PDA

View Full Version : Mitch Daniels signs bill allowing Indiana citizens to shoot cops




realtonygoodwin
06-12-2012, 09:27 AM
http://www.allgov.com/Top_Stories/ViewNews/Indiana_First_State_to_Allow_Citizens_to_Shoot_Law _Enforcement_Officers_120611

This is great news and an appropriate reaction to the Indiana Supreme Court WAY overstepping their bounds.

TonySutton
06-12-2012, 09:28 AM
Indiana is moving up in the Freedom Index. I may have to reconsider my home state.

phill4paul
06-12-2012, 09:31 AM
Jesus Christ I hate these kinda headlines...This is what these headlines should read.


"Mitch Daniels signs bill reinforcing the rights of citizens to use deadly force to defend their homes against unlawful entry."

Other than that peeve great news indeed.

Elwar
06-12-2012, 10:06 AM
I like the headline.

Makes me wonder if there would be an actual season dedicated to this or if it is all year long.

LibertyEagle
06-12-2012, 10:10 AM
Jesus Christ I hate these kinda headlines...This is what these headlines should read.


"Mitch Daniels signs bill reinforcing the rights of citizens to use deadly force to defend their homes against unlawful entry."

Other than that peeve great news indeed.

+rep

angelatc
06-12-2012, 10:14 AM
The cops there are pissed.

Pericles
06-12-2012, 10:21 AM
The cops there are pissed.

Guess the police union won't be backing Daniels in the next election, wait, did they back him in the last one?

jmdrake
06-12-2012, 10:26 AM
Jesus Christ I hate these kinda headlines...This is what these headlines should read.


"Mitch Daniels signs bill reinforcing the rights of citizens to use deadly force to defend their homes against unlawful entry."

Other than that peeve great news indeed.

Except your headline doesn't tell the whole story. Someone reading it might think it's just another run of the mill "stand your ground" law. Maybe "Mitch Daniels signs bill reinforcing citizens rights to use deadly force against unlawful entry by anyone including police."

pcosmar
06-12-2012, 10:35 AM
Now,, if only the people were effectively armed to back this up.

Uncle Emanuel Watkins
06-12-2012, 10:39 AM
http://www.allgov.com/Top_Stories/ViewNews/Indiana_First_State_to_Allow_Citizens_to_Shoot_Law _Enforcement_Officers_120611

This is great news and an appropriate reaction to the Indiana Supreme Court WAY overstepping their bounds.

Other than for my personal enrichment, how is the presentation of this article being helpful?

TonySutton
06-12-2012, 10:41 AM
The representative who wrote the bill used this example to explain the need for the bill.

Under current Indiana law and Indiana supreme court rulings if I were to walk into my house to find a police officer raping my teenage daughter, my only recourse would be to stand there and file a lawsuit afterwards.

pcosmar
06-12-2012, 10:41 AM
Other than for my personal enrichment, how is the presentation of this article being helpful?
As an open notice to TPTB that the spirit of resistance still lives among some.

jmdrake
06-12-2012, 10:46 AM
Other than for my personal enrichment, how is the presentation of this article being helpful?

You must not have read the original ruling.

http://www.nwitimes.com/news/local/govt-and-politics/article_ec169697-a19e-525f-a532-81b3df229697.html

phill4paul
06-12-2012, 10:56 AM
The representative who wrote the bill used this example to explain the need for the bill.

Under current Indiana law and Indiana supreme court rulings if I were to walk into my house to find a police officer raping my teenage daughter, my only recourse would be to stand there and file a lawsuit afterwards.

Wow. Nice way to sum it up in a manner easily understood.

Uncle Emanuel Watkins
06-12-2012, 11:00 AM
Now,, if only the people were effectively armed to back this up.

One cannot commit contempt, treason, or treachery against legislated laws; but, one can commit contempt, treason, or treachery against the disadvantaged people and their Civil Purpose.
To look at this on a secular level, after all, we are a Christian culture, Jesus said any offense committed against Him as the Son of man would be forgiven. It is only those offenses commited against the Holy Spirit which are unforgiveable.
Saul was the worst tyrant to ever live being the highest authority in evil as it was he who was held accountable for commiting offenses against the Holy Spirit. In other words, Jesus didn't ask king Herod or the Roman preface (governor) Pilate why they were persecuting Him as He was still the forgiving Son of Man. It was only afterwards that Jesus as the Holy Spirit asked this question of Saul. Yet, Saul's judgement for offending the Holy Spirit was for him to be transformed into the Apostle Paul, becoming a (The) chosen vessel of God.
Go ahead and holler all you want about how this is religious nonsense. If one doesn't understand this subtle point regarding the Apostle Paul and his authority, then one won't begin to appreciate our Founding Fathers and the Declaration of Independence they formulated.
In the world, the Apostle Paul had absolute authority over all emperors and kings (An emperor is designated higher than a king). In order for Christianity to fall from a faith to that of a religion, the emperors and kings had to defy the authority of the Apostle Paul. Yet, it was the Apostle Paul afterwards who charged Christians with being submissive to what now amounted to being their false authority on earth.
In the end, our Founding Fathers were submissive to this false authority as they did not disobey a king, but a tyrant. They then defined a tyrant as someone who is located too far away to rule with a conscience.

Cowlesy
06-12-2012, 11:04 AM
One cannot commit contempt, treason, or treachery against legislated laws; but, one can commit contempt, treason, or treachery against the disadvantaged people and their Civil Purpose.
To look at this on a secular level, after all, we are a Christian culture, Jesus said any offense committed against Him as the Son of man would be forgiven. It is only those offenses commited against the Holy Spirit which are unforgiveable.
Saul was the worst tyrant to ever live being the highest authority in evil as it was he who was held accountable for commiting offenses against the Holy Spirit. In other words, Jesus didn't ask king Herod or the Roman preface (governor) Pilate why they were persecuting Him as He was still the forgiving Son of Man. It was only afterwards that Jesus as the Holy Spirit asked this question of Saul. Yet, Saul's judgement for offending the Holy Spirit was for him to be transformed into the Apostle Paul, becoming a (The) chosen vessel of God.
Go ahead and holler all you want about how this is religious nonsense. If one doesn't understand this subtle point regarding the Apostle Paul and his authority, then one won't begin to appreciate our Founding Fathers and the Declaration of Independence they formulated.
In the world, the Apostle Paul had absolute authority over all emperors and kings (An emperor is designated higher than a king). In order for Christianity to fall from a faith to that of a religion, the emperors and kings had to defy the authority of the Apostle Paul. Yet, it was the Apostle Paul afterwards who charged Christians with being submissive to what now amounted to being their false authority on earth.
In the end, our Founding Fathers were submissive to this false authority as they did not disobey a king, but a tyrant. They then defined a tyrant as someone who is located too far away to rule with a conscience.

Oh okay. Everything makes sense now. Thanks for the clarification.

Uncle Emanuel Watkins
06-12-2012, 11:13 AM
As an open notice to TPTB that the spirit of resistance still lives among some.

When resisting a superior predator like a lion, show neither the emotions of fear nor aggression. A tyrant is always going to be superior because they aren't burdened down inwardly as are the disadvantaged that they are taking advantage of. A true marriage isn't just a relationship between the advantaged and the disadvantaged, but also a bond between the disadvantaged and the hidden posterity they have a burden to care for within.

Uncle Emanuel Watkins
06-12-2012, 11:22 AM
Oh okay. Everything makes sense now. Thanks for the clarification.

Sense? You don't even know the half of it. There was no such thing as rational "sense" during the time of our Founding Fathers. After Galileo was persecuated to the point of being humiliated by the Catholic church, the scientific world was ready to throw logic out the window. You see, it was the Catholic church who fully supported Aristotilian logic. Ironically, it was Galileo who showed how Aristotle's use of logic was flawed. If it weren't for Descartes, who many consider to be a Christian philosopher of science, rational thought would have been tossed out the window.
You see, during the time of our Founding Fathers, one only had the use of natural law. Our Founding Fathers were more Socratic and Platonic in their thought processes than they were Aristotilian. In other words, our Founders were not logical. Yet, they were still rational.
Plato thought math was science while Socrates and he did develop their own truth engine dialectics.
Would this explanation be clearer?

pcosmar
06-12-2012, 11:30 AM
When resisting a superior predator like a lion, show neither the emotions of fear nor aggression. A tyrant is always going to be superior because they aren't burdened down inwardly as are the disadvantaged that they are taking advantage of. A true marriage isn't just a relationship between the advantaged and the disadvantaged, but also a bond between the disadvantaged and the hidden posterity they have a burden to care for within.

I reject the idea that any predator is superior.

1 Samuel 17:34-36

34 But David said to Saul, “Your servant has been keeping his father’s sheep. When a lion or a bear came and carried off a sheep from the flock, 35 I went after it, struck it and rescued the sheep from its mouth. When it turned on me, I seized it by its hair, struck it and killed it. 36 Your servant has killed both the lion and the bear; this uncircumcised Philistine will be like one of them, because he has defied the armies of the living God.

Never fought a lion, but have eaten a shark that challenged me.

Uncle Emanuel Watkins
06-12-2012, 12:08 PM
I reject the idea that any predator is superior.

1 Samuel 17:34-36


Never fought a lion, but have eaten a shark that challenged me.

A predatory pimp is superior to his prostitutes both physically and mentally. While the stronger pimp takes care of business, the prostitute is disadvantaged to him because she is distracted by an inward burden to care for future posterity.
This is the power of the Truth meaning there isn't any reason to manipulate events to do anything other than establishing it as foundational.

SewrRatt
06-12-2012, 08:59 PM
Wow Uncle Emanuel Watkins, I never thought I'd run into the person who writes all the spam e-mail I get on an internet forum.

PaulConventionWV
06-12-2012, 09:09 PM
Jesus Christ I hate these kinda headlines...This is what these headlines should read.


"Mitch Daniels signs bill reinforcing the rights of citizens to use deadly force to defend their homes against unlawful entry."

Other than that peeve great news indeed.

I agree it does make us sound like terrorists. That said, this is awesome. Cops, you better behave.

Keith and stuff
06-12-2012, 09:15 PM
Now,, if only the people were effectively armed to back this up.

I can see it now. A group of cops hate a man so they decide to arrested him on false charges. They don't bother to get a warrant and don't have any reason to think he committed any crime. They break down his door and run in. He fires 1 round at the cops. They shoot him 10 times and he dies. All of the cops are declared heros.

Uncle Emanuel Watkins
06-13-2012, 03:42 PM
Wow Uncle Emanuel Watkins, I never thought I'd run into the person who writes all the spam e-mail I get on an internet forum.

What is the difference between foundational power based on the Truth and a false power based on the manipulation of events? The first deals with natural rights while the second deals with civil rights. I'm not spamming. It's just that our Founding Fathers were right when they declared that the unapproachable Truth reduces to the simplicity of a natural law. In other words, the best we can have is a natural law. But, then again, the natural law conclusion declared by our Founders pertained to mankind, existentially speaking, making it the ultimate natural law, or the one true formal dichotomy.
You think this is nonsense because you don't get the significance. Our Founding Fathers were unlike other lessor founders who considered the prior traditions of legal precendence in establishing their new nations. To the contrary, our Founders utilized the scientific method of natural law to abolish every prior tradition of legal precedence in order to start anew.

MoneyWhereMyMouthIs2
06-13-2012, 03:51 PM
The cops there are pissed.

When do they act as if they are not? lol

Uncle Emanuel Watkins
06-13-2012, 04:02 PM
When do they act as if they are not? lol

In expounding on what I wrote above, the differing policies practiced between a policeman and a fireman is worth considering. While a police officer by policy will do his utmost to save himself, a fireman by policy will give his life in an attempt to save even the most worthless amongst us. As the first policy is based upon the law, as it originated in a crushing existence where there is a limited amount of resources, in comparison, the Civil Purpose exercized by the firemen to save even the most worthless is based on a truth which is only percieved in the heart. Indeed, contrary to what we even perceive directly in our senses, there is more than enough resources even for the most worthless amongst us to live a happy life and to die a dignified death.

MoneyWhereMyMouthIs2
06-13-2012, 05:18 PM
In expounding on what I wrote above, the differing policies practiced between a policeman and a fireman is worth considering.

No argument from me there. In fact, it is a shame that fireman align themselves with police at times. That may come to an end now that police budgets are increasing while fireman budgets are decreasing. I don't have a reference for that, but it seems to be "the word on the street" I hear.

If I needed help for anything, I sure want the fire department showing up instead of the police department.

QueenB4Liberty
06-13-2012, 05:53 PM
Good for Indiana!

Dr.3D
06-13-2012, 06:06 PM
Now,, if only the people were effectively armed to back this up.
Speaking of which, how is Michigan doing with the bill to not require citizens to ask permission from the king before buying a pistol? Also how are they doing with the no permit required to carry a concealed pistol bill?

I hear they are going to vote on those sometime soon.

pcosmar
06-13-2012, 06:20 PM
Speaking of which, how is Michigan doing with the bill to not require citizens to ask permission from the king before buying a pistol? Also how are they doing with the no permit required to carry a concealed pistol bill?

I hear they are going to vote on those sometime soon.

I though the "Inspection" was to be done away with,,
Not really sure. I am entirely disarmed..

If and when I ever hold a gun in my hand again,, the laws concerning such will be irrelevant.

Dr.3D
06-13-2012, 06:46 PM
I though the "Inspection" was to be done away with,,
Not really sure. I am entirely disarmed..

If and when I ever hold a gun in my hand again,, the laws concerning such will be irrelevant.
Well, I believe they are trying to amend this http://www.legislature.mi.gov/documents/2011-2012/billintroduced/House/htm/2011-HIB-5225.htm

As amended (http://nraila.org/media/6033552/hb5225_substitute_language.pdf) would repeal the bureaucratic state “permit-to-purchase” handguns which became obsolete when the National Instant Criminal Background Check System (NICS) took effect in 1998 and would eliminate the state handgun registration requirements.

Seems like a step in the right direction to me.
Edit: Guess I was wrong about the concealed weapons permit thing.... perhaps someday they will repeal that one too. Then the people of Michigan will be able to do as the 2nd amendment says they can do.

Uncle Emanuel Watkins
06-13-2012, 07:45 PM
No argument from me there. In fact, it is a shame that fireman align themselves with police at times. That may come to an end now that police budgets are increasing while fireman budgets are decreasing. I don't have a reference for that, but it seems to be "the word on the street" I hear.

If I needed help for anything, I sure want the fire department showing up instead of the police department.

What I was trying to get at is how the fireman is an advancement over the police officer. The fireman is more of a member of the militia while the police officer is part of the necessary tyranny. While the militia itself was created to protect the people from tyranny both foreign and domestic, the military differs in that it was created to protect the head government (necessary tyranny). When military and police officers retire from service, they becomed valued members of the militia.
I have always told my sons that they have a choice as to whether they join the military service, but that they were born into the militia. Loving thy neighbor as thyself is for life.

Weston White
06-13-2012, 08:04 PM
I can see it now. A group of cops hate a man so they decide to arrested him on false charges. They don't bother to get a warrant and don't have any reason to think he committed any crime. They break down his door and run in. He fires 1 round at the cops. They shoot him 10 times and he dies. All of the cops are declared heros.

What, this is what is and has been taking place for the last several decades, except they don't just fire 10-round but more like 110-rounds (while only hitting him only 3-times of course), then execute the family dog right in front of his children, and later claim that his Subway sandwich wrapper looked like a chrome handgun or whatever.

ghengis86
06-13-2012, 08:51 PM
UEW aside, this does not mean open season on cops as the opposition (and some here) try to frame it.

It simply means that if a cop is breaking the law re: home invasion, he is to be treated like any other mundane and not a costume wearing, higher-order state sanctioned criminal.

Uncle Emanuel Watkins
06-14-2012, 07:01 AM
UEW aside, this does not mean open season on cops as the opposition (and some here) try to frame it.

It simply means that if a cop is breaking the law re: home invasion, he is to be treated like any other mundane and not a costume wearing, higher-order state sanctioned criminal.

You can pass all the legislation you want. In fact, we have laws making it illegal for aliens to cross the border.