SB 1 passed the House by a vote of 74 – 24.
The meat of it specifies that a person can use force against the police if the person claims to believe the force is necessary to protect the person or another from imminent police force that the person claims to believe will be unlawful; terminate what the person claims to believe is an unlawful attack or entry into the person’s residence or vehicle by the police; or prevent what the person claims to believe is an unlawful trespass or interference with the person’s property.
This permission to use force against the officer is not allowed if the person is in the middle of committing a crime or escaping; the person provokes the action and intends to cause bodily injury to the police officer; or enters into combat with the officer or is the aggressor. The permission is also not granted if the suspect admits to believing the officer is acting lawfully.
Deadly force is permitted if necessary to prevent serious bodily injury to the person or a third party and the suspect does not admit to believing the police officer was acting lawfully.
This reliance on the subjective belief of the suspect is just begging for trouble. I know a lot of people have fantasies about minding their own business when rogue cops are doing unspeakable things while the person is forced to stand by and watch helplessly; but that’s not how this law is going to play out. There are going to be a lot of hot heads and criminals encouraged to violently confront the police, then, after the fact, claim they thought the officer was acting unlawfully.
I think the right to use force against the police should be confined to when the police are both: a) acting illegally, and b) the actions will cause injury that cannot be reversed by later judicial action.
At a minimum, I’d hope the General Assembly would clarify that this legislation is not intended to limit the Tort Claims Act immunities in any fashion and that this is an affirmative defense where the person using force against the officer has the burden of proof.
I can definitely see a situation under this structure where the police are authorized to use force because they reasonably believe one thing; the suspect is authorized to use force because he reasonably believes another thing. Nobody has a duty to retreat or to swallow their pride, so it escalates. Both sides can escalate the thing into a shootout.
That scenario is uncommon, but does happen. I recall a recent story from New York, in a town where a lot of NYC police officers live, where a bunch of off-duty cops, who were monitoring police scanners, converged on the scene of a hostage situation. One of the off-duty cops had a rifle, another RETIRED cop yelled “gun”, and a shootout ensued, with the rifle wielder getting killed. It was totally a situation where there was too testosterone in too small an area.
The law is definitely vague enough that defense attorneys will have some good arguments for the courts. However, the idea that one can easily sue a municipality and win damages is iffy to me. Clearly if the case is a slam dunk, plenty of lawyers will take it. If there is even a hint that the courts might back the officers/department, not sure how many lawyers will be quick to take the case without getting paid upfront, or as the case progresses. Most folks don’t have the money to pay up front, and my guess is a good number of people couldn’t even do the pay-as-you-go route either.
The original court ruling was just too broad. I have no problem with the Indiana Supreme Court allowing officers to make entry when there is clearly evidence of violence or say something like ‘heated emotions’ between people, one of whom has called and reported a hostile verbal argument, people throwing stuff, or anything less than actual battery. Let the US Supreme Court or Indiana SC make the final determination if they want to create another warrant-less entry standard for violence related complaints. While I understand and somewhat agree with their ruling about preventing violence, it is way too easy for someone who makes well over six-figures, with a nice pension and good benefits, to make a simple statement to those of lesser means to basically ‘just sue.’ Had they narrowed their view to just violence/domestic violence, I don’t think we would have seen the uproar, or even a need for a state law. Unfortunately, giving a somewhat blanket allowance for an arrest for resisting an officer investigating anything and everything is pretty broad.
The bigger questions are without the law would the courts uphold a conviction for battery on LE if the entry was determined to be illegal? Will the courts uphold a conviction for interfering with LE if a person runs and locks a door when they see an officer approaching, or refuses to unlock the door forcing officers to kick it in?
Buzz: I realize that this issue has been though of in terms of the Fourth Amendment but are you possibly suggesting that “too much testerone” in too small of an area might be a valid element in determining what “reasonable restrictions” in gun laws under Second Amendment analysis (as arch-liberal activist Justice Anton Scalia has suggested) would be justified? Much like the “yelling fire in a crowded theater” scenario referred to in First Amendment jurisprudence?
We Shall See said: “However, the idea that one can easily sue a municipality and win damages is iffy to me.”
“Iffy?” That’s an understatement of the year. Our federal court here makes any civil rights lawsuit against a municipality or police officer virtually impossible. Those cases are a nightmare. Even when you have a strong case, the court lets the other side file a bunch of preliminary BS and then will dismiss it on summary judgment. Now they’ve started letting them litigate extensively motions to dismiss in which they challenge every word of your pleading, saying you can’t prove what you’re saying. So much for notice pleading. At the end of the day, the odds are you’ll never get your day in Court.
The fact is the Supreme Court’s opinion was unnecessarily overbroad. They should have just said the police had the right to enter under the facts of the case instead of writing a sweeping new precedent. In addition, the SCT in its original opinionflat out missed the already existing castle statute dealing with that issue, a statute which would have precluded any 4th Amendment analysis. The AG and the defense attorney also failed to even mention the statute in their briefing.
I think this bill encourages everyone to be a Constitutional scholar in the space of minutes or seconds when the confrontation occurs. That’s unworkable and people are going to get hurt.
Imagine your home at 3:00am. when it’s quiet, it’s dark, and everyone is sleeping. Boom, your front door is bashed in and a dark figure appears at the foot of your bed. The kids are screaming, the dog is barking, and your wife is hysterical. As you’re reaching for the bedside table, a shot rings out and you’re dead. As it turns out, it was the police. They later claimed they were conducting a sting operation an hour earlier when they witnessed my 16 yr.daughter buying weed down the street who then sneaked back into her bedroom. According to the bill, the police can give chase and enter the residence. It also turns out, the police claim they identified themselves but no one heard it above the commotion, and that I was only reaching to turn on the bedside lamp. There was no gun in the house, but at the time the police felt in danger. I am dead, nevertheless. My wife is without her husband; the kids are without a father. The dog is dead because of the police canine. What does this bill do to protect my family?
I don’t expect any piece of legislation would keep you alive under the scenario you just described.
Cops are merely citizens, our employees. We have always had the human right to confront, oppose, resist and kill fellow citizens who would do us harm. Such a right is foundational in natural law. No man can ever give his government the power to suppress the natural law for himself or certainly others.
Natural Law. Cite that in your defense and see what it gets you.
I read this case the day it came out and thought what is the Big Megillah? The court decided the case based upon the erroneous tendered jury instruction. The common law right to resist illegal law enforcement actions had been knocked out ot the Uniform Law of Arrest, the Model Penal Code and the common law of many states.
And I recall Professor Stroud teaching us that the common-law right to resist unlawful law enforcement actions had been largely abrogated End of story.
I agree wholeheartedly with Doug. This law will get people hurt or killed. Most lawyers I know are no longer constitutional scholars and cannot recall and apply applicable law in the time of a blink of an eye.
I see the blowback of this law working like this. Jailhouse lawyers and their cellies and podmates will “cite” this case stating that if a cop is in your face and has no right to arrest you or toss your crib, you can take him out.
Drinking buddies all over Indiana will repeat this story with all its misinterpretations and lack of nuance. Militia types will add it to their manifestoes.
And I also agree with Paul. My understanding of the state of Indiana District courts virtually shuts the door on most litigants. But that failing does not change my belief in the inadvisibility of passing SB 1. And the fact that we are talking about SB 1 is in itself a bit telling.
Ain’t God been good to Indiana.
Wave a King’s court opinion in Washington’s face at Yorktown, and see what it gets you, Carlito.
The law is always subordinate to right, and this government only endures as long as people are willing to be subjected to it. Your tyrannical hubris is not knowing when you’ve crossed the threshold of assent.
Roadsalt, save the history “lesson” for your friends in your study group. Under our constitutional system, the rule of law is supreme. Waive Marbury v. Madison in the face of Thomas Jefferson and he would defer to the court’s ruling by the Constitutionally created Supreme Court.
And we are not subjected to the government. The government is a tool that we agree to work for us. We have elections where we hire and fire our elected officials. I would not call that tyranny. In fact it is quite the opposite.
Here’s the thing about a constitutional system, Carlito: you actually have to follow the Constitution.
The Supreme Court reporters are not the Constitution, as the Supreme Court is not a running constitutional convention. Further, Jefferson loudly derided the coup-d-etat that was Marbury v. Madison. Only statists and other tyrannical scum celebrate John Marshall.
If you’re ever admitted to college, you’ll certainly find a study group useful. Perhaps you’ll be so fortunate to be assigned to my tutelage.
“The government is a tool that we agree to work for us.”
I love pretend time. Tell us about the Easter Bunny next.
When was the last agreement ceremony conducted? I demand these daily, as I place limits on my agreement.
Roadkill,
As some one with a law degree and a post-doctorate in healthcare financing and reimbursment, and someone who has taught several sessions of Constitiontional law at a four-year state college, I could run the table on you. But I find your lack of knowlege rather sadenning. And educating you would be fruitless.
So I will invoke an Arab folksaying I often respond with when encounter your ilk. “When dogs bark, don’t bark back.”
So sit by your bowl until someone whistles for you.
Then try to find your game, because you’re getting humiliated, thus far. It’s the last round, and you haven’t landed a punch. Your degrees are cheap intellectual accomplishments, creations of a debased academy, and your Constitiontional [sic] class makes no appeal to foundational principles of right and wrong, truth or falsehood, merely being a simpleton’s exercise where you grant yourself your first principles and build an edifice of error atop it.
If you want to impress an intellectual, earn a Ph.D. in Philosophy, and teach at Stanford. You’ll note, or perhaps you won’t, as you read law journals, circular arguments posturing as scholarship, that nothing the law publishes is cited as serious work by the real disciplines.
Those who wrote the Constitution were philosophers and intellectuals who deeply sought to create the best state and to embody right and wrong. Those who today study constitutional law are sophists and parasites who make no appeal to true first principles, having no idea how to conduct themselves in the presence of an enduring argument. Constitutional law is thus nothing but a circular argument, citing always to more of itself, pretend scholarship, of no worth and commanding no respect beyond our legal system. The moment our legal system is discarded, the entire body of that sophistry will be converted to something useful, perhaps paper bags for the local grocery store.
Truly “sadenning” [sic] is that our cheapened education system has created a classroom where matriculants see you installed at the head of it, teaching nothing of truth or worth. Do have the decency to refund the taxpayers their money.
That’s it. They’re making me return to my corner, because that last punch to your face dropped you cold, and the ref called it, since you can’t get up or even move your fingers.
Lighten up boys.
The vote in the House was 74-24. Of the 24 nays, 23 are Democrats, the party that believes in the unquestioned, absolute power of government. The Republican voting ‘nay’ was Phil Hinkle, who I would have thought would be against forced intrusions !
Democrats are the votes for law and order while Republicans are the votes for civil liberties. A reversal of stereotypes.
I don’t know Doug. Your good friend, Sheila Kennedy, wrote a pretty solid justification for Republicans being the party of civil liberties in her well-written and thought-out book: “What’s a nice Republican girl like me doing in the ACLU? Granted, Sheila has (sadly) changed parties in the last 15 years, but the Republican party has historically stood for civil liberties, especially property (and gun) rights.
“Democrats are the votes for law and order…”
Almost always, that idiom stands for only one of its conjuncts.
Law without order or order without law? Honestly can’t figure out which one is present or absent in your mind.
As this is apparently your first time encountering the concept, do some social experimentation, and you’ll have your answer.
See which one people want more.
Nah. Got better things to do.
“Different” is the more apt word.
Plus, I suspect you already know the answer.
Drawn back against my better judgment. Honestly, no. Here is what I think I have to work with. You don’t like Democrats. You think law exists outside of people. And you have indicated that only one of either law or order is present.
(Reminded of the Bob Dylan lyric, “its either fortune or fame. You must choose one or the other though neither are to be what they claim”)
So, perhaps the Democrats successfully impose law. They pass the bills, sign the documents, and judges pronounce these things good. But order is more illusive – people are free, untamed, and continue to do as they will, not knuckling under to the jackboot. (Mixed metaphor?) So, we have law but not order.
OR
Perhaps you are imposing your view of a Platonic ideal of Law – which doesn’t require humans to exist. Lawmakers may pass laws, but such laws are not to be recognized by higher intellects because they don’t conform to “natural” Law. So, lawmakers and the machinery of government may use force and impose order, but they do so in a fashion which is illegitimate, giving us order without Law.
OR
You could give me a straight answer and attempt communication.
P: You don’t like Democrats.
I’m almost always accused by the Republicans of hating them. How quickly everyone feels aggrieved. A demand for rigid adherence to every doctrine now infects so much of America.
P: You think law exists outside of people.
Not quite. There must first be people to be law, as the concept of law is nonsensical to the sand and rocks on Mars. Once people exist, then, yes, the law has an essence that is independent of legislation.
P: And you have indicated that only one of either law or order is present.
That’s a gross misstatement and misreading of my comment. Slow down. Reread.
In this sentence, ‘“Democrats are the votes for law and order…”, the idiom is “law and order.”
I state, “Almost always, that idiom stands for only one of its conjuncts.”
Meaning “law and order” almost always stands for either “law” or “order,” but not the conjunction.
Ask yourself whether people truly want law, however noisy, chaotic and terrifying the consequences of not exceeding the bounds of the law might be, or whether really people want quiet, safe, predictable order, permitting the government to do whatever it takes to arrive at quiet and safe streets. If that manner of introspection is too taxing, query the fans of “24,” and see how many disapproved of Jack Bauer’s methods.
“You could give me a straight answer and attempt communication.”
So much work to flesh out for a holder of a graduate degree that which would have been immediately understood by a 14 year old 150 years ago. Once, only a pithy line was needed to make the point. Now, our lawyers, still having currency as learned men, have become technicians, utterly bereft of the poetry, oratory, philosophy and literary sense of the former practitioners of that trade.
Buzzcut says I’m not funny, and you tell me I lack wisdom and learning. I’m going to have to go rethink my whole self-image.
Well, you’re not funny ha-ha. You are funny amusing. ;)