Indiana Law Protects People Rescuing a Dog in a Hot Car – But There's a Catch

Did you know the laws related to rescuing someone’s pet or child in a hot car can vary from state to state?

Doc and Kal recently did a year in review covering various state laws that went into effect this year, including an Indiana law enacted in July that protects people rescuing animals trapped in hot cars from being prosecuted. But even though you won’t face criminal charges for breaking a window to save an overheated pet, you could be responsible for up to half the cost of damages to the car.

This article provided courtesy of TheBlaze.

DOC: Some interesting new laws in Indiana. Starting Monday, using a drone to interfere with law enforcement, harass someone, or peep inside of a home is now a class A misdemeanor on Monday. It's punishable up to a year in jail and a 5,000-dollar fine.

This is one of the few areas where I make exceptions and say, we need some new laws and some adjustments or tweaks to old laws. Technology. Budgets change every year, so you need to get together for the budget as a legislature. But new technologies, well, we never foresaw drones. Now these things are becoming a problem. So how do we fit those into current law?

KAL: Yeah, so technology that's advancing and changing, it definitely needs something.

DOC: As of Monday in Indiana, anyone who uses force to rescue a pet from a locked vehicle, is immune from criminal penalties. For example, if you go up to the car and it's really hot and you see the dog suffering and you break the window, no criminal charges for breaking the car window of the car you don't own, provided you have called the cops and you remain at the scene while the cops are getting there. So you call the cops. Go, come quick.

Fido is in the back of the car, and it's really hot. And they go, we're on our way. And you stand there. You break the glass. You cannot be criminally charged. However, you are still liable for half cost of any damage of the vehicle.

KAL: I'm okay with that one.

DOC: Just half of it? Okay.

KAL: If you're someone who is -- I guess it comes down to what is suffering or not. If somebody leaves their pet in the vehicle that could die or be harmed.

DOC: What about these stories where somebody says, I thought it was suffering pet, and it was a stuffed animal. I thought it was a baby, and it was a doll.

KAL: Oh, yeah.

DOC: So now they're only responsible for half the window? And it's my car. Do I have to pay the other half, my insurance? Sorry. It should include, if you get it wrong, you pay the whole damn thing, plus my time and effort to go down there and get it fixed. I don't even want to have to make the call. And I don't want to be without a car, none of that stuff. But they didn't include that.

KAL: That's for next year.

DOC: That's it. Well, we need to leave something for next year.

KAL: 751.

DOC: Protection orders in Indiana on Monday can be issued by a judge. And they can now include an explicit prohibition against harming a family pet. These are protection owners for, like, domestic disputes. Taking custody of a pet away from the abuser with police assistance. And this is a new trend. New laws to protect pets.

In fact, one of the ones that they're continuing to push. And you're going to see this have a big spread in the next year or so. They're going to push this idea of domestic abuse against pets.

So, you know, you go home.

KAL: Isn't there any animal rights protection abuse?

DOC: There are animal laws in some areas and they vary. But what they'll do is put this under the umbrella of domestic.

See, domestic disputes are different. Cops can press charges, even if a spouse says they don't want to in many areas.

So if you punch me and the cop goes, all right, Doc, you punched her. I can say, I don't. It's Kal. He was just drunked up. I get it. No harm. No foul. I'm good. And they don't have to press charges.

If a spouse does that, the officers have the right to press charges. Because so often, people were afraid and they said, no, no, no. We're going to go ahead and push this thing through.

They want that to include pets too. Because they want people to conflate human lives with pets. You may love your pets, but they're different. So this is going to expand in the future where you see domestic disputes can include, well, he slapped the dog or whatever. And you're going to be locked up for that stuff.

I'm going to introduce you to what is by far the most annoying trend on social media involving a particular emoji. The annoying online trend features the clapping emoji 👏 in 👏 between 👏 each 👏 word.

The technique is most often used — unironically — by the social justice types to express indignation or condescension.

RELATED: De Niro at da Tony's gets obscenely political

It's meant to imply that the person who is writing the message is so much more "woke" than you that they are righteously allowed to clap in your face. Just looking at it is enough to test your blood pressure. Among the most recent standouts is the controversy surrounding Scarlett Johansson's decision to play a transgender character, which LGBTQ advocates would view as a good thing, right? You know, her being an ally to their cause and all. Here's one of the myriad tweets that sums up the feeling:

For weeks, the social justice types had been raging about Johansson, who was slated to portray a crime kingpin who was born a woman but identified as male in the film Rub & Tug.

In an interview with NPR — naturally — a trans activist had this to say about it:

Casting male actors to play trans women and female actors to play trans men really reinforces the idea that trans men are really women who are pretending to be men and tricking people into thinking they're men as opposed to the truth, which is that transgender men are living authentically as themselves. And we look like men and we feel like men, and we are perceived as men, and there's no reason, like, women should be playing us.

Listen to the full interview here:

Boy, if it weren't already confusing enough…

In response to this so-called backlash, Scarlett Johansson released a statement to her critics, noting to "tell them that they can be directed to Jeffrey Tambor, Jared Leto and Felicity Huffman's reps for comment."

But, finally — as most people do these days — she buckled. She released the following statement:

In light of recent ethical questions raised surrounding my casting as Dante Tex Gill, I have decided to respectfully withdraw my participation in the project. Our cultural understanding of transgender people continues to advance, and I've learned a lot from the community since making my first statement about my casting and realize it was insensitive.

What's the source of all this outrage? Because, we all know that the small but vocal mob — who the mainstream media has for some reason given a platform, and whose voice is louder than the rest of ours — is able to bully until they get what they want.

There's no winning.

Let's say that Scarlett Johansson had refused the role to begin with, on the grounds that she will not play a transgender character. You can guarantee the same crowd that's outraged now would be in fits. There's no winning. The best we can do is treat those around us with respect, live humbly and, for heaven's sake, don't clap between every damn word.

We should all be praying for success at the Trump/Putin sit-down

ALEKSEY NIKOLSKYI/AFP/Getty Images

92 percent of the world's nuclear weapons are in TWO countries: the U.S. and Russia. And as I'm speaking right now, the leaders of both countries are sitting down at a table to try and figure out how to coexist with one another. Sounds kind of important right? And even though the media will slap-fight each other to death today in an attempt to turn the Trump/Putin summit partisan, what's happening right now in Helsinki is probably the least most partisan thing happening right now… like anywhere. As in, the entire planet.

If there was ever a time to be partisan… this isn't it. To any Democrat, Republican or mainstream media pundit looking to turn this into some gotcha political narrative… what the hell is wrong with you? The last time the U.S. and Russian presidents sat down for a summit was in 2010… eight years ago! Here's a small rundown of how "cold" our relationship has been since then.

RELATED: Putin to Megyn Kelly: Jews are to blame for US election interference

Russia still has troops in Georgia after their invasion during Obama's first term. Keep in mind, Georgia was a country considering joining NATO. That invasion was Russia's coming out party. It was a warning to the world that things were about to change, and they were just getting started. They would then invade, steal and annex Crimea from Ukraine. They'd also invade, destabilize and wage war in Eastern Ukraine. That war is still going on to this day, but rarely does the media talk about it anymore. And the backdrop to that invasion and silent war was an accusation from the Russians that the United States deliberately encouraged the fall of the Ukrainian president and government.

Meanwhile, Russia continues supplying troops and equipment to their side, and we are now providing military training and anti-tank missiles to ours.

And Ukraine is just one of the proxy wars currently being fought between the two nuclear powers. Syria is the other. In April, we admitted to killing nearly 200 Russians in that conflict.

Over the past four years, over 700 Russian citizens and companies have been sanctioned, 35 diplomats have been declared persona non grata, 2 Russian diplomatic compounds have been closed, one consulate and two diplomatic annexes. Oh… and Russia has ejected over 700 U.S. diplomatic staff.

Between cyber attacks and indictments on Russian intelligence personnel, tensions have never been higher.

Between cyber attacks and indictments on Russian intelligence personnel, tensions have never been higher. Russia currently maintains an arsenal of 6,600 nuclear weapons. We have 6,450. The next closest nuke holders are France with 300 and China with 280. It's not even close. Between Washington and Moscow, there are over 13,000 nuclear weapons pointed at one another.

Forget partisan politics. The two toughest kids on the block just met for a sit-down, and we should all be praying for their success.

It's not just the Twitter mobs, the Leftist extremists and the flagrant fourth-wave feminists who want ICE abolished. As we've seen, there's a growing number of politicians who want to see it as well.

Cue Alejandro Alvarez, who in his 32 years has managed to cultivate his brand as a "serial immigration violator." Alejandro has been deported 11 times. Well, he's facing deportation once again, after allegedly "slashing his wife with a chainsaw." His wife is in recovery and is expected to survive.

RELATED: The cost of unchecked illegal immigration is very real, and very high

Around 3:00 pm last Wednesday, police arrived at Alejandro's. When they arrived, they found Alvarez's wife suffering from "traumatic physical injuries, believed to have been inflicted by a chainsaw." The couple's three children were huddled in fear inside the home. Alejandro's wife was rushed to a nearby trauma center for an emergency surgery.

Alejandro fled the scene of the crime, but was eventually hauled in by police and booked under "suspicion of attempted murder, child endangerment, hit and run, and grand theft auto."

Sounds like the kind of guy who should be in our country illegally, right?

ICE spokeswoman Lori Haley noted that "Immigration officers have lodged a detainer against Alvarez, requesting that local authorities notify Immigration and Customs Enforcement before his release to allow them to take the man into custody."

This is the new reality.

This is the new reality. The immigration agency has to ask for permission, to file requests, to have illegal immigrants who are guilty of crimes dealt with. Luckily for Alejandro, Los Angeles is a sanctuary city, so maybe he'll get another pass and be back on the streets in no time.

UPDATE: Here's how the discussion went on radio. Watch the video below.

Why is nobody talking about this?

Alabama law enforcement officials say that an illegal immigrant and an immigrant in the United States on a green card are responsible for the brutal murders of a grandmother and her 13-year-old special needs granddaughter in what investigators say is violence related to Mexican drug cartels.