognized by the law. Ex, your relation to the perpetrator, their disposition, etc.
-
This is just a mess waiting to happen.
-
I don't know. This could be good or bad. There could be some people who take advantage of this and say they thought they were in danger when there really was none. But it also would help anybody that actually was in danger from being prosecuted for murder.
-
2 RepliesEdited by Centurion: 7/9/2015 5:16:37 AMOmg, this was a big deal about a year ago. This law pass because a cop went to a person's house unlawfully. This was passed around the gun community for awhile now.
-
1 ReplyEdited by illqo : 7/9/2015 3:36:12 AMI do like the section about no duty to retreat. I have read about cases where someone during a home invasion after defending themselves with deadly force were later arrested or sued for not running away. I do feel edgy about the section involving defense against public servants while in a vehicle, I can see that clause being misused to justify actions involving deadly force during vehicle based arrest since the officer would be operating under reasonable suspicion instead of a warrant. The home defense against a public servant is handled with issuance of a warrant at that point since they have been warned that their rights are being restricted due to court order and thus have no right to defense with deadly force ( aka you are getting arrested calmly and legally, shooting someone and claiming defense is stupid), though it does give some defense to the homeowner for actions taken during a "quiet" warrant (aka swat team kinda situation) because in the heat of the moment they will be acting in defense without knowledge of their being served a warrant. The good of this will hopefully actually limit the militarization of the police, the dependence on aggressive arrest could be tempered by the reaction and legal protections of the populace. Now, some of the militarization of police is justifiable, the criminal element is better armed, better equipped and trained and the police are doing their best to handle this acceleration. Actually I could go on about this quiet a bit, so before I make this wall any bigger I will break it up for later discussion. Tl;dr ehh kinda.
-
Edited by DovahQuinn: 7/9/2015 4:44:30 AMSeems too easily taken out of context. it could be used for "legal" murder.
-
2 RepliesThe idea is ok, but people could easily abuse this.
-
Sounds good enough I guess
-
Sounds like a lot more people are gonna be killed lol. "He was stealing my TV, so I shot him."
-
bottom line: you can ppl in the act of commiting violent crimes. No issue with that. You just better be damn sure of what's happening before you do.
-
Honestly if I feel threatened in my own home I'm not even going to think about the law and I think this is the case for most people. I think this law is kind of letting people get away with more and against public servants now but I don't really know anything about cases pertaining to homicides in the home. I do know that some requirements that need to be met before taking lethal action to defend oneself are ridiculous and give the criminal a chance harm the occupant if there are multiple invaders. The law may be good in some ways but it may be bad in others.
-
1 ReplySo if police in Indiana carry out a no-knock raid of a home, and the occupant shoots (and possibly kills) an officer, then that occupant (assuming he's not dead for shooting at the police) would not be charged? Interesting
-
I had a dream about throwing a butcher knife at a robber.
-
2 RepliesLotta teen romances about to be snuffed
-
1 ReplyThis law is way too subjective for my tastes. It'll save lives but it will inevitably cause innocent deaths. They should define what "feel threatened" is.
-
Well it's nice to have self defense but what happens when someone uses it just to attack others? I think it needs more modification.
-
5 RepliesFine with it, but I'm from Louisiana. We been doing this forever. Everybody made a big deal about Texas allowing open carry with a permit, we've had open carry, no permit required forever.
-
Edited by Jones Burr: 7/9/2015 12:49:02 AMMy first double post.
-
1 ReplyI'm with you on this one. "[i]Reasonably believes[/i]" is extremely vague and difficult to verify after the fact.
-
2 RepliesWe basically have this in Texas.
-
This law seems like the castle doctrine until it hits public servants. We have an issue with people not respecting public servants as is, so this would be the last thing we need: an excuse to attack.
-
4 RepliesIn these cases the defendant will likely have to demonstrate both that they felt an appropriate level of fear and that a reasonable person in the same circumstances would also have felt an appropriate level of fear. If one of the two isn't kosher then the claim will probably not fly.
-
4 RepliesWell the public servant would be breaking the law already.
-
2 RepliesI think it's a good law. Of course it could be used in a dumb way and with poor judgement, but I think it gives better legal protection to those who need to defend themselves without fear of being punished for doing so.
-
6 RepliesCanada has the same law
-
1 ReplyI'm kinda on the fence about it too. Some folk's judgement isn't too great, so that could be an issue.
