This is just crazy. Welcome to the NRA's unregulated world.

[SilverEagle]

I hope all you very conservative people are happy now that you've helped create this Frankenstein.

http://www.star-telegram.com/2012/06/05/4010577/officers-worried-about-new-indiana.html

[UNT90]

I hope all you very conservative people are happy now that you've helped create this Frankenstein.

http://www.star-tele...ew-indiana.html

Funny, I didn't know I was a member of the Indiana legislature.

And the Indian cop's example is just puire hyperbole. There are concerns with this law, but vehicle stops aren't one of them.

[Green P1]

Any organization that will let you buy a lifetime membership for your 8 year old son is a little screwy. That being said... NRA MEMBER 4 LIFE SUCKAS!!!!

[SilverEagle]

Funny, I didn't know I was a member of the Indiana legislature.

And the Indian cop's example is just puire hyperbole. There are concerns with this law, but vehicle stops aren't one of them.

...and I've always (until now) thought of mid-western states as being a bit more reasonable than most others....especially gun loving states of the south/southwest. Whatever they can sell to the mid-west they (the NRA) can sell something even scarier to the "bubba states". Although it doesn't get much scarier than this!!!

[Mad Hatter]

I don't find this scary at all. Anybody who's going to shoot a police office for pulling them over doesn't give a crap about the laws surrounding it.

[golfingomez]

yeah... because juries are real sympathetic towards cop killers and would love to let a killer go free to send a message to the lawmakers...

[SilverEagle]

yeah... because juries are real sympathetic towards cop killers and would love to let a killer go free to send a message to the lawmakers...

....and juries are made up of the same people who voted-in those legislators that crafted this insane law......at the behest of the NRA.

[Mad Hatter]

It's true, pro-gun conservatives, are historically very Anti-Police, so a jury would probably let them walk.

[UNT90]

I would love to read the actual law, not just a reporter's interpretation of the law.

[Censored by Laurie]

And the Indian cop's example is just puire hyperbole. There are concerns with this law, but vehicle stops aren't one of them.

Ya...hyperbole has no place in a legislative discussion.

Also...I love how your phone correctly spells the most advanced word in your reply, yet butchers a first grade level word and racially profiles a police officer.

[GreenBat]

I would love to read the actual law, not just a reporter's interpretation of the law.

I'm sure if an educated man like you would spend a little less time on GMG.com and spend some time on GOOGLE.com, you could probably find a copy of it. This educated man does not care to do your work for you.

[UNT90]

Ya...hyperbole has no place in a legislative discussion.

Also...I love how your phone correctly spells the most advanced word in your reply, yet butchers a first grade level word and racially profiles a police officer.

Yep, my damn phone went to Harvard.

[UNT90]

I'm sure if an educated man like you would spend a little less time on GMG.com and spend some time on GOOGLE.com, you could probably find a copy of it. This educated man does not care to do your work for you.

Don't recall asking you to do anything. Don't recall you even being a part of the conversation until this post.

It seems we have education and time on GMG.com in common.

That must really burn your @ss?

[Rudy]

SECTION 1. IC 35-41-3-2, AS AMENDED BY P.L.189-2006, SECTION 1

(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

( 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

( 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.

As a police officer, it does not bother me. People who are breaking the law are going to try and kill me no matter what. If you take the time to read this, it will say "REASONABLE PERSON". Most reasonable people aren't going to assume that officers walking around are using unlawful force. That is why we wear those uniforms and badges. To Identify ourselves. When we go to a house, we announce ourselves. Bad guys don't need a law to shoot at us, they will do so no matter what. If you look at the reasoning behind the law, there was a hypothetical of an individual raping someone's daughter or wife. Before the law, one could not take action agasint the officer. THAT was the reasoning behind the law. To me, I think it is extreme and overkill, but the law doesn't read any different to me. In Texas, you can use reasonable force to resist unlawful actions. Move along, nothing to see here. Take the anti gun, anti conservative, anti NRA rants somewhere else.

[Rudy]

I just noticed that the Star Telegram left out the part about the hypothetical that was in the other national articles.

Isn't having the facts fun?

[UNTflyer]

"allows residents to use deadly force in response to the "unlawful intrusion" by a "public servant" to protect themselves and others, or their property."

Which is exactly what the Second Amendment was intended to protect.

Now... if you pull a gun on an officer who pulls you over, you better damn well be able to prove your it was an "unlawful intrusion" and that your life was is danger.

Read more here: http://www.star-telegram.com/2012/06/05/4010577/officers-worried-about-new-indiana.html#storylink=cpy"

[UNTflyer]

BTW, the goal of the NRA is not to eliminate gun regulations.

It is to eliminate stupid and unconstitutional gun regulations.

[Censored by Laurie]

Yep, my damn phone went to Harvard.

Without question...your best one-liner. Well done.

[KRAM1]

I hope all you very conservative people are happy now that you've helped create this Frankenstein.

Probably about as happy as you liberals are for bringing us the Frankenstein that sits in the Oval Office at White House these days.

[SilverEagle]

Probably about as happy as you liberals are for bringing us the Frankenstein that sits in the Oval Office at White House these days.

You know Mark, that was pretty lame......even for you.

[KRAM1]

You know Mark, that was pretty lame......even for you.

Really? Seiously? This is the line you think is the lame one in this thread? Seriously?

[GreenBat]

Really? Seiously? This is the line you think is the lame one in this thread? Seriously?

I'm with Silver on this one.

[HoustonEagle]

"allows residents to use deadly force in response to the "unlawful intrusion" by a "public servant" to protect themselves and others, or their property."

Which is exactly what the Second Amendment was intended to protect.

Now... if you pull a gun on an officer who pulls you over, you better damn well be able to prove your it was an "unlawful intrusion" and that your life was is danger.

Read more here: http://www.star-tele...#storylink=cpy"

Seems if I shot the cop pulling me over it will be my word against his. Unfortunately for him, I am alive and he is dead.

Much like the voter Identification laws being passed I don’t see why legislators are wasting their time and our money on laws there is no need for. Does Indiana having a bad cop epidemic?

[UNTflyer]

Seems if I shot the cop pulling me over it will be my word against his. Unfortunately for him, I am alive and he is dead.

The dashboard camera is unblinking.

But when gun laws are passed that allow citizens to protect themselves, there is always an outcry from anti-Second Amendment folks that law-abiding citizens will somehow take the law to the extreme and turn society into the Wild West.

That's what they argued when Texas allowed conceal carry permits. They said fender benders at 4-way stop signs would escalate into a shootout. They said children would be slaughtered at amusement parks if someone accidentally stepped on someone's foot. They said the streets of Texas would run with blood. None of that happened, quite the contrary. Glen White, former president of the Dallas Police Association said "All the horror stories I thought would come to pass didn't happen. No bogeyman. I think it's worked out well, and that says good things about the citizens who have permits. I'm a convert."

It truly underscores the difference between the right and the left... specifically, that people on the left do not trust their fellow citizens to behave in a responsible manner and as such require government supervision and guidance on all things, even if it requires stripping such a fundamental human right as Self-Defense.

[SCREAMING EAGLE-66]

---I thought Obama was going to take away all of our guns after his election ..... what happened?? I don't even remember any effort to do that.. That is what the ultra right, the gun companies, and the NRA kept saying in 2008... Were they "bearing false witness", If so that wasn't very Christian of them. Now we have all these people who have no clue how to use one owning one.

--- I noticed that gun sales really increased then and the NRA gained membership... could it have been a "ploy" to get more members and to sell guns and ammunition.... Surely not..! (sarcasm)

Edited June 12, 2012 by SCREAMING EAGLE-66