Neither side in an argument can find the truth when both make an absolute claim on it.
I said chase, not emergency speeding. For example you see a reckless driver and decide to chase after him to force him off the road to prevent an accident, that would be illegal. However rushing your wife to the hospital because she's about to give birth is an entirely different situation.Many places have an emergency maximum speed, and these speeds are only allowed under specific circumstances. However, in an emergency most civilian use of speed is dismissed in a court of law. It's not a truly special authority power. Police have a slightly larger scope of protection, but only when their authority is not exceeded.
And just to be clear, I would not support charging a citizen who shot a police officer who wrongfully entered his home, even by accident, if he truly thought his life was at risk. It would be a horrible situation and a tragic accident, however the situation being what it is would justify his actions because as far as the shooter knew it was an intruder. I was just making a point that police officers aren't exactly normal citizens given their status.
Theres bad everything ...theres bad lawyers that cause people to do prison times...be them overzealous prosecutors or lazy ass CDLs
Theres bad doctors that kill people...and the list just goes on and on....of course theres bad cops of course some cops do bad things.
Im not going to get into a long thing here...when theres a raid..all the supvs involved are called into a command center and briefed by brass.
The street cops are not involved with the briefing...those supv come out of the briefing and give the cops direction...on how its going down.
Those cops are givin the address...theres alot of reasons bad address's come out...sometimes that is what they believe is the right address and it was based on bad information..sometimes the direct supv on the scene just screws the hell up and sometimes the cops running into multi unit tenement go to the wrong door...but they are MISTAKES...not intentional breachs of anyones rights...its not abuse of power...its a MISTAKE a terrible one yes...but a mistake none the less...
Authority is not granted, it is a contract between the populace, and those in positions of authority. If those in positions of authority abuse their power, the populace is well within their rights to not only reject, but oust the offending party, since the offending party has breached their end of the bargain. When you act like the right hand of tyranny against the citizens of the United States, you have breached that contract, and reap every consequence you have coming, and that's what this law is.
I love the NSA. It's like having a secret fan-base you will never see, but they're there, watching everything you write and it makes me feel all warm and fuzzy inside knowing that I may be some person's only form of unconstitutional entertainment one night.
It does not appear this bill give the citizens any more rights than they had before: The added language is puffery. Public servant carry's no special privilege when acting in an unlawful manner to begin with nor does this law absolve the citizen from acting within a reasonable manner.
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.
(i) A person is justified in using reasonable force against a public servant if the person reasonably believes the force is necessary to:
(1) protect the person or a third person from what the person reasonably believes to be the imminent use of unlawful force;
(2) prevent or terminate the public servant's unlawful entry of or attack on the person's dwelling, curtilage, or occupied motor vehicle; or
(3) prevent or terminate the public servant's unlawful trespass on or criminal interference with property lawfully in the person's possession, lawfully in possession of a member of the person's immediate family, or belonging to a person whose property the person has authority to protect.
There are limitations, however,
(j) Notwithstanding subsection (i), a person is not justified in using force against a public servant if:
(1) the person is committing or is escaping after the commission of a crime;
(2) the person provokes action by the public servant with intent to cause bodily injury to the public servant;
(3) the person has entered into combat with the public servant or is the initial aggressor, unless the person withdraws from the encounter and communicates to the public servant the intent to do so and the public servant nevertheless continues or threatens to continue unlawful action; or
(4) the person reasonably believes the public servant is:
(A) acting lawfully; or
(B) engaged in the lawful execution of the public servant's official duties.
(k) A person is not justified in using deadly force against a public servant whom the person knows or reasonably should know is a public servant unless:
(1) the person reasonably believes that the public servant is:
(A) acting unlawfully; or
(B) not engaged in the execution of the public servant's official duties; and
(2) the force is reasonably necessary to prevent serious bodily injury to the person or a third person
Enrolled Act, Senate Bill 0001