Yes, it is ...

Jun 13, 2012 -- 2:07PM, Nepenthe wrote:

Jun 13, 2012 -- 10:46AM, teilhard wrote:

It's essentially another Version of, "Stand Your Ground," isn't it ... ???

No, it really isn't.

What scares me about Americans and guns is not that you have the right to own weapons. It's the fact that you keep making laws saying it's ok to shoot people. It's like you've got some maniac who sleeps with his guns looking through the books and saying "What about this? Can we shoot them then?". There seems to be almost a perverse glee at the prospect of shooting people.

Jun 13, 2012 -- 8:14PM, teilhard wrote:

Yes, it is ...

Jun 13, 2012 -- 2:07PM, Nepenthe wrote:

Jun 13, 2012 -- 10:46AM, teilhard wrote:

It's essentially another Version of, "Stand Your Ground," isn't it ... ???

No, it really isn't.

Then show me how.  Show me how taking up arms against individuals who have not identified themselves breaking through your front door in the middle of the night is the same as 'stand-your-grounds'. 

Cory Maye, another person who could have benefited from this law instead of having years of his life taken away.

Howdy

Jun 13, 2012 -- 9:35AM, Ironhold wrote:

link

After a state supreme court decision determined that home owners had "no right" to protect themselves against unlawful entry of their houses or vehicles by public officials, the state has just passed a law stating that if a public servant does go rogue and attempt to enter your house illegally you can defend yourself, up to and including with lethal force.

I do think that a homeowner does have the right to protect himself and his family from "public officals"  who make an "unlawful" entry wether they are "rogue" or "not rogue". 

I think that a homeowner does not have the right to protect himself or his family from "public officals" who are "not rogue". 

Jun 13, 2012 -- 9:35AM, Ironhold wrote:

The law is, obviously, touching off some major debates, as there is a fear that some people will just use it as an excuse to go off and shoot whoever they want. Others, however, are taking a more reasonable approach, such as a sheriff who instructed his plainclothes officers that they aren't to approach a house or vehicle solo until the department knows how things will play out (they must have a uniformed officer with them when they do).

I do think that it is a "resonable" fear that there are some people who will use this law to shoot public officals who are not rogue and are "lawfully" entering their house-castle. 

I certainly agree that it is a good idea to have a uniformed cop with a plainsclothed  cop when they approach a house.  It should be SOP to have a unformed officer with a plainclothed officer when "approaching"  a house. 

However "approaching" a house is different from "entering" a house.   

Jun 13, 2012 -- 9:35AM, Ironhold wrote:

Sadly, folks, I've seen some bad cops out there. This includes a campus cop at my high school who came to work with a hangover.

Should cops be forbidden from going to work with hangovers? 

Jun 13, 2012 -- 9:35AM, Ironhold wrote:

I highly doubt that this law will be needed in 99.99% of encounters, but there's always that 0.01% where things just aren't kosher.

Does a person have the right to protect himself and his family when the 0.1% of the time when things are "not kosher"? 

Howdy Nepthene

Jun 14, 2012 -- 11:39AM, Nepenthe wrote:

Jun 14, 2012 -- 10:55AM, IDBC wrote:

I think that a homeowner does not have the right to protect himself or his family from "public officals" who are "not rogue". 

This law is needed to protect people even from law abiding officers.  This is because most people do not know what is allowed under our current law.  With the horribly drastic increase in no-knock entries over the past couple decades, homeowners need to be legally protected from attempting to proect their home from an unknown invasion.  When a father is woken up in the middle of the night from his sleep, hears the front door being broken down, hears incoherent screaming and yelling, sees masked individuals with weapons, he needs to be legally protected from prosecution for doing nothing more than what he believes is protecting his family.

It is my understanding that the reason given for the increase of no-knock warrants in the past couple of decades is due an increase in the amount and types of weapons being used by people who are defending themselves against public officals.  

If public officals break into a man's by public officals who are wearing masks and yelling incoherently with weapons drawn I could certainly uderstand him or her defend themselves with lethal force.  Especially if they know that they are not guilty of a crime. 

If they are yelling coherently, identifying themselves as public officals, wearing uniforms and badges that identify themselves as public officals and they use lethal force then I have less sympathy for them.  Wether they have committed a crime or not. 

In most cases I do not think it is a good idea to use deadly force against public officals to protect yourself against public officals who are legally invading your castle-home when they have no-knock warrants.  

While it is possible that this law might be used by someone as a justification for using deadly force against public officals I doubt that was the intent of the lawmakers.  I think their intention of passing this law was to make it legal for people to defend their castels-homes and or family.