|
|
|
|
Fog/Mist ~ High: 85°F ~ Low: 64°F Saturday, May 18, 2013 |
|
Self-defense law could pose problem to law enforcementPosted Monday, April 2, 2012, at 2:48 PM
The 2012 Indiana legislative session will long be debated for what it did and not accomplish.
The legislators introduced 752 bills -- both the House and Senate approved 175 of the introduced bills Gov. Mitch Daniels signed 161 bills into law with 37 percent of new laws received unanimous support in both chambers and 99 percent of new laws received bipartisan support. Certainly there were some good laws passed - much needed funding for full-day kindergarten to ease the financial pain in our cash-strapped local school districts to provide an important early start to education; a state-wide smoking ban in public places; and the controversial and much debated right-to-work law, which supporters say will give Indiana an edge in its pursuit for new jobs that will aid our local governments in providing an economic boost for firms looking for a place to locate. In addition, the General Assembly strengthened Indiana's ban on synthetic drugs. Signing HB 1196 into law added more chemical compounds found in Spice, K2 and bath salts to the state's list of illegal substances. That's a good law and locally here in Greene County we've seen the adverse effects of bath salts in a couple of criminal cases. The state also has its own official state rifle - thanks to legislation introduced by our local state senator, John Waterman (R-Shelburn) of District 39. The Grouseland Rifle is the state's official rifle. It is one of only six remaining long rifles made by famed Hoosier gunsmith John Small in the early 1800s. Waterman decided to pursue honoring the Grouseland Rifle, which is in President William Henry Harrison's Vincennes home, Grouseland, after hearing a few years ago that Pennsylvania was considering naming the long rifle its official gun. Instead of filing a bill, Waterman got an amendment added to House Bill 1283, which mostly deals with libraries. Because the rifle issue was added by an amendment, there was no opportunity for proponents of other guns to make the case that their weapon should be Indiana's official rifle, according to the Indianapolis Star. Small, a Revolutionary War veteran who moved to Vincennes in 1785, was a man of many talents who was a tavern-keeper, ferry operator, gunsmith, woodworker, silversmith, Northwest Territory legislator, Indiana's first sheriff, Knox County surveyor and adjutant general of the territorial militia under Harrison, according to Waterman. Leading the way of the not-so-good laws passed during the recent session in my view is the so-called "right to resist" legislation that became law. The law is a measure that allows homeowners to use force when resisting police entry into their homes in some cases. The bill was a response to uproar over a state Supreme Court ruling that said residents could not resist officers, even during an illegal entry. The law says that residents are protected by the state's self-defense law if they reasonably believe force is necessary to protect themselves from unlawful actions by an officer. Supporters said the proposal strengthens the rights of homeowners while also making clear that anyone who is committing a crime isn't justified in using force against an officer, while opponents argued that the General Assembly shouldn't give people justification for attacking officers. I have to side with law enforcement and the opponents on this one. I can see this as a bad law that potentially could endanger the lives of our public servants, who are faced with daily danger and uncertainty every day they report for their work shifts in the very violent society that we live. I view the county court records on a daily basis and see that search warrants are issued on a regular basis. This law potentially puts the officers serving those warrants in direct danger - especially when you consider that a high percentage of Greene County residents are packing guns legally and many others are carrying weapons illegally. We ought to be strengthening the protection that our law enforcement agencies have instead of eroding the rights in favor of those who break the law. Nick is the assistant editor for the Greene County Daily World. He can be contacted by telephone at 847-4487 or by email at schneider.nick@gmail.com . Comments Showing comments in chronological order [Show most recent comments first] |
Extra, Extra! ![]() - Archives - Blog RSS feed - Comments RSS feed - Send email to By Nick Schneider, Assistant Editor - Login Hot topics Thanks to all of our mothers(0 ~ 1:19 PM, May 13)
Volunteer firefighters deserve our praise
There's plenty to like about Duck Dynasty and that's a fact, Jack!!!
It's only a number
Love overpowered fear of flying
|
You seem to argue that this law will increase the likelihood that a person who would not have otherwise attacked an officer will chose to do so because of this law.
"I can see this as a bad law that potentially could endanger the lives of our public servants..."
Are the lives of public servants not already in danger? Officers have been attacked before this law.
"...residents are protected...if they reasonably believe force is necessary to protect themselves from unlawful actions by an officer."
Then:
"This law potentially puts the officers serving those warrants in direct danger..."
You state people are only allowed to defend themselves from unlawful actions then you say officers may be more likely to be attacked when acting lawfully. Serving a warrant is a lawful action! You will be punished for defending yourself from a lawful action.
Do you believe this law will increase the number of attacks on officers?
Officers are in danger regardless of this law. Their job is dealing with criminals. People who are served warrants are likely not thrilled about or interested in receiving the warrant. This law will not change that.
This law does not protect the individual who attacks an officer acting lawfully.
"...a high percentage of Greene County residents are packing guns legally and many others are carrying weapons illegally."
Uh-oh, better watch out for those responsible residents "packing guns legally". I'll bet those carrying weapons illegally are more likely to be the ones being served a warrant.
People are going to defend themselves when they feel threatened, regardless of this law. If a person can show that the officer's action were unlawful, they should have the right to defend their self and their property.
When you are attacked, you don't stop to think about the law or whether your actions are legal before you act. So, most likely, people are not going to consider their actions before they decide to attack an officer.
"We ought to be strengthening the protection that our law enforcement agencies have instead of eroding the rights in favor of those who break the law."
Where does it stop? Where do the rights of law enforcement end and the rights of the private citizen begin?
It is the job and responsibility of the police to protect the rights of citizens. But that does not mean you limit the rights of individuals;
If I understand your blog entry, you think we should limit the rights of individuals in favor of allowing officers to enter a home and allow instances where officers enter or act unlawfully.