So a little background if you care-(this is kinda from memory and I'm a few credits short for my GED in law)

A couple years back 2 officers responded to a 911 call of domestic violence in a small Indiana town. When they got there, the girlfriend/wife/whatever recanted and the guy blocked the front door refusing to let them in. Indiana has one of those automatic arrest thingies for domestic violence(girl had visible marks) so the cops entered the guy's house(legally) and the dude started punching and kicking them. So he gets arrested, but the domestic violence charge doesnt stick. To get out of the assaulting a police officer charge, he gets the ICLU on his side and they argue something along the lines of it being an illegal entry because there was no domestic violence. Goes all the way to the Indiana Supreme court who rule that under the existing (broadly written law) citizens shouldnt resist cops whether the entry was legal or not because it puts everyone in danger. The victim(homeowner) can seek remedy through the court system later if they did indeed have their rights violated(cough-laf). Couple all that with a huge uptick in no-knock warrants, and Indiana's recent publicized promotion(and corruption) of the property-seizure biz-- and you got the libertarians(and a whole lot of liberals) going batshiat screechy. Sooo, this law was put in place to actually put restrictions on the previous law which was so poorly written it gave police carte-blanche to do pretty much whatever the fark they wanted, even in the homes of private citizens.

Because People in power are Stupid: Now they need to legalize black talon apr
They were never illegal. Just discontinued.

As a Hoosier (when I am living stateside), I am ok with this.

The Indiana Supreme Court ruling was ridiculous - police could break into a house, without a proper warrant, and the homeowners just had to submit? Add into the mix the not-uncommon occurrence of home invaders dressing as police, and police officers using this ruling to go house to house with no probable cause (and yes, that Sheriff later said it was probably not the best idea, and he wouldn't do that after all - doesn't change the fact that some department would realize they could under the ruling, and would start)

All in all, this law simply forces the police to make sure they have a proper warrant and are going to the right place, and allows law-abiding residents to defend themselves if their home is invaded.

BronyMedic: They don't mount guns themselves.

Try again


Yup, that is a US police department, rolling with an M2 50 cal

BronyMedic: Cyno01: BronyMedic: Guntram Shatterhand: Maybe we should stop funding police militarization. Seriously, what point is there to invading a home at night? Most cops will go on about how dangerous this threat to our freedoms really is, but how is that worse than power-hungry assholes playing soldier on our dime?

Please tell me how the police have access to Military equipment you can't purchase as a civilian, again?

And, please don't say because they carry M-4s or MP-5s on patrol. Because I can go down the street to the gunshop and buy one with a tax stamp.

Did you miss yesterdays thread?

You never answered the question. These departments aren't getting Top Secret military hardware. They're not patrolling the streets in M2 Bradleys, or using Apachies for DUI Checkpoints.

Its more subtle than that, its about the role of police in society. The police fight wars now, drugs, gangs, etc. and they sure dress the part.



Would these men look more in place in Afghanistan or central California?



How does this "protect and serve" anyone?



/the great thing about sufficiently militarizing police is that you dont even have to declare martial law

I am ok with this. Police should only have the same rights as citizens. If you illegally enter someone's house, you can get shot. Just because you're a police officer does not mean you get a free pass. Yeah, I know. Unicorns are grazing on my lawn and Pegasus brought me into work tonight.

Good.

I mean, this won't do anything except give police more reason to murder innocent people (or people who don't deserve to be executed for whatever crimes they did commit), but at least now people do have the right to defend themselves.

The way i see it... the constitution is our highest law. Armed civilian breaking into a house, burglary, tresspassing, whole host of other things probably...

Cop illegally entering a house, either with the wrong address or just not caring, theyre guilty of all of the above AND in violation of the constitution. Which is much much worse IMHO anyway...

This law seems overly broad. However, with more and more police forces wanting to play soldier and do no knock warrants at night I am totally okay with this. If I'm at home asleep and the door comes crashing down because they are at the wrong house shouldn't be under any obligation to wait and find out if they are cops who can't read an address correctly before I start shooting.

I would think that the real impact of this law will be that cops who get a hard on pretending they are in the military will be forced to think twice about unnecessary no knock warrants. And when they do get such a warrant they'll be more likely to make sure they check the address before they come in guns drawn.

If the police hit your house by mistake and you shoot at them you are going to have a couple hundred bullets flying at you. Still, I like the law. Get the f*cking address right you stupid pigs.

FTFA: Tim Downs, president of the Indiana State Fraternal Order of Police, which opposed the legislation, said the law could open the way for people who are under the influence or emotionally distressed to attack officers in their homes.

"It's just a recipe for disaster," Downs told Bloomberg. "It just puts a bounty on our heads."


Hyperbole much?

/I'm OK with this law

Ringo48: Thoguh: This law seems overly broad. However, with more and more police forces wanting to play soldier and do no knock warrants at night I am totally okay with this. If I'm at home asleep and the door comes crashing down because they are at the wrong house shouldn't be under any obligation to wait and find out if they are cops who can't read an address correctly before I start shooting.


I guess I just don't see the point here. If cops are breaking into your house and you start shooting, they're going to shoot back. It won't matter if you're legally in the right, because you'll be dead.

And cops kicking in doors wear body armor, so unless you're really good at head shots in the dark, while surprised, you won't even get to take one or two of them out before they kill you.

Hopefully it will make the cops double check what they are doing. Missing their target house by a block is illegal entry and they might be subject to a bunch of gunfire from law-abiding people. That isn't what the cops want, they want to be shot at by drug dealers that they feel deserve to be shot a hundred times. (of course that is not what they WANT, but that is what they are asking for)

Now they don't have immunity when they f*ck up, and they can't charge someone for defending themselves because they themselves f*cked up.

Go in the right house, you might get shot. Go in the wrong house, you might get shot and the shooter will walk, if the shooter lives. And who knows what a prosecutor could make of this if they hit the wrong house and the homeowner died defending himself or herself.

It is a good law.

Because People in power are Stupid: [newsimg.bbc.co.uk image 203x290]

Now they need to legalize black talon apr

[upload.wikimedia.org image 640x480]

Why? A 12 guage frangible (do they even make this?) to the chest in a residetial house will still jack your shiat up. It doesn't have to pierce anything to take you out.

Plus if the person you do shoot lives to testify, you can't go to jail for murder. Armor piercing rounds could easily go through one guy, the wall behind him, and your kid who's sleeping behind that wall.

BronyMedic: By the way, the reason they have those is to make rescue and entry on active shooter events without exposing their people to gunfire. They don't mount guns themselves.

Have you ever seen those [city name] SWAT shows? I don't know if they are still on television anymore, but that isn't the only thing they use those vehicle for.

"We got a couple warrants to serve today, a few of our CI's have reported buying crack at this address. We put these hooks into the bars on the windows, attach them to our armored vehicle and pull off the bars, sometimes we pull the whole damn house down."

I don't mind a well armed police force but the SWATactics employed and the majority of no-knock warrants just increase the danger to everyone in the vicinity of something that could be handled with much more attention to safety.

BronyMedic: Cyno01:You do see the massive number of imaging and cameras on the top of that armored vehicle, right? They're designed to go into active shooter events and get information, perform rescue, and deliver operators without getting them shot too.

If that was *all* they were used for, I would probably not care as much. However, when they are used to roll through the walls of someone's house, who was accused of something more minor, like cock-fighting (not an endorsement on my part of animal cruelty, frak folks who do that), simply because a celeb is there, cameras are rolling, and because you can, well, those armored vehicles look like just another means for someone to live out their bully fantasies.

Because People in power are Stupid: Now they need to legalize black talon apr

Black Talon ammo is NOT armor piercing. Bullet coatings (such as Teflon, the Black Talon coating, etc.) are used to reduce wear and tear on the gun barrel. They typically don't effect terminal performance that much, and they definitely don't make a regular bullet into an armor-piercing bullet. If Black Talon is illegal in your state it is because it is specifically regulated or because of its coating, not because it's a true armor piercing round.

In fact, Teflon coatings in particular were found to perform worse against bullet proof vests. The coating did, however, improve penetration against thin metal and glass, which would result in better and safer performance (through reducing ricochets) against non-armored targets like regular vehicles. The notion that Teflon and other coatings can take a regular bullet and make it armor piercing is a total media fiction. The only way to make a true armor-piercing bullet is to use dense metals as the bullet core.

Armor piercing handgun ammo is legal for citizens to own, sell, and shoot, but it is illegal for FFL holders to sell it to non-governmental agencies. Hence, for civilians, true armor piercing handgun ammunition is much like fully automatic weapons in that they are legal to own and use, but the manufacture or import of new supply is illegal.

//The more you know

Bit'O'Gristle: Even if you know the entry is illegal, and start shooting at the police..its a good chance that you're gonna get killed, or get someone in your family killed. If they are wrong, take them to court for kicking your door in. Shooting at them just welcomes a "hail of return gunfire" scenario.

While I agree with you: I think the issue might be more legal protection if the owner survives. There's been a few cases nationally where the police get the wrong address (or lie or get lied to by an informant for a drug raid on the address in question), get in a shoot out with the owner, the owner lives, and then is charged with murder/assault/attempted murder/etc.

BronyMedic: Guntram Shatterhand: Maybe we should stop funding police militarization. Seriously, what point is there to invading a home at night? Most cops will go on about how dangerous this threat to our freedoms really is, but how is that worse than power-hungry assholes playing soldier on our dime?

Please tell me how the police have access to Military equipment you can't purchase as a civilian, again?

And, please don't say because they carry M-4s or MP-5s on patrol. Because I can go down the street to the gunshop and buy one with a tax stamp.

Did you miss yesterdays thread?

violentsalvation: bel4sucks: violentsalvation: If the police hit your house by mistake and you shoot at them you are going to have a couple hundred bullets flying at you. Still, I like the law. Get the f*cking address right you stupid pigs.

You've seen way too many movies.

you don't even have to shoot, just have a gun in your hands and they will put 60 bullets in you

/wasn't the wrong address, but that is what would happen either way. They aren't suddenly going to realize they are in the wrong place when a different person than the warrant mentions is shooting at them.

bel4sucks: violentsalvation: If the police hit your house by mistake and you shoot at them you are going to have a couple hundred bullets flying at you. Still, I like the law. Get the f*cking address right you stupid pigs.

You've seen way too many movies.

you don't even have to shoot, just have a gun in your hands and they will put 60 bullets in you

Ken VeryBigLiar: Without context- Indiana has taken the crazy lead from Wisconsin and Michigan

With a bit of context- they're still looking like they're going to place.

/Isn't your legislature full of lawyers like everyone else's?

Actually no. It has some, but we still run a part-time legislature with a single 3 month session. There are a LOT of numbskulls in there who get in off their dad or grandpa's name. We still have township governments (1000 gerrymandered little fiefdoms) working as the farm system to the state assembly, so nepotism and local popularity contests win out in the rural areas. That's how the girl-scout cookie conspiracy guy from last year got in.

dugitman: So a little background if you care-(this is kinda from memory and I'm a few credits short for my GED in law)

A couple years back 2 officers responded to a 911 call of domestic violence in a small Indiana town. When they got there, the girlfriend/wife/whatever recanted and the guy blocked the front door refusing to let them in. Indiana has one of those automatic arrest thingies for domestic violence(girl had visible marks) so the cops entered the guy's house(legally) and the dude started punching and kicking them. So he gets arrested, but the domestic violence charge doesnt stick. To get out of the assaulting a police officer charge, he gets the ICLU on his side and they argue something along the lines of it being an illegal entry because there was no domestic violence. Goes all the way to the Indiana Supreme court who rule that under the existing (broadly written law) citizens shouldnt resist cops whether the entry was legal or not because it puts everyone in danger. The victim(homeowner) can seek remedy through the court system later if they did indeed have their rights violated(cough-laf). Couple all that with a huge uptick in no-knock warrants, and Indiana's recent publicized promotion(and corruption) of the property-seizure biz-- and you got the libertarians(and a whole lot of liberals) going batshiat screechy. Sooo, this law was put in place to actually put restrictions on the previous law which was so poorly written it gave police carte-blanche to do pretty much whatever the fark they wanted, even in the homes of private citizens.


Thanks!

/it does make a bit more sense in that context

Now they need to legalize black talon apr

I'm okay with it. The law (all of it) applies to BOTH the citizens and law enforcement, contrary to what may be believed at local stations.