Republicans intensify their attack on law enforcement

The Obama Machine is hard at work today, Mindf@%king people.

Maybe they are, but you know what? I don't give a good $hit. Obama and his boys are not the ones who are attacking law enforcement state by state, county by county, it's the republicans who screwed us. Thank Rick Scott for that FRS deduction you get in your check every payday. If anyone is hard at work it's the GOP screwing us.

As a life long republican I can tell you I am angry with the party [state wide only at this point] and will no way no how vote for a republican in a State wide election. Did not vote for that creep scott. Public employees don't seem to have any republican friends in Florida right now. Can't believe that the democrats are the ones supporting us right now.

You're under a rock if you think ANY politician (Democrat or Republican) cares about you. Ignorant post. Ignorant news article by a useful liberal idiot (Stephen Foster)...and you fell for it's intended purpose; turning you against your own.....OR you're a troll. Either way the agenda here is disgustingly obvious. Wake up!

No dummy when you support republicans you are in effect against law enforcement, because it is a republican governor and a republican legislature who has slammed us. Is your memory that bad?

haha, you bought this too.

Let me help you understand the lie you are being fed here. It starts with the title of this NDN worthy BS. Everything that follows the lead in is laughable.

"Indiana Governor Signs Bill Allowing Citizens To Use Deadly Force Against Police Officers Into Law"

The Governor can no more allow people to use deadly force against cops than a spoon can make people fat. It's just plain stupid to assume this article is useful to anyone with a brain....or anyone who appreciates his/her 2nd Amendment rights. You see, that's the underlying issue here. Taking your guns and your right to use them away from you. That'll be next weeks news...Now it's nap time over here in CID. Gotta get my sleep on!!

You apparently don't have a brain. If you had one you would understand that Mitch Daniels is the republican govern or of the state of Indiana and he had choices. One choice could have been to caucus with his republican legislators who voted the law, and explain to them that cops don't deserve this kind of law, that cops have enough problems as it is, and in general that it is not a good law.

The second choice could have been to veto the law as governors do with bills they don't like, but no he went on and signed it making it law that same day. Any officer in Indiana that gets killed entering a home will be a reminder for you people of that anti-cop law that you support.

[1-800-GUEST]

I just stopped by to say hello. I see we are talking about a newspaper story. That's nice. I just read a newspaper story that said if you are talking on a forum and you're unregistered the odds are you also take it in the rear. It also said if you are talking against Republicans the odds of you being a hose swallower increase 1000%.

Well I got to go, remember to play nice, Vinny's watching!

Suuuuuure...im gonna vote for the people who took money out of my pocket for know reason only because this teagbaggin fringe of the repub party is against the public sector in Florida. They losy my vote FOR GOOD!

[veteranrookie]

Tuesday evening, Governor Daniels signed SEA 1, titled “Right to defend against unlawful entry.” He issued the following statement about his decision to sign the bill:

“After close inspection, I have decided to sign Senate Enrolled Act 1. Contrary to some impressions, the bill strengthens the protection of Indiana law enforcement officers by narrowing the situations in which someone would be justified in using force against them. Senate Enrolled Act 1 puts into place a two-part test before a person can use deadly force against a law enforcement officer: First, it clarifies and restates the current requirement that a person reasonably believe the law enforcement officer is acting unlawfully. Second, it adds that the force must be reasonably necessary to prevent serious bodily injury to the citizen.
Moreover, unless a person is convinced an officer is acting unlawfully, he cannot use any force of any kind. In the real world, there will almost never be a situation in which these extremely narrow conditions are met. ..."

________________

So the liberal media has spun this to get a reaction from you. They are playing on your "us against them" mentality you have developed as a cop. Basically, if you're not violating someone's 4th Amendment right with a forcible, unlawful search or seizure in their home they are not justified in using deadly force against you.

So it's not an "anti-cop" law, it's an "anti-you going Gestapo and stripping someone of their civil rights" law.

[Curios George]

How many search warrants signed by a Judge are illegal? Maybe one in the entire U.S. every few years?? And to determine if it was illegal takes months of legal debating in a courtroom, not a shootout in someones living room.

Just about every search warrant that I have been on, the homeowner thought that the search was illegal...The homeowner thought this, not the Judge. And we are basing this right to lawfully shoot and kill cops on what an untrained, possible criminal suspect thinks???

That's BS!! This law will have a huge impact on the safety of law enforcement officers!!

Senate Enrolled Act 1 puts into place a two-part test before a person can use deadly force against a law enforcement officer: First, it clarifies and restates the current requirement that a person reasonably believe the law enforcement officer is acting unlawfully. Second, it adds that the force must be reasonably necessary to prevent serious bodily injury to the citizen.
Moreover, unless a person is convinced an officer is acting unlawfully, he cannot use any force of any kind. In the real world, there will almost never be a situation in which these extremely narrow conditions are met. ..."

Are you kidding me?? They all think cops act unlawfully and in the real world these suspects can't even spell "Narrow Conditions" much less understand its legal implications!!

The Governor is a tool for signing something that he has no "real world" experience about.

Cops will die needlessly over this law; if you think otherwise then you have never been a cop and lived the "Real World".

Tuesday evening, Governor Daniels signed SEA 1, titled “Right to defend against unlawful entry.” He issued the following statement about his decision to sign the bill:

“After close inspection, I have decided to sign Senate Enrolled Act 1. Contrary to some impressions, the bill strengthens the protection of Indiana law enforcement officers by narrowing the situations in which someone would be justified in using force against them. Senate Enrolled Act 1 puts into place a two-part test before a person can use deadly force against a law enforcement officer: First, it clarifies and restates the current requirement that a person reasonably believe the law enforcement officer is acting unlawfully. Second, it adds that the force must be reasonably necessary to prevent serious bodily injury to the citizen.
Moreover, unless a person is convinced an officer is acting unlawfully, he cannot use any force of any kind. In the real world, there will almost never be a situation in which these extremely narrow conditions are met. ..."

________________

So the liberal media has spun this to get a reaction from you. They are playing on your "us against them" mentality you have developed as a cop. Basically, if you're not violating someone's 4th Amendment right with a forcible, unlawful search or seizure in their home they are not justified in using deadly force against you.

So it's not an "anti-cop" law, it's an "anti-you going Gestapo and stripping someone of their civil rights" law.

Suck a fat chubby. :snicker:

[veteranrookie]

I'm seeing it as an issue of morality and your constitutional guarantees (which you had long before you were a cop) bolstered. You're suggesting every Tom, ****, and Harry is itching to blow a cop away in Indiana.

Two schools of thought; both are right and to some degree, both are wrong.