'No-Knock' defense bill in Indiana supported by NRA & Republicans

[Bodei]

This bill makes me ashamed to be a Republican and an NRA supporter. It's basically what happens when right wing is so far right that it is touching the extreme left on the political scale!
http://www.courierpress.com/news/201...---ev_newlaws/

[Joe]

Sounds like exactly what we need

[Bodei]

Originally Posted by Joe

Sounds like exactly what we need

Care to elaborate?

[johnthomas]

Cops serves a no knock warrant on the wrong house, you react and kill one or point a gun to defend yourself and family against an unknown threat and gets killed or arrested.
What gives them a free pass to break the law anyway? I am not a cop basher, but they should be required to obey the law.

[njineermike]

How exactly is a bill removing any immunity from police for illegally entering a home, or protecting a homeowner who shoots what he percieves to he an intruder, as any of us would do to protect our families, "anti-cop"?

I was living in Indianapolis when a group of off-duty policemen in street clothing went on a drunken bender at a LEO convention and beat up several bystanders, pulled firearms on people attempting to intervene, and were never prosecuted because they had immunity as off-duty police officers. That and a few cases of officer shootings/beatings of ex-wives and ex-wives boyfriends/husbands, with the police claiming immunity, were the trigger for this bill, not an anti-police sentiment.

[gschoelles]

Resisting seems to be the wrong route IMHO, whereas a better idea would be greater protection of the property owner in court. Winning a fight on the service of a No-Knock or alike, probably wouldn't be a winning proposition for anyone.

Originally Posted by Bodei

This bill makes me ashamed to be a Republican and an NRA supporter. It's basically what happens when right wing is so far right that it is touching the extreme left on the political scale!
http://www.courierpress.com/news/201...---ev_newlaws/

[LAWABIDINGCITIZEN]

Its backers, including conservative and liberal members of the General Assembly, say the measure is necessary to protect the notion that a Hoosier's home is his or her castle. It's about limiting government intrusion, they say.

Works for me.

[tgriffin]

Works for me. Need this nation wide.

[A-J]

While the spirit of the law may be good, the language as it is written is bad. Although I doubt that it will cause the widespread killing of cops serving warratns that some fear. It's a poorly written knee jerk reaction to a specific case where the PD was 100% right in doing their job, and the homeowner was wrong.

[Soldier415]

I am confused as to how this is Anti-Cop. So is the retired Sheriff's Deputy reading the story over my shoulder.

[njineermike]

Originally Posted by A-J

While the spirit of the law may be good, the language as it is written is bad. Although I doubt that it will cause the widespread killing of cops serving warratns that some fear. It's a poorly written knee jerk reaction to a specific case where the PD was 100% right in doing their job, and the homeowner was wrong.

Sorry, but you're wrong. All police in Indiana had implicit immunity up until this bill was introduced, and the volume of incidents was truly disturbing. I lived in Indiana for almost 10 years and saw the ongoing sequence of events that led to this. It ws not a single incident.

[fullrearview]

To me, it doesn't matter. I don't do anything illegal in the course of my duties, so if you wrongfully resist... Well, you will get more force required to overcome that resistance.

[rudigan]

It goes on to say that Hoosiers can use force "against a public servant" to protect against "what the person reasonably believes to be the imminent use of unlawful force," as well as to "prevent or terminate the public servant's unlawful entry of or attack on the person's dwelling, curtilage, or occupied motor vehicle" or property.

It later says that those protections do not cover those who start fights with public servants, or who are committing or escaping after crimes, or who are fighting law enforcement officials who are acting lawfully.

I like it. Extreme right?

[Joe]

Originally Posted by Bodei

Care to elaborate? Or are you just trolling?

I agree with the article and what the posters before me posted

[retired]

Stating your opinion in a calm and deliberate manner is fine. Calling people a troll, saying it's open season on cops or "plenty of 'police are more important than you are' posters." are not.

If you found your post deleted or edited, don't post similar comments.

[Gryff]

Originally Posted by gschoelles

Resisting seems to be the wrong route IMHO, whereas a better idea would be greater protection of the property owner in court. Winning a fight on the service of a No-Knock or alike, probably wouldn't be a winning proposition for anyone.

Agreed. Once I see a badge and ID without having a weapon pointed at me after jarring me awake in the middle of the night, I'm all about complying with law enforcement.

But since I'm not a dirtbag meth cooker, anyone kicking my door in at 3am is assumed to be an unlawful intruder, and the fight is on until I figure out who they are. It is law enforcement's obligation to unequivocally establish their identity to me if they enter my home by force. It is not my responsibility to assume that they are LEOs.

[fighterpilot562]

Originally Posted by Gryff

Agreed. Once I see a badge and ID without having a weapon pointed at me after jarring me awake in the middle of the night, I'm all about complying with law enforcement.

But since I'm not a dirtbag meth cooker, anyone kicking my door in at 3am is assumed to be an unlawful intruder, and the fight is on until I figure out who they are. It is law enforcement's obligation to unequivocally establish their identity to me if they enter my home by force. It is not my responsibility to assume that they are LEOs.

Agreed. i dont break the law, no one in my house does and if i hear my door be kicked in you know damn well i am gonna grab my HD weapon and go see whats going on

[safewaysecurity]

We need it across the country.

[J.S.Riesch]

Check and balances at its finest. Move Along Nothing To See Here.

[nick]

Hmm, I have no problem with a bill that says that you can resist an UNLAWFUL arrest, and defend yourself from a rogue cop. In fact, it's sad that we even need such a bill.

[nick]

And to fullrearview (can't quote on the phone) - that's exactly it. If someone's wrongfully resisting the arrest, you'll just get more force to deal with it, as it should be. I daresay that msot such people would resist arrest regardless of the law. With that said, we've removed most protections against the state from the regular citizens over the past century, and such bills covering resisting the unlawful actions of the state and its agents are way overdue.

[biochembruin]

There are some major problems with this bill. I’ll explain:
First, the bill is unnecessary. Despite some previous posts in this tread, there is NO blanket immunity from prosecution for LEOs using force. Rather, the immunity is for on duty officers carrying out their lawful duties, or acting in good faith that their action is indeed legal. If it is determined that an officer is committing an unlawful act, or acting in bad faith, there is no immunity. There are federal statues that apply here, and have nothing to do with the findings of the Indiana Supreme Court.

Second, the reason for a citizen’s requirement to follow an officer’s orders and not resist is intended to deescalate any violent confrontations. If an officer is using force outside of the scope and course of their duty, the Federal Government already has laws to force punitive damages upon said officer. The alternative is an almost guaranteed escalation of violence to the point of lethal force by one or both parties.

For example, an officer, acting outside the law, is using force to take a suspect into custody. If the suspect resists, the officer will escalate the force used to take the suspect into custody. If the suspect does not resist, the suspect will still be taken into custody, and can seek damages at a later time.

Third, the law is poorly written (http://e-lobbyist.com/gaits/text/604018). The law grants the right to resist officers to anyone who “reasonably believes” there to be an “imminent use of unlawful force,” (emphasis added). Note the law does not require there to be an actual use of unlawful force, just that the resister reasonably believes the force to be unlawful. This is very close to granting anyone the right to resist for any reason, as no criminal will ever admit they believed the force used to take them into custody was lawful.

The entire bill predicates use of force against an officer on what that person reasonably believes to be true, not what is actually true. In fact, if force is used by a suspect against an officer who is using lawful force, and the suspect (or rather the suspect's lawyer) can demonstrate any small reasonable belief the force was actually unlawful, the suspect is free to resist, despite the fact the officer is lawfully using force in good faith to enforce the law.

This can only have one result: the escalation of violence by both parties. If an officer is involved in any legal law enforcement activity, which is likely to result in resistance, that officer will already be on alert. Add in the officer’s knowledge that any force used against him will likely be judged legal, and the suspect has knowledge of such. Include the officer’s knowledge that he/she is also within the law to use force in the course of their duties, and you will have an officer who is legally within his/her rights to escalate their use of force, due to his/her knowledge that the suspect will likely resist with impunity.

(note, I use “law” and “bill” interchangeably to refer to Indiana SB1 2012).

[707electrician]

Extremely misleading thread title

[Samuelx]

What biochembruin said +1000000000

[CalCop]

As a cop, and a hardcore Libertarian, I understand both sides of this issue.

Law abiding, service-oriented cops may not understand the reason for this law, because they do the right thing for their fellow citizens...acknowledging they are no better than their neighbors who farm or work on cars. In fact, they find it their duty to serve their neighbors and fellow citizens...knowing a higher degree of integrity and professionalism is required of them, especially while in uniform.

The problem is, there are those over zealous, badge-heavy JBTs in almost every department....you know who they are if you're a cop in an agency of at least moderate size. This law is necessary because of those JBTs...again, a blanket law is written for the screw ups of the few. Some of your partners are your own worst enemies.

That being said, I agree the law could have been written better, and it is plausible that some readers of the law will take unlawful action as a result of reading and misunderstanding the spirit of this law.

Check out my signature, fellow cops....that's what it's all about.

[J.S.Riesch]

Originally Posted by CalCop

As a cop, and a hardcore Libertarian, I understand both sides of this issue.

Law abiding, service-oriented cops may not understand the reason for this law, because they do the right thing for their fellow citizens...acknowledging they are no better than their neighbors who farm or work on cars. In fact, they find it their duty to serve their neighbors and fellow citizens...knowing a higher degree of integrity and professionalism is required of them, especially while in uniform.

The problem is, there are those over zealous, badge-heavy JBTs in almost every department....you know who they are if you're a cop in an agency of at least moderate size. This law is necessary because of those JBTs...again, a blanket law is written for the screw ups of the few. Some of your partners are your own worst enemies.

That being said, I agree the law could have been written better, and it is plausible that some readers of the law will take unlawful action as a result of reading and misunderstanding the spirit of this law.

Check out my signature, fellow cops....that's what it's all about.

A++++++… Couldn't Say It Better Myself

[bob7122]

Originally Posted by fullrearview

To me, it doesn't matter. I don't do anything illegal in the course of my duties, so if you wrongfully resist... Well, you will get more force required to overcome that resistance.

exactly^^^

if you don't do anything illegal then you are gtg.

i am for this. i think ppl's rights should be respected, if leos don't do anything illegal than everything will be alright. just because this is now a law does not mean that everyone who is about to be arrested will resist and kill a leo. remember ppl, they still have to prove it in court.

[bob7122]

Originally Posted by biochembruin

There are some major problems with this bill. I’ll explain:
First, the bill is unnecessary. Despite some previous posts in this tread, there is NO blanket immunity from prosecution for LEOs using force. Rather, the immunity is for on duty officers carrying out their lawful duties, or acting in good faith that their action is indeed legal. If it is determined that an officer is committing an unlawful act, or acting in bad faith, there is no immunity. There are federal statues that apply here, and have nothing to do with the findings of the Indiana Supreme Court.

Second, the reason for a citizen’s requirement to follow an officer’s orders and not resist is intended to deescalate any violent confrontations. If an officer is using force outside of the scope and course of their duty, the Federal Government already has laws to force punitive damages upon said officer. The alternative is an almost guaranteed escalation of violence to the point of lethal force by one or both parties.

For example, an officer, acting outside the law, is using force to take a suspect into custody. If the suspect resists, the officer will escalate the force used to take the suspect into custody. If the suspect does not resist, the suspect will still be taken into custody, and can seek damages at a later time.

Third, the law is poorly written (http://e-lobbyist.com/gaits/text/604018). The law grants the right to resist officers to anyone who “reasonably believes” there to be an “imminent use of unlawful force,” (emphasis added). Note the law does not require there to be an actual use of unlawful force, just that the resister reasonably believes the force to be unlawful. This is very close to granting anyone the right to resist for any reason, as no criminal will ever admit they believed the force used to take them into custody was lawful.

The entire bill predicates use of force against an officer on what that person reasonably believes to be true, not what is actually true. In fact, if force is used by a suspect against an officer who is using lawful force, and the suspect (or rather the suspect's lawyer) can demonstrate any small reasonable belief the force was actually unlawful, the suspect is free to resist, despite the fact the officer is lawfully using force in good faith to enforce the law.

This can only have one result: the escalation of violence by both parties. If an officer is involved in any legal law enforcement activity, which is likely to result in resistance, that officer will already be on alert. Add in the officer’s knowledge that any force used against him will likely be judged legal, and the suspect has knowledge of such. Include the officer’s knowledge that he/she is also within the law to use force in the course of their duties, and you will have an officer who is legally within his/her rights to escalate their use of force, due to his/her knowledge that the suspect will likely resist with impunity.

(note, I use “law” and “bill” interchangeably to refer to Indiana SB1 2012).

doesn't our laws on defending our lives and property have the same language? we can use deadly force when we are in fear for our lives or of great bodily harm? and the amount of response must be "reasonable" that a judge and a jury of your peers in a court room would deem appropriate?

[Irish Gunner]

This is a tough one for me, while I believe that LEOS, Firefighters and Paramedics that put themselves in harms way every day for other people they deserve respect, but those same professions also tend to attract some egomaniacle SOBs too. In the LAWFUL prosecution of their duties they should receive some extra protection.

On the other hand when I am going about my business in my home and somebody comes barging through my door, they are likely to get shot first, as I would consider that an imminent threat, and I should be protected for defending myself.

I don't expect this would ever happen to me, but it would be hard for me to punish a citizen for shooting a LEO who for all intentions makes an unlawful entry into a residence, even by mistake.

[biochembruin]

Originally Posted by bob7122

doesn't our laws on defending our lives and property have the same language? we can use deadly force when we are in fear for our lives or of great bodily harm? and the amount of response must be "reasonable" that a judge and a jury of your peers in a court room would deem appropriate?

Our laws (California) contain similar language for justifiable self defense (both lethal and less than lethal). However, California law provides for a duty to obey a police officer. This Indiana bill effectively negates that duty to obey.

People posting in this thread keep suggesting that since they don't break the law, they would assume any force used by an officer would be unlawful, since there is no reason to use force. Here's an entirely reasonable example how that thought, and this bill will lead to death:

Let's say Officer Mike is on patrol. Just to paint a mental picture, he is the Calguns ideal officer. He knows all about OLL's, has the Roberti-Roos list memorized, is an Oathkeeper, and would never participate in a "no-knock" warrant, nor tolerate anyone who does. Officer Mike receives a radio call: armed robbery just occurred at 1st and Main. Susp is a male XXXX, wearing a black hooded sweatshirt, black shorts, last seen on a bike. Stand by for further from the victim.

You are a male xxxx wearing a hooded sweater, black shorts, on a bike, riding at 3rd and Main (three blocks from the crime). You didn't commit the robbery, or violate any other laws on your bike, and happen to have a CCW.

Officer Mike sees you, observes that you match the description of the robber, and thus has reasonable suspicion you may be involved in a crime. He knows the crime was violent, and wants to detain you. He calls for back-up, pulls up behind you, activates his overhead lights, and draws his gun. He orders you to stop.

You turn to see an officer pointing a gun at you, ordering you to stop. You know you haven't committed a crime and thus you reasonably believe the officer is using unlawful force against you.

Now, if the Indiana bill was a California law, you would be justified in shooting the officer, who was lawfully fulfilling his duty.

[Samuelx]

Hey BCB, great intentions and great explanations but I think you're wasting your breath. They're not toeing the line like we are and they are pretty set on their the views from the middle of the flock. They don't want to hear it...

[tyrist]

This bill doesn't appear to do anything. It uses the term unlawful entry, mistakenly entering the incorrect home is not unlawful entry.

[tyrist]

I just read a brief story on the actual incident this bill is addressing and oh man that should kill 99% of all domestic violence calls the police have to handle. Not to mention the sheer number of lawsuits against the police for neglect of duty that will result from compliance if their definition of unlawful is sustained.

[njineermike]

Originally Posted by biochembruin

There are some major problems with this bill. I’ll explain:
First, the bill is unnecessary. Despite some previous posts in this tread, there is NO blanket immunity from prosecution for LEOs using force. Rather, the immunity is for on duty officers carrying out their lawful duties, or acting in good faith that their action is indeed legal. If it is determined that an officer is committing an unlawful act, or acting in bad faith, there is no immunity. There are federal statues that apply here, and have nothing to do with the findings of the Indiana Supreme Court.

Actually, Indiana code 34-13-3 lists the specifications under which Indiana governmental employees ARE immune, and the details were so specifc, the application of immunity was entirely too comprehensive. Unless ALL specifications were met to remove the immunity (and they rarely were) rogue police officers routinely went unpunished, and innocent citizens faced criminal liability for simply defending themselves, because no statute existed to allow a person to defend themselves against attack by an Indiana police officer, even when that attack was illegal. In short, a sworn law enforcement officer was legally able to attack a citizen, and the citizen faced criminal prosecution for defending themselves. You don't have to believe it, but it was a reality in Indiana for years. The small town "bully with a badge" mentality permeated the state, and it was an open secret nobody could do anything about.

http://www.cs.cmu.edu/~pshell/gammag...ianapolis.html

[biochembruin]

Originally Posted by njineermike

Actually, Indiana code 34-13-3 lists the specifications under which Indiana governmental employees ARE immune, and the details were so specifc, the application of immunity was entirely too comprehensive. Unless ALL specifications were met to remove the immunity (and they rarely were) rogue police officers routinely went unpunished, and innocent citizens faced criminal liability for simply defending themselves, because no statute existed to allow a person to defend themselves against attack by an Indiana police officer, even when that attack was illegal. In short, a sworn law enforcement officer was legally able to attack a citizen, and the citizen faced criminal prosecution for defending themselves. You don't have to believe it, but it was a reality in Indiana for years. The small town "bully with a badge" mentality permeated the state, and it was an open secret nobody could do anything about.

http://www.cs.cmu.edu/~pshell/gammag...ianapolis.html

Indiana Code 34-13-13-3 specifically states that immunity only applies to governmental employees "acting within the scope of their duty." http://www.in.gov/legislative/ic/201.../ar13/ch3.html Thus, if an employee is found to be acting outside the scope of their duty (such as an unlawful use of force), then they are indeed liable.

Not to mention any Federal Law superseded any Indiana Code granting immunity. Such as 42 USC § 1983 (civil action for deprivation of rights), 18 U.S.C. § 241 (conspiracy against rights), and 18 U.S.C. § 242 (deprivation of rights under color of law).

[bob7122]

Originally Posted by biochembruin

Our laws (California) contain similar language for justifiable self defense (both lethal and less than lethal). However, California law provides for a duty to obey a police officer. This Indiana bill effectively negates that duty to obey.

People posting in this thread keep suggesting that since they don't break the law, they would assume any force used by an officer would be unlawful, since there is no reason to use force. Here's an entirely reasonable example how that thought, and this bill will lead to death:

Let's say Officer Mike is on patrol. Just to paint a mental picture, he is the Calguns ideal officer. He knows all about OLL's, has the Roberti-Roos list memorized, is an Oathkeeper, and would never participate in a "no-knock" warrant, nor tolerate anyone who does. Officer Mike receives a radio call: armed robbery just occurred at 1st and Main. Susp is a male XXXX, wearing a black hooded sweatshirt, black shorts, last seen on a bike. Stand by for further from the victim.

You are a male xxxx wearing a hooded sweater, black shorts, on a bike, riding at 3rd and Main (three blocks from the crime). You didn't commit the robbery, or violate any other laws on your bike, and happen to have a CCW.

Officer Mike sees you, observes that you match the description of the robber, and thus has reasonable suspicion you may be involved in a crime. He knows the crime was violent, and wants to detain you. He calls for back-up, pulls up behind you, activates his overhead lights, and draws his gun. He orders you to stop.

You turn to see an officer pointing a gun at you, ordering you to stop. You know you haven't committed a crime and thus you reasonably believe the officer is using unlawful force against you.

Now, if the Indiana bill was a California law, you would be justified in shooting the officer, who was lawfully fulfilling his duty.

Originally Posted by Samuelx

Hey BCB, great intentions and great explanations but I think you're wasting your breath. They're not toeing the line like we are and they are pretty set on their the views from the middle of the flock. They don't want to hear it...

no i hear you guys. that example was pretty clear in what you mean.
what i have in mind is someone arresting for trying to take your guns like in katrina. and the battle of Athens as well.

your scenario makes perfect sense. and it sucks that a scenario like yours is highly probable. but the law was made to stop JBT from committing crimes. maybe some more things need to change? maybe when stopping an individual in that scenario they should state, "STOP! you fit the exact description of an armed and dangerous individual who committed a robbery within this vicinity, i need to detain you to verify your identity." if that was presented in court then i would say the person is guilty of murdering a leo. a sane person would not use violence to free himself if he is explained the situation. we are not sheeple to do as the GOV't pleases, we are free men, citizens who demand our right to not be a victim, and an explanation for everything. that is why we always want transparency with our gov't. we are not like soviet russia that allows the gov't to do as they please with subjects. but crazy people would most likely take advantage of this, and imo they usually don't last long. if your guy's concern is officer safety, well we all know a leo's job IS NOT FOR EVERYONE. if you are that worried about being killed in your occupation when enforcing a law that some criminals or despicable anarchists, etc; don't like then maybe it ain't for you. the law was made to protect those few instances that the leo is committing a crime. just like i feel that the death penalty should be done away with because an innocent man could be wrongfully sent to deathrow and wrongfully executed. -(and this does happen)

I DON'T MEAN ANY DISRESPECT TO LEOS but you guys know what you signed up for. that is why not everyone can make the cut.

a french or prussian officer during the american revolution explains the way we are here in america, the rebellious spirit that demands their rights and does not want to bow to no one, that america does not want to be told to do something without an explanation. i don't remember the name but i remember what he told. he wrote that he would tell american soldiers to take a hill. the americans would ask why? and the frenchman would explain that it was necessary to reach this objective and other important stuff. then after the explanation they would take the hill. then he compares it to a french soldier and how when he is told to do something he just does it without question.

[bob7122]

hopefully it doesn't sound like i am rambling and my thoughts came out clearly...

[jdberger]

Originally Posted by biochembruin

Our laws (California) contain similar language for justifiable self defense (both lethal and less than lethal). However, California law provides for a duty to obey a police officer. This Indiana bill effectively negates that duty to obey.

People posting in this thread keep suggesting that since they don't break the law, they would assume any force used by an officer would be unlawful, since there is no reason to use force. Here's an entirely reasonable example how that thought, and this bill will lead to death:

Let's say Officer Mike is on patrol. Just to paint a mental picture, he is the Calguns ideal officer. He knows all about OLL's, has the Roberti-Roos list memorized, is an Oathkeeper, and would never participate in a "no-knock" warrant, nor tolerate anyone who does. Officer Mike receives a radio call: armed robbery just occurred at 1st and Main. Susp is a male XXXX, wearing a black hooded sweatshirt, black shorts, last seen on a bike. Stand by for further from the victim.

You are a male xxxx wearing a hooded sweater, black shorts, on a bike, riding at 3rd and Main (three blocks from the crime). You didn't commit the robbery, or violate any other laws on your bike, and happen to have a CCW.

Officer Mike sees you, observes that you match the description of the robber, and thus has reasonable suspicion you may be involved in a crime. He knows the crime was violent, and wants to detain you. He calls for back-up, pulls up behind you, activates his overhead lights, and draws his gun. He orders you to stop.

You turn to see an officer pointing a gun at you, ordering you to stop. You know you haven't committed a crime and thus you reasonably believe the officer is using unlawful force against you.

Now, if the Indiana bill was a California law, you would be justified in shooting the officer, who was lawfully fulfilling his duty.

Agreed. It's poor bill with crappy potential consequences and ripe possibilities for abuse.

Perhaps instead, if the goal is to hold bad LEOs accountable, the bar should be lowered when it comes to a wronged citizen suing for the personal assets of an LEO who "knowingly" acted illegally (note that "knowingly" is a term of art)? People are less likely to do wrong when they're not insulated from the adverse repercussions.

Oh- and though I disagree with the proposed statute in the OP, "reasonable" is also a term of art, meaning what an average man would find reasonable, not what Joe the Lysol Sniffer would find reasonable.

[njineermike]

Originally Posted by biochembruin

Indiana Code 34-13-13-3 specifically states that immunity only applies to governmental employees "acting within the scope of their duty." http://www.in.gov/legislative/ic/201.../ar13/ch3.html Thus, if an employee is found to be acting outside the scope of their duty (such as an unlawful use of force), then they are indeed liable.

Not to mention any Federal Law superseded any Indiana Code granting immunity. Such as 42 USC § 1983 (civil action for deprivation of rights), 18 U.S.C. § 241 (conspiracy against rights), and 18 U.S.C. § 242 (deprivation of rights under color of law).

You're looking at it through the filter of everything being done perfectly in a perfect world. That is not the way things were playing out there. First, the granted immunity was being used incorrectly and applied almost universally, second, the victims were being prosecuted for defending themseves due to the incorrect application of immunity.

An example: Officer steve is angry with citizen Bill. By using some shady methods, Officer Steve is able to circumvent the application of immunity by ensuring at least one of the specifiers to remove immunity is not met. Officer Steve assaults citizen Bill under the guise of law. Officer Steve walks due to a combination of the immunity law and prosecutors unwilling to push cases against officers without overwhelming proof. Citizen Bill, meanwhile, with no such legal protection IS prosecuted for assaulting an officer, even though the act the officer initially performed was illegal.

This example happened in Charlestown, Indiana in 1997. The officer beat the citizen because the citizen was dating the officers ex-wife. The legal loophole was that the officer was off-duty, but stated he was attempting to stop a prowler he saw, although no prowler was reported. The citizen was prosecuted for officer assault because he resisted the attempt. He was attacked in his own neighborhood while out in his own yard one evening. These types of cases never made it to the federal level for years on end due to the nature of living in small town midwest areas where the police know the victims and they have no support. Indiana is not California, where a lawyer is under every rock. Indiana was (and still is) a backwoods, good old boy network mentality, with mostly small towns and a very low educational level.

[biochembruin]

A suspect's conviction of a crime does not negate their right to sue in Federal Court. Also, explaining why someone is detained during an armed confrontation is unreasonable for a variety of reasons.

Let's change my previous example. The individual stopped on the bike is indeed the robber. When the officer says stop, and before any explanation, the suspect runs, turns the corner, ditches his weapon and fruits of the crime, and is caught after an hour long search. The victim can't positively identify the suspect. He's a violent gang member with a lengthy history. He will not be convicted of any crime, since he fled before any explanation, and in his mind, he reasonably believes the officer was using unlawful force to detain.

Not everyone out there is a decent person and will listen to logic. If you have ever tried to detain someone who turns the contact into a shouting match before you can explain anything or get them safely into custody, you would understand. Some people innocent of one crime are guilty of another, and will resist.

This law will not solve any perceived systemic police abuse (of which about 5 examples have been provided out of the thousands of Indiana officers). Rather the proper application of existing laws is the answer (sound familiar?).