20 votes

Mitch Daniels Signs Bill Allowing Citizens To Use Deadly Force Against Police Officers Into Law

Trending on the Web

Comment viewing options

Select your preferred way to display the comments and click "Save settings" to activate your changes.

by the way,

you got another link other than AddictingInfo.org? That site is wholly run by idiot liberal statist hacks, who haven't got the slightest clue WTF they're talking about in regards to Constitutional issues.

Predictions in due Time...

"Let it not be said that no one cared, that no one objected once it's realized that our liberties and wealth are in jeopardy." - Dr. Ronald Ernest Paul

though one would think that

the 2nd Amendment's "security of A FREE state" should've been enough to clarify that, if not, John Bad Elk vs. United States SCOTUS decision, should've in no uncertain terms made that clear.


Wow, would you believe that Wikipedia correctly points out the two different versions of the 2nd Amendment: one proposed, vs. the one handed around the States to be ratified? Impressive. Most impressive.

Good for them!

As you can see, TJ, that sly ol' dog, SAVED us and kept our sovereignty intact, by CLEARLY understanding the difference between the use of a comma to denote a conditional clause, vs. not!


One version was passed by the Congress,[6] while another is found in the copies distributed to the States[7] and then ratified by them.

As passed by the Congress:

A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.

As ratified by the States and authenticated by Thomas Jefferson, Secretary of State:

A well regulated militia being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed.[8]

The WRONG version puts TWO commas, tyrannically:

1. After "A well regulated Militia," -- meaning what constitutes the existence of the Militia is the conditional clause following it: "being necessary to the security of a free state."

2. After "the right of the people to keep and bear Arms," -- meaning what constitutes the existence your "shall not be infringed." - right not to have that not infringed IS contingent upon the previous clause. [Those sneaky Congressional bastards; even then they were attempting semantic chicanery by stealth.]

Knowing this tyrannical ploy, the one that was actually ratified DON'T include those commas, making the Right UNCONDITIONAL and UN-a-lienable!!!

Thank God for the Founders' wisdom!

But for all of you who did research the origins of the 2nd Amendment ALREADY know that it merely codifies into law a pre-existent NATURAL RIGHT of Self-Defense: it does not GRANT, but merely guarantees what is already innate WITHIN you as a free human.

And of course, the much maligned "well regulated" in 2nd Amendment does NOT mean TO REGULATE by legislation, in the contemporary sense, but consistent with the phrase's universally understood usage in 18th century: as in "well regulated weights and measures" as in 'it's up to snuff,' as in 'well calibrated,' as in 'built to spec,' as in 'kept in working order,' as in 'skilled or capable.'

Literally to mean "make regular," without any difference to its correct and originally intended purpose.

Thus a well skilled armed citizenry (YOU, the Militia) is necessary for there to be "A free state," NOT "THE Free State."

The "free" in the 2nd Amend. is CLEARLY referring to "a" FREE HUMAN CONDITION, as in 'free from all forms of tyranny,' NOT 'free,' only for the sake of having a free geographical location, aka a 'nation' aka the State/the Leviathan or even respective State governments, but CLEARLY is referring to YOUR state of being, as in your own individual disposition.

And, since govt has ALWAYS been the historical purveyor of violence and tyranny in which it always gave itself arrogant aberrant powers to subjugate other humans, the 2nd Amendment was ALWAYS meant to be geared to keep the Govt in check. PERIOD. END of STORY!

The Founders, especially Thomas Jefferson CLEARLY KNEW what they were doing with the preciseness of the wording, that those in modernity claim erroneously, to be otherwise.

There's no dispute in the 2nd Amendment wording's intent. NONE whatsoever, if one truly understands history, and Constitutional context.

While it's good that the IN State law has clarified this issue, I truly wished that people simply understood their own rights and our Constitutional heritage far more. Of course, that's a hugely wishful thinking. Because IF that were so, the Republic wouldn't be on its last leg to begin with.

While Mitch Daniels is another run of the mill RINO statist, good for him and us that he signed it.

NO doubt that gun rights groups in other states are sure to follow with legal initiatives of their own.

Nevertheless a welcomed sign, even in a post-NDAA world.

Predictions in due Time...

"Let it not be said that no one cared, that no one objected once it's realized that our liberties and wealth are in jeopardy." - Dr. Ronald Ernest Paul

tasmlab's picture

Should this be federal?

I thought murder and it's penalties were state level stuff.

Currently consuming: Morehouse's "Better off free", FDR; Wii U; NEP Football

ecorob's picture

it makes the police think...

and to KNOW why they are WHERE they are and to BE SURE they are right before going in and killing someone who may be innocent!

i like it!

its no wonder that police oppose it...it holds them accountable

its 'cos I owe ya, my young friend...
Rockin' the FREE world in Tennessee since 1957!
9/11 Truth.

That is a Great Bill

We should make efforts to get that pushed in all the states, its called self defense its a law to prevent a death camp round up from happening. This bill protects peoples private property which is a duty defined in the constitution for the goverment to do. If the officers doesn't have a warrant they have no right to go on your property and you should have the right to defend yourself from illegal action from a mentally ill thug.



Official Daily Paul BTC address: 16oZXSGAcDrSbZeBnSu84w5UWwbLtZsBms
Rand Paul 2016

SteveMT's picture

Here is the actual bill. [Just as a reference]

Second Regular Session 117th General Assembly (2012)

Full bill text at: http://www.in.gov/legislative/bills/2012/SE/SE0001.1.html
(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.
(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.
SECTION 2. An emergency is declared for this act.

Don't praise or stroke Daniels too much he's a bad news Bush, Jr

This law is not what it seems.

Sure it helps citizens to gain some rights back (that they already had).

But if you need a local or state law to restore "select parts" the US Constitution then we are in BIG, BIG trouble.

Here is some commentary on that...

David Christmas AppealtoHeaven - I think you are dead on. Legislation regarding a constitutionally protected God-given right is counter-productive in my book. The appropriate remedy given by the founders would be removal from the bench for "bad behavior" or interposition via nullification from another level of civil government. Unfortunately the original legal and political system is all but obliterated in the mind of the body politic and so, consequently, inoperable. The ruling was unnecessary, the law was unnecessary, and the whole thing will ultimately serve to undermine the foundation of what once was an untouchable, unalienable right into a government-granted right that is subject to the need for "justice" at any given manufactured crisis. The only purpose I can see of bringing constitutional rights into the realm of statutory law is so that they can actually be discarded. When you read the new bill - it appears that castle doctrine has been reinforced by codification but what has actually happened is that you just got swindled out of your 4th Amendment right in return for a government granted privledge. Just my opinion - I am not a lawyer.
April 3 at 11:41pm · Unlike · 2
AnappealtoHeaven WashingtonsFlag You should be a lawyer... well put.
April 3 at 11:57pm · Like · 1
Sean Selby David, I think you are right that the legislation should not be necessary if things were being abided by properly (namely the Indiana Constitution and Article I Section 11 regarding search and seizure). However, I wonder if it is simply like the false sense of security we have when being strip searched, and not necessarily "counter-productive" per se. Because, effectively, David, the legislature is doing precisely what you call for when you say they should utilize "interposition" to 'nullify' the actions of another level of government. The legislature is intervening between the actions of the court and the people. They are doing what the executive could legally and morally do in similar fashion by saying he will not enforce the ruling (which is essentially the equivalent to the legislature passing the law and what Obama did with DOMA).

So, the question I see before us is actually whether we believe that interposition and nullification are more than mere political documents, as John Hostettler alluded to at a meeting that Lynette also attended a few years ago when I asked him about them. I appreciate his approach on many things, but on this one I believe they meant more than that in the minds of Jefferson and Madison (although some say Madison later recanted). And I believe John also advocated for them when he said that the executive and legislature did not need to act on the rulings of the court. You could say, but that is simply turning back the page on Marbury v. Madison and Judicial Review, but to me it effectively nullifies their activities as a branch of government.

I have to also agree with Appeal that you have a great legal mind! And for that matter, you do too Appeal!
Wednesday at 12:16am · Like
Sean Selby David, on a second glance, I do want to emphasize that I share your concern that they have effectively codified unnecessarily the Castle Doctrine, further eroding the stronger foundation of Article I, Section 11 of Indiana's Constitution and Bill of Rights. So, if that is what you are meaning by "counter-productive" I agree.

That being said, if they reference Article I, Section 11 in the bill, I'm more inclined to be favorable, as they are simply restating the authority and principle.

Also, it would have been even better if Gov. Daniels would have acted immediately after the case saying that he would not spend one dime to enforce the provisions of the case. That would have called the Supreme Court's bluff as they have neither the power of the sword nor the purse at their disposal.

To me, it is like they see the cement of the Hoover Dam cracking and about to explode and they are placing gum on it like in the Vegas Vacation movie with Chevy Chase. Instead what we need are repairs to the foundation instead of cleaning up around the edges, like you said, David. Otherwise, we'll just have the whole thing come crashing down at simply a later date and the gum will have done next to nothing.
Wednesday at 12:24am · Like

meekandmild's picture

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.


Daniels has long been co-opted

so I wouldn't trust anything coming out of him, as it would mostly be what Bush/Romney/GOP estab wants. Daniels worked for the Bush Admin, so is well trained in their evil ways.


That's gotta be the most

That's gotta be the most bat-shit crazy law I ever heard of.

Daniels has gotta go!


to be able to stop a person from illegally entering your home? I don't care what kind of clothes the person is wearing, they break into my house, especially at night and they will be met with dealy force.

"Endless money forms the sinews of war." - Cicero, www.freedomshift.blogspot.com

SteveMT's picture

Disagree. This existing law was crazy.

Indiana Supreme Court Rejects Claim of Right to Resist Illegal Police Entry into Your Own Home

We're not living in a world

We're not living in a world where the average schmuck is capable of taking care of his own security. Most of them need the cops to protect them, mostly from nature's desire to select them for extinction.

Reality Check covered this

in June of last year. The court ruled that cops could enter homes without warrants. According to Ben, half the states have laws like this. (no video)


The people have no protection from rogue cops - and as evidenced by many you tube videos, there's a lot of abuse happening. Considering that our police force is becoming militarized (just look at the drones over Houston) there has to be a way for the people to defend themselves other than relying on court cases down the road. If your home has been invaded (warrantless enter and search) and you, out of fear, make the wrong move and are shot dead, you've lost your day in court defending what is your 4th Amendment right. Too many groups are above the law and that needs to end.

If Tyranny and Oppression come to this land, it will be in the guise of fighting a foreign enemy.
James Madison

I don't think

that this was a good idea. Its not addressing the cause of the problem, just the symptoms. Instead of this law they should pass tougher laws on the police for illegal entry. I totally understand the sentiment but I think that home-owners are simply going to be out-gunned, legal entry or not.

What tougher laws?

We have a Constitution that is being abrogated by judges left and right. That's what happened - a judge said cops can enter homes without warrants - ruling not only against the local laws but the Constirution. Once a judge passes a judgement, that judgement is there for good until you get another judge to overturn the ruling and fat chance of that happening anytime soon with all the crooked judges out there.

I look at this law as a strengthening of our 2nd and 4th Amendment rights.

If Tyranny and Oppression come to this land, it will be in the guise of fighting a foreign enemy.
James Madison

I don't trust Mitch Daniels one inch

this is how they will get the military into the streets, when people start taking the police out. This would be ok if it was coming from a person who's intentions I could trust.

Those who expect to reap the blessings of freedom must. like men, undergo the fatigue of supporting it.-Thomas Paine

The R3volution requires action, not observation!!!!

Cops will make sure they have

Cops will make sure they have the right house. A person has a right to defend their house from an unlawful entry in my book. Especially if gun drawn, the cop has the same ability to kill an innocent citizen. If a cop is about to shoot said innocent citizen then the citizen has the right to defend himself. If not innocent then the citizen will most likely be shooting or running anyway.

Commerce with all nations, alliance with none, should be our motto. - T. Jefferson rЭVO˩ution

"Everyone wants to live at the expense of the state. They forget that the state wants to live at the expense of everyone.” - BASTIAT

Don't know the details,

but I'm liking the sound of it!