RSS Feed
October 1st, 2015 
Awake Goy 
A police badge does not grant police special rights to break
into someone’s home and commit acts of violent aggression. If they do,
the resident has the right to resist those illegal actions and defend
themselves. ~ M David
States have already ruled in favor of citizens shooting police officers in self-defense, (even hip-hop legend Tupac walked after shooting two cops in self-defense).
In the state of Indiana, if a police officer initiates aggression
without cause in someone’s home, violence can be used against them in
self-defense – including using lethal force.
The new law was drafted to “recognize
the unique character of a citizen’s home and to ensure that a citizen
feels secure in his or her own home against unlawful intrusion by
another individual or a public servant.”
This should hardly be seen as profound.
In the past, self-defense was viewed as a human right. The Bill of
Rights does not grant rights to the citizenry of the United States, it
recognizes natural rights. One of those rights – a veritable law of
Nature – is the right to resist.
No matter what one does, or takes from
you, nothing can stop the innate right to follow our natural impulses of
resistance. That does not mean all will exercise that right. The
right itself is natural, primordial, inborn.
The new amendment in Indian recognizes
this. It makes it clear that badges do not grant special rights to break
into someone’s house and commit acts of violent aggression. If they do,
the resident has the right to resist those illegal actions and defend
themselves.
The Free Thought Project notes that many police officers “have already begun to fear monger the passage of this bill,” saying “If
I pull over a car and I walk up to it and the guy shoots me, he’s going
to say, ‘Well, he was trying to illegally enter my property.'”
This fear mongering comes from Joseph Hubbard, 40, the president of Jeffersonville Fraternal Order of Police Lodge 100, who asserts “somebody is going get away with killing a cop because of this law.”
In spite of these statements, here’s what the law actually states:
(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
What do you think about this law?
Would you like to see more states adopt laws like this, or is this a recipe for disaster?
September 28, 2015 – KnowTheLies.com
digg
muti
del.icio.us
google
reddit
facebookSource Article from http://www.knowthelies.com/node/10800
Posted in 
