Big Daddy
Fight or die fighting, no surrender.
According to the Law, that is. 
But as we all know, things are a little 'different' for us regardless of what 'the law' allows.
But for all intents and purposes, here it is. Indianians, blast away!:
Guess Which State Just Legalized Shooting Cops…
http://nativewarriors.net/guess-which-state-just-legalized-shooting-cops.html
Hold onto your holsters, folks: shooting a cop dead is now legal in the state of Indiana.
Governor Mitch Daniels, a Republican, has authorized changes to a 2006 legislation that legalizes the use of deadly force on a public servant — including an officer of the law — in cases of “unlawful intrusion.”
Proponents of both the Second and Fourth Amendments — those that allow for the ownership of firearms and the security against unlawful searches, respectively — are celebrating the update by saying it ensures that residents are protected from authorities that abuse the powers of the badge.
Others, however, fear that the alleged threat of a police state emergence will be replaced by an all-out warzone in Indiana. Under the latest changes of the so-called Castle Doctrine, state lawmakers agree “people have a right to defend themselves and third parties from physical harm and crime.”
Rather than excluding officers of the law, however, any public servant is now subject to be met with deadly force if they unlawfully enter private property without clear justification. “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,” reads the legislation.
Although critics have been quick to condemn the law for opening the door for assaults on police officers, supporters say that it is necessary to implement the ideals brought by America’s forefathers. Especially, argue some, since the Indiana Supreme Court almost eliminated the Fourth Amendment entirely last year. During the 2011 case of Barnes v. State of Indiana, the court ruled that a man who assaulted an officer dispatched to his house had broken the law before there was “no right to reasonably resist unlawful entry by police officers.”
In turn, the National Rifle Association lobbied for an amendment to the Castle Doctrine to ensure that residents were protected from officers that abuse the law to grant themselves entry into private space. “There are bad legislators,” the law’s author, State Senator R. Michael Young (R) tells Bloomberg News.“There are bad clergy, bad doctors, bad teachers, and it’s these officers that we’re concerned about that when they act outside their scope and duty that the individual ought to have a right to protect themselves.”
Governor Daniels agrees with the senator in a statement offered through his office, and notes that the law is only being established to cover rare incidents of police abuse that can escape the system without reprimand for officers or other persons that break the law to gain entry.
“In the real world, there will almost never be a situation in which these extremely narrow conditions are met,” Daniels says. “This law is not an invitation to use violence or force against law enforcement officers.”
Officers in Indiana aren’t necessarily on the same page, though. “If I pull over a car and I walk up to it and the guy shoots me, he’s going to say, ‘Well, he was trying to illegally enter my property,’” Sergeant Joseph Hubbard tells Bloomberg. “Somebody is going get away with killing a cop because of this law.”
“It’s just a recipe for disaster,” Indiana State Fraternal Order of Police President Tim Downs adds. “It just puts a bounty on our heads.”
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
I found this sh!t below to be particularly interesting
:
Your Right of Defense Against Unlawful Arrest
"Citizens may resist unlawful arrest to the point of taking an
arresting officer's life if necessary." Plummer v. State, 136
Ind. 306. This premise was upheld by the Supreme Court of the United
States in the case: John Bad Elk v. U.S., 177 U.S. 529. The Court
stated: "Where the officer is killed in the course of the disorder
which naturally accompanies an attempted arrest that is resisted,
the law looks with very different eyes upon the transaction, when
the officer had the right to make the arrest, from what it does
if the officer had no right. What may be murder in the first case
might be nothing more than manslaughter in the other, or the facts
might show that no offense had been committed."
"An arrest made with a defective warrant, or one issued without
affidavit, or one that fails to allege a crime is within
jurisdiction, and one who is being arrested, may resist arrest
and break away. lf the arresting officer is killed by one who
is so resisting, the killing will be no more than an involuntary
manslaughter." Housh v. People, 75 111. 491; reaffirmed and quoted
in State v. Leach, 7 Conn. 452; State v. Gleason, 32 Kan. 245;
Ballard v. State, 43 Ohio 349; State v Rousseau, 241 P. 2d 447;
State v. Spaulding, 34 Minn. 3621.
"When a person, being without fault, is in a place where he has a
right to be, is violently assaulted, he may, without retreating,
repel by force, and if, in the reasonable exercise of his right
of self defense, his assailant is killed, he is justified." Runyan
v. State, 57 Ind. 80; Miller v. State, 74 Ind. 1. "These principles
apply as well to an officer attempting to make an arrest, who
abuses his authority and transcends the bounds thereof by the use of
unnecessary force and violence, as they do to a private individual
who unlawfully uses such force and violence." Jones v. State, 26
Tex. App. I; Beaverts v. State, 4 Tex. App. 1 75; Skidmore v. State,
43 Tex. 93, 903.
"An illegal arrest is an assault and battery. The person so attempted
to be restrained of his liberty has the same right to use force in
defending himself as he would in repelling any other assault and
battery." (State v. Robinson, 145 ME. 77, 72 ATL. 260).
"Each person has the right to resist an unlawful arrest. In such
a case, the person attempting the arrest stands in the position
of a wrongdoer and may be resisted by the use of force, as in
self-defense." (State v. Mobley, 240 N.C. 476, 83 S.E. 2d 100).
"One may come to the aid of another being unlawfully arrested,
just as he may where one is being assaulted, molested, raped or
kidnapped. Thus it is not an offense to liberate one from the
unlawful custody of an officer, even though he may have submitted
to such custody, without resistance." (Adams v. State, 121 Ga. 16,
48 S.E. 910).
But as we all know, things are a little 'different' for us regardless of what 'the law' allows.
But for all intents and purposes, here it is. Indianians, blast away!:
Guess Which State Just Legalized Shooting Cops…
http://nativewarriors.net/guess-which-state-just-legalized-shooting-cops.html
Hold onto your holsters, folks: shooting a cop dead is now legal in the state of Indiana.
Governor Mitch Daniels, a Republican, has authorized changes to a 2006 legislation that legalizes the use of deadly force on a public servant — including an officer of the law — in cases of “unlawful intrusion.”
Proponents of both the Second and Fourth Amendments — those that allow for the ownership of firearms and the security against unlawful searches, respectively — are celebrating the update by saying it ensures that residents are protected from authorities that abuse the powers of the badge.
Others, however, fear that the alleged threat of a police state emergence will be replaced by an all-out warzone in Indiana. Under the latest changes of the so-called Castle Doctrine, state lawmakers agree “people have a right to defend themselves and third parties from physical harm and crime.”
Rather than excluding officers of the law, however, any public servant is now subject to be met with deadly force if they unlawfully enter private property without clear justification. “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,” reads the legislation.
Although critics have been quick to condemn the law for opening the door for assaults on police officers, supporters say that it is necessary to implement the ideals brought by America’s forefathers. Especially, argue some, since the Indiana Supreme Court almost eliminated the Fourth Amendment entirely last year. During the 2011 case of Barnes v. State of Indiana, the court ruled that a man who assaulted an officer dispatched to his house had broken the law before there was “no right to reasonably resist unlawful entry by police officers.”
In turn, the National Rifle Association lobbied for an amendment to the Castle Doctrine to ensure that residents were protected from officers that abuse the law to grant themselves entry into private space. “There are bad legislators,” the law’s author, State Senator R. Michael Young (R) tells Bloomberg News.“There are bad clergy, bad doctors, bad teachers, and it’s these officers that we’re concerned about that when they act outside their scope and duty that the individual ought to have a right to protect themselves.”
Governor Daniels agrees with the senator in a statement offered through his office, and notes that the law is only being established to cover rare incidents of police abuse that can escape the system without reprimand for officers or other persons that break the law to gain entry.
“In the real world, there will almost never be a situation in which these extremely narrow conditions are met,” Daniels says. “This law is not an invitation to use violence or force against law enforcement officers.”
Officers in Indiana aren’t necessarily on the same page, though. “If I pull over a car and I walk up to it and the guy shoots me, he’s going to say, ‘Well, he was trying to illegally enter my property,’” Sergeant Joseph Hubbard tells Bloomberg. “Somebody is going get away with killing a cop because of this law.”
“It’s just a recipe for disaster,” Indiana State Fraternal Order of Police President Tim Downs adds. “It just puts a bounty on our heads.”
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
I found this sh!t below to be particularly interesting
:Your Right of Defense Against Unlawful Arrest
"Citizens may resist unlawful arrest to the point of taking an
arresting officer's life if necessary." Plummer v. State, 136
Ind. 306. This premise was upheld by the Supreme Court of the United
States in the case: John Bad Elk v. U.S., 177 U.S. 529. The Court
stated: "Where the officer is killed in the course of the disorder
which naturally accompanies an attempted arrest that is resisted,
the law looks with very different eyes upon the transaction, when
the officer had the right to make the arrest, from what it does
if the officer had no right. What may be murder in the first case
might be nothing more than manslaughter in the other, or the facts
might show that no offense had been committed."
"An arrest made with a defective warrant, or one issued without
affidavit, or one that fails to allege a crime is within
jurisdiction, and one who is being arrested, may resist arrest
and break away. lf the arresting officer is killed by one who
is so resisting, the killing will be no more than an involuntary
manslaughter." Housh v. People, 75 111. 491; reaffirmed and quoted
in State v. Leach, 7 Conn. 452; State v. Gleason, 32 Kan. 245;
Ballard v. State, 43 Ohio 349; State v Rousseau, 241 P. 2d 447;
State v. Spaulding, 34 Minn. 3621.
"When a person, being without fault, is in a place where he has a
right to be, is violently assaulted, he may, without retreating,
repel by force, and if, in the reasonable exercise of his right
of self defense, his assailant is killed, he is justified." Runyan
v. State, 57 Ind. 80; Miller v. State, 74 Ind. 1. "These principles
apply as well to an officer attempting to make an arrest, who
abuses his authority and transcends the bounds thereof by the use of
unnecessary force and violence, as they do to a private individual
who unlawfully uses such force and violence." Jones v. State, 26
Tex. App. I; Beaverts v. State, 4 Tex. App. 1 75; Skidmore v. State,
43 Tex. 93, 903.
"An illegal arrest is an assault and battery. The person so attempted
to be restrained of his liberty has the same right to use force in
defending himself as he would in repelling any other assault and
battery." (State v. Robinson, 145 ME. 77, 72 ATL. 260).
"Each person has the right to resist an unlawful arrest. In such
a case, the person attempting the arrest stands in the position
of a wrongdoer and may be resisted by the use of force, as in
self-defense." (State v. Mobley, 240 N.C. 476, 83 S.E. 2d 100).
"One may come to the aid of another being unlawfully arrested,
just as he may where one is being assaulted, molested, raped or
kidnapped. Thus it is not an offense to liberate one from the
unlawful custody of an officer, even though he may have submitted
to such custody, without resistance." (Adams v. State, 121 Ga. 16,
48 S.E. 910).
.
