AN ACT to amend the Indiana Code concerning criminal law and procedure.
Be it enacted by the General Assembly of the State of Indiana:
SECTION 1. IC 35-41-3-2, AS AMENDED BY P.L.189-2006, SECTION 1, IS AMENDED TO READ AS FOLLOWS [EFFECTIVE UPON PASSAGE]: Sec. 2. (a) In enacting this section, the general assembly finds and declares that it is the policy of this state to recognize the unique character of a citizen's home and to ensure that a citizen feels secure in his or her own home against unlawful intrusion by another individual or a public servant. By reaffirming the long standing right of a citizen to protect his or her home against unlawful intrusion, however, the general assembly does not intend to diminish in any way the other robust self defense rights that citizens of this state have always enjoyed. Accordingly, the general assembly also finds and declares that it is the policy of this state that people have a right to defend themselves and third parties from physical harm and crime. The purpose of this section is to provide the citizens of this state with a lawful means of carrying out this policy.
(b) As used in this section, "public servant" means a person described in IC 35-41-1-17, IC 35-31.5-2-129, or IC 35-31.5-2-185.
(c) A person is justified in using reasonable force against another any other person to protect the person or a third person from what the person reasonably believes to be the imminent use of unlawful force.
However, a person:
(1) is justified in using deadly force; and
(2) does not have a duty to retreat;
if the person reasonably believes that that force is necessary to prevent serious bodily injury to the person or a third person or the commission of a forcible felony. No person in this state shall be placed in legal jeopardy of any kind whatsoever for protecting the person or a third person by reasonable means necessary.
(b) (d) A person:
(1) is justified in using reasonable force, including deadly force, against another any other person; and
(2) does not have a duty to retreat;
if the person reasonably believes that the force is necessary to prevent or terminate the other person's unlawful entry of or attack on the person's dwelling, curtilage, or occupied motor vehicle.
http://www.in.gov/legislative/bills/201 … 001.1.html
I heard a little about this on the radio this morning, but it wasn't clear as to whether the bill has been passed yet or only proposed. Do you know?
I also know that it came about as a reaction to the state supreme court decision that was discussed in the forums previously which essentially allowed law enforcement to enter a person's home for any reason whatsoever (at least, that was the way it seemed to be open to interpretation).
The radio this morning said that the state NRA objected to the previous ruling and suggested this new law to prevent unlawful searches. It's a can of worms, no matter how you look at it. IMO.
I believe it was passed based on what I have read!
Cops could be put on the other of the gun after a new law was passed allowing Indiana residents to shoot at an officer in order to protect their own property.
http://www.christianpost.com/news/india … deo-76567/
The the police person is acting in a way where someone needs "to protect [them-self] or a third person from what [they] reasonably believe to be the imminent use of unlawful force" then I guess they might reasonably get shot.
But that was prohibited with the state supreme court's interpretation of the previous law!
One issue that speaks against the new law is the matter of people who are under the influence of alcohol or drugs. Their perception would possibly be skewed; they might consider themselves to be in need of protection, when a sober or sane person would not have the same perception.
"Reasonably believe" means that any reasonable person would believe it--it is a common standard under the law.
i.e. An armed out of uniform police breaks through your door unannounced at three in the morning. How would a reasonable person know it was not a home invasion?
If the person was delusional or drugged shot a uniformed officer with a search warrant who announced himself, because he thought they were an alien monster that belief, no matter how sincere, would be unreasonable.
Maybe we could avoid this kind of tragedy:
Jose Guerena, a former marine and Iraq veteran was killed in his home by Pima County SWAT in Tucson, Arizona. An attempt to conduct a narcotics search went tragically wrong when Mr. Guerena, a veteran of two tours in Iraq, awoke to a SWAT team breaching his front door. He mistook the SWAT team’s entrance for a home invasion robbery and armed himself with a rifle he had in the home.
Contrary to initial reports, Mr. Guerena did not fire any shots and his weapon was still on safe when retrieved by the Pima County Sheriff’s department. However, SWAT did fire 71 rounds killing Mr. Guerena in his home in front of his 4 year old son. Pima County Sheriff’s Department also noted that no drugs or money were found in the home.
http://www.swords-to-plowshares.org/201 … swat-team/
It was the wrong address!
Frankly there is more than enough put it on the web to verify there are far too many police officers out of control. Teenagers, women hands handcuffed behind their backs slammed into brick walls on top of car vehicle hoods.
Police officials enter into a home and a two-year-old or what have you winds up getting shot by a police officials.
People being casered 19 times or more. A young girl had tasered by law enforcement into her head requiring extensive stitching up of her scalp not to mention what other brain disorders came from the electrical shock.
That's nothin'. Come to Tennessee, the patron State of shooting things! We've got limits on deer, turkey, preachers, politicians and Jehovah's Witnesses. May as well add cops.
by GA Anderson9 months ago
Attorney General Sessions has announced that sanctuary cities will be denied certain Federal grant's monies due to their non-compliance with federal laws* regarding illegal immigrants.I think it is only right that...
by Rajab Nsubuga6 years ago
When the Jews rebelled against the Roman Empire in AD 70, Titus the emperor destroyed Jerusalem. From then the Jews stood apart from other peoples in two important aspects. One was that in general they did not...
by Jack Lee11 months ago
With all the focus on the immigration and foreign travel this past week, another Trump's executive order focused on reducing gang violence in inner cities...Who could be against this?I wonder what the liberal left will...
by Donna Suthard6 years ago
What do you think about the law recently passed by the supreme court, in Indiana which recently went into effect, stating the police can enter your home illegally, and you can not resist. They further state, you can...
by Thomas Byers5 years ago
The Palestinian Authority is expected to win an upgrade of its observer status at the United Nations on Thursday from "entity" to "non-member state," which would amount to implicit U.N. recognition...
by cooldad2 years ago
I can't help but wonder if the United States could be considered a terrorist nation. With its actions in the past and the present, can the U.S. be considered terrorists?The treatment of Native Americans, slavery,...
Copyright © 2018 HubPages Inc. and respective owners.
Other product and company names shown may be trademarks of their respective owners.
HubPages® is a registered Service Mark of HubPages, Inc.
HubPages and Hubbers (authors) may earn revenue on this page based on affiliate relationships and advertisements with partners including Amazon, Google, and others.