If you can read this, either the style sheet didn't load or you have an older browser that doesn't support style sheets. Try clearing your browser cache and refreshing the page.

(Reason Magazine)   Remember the Indiana "kill a cop" law? Turns out there are liberal and historic reasons to support it   (reason.com) divider line 90
    More: Followup, Radley Balko, exigent circumstances, Indiana Supreme Court, Andy Garcia, Magna Carta, Mogadishu  
•       •       •

3694 clicks; posted to Politics » on 15 Jun 2012 at 1:58 PM (2 years ago)   |  Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook   more»



90 Comments   (+0 »)
   
View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest

Archived thread

First | « | 1 | 2 | » | Last | Show all
 
2012-06-15 11:52:36 AM  
simple solution never confusion,
sport a gun,
kill a cop,
crazy world of weary thought,
so receive me,
had enough,
lock me up lock me up
 
2012-06-15 12:10:54 PM  
Unless you're living in a police state why the fark should cops have free entry to whatever place they wish to enter? Fark that, cops can enter my own house when I invite them in. Unless they have a warrant and are aware of something illegal going on in my house, i should have ever right to keep them from entering; up to and including shooting them.

fark the police.
 
2012-06-15 01:59:06 PM  
I shot the Sheriff.
 
2012-06-15 02:00:15 PM  
Lord I can't go back there.
 
2012-06-15 02:01:36 PM  
Well, I did support it, but if Reason is in favor of it I may need to rethink my position.
 
2012-06-15 02:04:14 PM  

MisterLoki: Well, I did support it, but if Reason is in favor of it I may need to rethink my position.


Reason is full of Randian wankery but their pro-pot anti-police power views are generally pretty reasonable.
 
2012-06-15 02:04:45 PM  
It would figure some liberal would think it's OK to kill cops.
 
2012-06-15 02:06:59 PM  

snuff3r: Unless you're living in a police state why the fark should cops have free entry to whatever place they wish to enter? Fark that, cops can enter my own house when I invite them in. Unless they have a warrant and are aware of something illegal going on in my house, i should have ever right to keep them from entering; up to and including shooting them.

fark the police.


spotonorganizing.com

So there!
 
2012-06-15 02:07:21 PM  
The last line of TFA made me laugh out loud, yeah right. Not in the real world.
 
2012-06-15 02:08:12 PM  
But are people allowed to shoot the police... with a camera?
 
2012-06-15 02:08:48 PM  
Have the flamewars between couch lawyers begun yet???
 
2012-06-15 02:09:31 PM  

Philip Francis Queeg: I shot the Sheriff.


The deputy is unwounded.

FTFY
 
2012-06-15 02:11:51 PM  
Well, the good news is we won't have as many "Knock then shoot the kid in the corner" cop killings in Indiana as say...Chicago.
 
2012-06-15 02:12:48 PM  
The only people here in Indiana pissed off about this law are the crooked cops that now can't use "because eff you." as a reason to harass folks and the politicians who benefit from the crooked cops.. No one else, liberal or conservative sees this as anything but a restoration of common sense-something in damn short supply here lately.
 
2012-06-15 02:13:51 PM  

MisterLoki: Well, I did support it, but if Reason is in favor of it I may need to rethink my position.


Jacob Sullum is about the only current reason staffer worth reading. Everyone else is either emulating Gillespie's glib ignorance or Welch's dickery.
 
2012-06-15 02:16:00 PM  

Ashirin: The only people here in Indiana pissed off about this law are the crooked cops that now can't use "because eff you." as a reason to harass folks and the politicians who benefit from the crooked cops.. No one else, liberal or conservative sees this as anything but a restoration of common sense-something in damn short supply here lately.


That, and the "y'ain't got nuthin' 'be 'fraid of if y'ain't doin' nuthin' wrong!" yokels that are a dime-a-dozen and have been since the "war on drugs", forget about the "war on terror" for a minute.
 
2012-06-15 02:17:37 PM  

I_C_Weener: Well, the good news is we won't have as many "Knock then shoot the kid in the corner" cop killings in Indiana as say...Chicago.


As someone living in Chicago, I would welcome a "cop on every single street corner with an M16" law. Maybe that would cut down on the mob attacks we're stuck dealing with every summer.
 
2012-06-15 02:24:53 PM  
the legislation, which Gov. Mitch Daniels signed last week, merely restores a common-law right that residents of the state had until last year, when the Indiana Supreme Court declared "there is no right to reasonably resist unlawful entry by police officers."

The highlighted word is the part that makes me go "WTF?"
 
2012-06-15 02:26:59 PM  

Shaggy_C: I_C_Weener: Well, the good news is we won't have as many "Knock then shoot the kid in the corner" cop killings in Indiana as say...Chicago.

As someone living in Chicago, I would welcome a "cop on every single street corner with an M16" law. Maybe that would cut down on the mob attacks we're stuck dealing with every summer.


Well as a resident of the Bay area I'm glad they took away the M16s from Bart Police. I just imagine the carnage of pray and spray with those unprofessional, gun-happy, I-got-a-gun-with-my-job, non police.
 
2012-06-15 02:28:58 PM  
This is a terrible law. The only results will be dead people. It does not fix the problem of wrong address no knock warrants.

There has to be a better way.
 
2012-06-15 02:30:15 PM  
From the article : "really just puts police officers on the same level as everyone else."

The problem with this is that cops are not like everyone else. No one but a cop can kick in your door, put you in handcuffs and search your home. Legally.

I'm no boot licker, I oppose this law for the same philosophical reason I opposed Stand Your Ground. A cop kicks in your door you should put your hands up and use the courts as recourse.

What people should not be doing is trying to make a split second decision on the merits of a police raid from there doorway with a firearm. No one wins.
 
2012-06-15 02:31:23 PM  

snuff3r: Unless you're living in a police state why the fark should cops have free entry to whatever place they wish to enter?


It isn't that they should have free entry wherever they please. They should not, and do not - regardless of whether you are legally allowed to use force to stop them when they are acting beyond their authority. It is whether or not every half-drunk redneck should be able to decide for himself, on the scene, whether someone he knows to be a cop is exceeding his authority or not. You might be amazed to discover this, but a lot of people really don't know the law all that well. I'd rather not see police acting within the scope of their authority get shot because someone else is told they have the right to shoot a cop who they don't think, at the time, to be doing their job. Just look at how many morons think you can ask "am I under arrest" and then when told "no" believe they automatically get to walk away.

You've got people who don't know what a freaking terry stop is, much less exigent circumstances, whether or not a no-knock warrant (which, for the record I think should be limited to the most extreme of scenarios, but at the same time I'm not going to call for the death of every cop ordered to execute a no-knock warrant) is being carried out, didn't realize their roommate told the cop he could access a common dwelling, etc. There are quite a few cases in which its complicated enough that things need to be reviewed by multiple courts before they know whether the cop was acting properly or not. All a law like this does is muddy up the waters and will lead to deaths and injury when people start making things violent that don't need to be.

Unfortunately, the alternative to allowing that to happen is that people have to sit and take it, then go through legal proceedings against those responsible for violating their 4th amendment rights. I think that is the preferable of the two options here.

I view police are a necessary evil, fwiw, and don't assume they are all heroic crusaders for our well-being or any of that nonsense.
 
2012-06-15 02:34:08 PM  

3_Butt_Cheeks: Have the flamewars between couch lawyers begun yet???


This comment is extra amusing given that its coming from a self-claimed border patrol agent who doesn't know the scope of his own authority.
 
2012-06-15 02:41:07 PM  

Smackledorfer: 3_Butt_Cheeks: Have the flamewars between couch lawyers begun yet???

This comment is extra amusing given that its coming from a self-claimed border patrol agent who doesn't know the scope of his own authority.


4/10 from a troll how see law enforcement as a 'necessary evil.'

*golfclap*

Come to the desert sometime, we'll have coffee. OOOh...and DONUTS. Don't forget we all eat DONUTS too.
 
2012-06-15 02:42:09 PM  

rvabenji:
I'm no boot licker, I oppose this law for the same philosophical reason I opposed Stand Your Ground. A cop kicks in your door you should put your hands up and use the courts as recourse.



If I could trust the courts to properly enforce the law against police officers, then I would. However given the issues with just getting the Kelly Thomas murder to trial, I just don't have that much faith in the justice system when it comes to convicting police officers who engage in criminal conduct.
 
2012-06-15 02:43:21 PM  

ArcadianRefugee: It would figure some liberal would think it's OK to kill cops.


Seriously, I mean, the Republican way makes so much more sense. Gut the funding so those cops get laid off, because we don't need more of that bloat that comes from government lackeys like po-lease officers. Then when those cops can't make ends meet and need to feed their family, they break into your house to steal something to hock for food money and you shoot them as a criminal, not a cop! Problem solved.
 
2012-06-15 02:44:15 PM  
I agree with the main point of the article, but this part almost overloaded my bullshiat detector:

A cop burglar or cop rapist could not be lawfully resisted, although he could be prosecuted after the fact.
 
2012-06-15 02:48:03 PM  

JPINFV: rvabenji:
I'm no boot licker, I oppose this law for the same philosophical reason I opposed Stand Your Ground. A cop kicks in your door you should put your hands up and use the courts as recourse.



If I could trust the courts to properly enforce the law against police officers, then I would. However given the issues with just getting the Kelly Thomas murder to trial, I just don't have that much faith in the justice system when it comes to convicting police officers who engage in criminal conduct.


You can't trust them to enforce the law against cops, but you'll trust them to side with you when faced with one you killed?
 
2012-06-15 02:50:49 PM  

rvabenji: The problem with this is that cops are not like everyone else. No one but a cop can kick in your door, put you in handcuffs and search your home. Legally.

I'm no boot licker, I oppose this law for the same philosophical reason I opposed Stand Your Ground. A cop kicks in your door you should put your hands up and use the courts as recourse.

What people should not be doing is trying to make a split second decision on the merits of a police raid from there doorway with a firearm. No one wins.


I'm not going to call you a boot licker, yet you're still wrong. Like you said, it is a split second decision, if someone kicks in your door, your first instinct is to put your hands in the air. Mine probably would be too. But I'm sure as fark not going to tell someone else that in their split second decision they are not allowed to actively defend their family or property.

Before we continue, I'm going to ask you to recall this part of the article:

Now that the right to reasonably resist police trespasses has been restored in Indiana, anyone using that defense still must show that his actions (including the level of force used as well as the decision to use force) were reasonable in the circumstances, as a defendant would have to show in any other case involving a claim of self-defense.
 
2012-06-15 02:52:05 PM  

odinsposse: MisterLoki: Well, I did support it, but if Reason is in favor of it I may need to rethink my position.

Reason is full of Randian wankery but their pro-pot anti-police power views are generally pretty reasonable.


I find it hilarious that you approve of essentially Randian ideas while deriding Randian wankery.
 
2012-06-15 02:54:54 PM  
.

3_Butt_Cheeks: 4/10 from a troll how see law enforcement as a 'necessary evil.'

*golfclap*

Come to the desert sometime, we'll have coffee. OOOh...and DONUTS. Don't forget we all eat DONUTS too.


No thanks. I can afford to live in society.
 
2012-06-15 02:55:43 PM  

dittybopper: odinsposse: MisterLoki: Well, I did support it, but if Reason is in favor of it I may need to rethink my position.

Reason is full of Randian wankery but their pro-pot anti-police power views are generally pretty reasonable.

I find it hilarious that you approve of essentially Randian ideas while deriding Randian wankery.


I find it hilarious that you think those views are necessarily Randian, wanker.
 
2012-06-15 02:59:23 PM  

Splinshints: .3_Butt_Cheeks: 4/10 from a troll how see law enforcement as a 'necessary evil.'

*golfclap*

Come to the desert sometime, we'll have coffee. OOOh...and DONUTS. Don't forget we all eat DONUTS too.

No thanks. I can afford to live in society.


ALT alert.

3_Butt_Cheeks: Smackledorfer: 3_Butt_Cheeks: Have the flamewars between couch lawyers begun yet???

This comment is extra amusing given that its coming from a self-claimed border patrol agent who doesn't know the scope of his own authority.

4/10 from a troll how see law enforcement as a 'necessary evil.'

*golfclap*

Come to the desert sometime, we'll have coffee. OOOh...and DONUTS. Don't forget we all eat DONUTS too.

 
2012-06-15 03:00:07 PM  

thurstonxhowell: JPINFV: rvabenji:
I'm no boot licker, I oppose this law for the same philosophical reason I opposed Stand Your Ground. A cop kicks in your door you should put your hands up and use the courts as recourse.



If I could trust the courts to properly enforce the law against police officers, then I would. However given the issues with just getting the Kelly Thomas murder to trial, I just don't have that much faith in the justice system when it comes to convicting police officers who engage in criminal conduct.

You can't trust them to enforce the law against cops, but you'll trust them to side with you when faced with one you killed?


In the right circumstances, yes. Again, ask Kelly Thomas how trying to comply with the police worked out for him. Oh, that's right, they beat his face to a pulp, lied about their injuries, and almost got away without being charged (there was only enough outrage to force the DAs hand after Thomas's father released that picture, which he didn't want to do), and he ended up dying shortly later.

So, yes, if it's a situtation where the police are using unlawful force where I could end up dead, then yes, I'd rather trust the jury vs being dead.

If I'm being hit with a no-knock warrant, I better have the right to defend my property. I have no reason to believe a no knock warrant is going to be served where I live and it's not exactly hard to yell "Police, police, warrant!" when breaking into a house. Just because someone yells "Police!" doesn't mean that they are the police.
 
2012-06-15 03:03:34 PM  

Smackledorfer: It is whether or not every half-drunk redneck should be able to decide for himself, on the scene, whether someone he knows to be a cop is exceeding his authority or not. You might be amazed to discover this, but a lot of people really don't know the law all that well. I'd rather not see police acting within the scope of their authority get shot because someone else is told they have the right to shoot a cop who they don't think, at the time, to be doing their job.


Exactly this. I didn't read the original case, but it sounds like the police were trying to enter the house because 911 had been called. In many cases, the police can lawfully enter a dwelling when 911 has been called, even if when they arrive they're told everything is fine. This is because, for example, someone may have called because they were being assaulted. The police arrive, and the assailant tells the cops to go away, or the caller does because they are afraid of the assailant. In my jurisdiction anyway, cops can still come in if they believe it necessary to prevent immanent harm.

No-knock warrants and the like are a different story because the occupant is reacting to what they believe is a threat. I'm the last person to take the cops' side when they abuse powers of search and seizure, but the proper recourse when someone identifies themselves as a cop is to state that you do not consent to entry and challenge the entry in court if they come in anyway.
 
2012-06-15 03:04:26 PM  
i.imgur.com

First kill the cop who lives inside your head.
 
2012-06-15 03:19:38 PM  

Philip Francis Queeg: If your parents told you tomorrow that you weren't really a citizen and that they had illegally immigrated when you were two years old, would you self deport within 24 hours?


Probably not. I kinda like it here. I'd probably try to figure out a way to stay here within the law though. But I sure as fark wouldn't complain when I got busted and deported.

If your parents told you tomorrow that you weren't really a millionaire and that the money they gave you they had stolen from a bank when you were two years old, would you complain when the cops bust you they emptied out your bank account? You would, wouldn't you.
 
2012-06-15 03:22:18 PM  
I wouldn't shoot a cop breaking down my door.
No.
But I would do things to him that would make him shoot himself once he got free.
If he got free.

Got a trunk and a gimp suit just waiting for him.
 
2012-06-15 03:25:11 PM  
How would you like it if your boss made a typo on the address on a form, and that made you eligible to be killed?

As versus, you arrest the wrong person, it gets cleared up, they sue, your boss gets a five day rip.

Why heck, since this is a good idea, how about locksmiths that get sent to the wrong house on a foreclosure? Its happened in Florida. Instead of calling the cops, just shoot them. Tell their family that, well, you were defending your precious castle. Maybe give the dead guy's crying children a sneer.

Out in the real world, of course, this law won't mean jack. Five or six well armed cops in body armor come bursting in, you pick up a gun, and that's the last thing you ever do. Hope there's nobody on the other side of the wall behind you.
 
2012-06-15 03:26:07 PM  
Ashirin
The only people here in Indiana pissed off about this law are the crooked cops that now can't use "because eff you." as a reason to harass folks and the politicians who benefit from the crooked cops.. No one else, liberal or conservative sees this as anything but a restoration of common sense-something in damn short supply here lately.

Bull shiat. It's a terribly written law that allows violent resistance so long as the homeowner thinks the police officers are entering illegally. Do you have any clue how often dipshiats think police officers don't have a right to enter a house when they in fact do?

I am almost always on the citizens' rights side of law enforcement vs. individual rights issues, but not this time. It's a lousy law.

LordJiro
He's not rounding up every last person who looks Mexican (or Mexican enough) in America and putting them into camps. Therefore, he's weak on immigration.

Don't worry about it. The thread shiatter up there doesn't like brown people. He's not worth engaging in conversation.

LeroyBourne
Obama just got off the boob tube press conference saying 'it's the right thing to do,' and some right wing heckler was clearly ticking him off too.

It was a reporter from the Daily Caller who failed to understand that when the president is giving a statement, you don't interrupt. Of course, I am shocked, shocked I say, that a right winger behaved like an asshole.
 
2012-06-15 03:32:17 PM  

MisterRonbo: Out in the real world, of course, this law won't mean jack. Five or six well armed cops in body armor come bursting in, you pick up a gun, and that's the last thing you ever do. Hope there's nobody on the other side of the wall behind you.


Thing is, that's what is going to happen no matter WHAT the law is. People aren't going to be thinking about the law when something like this happens.

To me, it's more an issue of legal protection after the fact. There's been a few cases where cops on no-knock no-announce warrants got the wrong address, had the home owner shoot at them thinking they were home invaders, and then had the home owner charged with attempted murder.
 
2012-06-15 03:32:54 PM  
vudukungfu
I wouldn't shoot a cop breaking down my door.
No.
But I would do things to him that would make him shoot himself once he got free.
If he got free.

Got a trunk and a gimp suit just waiting for him.


Woah... watch out, everyone. Internet tough guy in the hizzouse!
 
2012-06-15 03:40:35 PM  

3_Butt_Cheeks: Smackledorfer: 3_Butt_Cheeks: Have the flamewars between couch lawyers begun yet???

This comment is extra amusing given that its coming from a self-claimed border patrol agent who doesn't know the scope of his own authority.

4/10 from a troll how see law enforcement as a 'necessary evil.'

*golfclap*

Come to the desert sometime, we'll have coffee. OOOh...and DONUTS. Don't forget we all eat DONUTS too.


What is trolling about viewing law enforcement as a "necessary evil"?
 
2012-06-15 03:41:08 PM  
There is a lengthy legal precedent, Your Honor, going back to 1789, whereby a defendant may claim self-defense against an agent of the government where the act is shown to be a defense against tyranny, a defense of liberty--

* * *

Henry Ward Beecher proclaimed, in his "Proverbs From Plymouth Pulpit" back in 1887, that "Every American citizen is by birth, a sworn officer of the state. Every man is a policeman."

* * *

I am afforded the right to speak in my own defense by our constitution, Sir. The same document which guarantees my right to liberty. "Liberty," in case you've forgotten, is "the soul's right to breathe, and when it cannot take a long breath laws are girded too tight. Without liberty, man is a syncope."

Ibid. Your Honor.
 
2012-06-15 03:42:07 PM  

thurstonxhowell: dittybopper: odinsposse: MisterLoki: Well, I did support it, but if Reason is in favor of it I may need to rethink my position.

Reason is full of Randian wankery but their pro-pot anti-police power views are generally pretty reasonable.

I find it hilarious that you approve of essentially Randian ideas while deriding Randian wankery.

I find it hilarious that you think those views are necessarily Randian, wanker.


And doubly hilarious since Ayn Rand specified the police as one of the only things she liked about government.
 
2012-06-15 03:43:32 PM  

3_Butt_Cheeks: ALT alert.


Swing and a miss.
 
2012-06-15 03:49:09 PM  

MisterRonbo: Five or six well armed cops in body armor come bursting in, you pick up a gun, and that's the last thing you ever do.


I'm fast asleep when the door crashes open at 3AM. Do I think to myself "ITS THE COPS!" ...with absolutely no evidence to suggest this and some life experience to the contrary, since every time my house has been ransacked it was NOT the cops?
The problem with no-knock warrants, and giving officers free reign to trespass on peoples property, is that the residents have no way to know an execution squad has come to the wrong door.

They didn't announce themselves.
They didn't knock.

If the residents should survive this "shoot citizens on sight" squad of justice, are they supposed to be liable for any injuries the officers sustained?
I think not.

If you come to the wrong door or come without the right paperwork, whatever happens is your own damn fault and the state shouldn't back you up. They didn't buy you tens of thousand of dollars worth of weapons and armor just so you fark around on the job.

If you blow away the wrong citizen because you couldn't be bothered to double check your orders, You should be charged with murder 2.
 
2012-06-15 03:50:24 PM  

patrick767: Bull shiat. It's a terribly written law that allows violent resistance so long as the homeowner thinks the police officers are entering illegally. Do you have any clue how often dipshiats think police officers don't have a right to enter a house when they in fact do?

I am almost always on the citizens' rights side of law enforcement vs. individual rights issues, but not this time. It's a lousy law.


Not really.

You'd have to establish that you had reason to believe they were entering illegally. Not just that you decided they didn't. And if you do have such reason, and armed men burst into your house, you absolutely should have the right to resist. Yes, people, and quite possibly cops, will end up dead as a result of this law. There's two ways to respond to that. Either try and get the law changed so cops can break in anywhere and citizens can't resist them again. Or train your cops to be damn sure they have the warrants and address right before they resort to what would otherwise be an illegal assault that could result in one of their number being justifiably killed.

It's the kind of law you wouldn't need to write if cops weren't breaking into the wrong houses often enough to justify such a law. So maybe they should stop that, rather than complaining they can no longer do so with impunity.
 
2012-06-15 03:50:38 PM  

Smackledorfer: 3_Butt_Cheeks: Smackledorfer: 3_Butt_Cheeks: Have the flamewars between couch lawyers begun yet???

This comment is extra amusing given that its coming from a self-claimed border patrol agent who doesn't know the scope of his own authority.

4/10 from a troll how see law enforcement as a 'necessary evil.'

*golfclap*

Come to the desert sometime, we'll have coffee. OOOh...and DONUTS. Don't forget we all eat DONUTS too.

What is trolling about viewing law enforcement as a "necessary evil"?


Use your ALT and I'll get back to ya.
 
2012-06-15 03:52:02 PM  

Smackledorfer: snuff3r: Unless you're living in a police state why the fark should cops have free entry to whatever place they wish to enter?

It isn't that they should have free entry wherever they please. They should not, and do not - regardless of whether you are legally allowed to use force to stop them when they are acting beyond their authority. It is whether or not every half-drunk redneck should be able to decide for himself, on the scene, whether someone he knows to be a cop is exceeding his authority or not. You might be amazed to discover this, but a lot of people really don't know the law all that well. I'd rather not see police acting within the scope of their authority get shot because someone else is told they have the right to shoot a cop who they don't think, at the time, to be doing their job. Just look at how many morons think you can ask "am I under arrest" and then when told "no" believe they automatically get to walk away.

You've got people who don't know what a freaking terry stop is, much less exigent circumstances, whether or not a no-knock warrant (which, for the record I think should be limited to the most extreme of scenarios, but at the same time I'm not going to call for the death of every cop ordered to execute a no-knock warrant) is being carried out, didn't realize their roommate told the cop he could access a common dwelling, etc. There are quite a few cases in which its complicated enough that things need to be reviewed by multiple courts before they know whether the cop was acting properly or not. All a law like this does is muddy up the waters and will lead to deaths and injury when people start making things violent that don't need to be.

Unfortunately, the alternative to allowing that to happen is that people have to sit and take it, then go through legal proceedings against those responsible for violating their 4th amendment rights. I think that is the preferable of the two options here.

I view police are a necessary evil, fwiw, a ...


Hey, look, you said something reasonable...

Time to sit back and watch Fark take a dump all over it...
 
Displayed 50 of 90 comments

First | « | 1 | 2 | » | Last | Show all

View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest


This thread is archived, and closed to new comments.

Continue Farking
Submit a Link »
On Twitter





In Other Media


  1. Links are submitted by members of the Fark community.

  2. When community members submit a link, they also write a custom headline for the story.

  3. Other Farkers comment on the links. This is the number of comments. Click here to read them.

  4. Click here to submit a link.

Report