Stewart Rhodes Discusses Indiana Law On Unlawful Entry On Coast To Coast
Oath Keepers Founder, Stewart Rhodes, will be on the Coast to Coast radio show tonight, from 10-11pm Pacific.
http://www.coasttocoastam.com/
Stewart will be discussing the new Indiana law, Senate Act #1, that is intended to restore, by statute, a right to resist unlawful entry by police that had existed for centuries under common law, but was wiped out last year in an Indiana Supreme Court Barnes v. State of Indiana decision. This law is a reaction to that very flawed bit of judicial activism.
HERE IS THE DECISION FROM LAST YEAR:
http://www.in.gov/judiciary/opinions/pdf/05121101shd.pdf
HERE IS THE TEXT OF THE NEW LAW:
http://www.in.gov/legislative/bills/2012/PDF/SE/SE0001.1.pdf
Here is what we at Oath Keepers had to say about the decision last year when it came down:
http://oathkeepers.org/oath/2011/05/13/indiana-court-no-right-to-resist-illegal-cop-entry-into-home/
And then this happened:
Indiana Sheriff Wants House To House Control
According to Newton County Sheriff, Don Hartman Sr., random house to house searches are now possible and could be helpful following the Barnes v. STATE of INDIANA Supreme Court ruling issued on May 12th, 2011. When asked three separate times due to the astounding callousness as it relates to trampling the inherent natural rights of Americans, he emphatically indicated that he would use random house to house checks, adding he felt people will welcome random searches if it means capturing a criminal.
http://oathkeepers.org/oath/2011/05/19/indiana-sheriff-wants-house-to-house-control/
And here is what Frontpagemag.com said last year (a very good article):
http://frontpagemag.com/2011/05/18/the-indiana-supreme-court-guts-the-fourth-amendment/
And here was Weekly Standard:
http://www.weeklystandard.com/blogs/mitch-daniels-appointee-rejects-common-law-right_561133.html
Now, it seems that this new Indiana law is meant to merely put the people of Indiana back where they were, and where the common law right of Englishmen and Americans was, for 600 years. Stewart Rhodes is reviewing the new law and will give his thoughts on the show. However, we do think that the ancient common law right made sense and is consistent with the sanctity of the home and the right to bear arms. Otherwise, if a home-owner were to resist what he or she thought was criminal home invasion, and it later turned out to be the police conducting an unlawful entry, that home-owner could be sent to prison just for defending themselves against what they thought was a criminal home invasion. It is a recipe for disaster, ending up in situations like this:
http://oathkeepers.org/oath/2011/05/19/rally-input/
How will you know if the man or men beating down your door are murdering home invaders or police, when they both can just come in as they please, with no concern for the law? The home invading criminals will soon learn that it REALLY pays to dress like cops if people are conditioned to let police enter their homes whenever, and for whatever they want.
And we did hold that rally for the young Marine, because there but for the grace of God go I:
Please donate and support Oath Keepers mission, every little bit helps!
SUPPORT OUR BILLBOARD CAMPAIGN
Placing billboards outside of military bases to remind service members of their oath
SUPPORT OUR NASCAR CAMPAIGN
June 14th, 2012 at 1:29 pm
Dear Ron Paul, We Will Not Quit!
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PXhY1j3ZAMs&feature=player_embedded#!
June 14th, 2012 at 2:42 pm
I listened to the interview by Mr. Noory last night on C2C. Until then, I had no idea that OK even existed. I found it inspiring, to say the least, that there is an organization who believes so strongly about Our Oath (as public servants) as I do!
I served during the Persian Gulf and Operation Fiery Vigil, in addition to OIF/OEF and was Very disheartened in 2010 when I had to allow my last enlistment simply expire. I did not believe I could; in Good Conscience, reenlistswear the same oath under such a “commander in chief”……..even to the behest of my commrads-in-arms, that “…retirement is only 5 more years…”
However, as a Citizen of the united States of America, and a Seabee…….such an oath carries equal weight, and I continue to Live it today!
Have a fruitful and Blessed day.
Construimus Batuimus / Semper Fidelis
~Evergreen Rogue
June 14th, 2012 at 3:26 pm
RE:On air C2CAM Maj. Rhodes
Another intelligent, easily comprehendible, validation of Oath Keepers. Two observatios, Sir, You leave little to add and certainly nothing to argue. Milt Chandler, Wauconda, Illinois
June 15th, 2012 at 11:01 am
The Freeman and Strawman Explained!
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ptHQu68MdMs&feature=youtu.be
June 17th, 2012 at 7:56 pm
Police employ Predator drone spy planes on home front Unmanned aircraft from an Air Force base in North Dakota help local police with surveillance, raising questions that trouble privacy advocates. December 10, 2011
http://articles.latimes.com/2011/dec/10/nation/la-na-drone-arrest-20111211
June 19th, 2012 at 9:22 am
Wouldn’t random forced entry (even under state law) pose an enhanced danger,not only to citizens,but also to law enforcement,in states that have Stand Your Ground/Castle Law (aka “Make My Day” law) in place? Especially if proper identification of the entering individuals was not or could not be verified in the chaos of the moment?
Source: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Castle_Doctrine
States with a Stand-your-ground Law:
(No duty to retreat, regardless of where attack takes place.)
Alabama
Arizona
Florida
Georgia
Indiana
Kentucky
Louisiana
Michigan
Montana
New Hampshire(A proposed law was vetoed in 2011, but the veto was overridden and the new law took effect November 2011.)[13][14]
Oklahoma Title 21§1290.1 et seq
Pennsylvania(Recent legislation extends Castle Doctrine to occupied vehicles and the work place, and stand-your-ground rights extended to anyplace the defender has a right to be, with specified exceptions.)
South Carolina (Persons not “required to needlessly retreat.”)
Tennessee 2007 Tenn. Pub. Acts Ch. 210 (Amends Tenn. Code. Ann. § 39-11-611)
Texas (Established for individual’s habitation in 1995 by House Bill 94 and extended to vehicle or workplace effective September 1, 2007 by Senate Bill 378.[15] Senate Bill 378 also “abolishes the duty to retreat if the defendant can show he: (1) had a right to be present at the location where deadly force was used; (2) did not provoke the person against whom deadly force was used; and (3) was not engaged in criminal activity at the time deadly force was used.”[16])
Utah
Washington (Homicide justifiable in the lawful defense of self or other persons present; and there is imminent danger of such design being accomplished …or in the actual resistance of an attempt to commit a felony… or upon or in a dwelling, or other place…)
States with a Castle Law
(No duty to retreat if in the home):
Alaska – Alaska Statute 11.81.335(b) provides that an individual has no duty to retreat before using deadly force if they are in their home, their workplace, protecting a child or protecting a family member. The 27th Alaska Legislature is currently considering H.B. 80 “An Act relating to self defense in any place where a person has a right to be.” which would essentially eliminate the duty to retreat for any place a person is legally, making Alaska a “stand your ground” state. However, an identical measure, H.B. 381, failed to pass the 26th Alaska Legislature.
California California Penal Code § 198.5 sets forth that unlawful, forcible entry into one’s residence by someone not a member of the household creates the presumption that the resident held a reasonable fear of imminent peril of death or great bodily injury should he or she use deadly force against the intruder. This would make the homicide justifiable under CPC § 197.[17] CALCRIM 506 gives the instruction, “A defendant is not required to retreat. He or she is entitled to stand his ground and defend himself and, if reasonably necessary, to pursue an assailant until the danger … has passed. This is so even if safety could have been achieved by retreating.” However, it also states that “[People v. Ceballos] specifically held that burglaries which ‘do not reasonably create a fear of great bodily harm’ are not sufficient ’cause for exaction of human life.’” The court held that because the defendant had constructed a gun-firing trap, the doctrine did not apply because mechanical devices are without mercy or discretion.[18]
Colorado “…any occupant of a dwelling is justified in using any degree of physical force, including deadly physical force, against another person when that other person has made an unlawful entry into the dwelling, and when the occupant has a reasonable belief that such other person has committed a crime in the dwelling in addition to the uninvited entry, or is committing or intends to commit a crime against a person or property in addition to the uninvited entry, and when the occupant reasonably believes that such other person might use any physical force, no matter how slight, against any occupant.” 18-1-704.5 Use of deadly physical force against an intruder.
Connecticut
Florida
Georgia (a person who is attacked has no duty to retreat; [...] has a right to meet force with force, including deadly force;)
Hawaii (Retreat required outside the home if it can be done in “complete safety.”)
Illinois (Use of deadly force justified. Specific legislation prevents filing claim against defender of dwelling. Illinois has no requirement of retreat.)
Iowa (No duty to retreat from home or place of business in defense of self or a “third party”.)
Kansas (§ 21-5223. A person is justified in the use of deadly force to prevent or terminate unlawful entry into or attack upon any dwelling, place of work or occupied vehicle if such person reasonably believes that such use of deadly force is necessary to prevent imminent death or great bodily harm to such person or another.)
Maine (Deadly force justified to terminate criminal trespass AND another crime within home, or to stop unlawful and imminent use of deadly force, or to effect a citizen’s arrest against deadly force; duty to retreat not specifically removed)[19]
Maryland See Maryland self-defense (Case-law, not statute, incorporates the common law castle-doctrine into Maryland self-defense law. Invitees or guests may have duty to retreat based on mixed case law.)
Massachusetts
Minnesota No duty to retreat before using deadly force to prevent a felony in one’s place of abode; no duty to retreat before using deadly force in self defense in one’s place of abode [20]) This isn’t as clear as it appears, however. There are four cases in Minnesota where duty of retreat was upheld.[21]
Mississippi (to use reference, select “Code of 1972″ and search “retreat”)
Missouri (Extends to any building, inhabitable structure, or conveyance of any kind, whether the building, inhabitable structure, or conveyance is temporary or permanent, mobile or immobile (e.g., a camper, RV or mobile home), which has a roof over it, including a tent, and is designed to be occupied by people lodging therein at night, whether the person is residing there temporarily, permanently or visiting (e.g., a hotel or motel), and any vehicle. The defense against civil suits is absolute and includes the award of attorney’s fees, court costs, and all reasonable expenses incurred by the defendant in defense of any civil action brought by a plaintiff.)
Nevada
New Jersey (”Statutes” link in sidebar, see New Jersey Statutes 2C:3-4, retreat required if actor knows he can avoid necessity of deadly force in complete safety, etc. EXCEPT not obliged to retreat from dwelling, unless the initial aggressor)
North Carolina (Includes dwelling, motor vehicle and workplace)
North Dakota
Ohio (Extends to vehicles of self and immediate family; effective September 9, 2008.[22] Section 2901.09)
Oregon. (ORS 161.209-229. Use of force justifiable in a range of scenarios without a duty to retreat specified. Oregon Supreme Court affirmed in State of Oregon v. Sandoval that the law “sets out a specific set of circumstances that justify a person’s use of deadly force (that the person reasonably believes that another person is using or about to use deadly force against him or her) and does not interpose any additional requirement (including a requirement that there be no means of escape).”)
Pennsylvania
Rhode Island
South Carolina
Utah
West Virginia (Senate bill 145 signed March 12, 2008. WV code §55-7-22)
Wisconsin (Assembly Bill 69, signed December 7, 2011)
Wyoming
States with weak or no specific Castle Law:
(These states uphold castle doctrine in general, but may rely on case law instead of specific legislation, may enforce a duty to retreat, and may impose specific restrictions on the use of deadly force.)
Idaho (Homicide is justified if defending a home from “tumultuous” entry; duty to retreat not specifically removed)
South Dakota “Homicide is justifiable if committed by any person while resisting any attempt to murder such person, or to commit any felony upon him or her, or upon or in any dwelling house in which such person is.” SD Codified Laws 22-16-34 (2005).
Nebraska – a bill was introduced in January 2012 that allowed deadly force against a person who broke into a house or occupied vehicle or who tried to kidnap someone from a house or vehicle, however the bill was revised to include only an affirmative defense from lawsuits pertaining to justifiable use of force.[23]
New Mexico
Vermont
District of Columbia
New York
June 20th, 2012 at 5:56 pm
The 14 Senators Who Voted Against NDAA (D-MD), Coburn (R-OK), Crapo (R-ID), DeMint (R-SC), Durbin (D-IL), Franken (D-MN), Harkin (D-IA), Lee (R-UT), Merkley (D-OR), Paul (R-KY), Risch (R-ID), Sanders (I-VT), Wyden (D-OR) (14 American Heroes)
June 24th, 2012 at 4:25 pm
I note Delaware is not listed. The DE legislature just reduced penalties for home invaders. Then passed
a second bill to take away arrest power from our Sheriff at the request of our Sussex County Council.
The coupe de gras was reducing our county deputies from 6 to 4. Roberta Carol
June 27th, 2012 at 6:53 pm
Small-Town Cops Pile Up on Surplus Military Gear By Lorenzo Franceschi-Bicchierai June 26, 2012
http://www.wired.com/dangerroom/2012/06/cops-military-gear/
June 30th, 2012 at 7:25 pm
Homeland Security gives UC-Berkeley an ‘armored counterattack truck’ June 29, 2012
http://washingtonexaminer.com/homeland-security-gives-uc-berkeley-an-armored-counterattack-truck/article/2501042?custom_click=rss