The Internet is alive with reports that IMPD officer Rod Bradway was shot and killed responding to a domestic disturbance.
At approximately 1:52 am, officers with the Indianapolis Metropolitan Police Department (IMPD) were dispatched to the 6700 blk. of Eagle Pointe Dr. (Eagle Point Apartments) reference a disturbance.
When the first arriving officer arrived, he heard screams for “help” from an unidentified woman who was inside an apartment. The officer fearing for the safety of this woman made entry. As the officer entered the apartment, gunshots were exchanged between the officer and the suspect and the officer was struck with gunfire.
Based on these limited facts, the Supreme Court case from 2011, Barnes v. State (pdf) came to my mind (from my blog entry at the time):
The police got called to the apartment to respond to domestic violence in process. Husband was throwing stuff around the apartment and had apparently ripped a phone out of Wife’s hands and thrown it against the wall. When the police got there, Husband & Wife met the police in the parking lot. Police followed them back to the apartment, Husband barred entry while Wife said things like “just let them in.” Police tried to force their way, and Husband resisted physically.
The Supreme Court held at that time that the husband had no right to use force to stand his ground notwithstanding the husband’s contention that the entry of the officer in that case was unlawful. This led to the passage of SB 1-2012. The law makes it permissible to use force against a public servant if the individual using force reasonably believes it necessary to prevent the public servant from unlawfully entering the individual’s residence.
I’ll be watching this case with interest to see if the facts are such that the shooter might contend that this new law justified his actions.
Updated Abdul advises me that the shooter is dead. One less problem, I guess.
From the news release:
Investigators have not yet identified the suspect who was also fatally shot and killed in the exchange of gunfire with police. Investigators are also working to ascertain the exact circumstances of the shooting, and have detained the woman, who was not injured, for questioning. Further updates will be provided as they become available.
The shooter won’t be contending anything, because fortunately, he’s dead.
Thanks. One less problem, I guess.
Why is it “fortunate” that someone is dead?
Getting cold-hearted for a second, I can say that it doesn’t sound like the shooter had a lot to recommend his further consumption of public resources. Maybe there is more to him than drug pushing, wife-beating, cop shooter; but that’s what we know about so far.
Everyone’s redeemable, and everyone’s entitled to an opportunity to reedem him or herself. All people are fundamentally good, so those who transgress only do so either because they don’t know any better or were forced into it by circumstances. Either way, they can’t be blamed.
I have to disagree. I cannot speak to this particular case, but there are people who are not “redeemable”. Whether or not “it’s not their fault” is moot.
Not sure we can say fortunately based upon the little we know right now. It would appear to me that the loss of life on both ends of the gun are unfortunate and certainly tragic.
Excellent point. Guess as it stands, we don’t even know if a crime was committed by killing the officer thanks to the ill conceived law.
But, assuming it were still argued, it might arise in some sort of wrongful death case…
Latest updates pretty well take SB 1 out of the pictures.
SB 1 probably has nothing to do with this case. It’s just that the fact pattern was somewhat similar to the case that prompted the General Assembly to enact the law: use of force against an officer responding to a domestic disturbance.
My main problem with SB 1 has been that it creates more ambiguity than there needs to be. It encourages people who think they know the law, but don’t, to use force against police officers.
“A person is justified in using reasonable force against a public servant if the person reasonably believes the force is necessary to protect the person . . . from what the person reasonably believes to be the imminent use of unlawful force.” However, the person is not justified in using force if the person believes the officer is acting lawfully. However, deadly force is not authorized if the person reasonably believes the officer is acting lawfully.
An officer’s life could quite possibly hang in the balance based on what a person “reasonably believes” about the state of the law. Over the years, I’ve heard a lot of opinions about what the law is and isn’t. Those opinions may be reasonably held; but they are often very, very wrong. Much better to tell people engaged with law enforcement, “If you reasonably believe you are in danger of death or serious bodily injury; you are permitted to fight back. Otherwise let the courts sort it out.”
SB1. What an agenda.
I don’t see any commonality between the two cases presented. In the Barnes case, the officer had no reason to enter the dwelling and was told not to enter. SB1 corrected a strange ruling by the fascist Indiana Supreme Court.
In the recent death of the IMPD officer, he was absolutely right to enter (based on his belief that a crime was in progress), and his death is thus a cold-blooded murder. If the shooter’s dead, meh, one less idiot.
Your opinion of “no reason” doesn’t make sense to me. Husband was tearing up the joint. Wife gave permission for them to come in.
Also, “fascist”?
Like many people, this is the first thing I thought of (use of force against law enforcement upon entering place of residence) when I heard the story on the radio. As SB1-2012 was being debated, I always believed that sooner (rather than later) someone would shoot and kill an officer entering their home based on an ill-conceived belief that he/she had a right to defend themselves against unlawful entry. I thought the first instance would be a meth cooker, though.
Won’t the (now deceased) suspect’s next-of-kin sue IMPD based on a violation of SB1-2012, though?
So now in order to avoid scrutiny for SB1-2012 violations, the police should just kill everyone who resists? That’s what this ill-conceived bill has wrought. It should be repealed immediately.