Indiana Supreme Court rules Hoosiers have no right to resist unlawful entry of their homes by police

posted at 10:03 am on May 14, 2011 by Bruce McQuain

No, you read it right. That’s what the Indiana Supreme Court decided in what would be a laughable finding if it wasn’t so serious:

Overturning a common law dating back to the English Magna Carta of 1215, the Indiana Supreme Court ruled Thursday that Hoosiers have no right to resist unlawful police entry into their homes.

The author of the story reporting this is right – somehow the ISC managed, in one fell swoop, to overturn almost 900 years of precedent, going back to the Magna Carta.

In a 3-2 decision, Justice Steven David writing for the court said if a police officer wants to enter a home for any reason or no reason at all, a homeowner cannot do anything to block the officer’s entry. [emphasis mine]

Or said another way, your home is no longer your castle.

Remember the 4th Amendment to the US Constitution?

The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.”

Bzzzzzt.

Wrong – in Indiana

“We believe … a right to resist an unlawful police entry into a home is against public policy and is incompatible with modern Fourth Amendment jurisprudence,” David said. “We also find that allowing resistance unnecessarily escalates the level of violence and therefore the risk of injuries to all parties involved without preventing the arrest.”

David said a person arrested following an unlawful entry by police still can be released on bail and has plenty of opportunities to protest the illegal entry through the court system.

One has to wonder what part of “unlawful” Justice David doesn’t get. What part of the right of the people to “be secure… shall not be violated” wasn’t taught to him in law school.

How secure is anyone in their “persons, houses, papers and effects” if, per David, a police officer can waltz into any home he wants to “for any reason or no reason at all?”

The given reason by the  Justice is resistance is “against public policy?” What policy is that?  For whatever reason, most believe our public policy as regards our homes is set by the 4th amendment to the US Constitution. Since when does Indiana’s “public policy” abrogate the Constitutional right to be “secure in our persons, houses, papers and effects”?

Additionally, most would assume it is the job of the police not to “escalate the level of violence”, not the homeowner. Like maybe a polite knock on a door to attempt an arrest instead of a battering ram and the violent entry of a full SWAT team to arrest a suspected perpetrator of a non-violent crime. Maybe a little pre-raid intelligence gathering, or snagging the alleged perp when he leaves the house to go to work, or walk the dog, or go to the store.

Now citizens in Indiana are to give up their 4th Amendment rights because it might “elevate the violence” if  they attempt to protect themselves from unlawful activity?  Sounds like the “don’t resist rape” nonsense that was once so popular.

And check out this “analysis”:

Professor Ivan Bodensteiner, of Valparaiso University School of Law, said the court’s decision is consistent with the idea of preventing violence.

“It’s not surprising that they would say there’s no right to beat the hell out of the officer,” Bodensteiner said. “(The court is saying) we would rather opt on the side of saying if the police act wrongfully in entering your house your remedy is under law, to bring a civil action against the officer.”

So we’ll just throw out your 4th amendment right to satisfy the court’s desire to “prevent violence,” is that it?

One hopes the decision is destroyed on appeal and if the Justices are in an elected office they become very “insecure” in their probability of staying there.

The two dissenting Justices got it mostly right:

Justice Robert Rucker, a Gary native, and Justice Brent Dickson, a Hobart native, dissented from the ruling, saying the court’s decision runs afoul of the Fourth Amendment of the U.S. Constitution.

“In my view the majority sweeps with far too broad a brush by essentially telling Indiana citizens that government agents may now enter their homes illegally — that is, without the necessity of a warrant, consent or exigent circumstances,” Rucker said. “I disagree.”

Rucker and Dickson suggested if the court had limited its permission for police entry to domestic violence situations they would have supported the ruling.

But Dickson said, “The wholesale abrogation of the historic right of a person to reasonably resist unlawful police entry into his dwelling is unwarranted and unnecessarily broad.”

I say mostly right because they indicated that in the case of domestic violence, they too were willing to throw the 4th amendment under the bus.

How does one say “it runs afoul of the Fourth Amendment” and then later agree to a partial abrogation of the 4th under certain circumstances?  What part of “shall not be violated” don’t they understand?  It doesn’t say “shall not be violated except in case of domestic violence” does it?

Oh, and just to point out that this likely isn’t an outlier for this crew:

This is the second major Indiana Supreme Court ruling this week involving police entry into a home.

On Tuesday, the court said police serving a warrant may enter a home without knocking if officers decide circumstances justify it. Prior to that ruling, police serving a warrant would have to obtain a judge’s permission to enter without knocking.

Because, you know, it would be just asking too much to have the police actually justify a no-knock entrance to a judge, wouldn’t it?

Amazing.

And you wonder why you have to constantly protect your rights daily from attacks within?

This is why.

Bruce McQuain blogs at Questions and Observations (QandO), Blackfive, the Washington Examiner and the Green Room.  Follow him on Twitter: @McQandO

This post was promoted from GreenRoom to HotAir.com.
To see the comments on the original post, look here.

Breaking on Hot Air

Blowback

Note from Hot Air management: This section is for comments from Hot Air's community of registered readers. Please don't assume that Hot Air management agrees with or otherwise endorses any particular comment just because we let it stand. A reminder: Anyone who fails to comply with our terms of use may lose their posting privilege.

Trackbacks/Pings

Trackback URL

Comments

Comment pages: 1 11 12 13 14

Again, if the gov’t is that corrupt and oppressive, exactly what do you think you’ll do about it? Are you an action hero?

G M on May 16, 2011 at 3:58 PM

What would YOU have done in 1776?

Badger40 on May 16, 2011 at 4:01 PM

G M on May 16, 2011 at 4:00 PM

Stop stalling…..answer the constitutional question.

csdeven on May 16, 2011 at 4:01 PM

Everyone has a right to self defense.
No matter if it against the state, or another citizen.
And it is then up to the courts to decide, perhaps via a jury of our peers, if the actions were warranted.
This ruling is not necessary at all.

Badger40 on May 16, 2011 at 3:59 PM

I’d actually agree with this point.

G M on May 16, 2011 at 4:02 PM

I missed that one.

G M on May 16, 2011 at 4:00 PM

Your sock puppet got it.

Roy Rogers on May 16, 2011 at 4:03 PM

What would YOU have done in 1776?

Badger40 on May 16, 2011 at 4:01 PM

G M would be a British collaborator

Roy Rogers on May 16, 2011 at 4:03 PM

What would YOU have done in 1776?

Badger40 on May 16, 2011 at 4:01 PM

He would not say this….

“The child independence was then and there born, every man of an immense crowded audience appeared to me to go away as I did, ready to take arms against writs of assistance.”

James Otis. Former Advocate General of the Admiralty Court, speaking in defense of merchants. John Adams witnessed this at the age of 25.

csdeven on May 16, 2011 at 4:07 PM

I’d actually agree with this point.

G M on May 16, 2011 at 4:02 PM

So your arguments with me were for nothing. And your insults against me.
Bcs this is what it has been about from the very beginning.
With all of us.

Badger40 on May 16, 2011 at 4:07 PM

Again, if the gov’t is that corrupt and oppressive, exactly what do you think you’ll do about it? Are you an action hero?

G M on May 16, 2011 at 3:58 PM

What would YOU have done in 1776?

Badger40 on May 16, 2011 at 4:01 PM

People reflect the time and place they are born in. It’s easy to say “If I were Thomas Jefferson or George Washington, I’d have freed my slaves and forbidden slavery because it’s horribly hypocritical to write “All men are created equal” while owning humans property. I’d like to think I’d always do what was right in any stage in history, but just because you want to believe that does not make it so.

G M on May 16, 2011 at 4:08 PM

Tactical teams make entry into fortified drug houses filled with weapons and violent felons willing to use them, yet the vast majority of the time, no shots are fired and all the bad guys are secured on the floor with zip ties before they can figure out what happened.

But it would be different with you, right?

G M on May 16, 2011 at 3:40 PM

Where the hell did tactical teams come into play in my post? Talk about living in fantasy land. That’s quite a distortion to go from one or two police trying to illegally enter a house to a full tactical assault team.

Anyhow, are you saying that the government doesn’t need a warrant or other legally documented justification for tactical teams to infiltrate a compound? They just walk around and willy-nilly infiltrate houses they believe might have drug dealers or incandescent light bulbs in them. Talk about fantasy land. By opposing my position, you just asserted that the police don’t need to have “their t’s crossed and i’s dotted” to SWAT raid a private residence. You are off the deep end. Hahahahaha.

Hell, this just helps my point even further. If the government has to spend the time, money, and resources to put together a movie-style SWAT entry into my home, then they are obviously afraid of what would happen to them if they entered my home illegally. I’d like to keep it that way thank you.

Pattosensei on May 16, 2011 at 4:11 PM

AND under the constitution, a private citizen, such as your boss, is not subject to the 4th. Only the government and it’s employees are restricted.

More evidence that these traitorous $hitbirds who love the ruling, are clueless to the fact that the government is restricted in their S&S, not the citizenry in their God given right to resist illegal S&S.

csdeven on May 16, 2011 at 4:11 PM

G M on May 16, 2011 at 4:08 PM

Stop stalling…..answer the constitutional question.

csdeven on May 16, 2011 at 4:12 PM

“The child independence was then and there born, every man of an immense crowded audience appeared to me to go away as I did, ready to take arms against writs of assistance.”

James Otis. Former Advocate General of the Admiralty Court, speaking in defense of merchants. John Adams witnessed this at the age of 25.

csdeven on May 16, 2011 at 4:07 PM

Those people took great risk to resist the tyranny they were under.
And the tyranny did not appear overnight, as most of us know. It came gradually, until a tipping point ocurred.
And there were still those who thought like GM, do not resist, probably bcs they were not yet exposed to the corruption & tyranny, as others had been.
It’s very easy to strip someone of their natural rights when you are not seemingly affected.
It’s altogether different when you are directly affected by tyranny.
There are some in America who have been affected by tyranny.
Check out Wayne Hage’s court battles with the govt.
There’s a lot of information out there on him.
He did win. Eventually.
But no one should have to go through what he went through.
And indeed, many cannot afford to, or are able to.
It is up to all of us to stand up to tyranny, in whatever form it materializes itself.
Even to the lowly bully, we need to all stand up & resist.
And sometimes it’ll end up with a blooy nose.
I would rather that than see tyranny succeed when I knew I could have done something about it.

Badger40 on May 16, 2011 at 4:13 PM

Where the hell did tactical teams come into play in my post? Talk about living in fantasy land. That’s quite a distortion to go from one or two police trying to illegally enter a house to a full tactical assault team.

You think that if you used physical force against some patrol officers (and actually won, unlikely) that this wouldn’t be the next step?

G M on May 16, 2011 at 4:13 PM

Badger40 on May 16, 2011 at 4:13 PM

Well said!

csdeven on May 16, 2011 at 4:15 PM

Even to the lowly bully, we need to all stand up & resist.
And sometimes it’ll end up with a blooy nose.
I would rather that than see tyranny succeed when I knew I could have done something about it.

Badger40 on May 16, 2011 at 4:13 PM

Remember the Whiskey Rebellion? What did George Washington do?

G M on May 16, 2011 at 4:16 PM

G M on May 16, 2011 at 4:13 PM

Stop stalling…..answer the constitutional question.

csdeven on May 16, 2011 at 4:17 PM

People reflect the time and place they are born in. It’s easy to say “If I were Thomas Jefferson or George Washington, I’d have freed my slaves and forbidden slavery because it’s horribly hypocritical to write “All men are created equal” while owning humans property. I’d like to think I’d always do what was right in any stage in history, but just because you want to believe that does not make it so.

G M on May 16, 2011 at 4:08 PM

Donig the right thing is never easy.
What you have to decide for yourself is, will you do the right thing when the situation arises, no matter the cost to yourself?
I can’t answer that for you, of course.
But based on your rationalizations here on this thread, I can make a prediction that if true government tyranny were directed at you, you would probably be the 1st to cave.
In 1776, I highly doubt that you would have been one of the 1st Patriots.
You would have told them to leave the colonies for somewhere else if they didn’t like the quarting of troops in their homes, outrageous unreasonable taxes, etc.
If you wouldn’t have remained a Tory for the whole war, you definitely wouldn’t have turned Patriot until you knew it was safe to do so.
Of course, we’ll never know if I’m right.
But the evidence you’ve left behind here of yourself permits a good chance that I am probably correct.

Badger40 on May 16, 2011 at 4:18 PM

G M on May 16, 2011 at 4:16 PM

Stop stalling…..answer the constitutional question.

csdeven on May 16, 2011 at 4:21 PM

Remember the Whiskey Rebellion? What did George Washington do?

G M on May 16, 2011 at 4:16 PM

So? I know what happened.
We just established that you agreed with me on the point that we are free to decide for ourselves if self defense is warranted against the state & that we should be judged by a jury of our peers to decide if any law was truly broken & that the ruling was not necessary.
The ruling makes self defense criminal.

Badger40 on May 16, 2011 at 4:21 PM

Well said!

csdeven on May 16, 2011 at 4:15 PM

ThaNKS.
At least we know GM agrees the ruling is not necessary.

Badger40 on May 16, 2011 at 4:22 PM

More evidence that these traitorous $hitbirds who love the ruling, are clueless to the fact that the government is restricted in their S&S, not the citizenry in their God given right to resist illegal S&S.
csdeven on May 16, 2011 at 4:11 PM

I think this is well said.

Badger40 on May 16, 2011 at 4:23 PM

If you wouldn’t have remained a Tory for the whole war, you definitely wouldn’t have turned Patriot until you knew it was safe to do so.
Of course, we’ll never know if I’m right.
But the evidence you’ve left behind here of yourself permits a good chance that I am probably correct.

Badger40 on May 16, 2011 at 4:18 PM

Ever watch Bill Buckley interview Huey Newton on firing line? That topic came up.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=h4ypqCYPduI

G M on May 16, 2011 at 4:24 PM

I would rather that than see tyranny succeed when I knew I could have done something about it.

Badger40 on May 16, 2011 at 4:13 PM

Citizens may resist unlawful arrest to the point of taking an arresting officer’s life if necessary.” Plummer v. State, 136 Ind. 306. This premise was upheld by the Supreme Court of the United States in the case: John Bad Elk v. U.S., 177 U.S. 529. The Court stated: “Where the officer is killed in the course of the disorder which naturally accompanies an attempted arrest that is resisted, the law looks with very different eyes upon the transaction, when the officer had the right to make the arrest, from what it does if the officer had no right. What may be murder in the first case might be nothing more than manslaughter in the other, or the facts might show that no offense had been committed.”

Roy Rogers on May 16, 2011 at 4:24 PM

People reflect the time and place they are born in.
G M on May 16, 2011 at 4:08 PM

I missed the relevance of this comment.
Are you suggesting that the notions of liberty back then are archaic?
If you have not experienced tyranny at all bcs America is now ‘civilized’, do you then discount the need for our right to self defense?

Badger40 on May 16, 2011 at 4:25 PM

“An arrest made with a defective warrant, or one issued without affidavit, or one that fails to allege a crime is within jurisdiction, and one who is being arrested, may resist arrest and break away. lf the arresting officer is killed by one who is so resisting, the killing will be no more than an involuntary manslaughter.” Housh v. People, 75 111. 491; reaffirmed and quoted in State v. Leach, 7 Conn. 452; State v. Gleason, 32 Kan. 245; Ballard v. State, 43 Ohio 349; State v Rousseau, 241 P. 2d 447; State v. Spaulding, 34 Minn. 3621.

Roy Rogers on May 16, 2011 at 4:26 PM

If you wouldn’t have remained a Tory for the whole war, you definitely wouldn’t have turned Patriot until you knew it was safe to do so.

Badger40 on May 16, 2011 at 4:18 PM

“These are the times that try men’s souls: The summer soldier and the sunshine patriot will, in this crisis, shrink from the service of his country; but he that stands by it now, deserves the love and thanks of man and woman.”

Thomas Paine. Read aloud to the Continental Army on Decemeber 23, 1776. Three days before the battle of Trenton.

We know exactly what GM and Nephew would have done then. Exactly what they are doing now. Shrinking from their responsibility to reject tyrannical rule by the state.

csdeven on May 16, 2011 at 4:26 PM

G M on May 16, 2011 at 4:24 PM

Stop stalling…..answer the constitutional question.

csdeven on May 16, 2011 at 4:27 PM

So? I know what happened.
We just established that you agreed with me on the point that we are free to decide for ourselves if self defense is warranted against the state & that we should be judged by a jury of our peers to decide if any law was truly broken & that the ruling was not necessary.
The ruling makes self defense criminal.

Badger40 on May 16, 2011 at 4:21 PM

If you ever found yourself in the most extreme circumstances, where a utterly corrupt law enforcement agency was trying to crush you, you’d then have no choice but to do what you had to and hope you were vindicated in court.

This is not America in 2011.

G M on May 16, 2011 at 4:28 PM

G M on May 16, 2011 at 4:28 PM

Stop stalling…..answer the constitutional question.

csdeven on May 16, 2011 at 4:29 PM

You think that if you used physical force against some patrol officers (and actually won, unlikely) that this wouldn’t be the next step?

G M on May 16, 2011 at 4:13 PM

I don’t where in my post you got that the idea that I would win. I hope they wouldn’t send in a SWAT team to arrest a guy defending his house. If they did, then I have still won the war, because I’ve forced the government to go through due process in order to enter my house. Furthermore, I don’t know many SWAT teams that shoot to kill as their top priority. Don’t they typically try to negotiate with me to put down my weapons and come out first? If not we are further down the rabbit hole than I thought.

Anyhow, let’s take this in baby steps. I’ve highlighted the relevant points of my post.

The issue is my right to do it. If everyone knows that I am legally allowed to shoot anyone who enters my house illegally, then it is likely those who value their own lives will shy away. Removing the right (whether it’s a good idea for the citizens to resist or not) removes the risk for the police to abuse their power.

Notice that the point is the legal right as a deterrent. Winning in a physical fight with the criminal (in this case the officer is a criminal b/c he is violating the law…remember that is the basis of the whole argument) is irrelevant.

The point is the government SHOULD BE AFRAID OF THE PEOPLE, not the other way around. The police should be extremely careful to have all there i’s and t’s dotted when entering a house with a warrant. I want them to walk on egg shells when entering the house, knowing that they are violating the sanctity of another person’s God-given rights (even if it is legal). I also want them to be very cautious when entering under “exigent circumstances.” As a matter of fact, these types of entry should be very rare and very clear.

Police = government. They should fear and respect the people, not the other way around.

Pattosensei on May 16, 2011 at 3:34 PM

Now, do you believe that the police should be afraid of the citizenry as outlined in my post in bold or should citizens be afraid of their government and it’s officers?

Pattosensei on May 16, 2011 at 4:30 PM

People reflect the time and place they are born in.
G M on May 16, 2011 at 4:08 PM

I missed the relevance of this comment.
Are you suggesting that the notions of liberty back then are archaic?
If you have not experienced tyranny at all bcs America is now ‘civilized’, do you then discount the need for our right to self defense?

Badger40 on May 16, 2011 at 4:25 PM

Thomas Jefferson wrote “All men are created equal”. Yet he owned slaves all his life and never worked to end slavery. Is there a conflict in that?

G M on May 16, 2011 at 4:34 PM

I don’t where in my post you got that the idea that I would win. I hope they wouldn’t send in a SWAT team to arrest a guy defending his house.

We’ve had all sorts of assertions in this thread on how oppressive police will come in guns blazing and plant evidence on you as a routine procedure.

I can assure you that if you violently resist the police, there will soon be enough to ensure you go into custody.

G M on May 16, 2011 at 4:38 PM

Indiana will vote these 3 judges out.

Nothing like passing a bad ruling to get yourself known.

Roy Rogers on May 16, 2011 at 4:38 PM

If you ever found yourself in the most extreme circumstances, where a utterly corrupt law enforcement agency was trying to crush you, you’d then have no choice but to do what you had to and hope you were vindicated in court.

If you agree with this, than why the hell have you been arguing against it for the past 3 days!?!?!? People have even given you outlandish scenarios where this was the case and you laughed at them. You realize you just lost the argument, right?

This is not America in 2011.

G M on May 16, 2011 at 4:28 PM

You are right, it isn’t America as of May 16, 2011. Can you guarantee it won’t America 2012? 2015? 2020? How will you make that guarantee? Just because it isn’t now doesn’t mean it can’t be in the future. The Indiana ruling brings us closer to that by reducing the power of the citizen in favor of the government. The state may not abuse that power now, but that doesn’t mean it won’t in the future. Best to keep it as far away from that power as possible. That requires constant vigilance.

Pattosensei on May 16, 2011 at 4:38 PM

You are right, it isn’t America as of May 16, 2011. Can you guarantee it won’t America 2012? 2015? 2020? How will you make that guarantee? Just because it isn’t now doesn’t mean it can’t be in the future. The Indiana ruling brings us closer to that by reducing the power of the citizen in favor of the government. The state may not abuse that power now, but that doesn’t mean it won’t in the future. Best to keep it as far away from that power as possible. That requires constant vigilance.

Pattosensei on May 16, 2011 at 4:38 PM

Again, the court ruling says:

In these situations, we find it unwise to allow a homeowner to adjudge the legality of police conduct in the heat of the moment. As we decline to recognize a right to resist unlawful police entry into a home, we decline to recognize a right to batter a police officer as a part of that resistance.

So, as a standard practice, in a realistic scenario for the world we live in today, this is the correct ruling. If this was the “Warsaw Ghetto” scenario, then this would be different. There is a difference between vigilance and police state hypochrondria.

G M on May 16, 2011 at 4:45 PM

We’ve had all sorts of assertions in this thread on how oppressive police will come in guns blazing and plant evidence on you as a routine procedure.

I can assure you that if you violently resist the police, there will soon be enough to ensure you go into custody.

G M on May 16, 2011 at 4:38 PM

You do realize you cherry-picked on sentence and did not address the substance of my post or the question I posed to you, right? You realize that this is dishonest, right?

Yes, we’ve had those “assertions.” In realities they were fictitious “what if” scenarios, not assertions, that were designed to highlight the need for the 4th Amendment and why it is dangerous to allow police to enter a house “for any reason” and forbid citizens to resist that entry (non-violently or violently) even if the entrance is “unlawful.” Again you are being dishonest. I believe I will use your posts as an example for my children so they can see what hypocrisy in action looks like.

Pattosensei on May 16, 2011 at 4:46 PM

Indiana will vote these 3 judges out.

Nothing like passing a bad ruling to get yourself known.

Roy Rogers on May 16, 2011 at 4:38 PM

I hope so, but it seems to be harder to get people riled up about judges than garden-variety politicians. Maybe b/c they don’t campaign as much and aren’t usually in the public eye.

Uncle Sams Nephew on May 16, 2011 at 4:48 PM

You are dishonestly framing what was said. The court didn’t say there were no 4th amd. protections, it said:

In these situations, we find it unwise to allow a homeowner to adjudge the legality of police conduct in the heat of the moment. As we decline to recognize a right to resist unlawful police entry into a home, we decline to recognize a right to batter a police officer as a part of that resistance.

It didn’t say you had no recourse for seeking redress.

G M on May 16, 2011 at 4:50 PM

G M on May 16, 2011 at 4:34 PM

Stop stalling…..answer the constitutional question.

csdeven on May 16, 2011 at 4:55 PM

G M on May 16, 2011 at 4:38 PM

Stop stalling…..answer the constitutional question.

csdeven on May 16, 2011 at 4:56 PM

In these situations, we find it unwise to allow a homeowner to adjudge the legality of police conduct in the heat of the moment. As we decline to recognize a right to resist unlawful police entry into a home, we decline to recognize a right to batter a police officer as a part of that resistance.

Again.

G M on May 16, 2011 at 4:56 PM

G M on May 16, 2011 at 4:45 PM

Stop stalling…..answer the constitutional question.

csdeven on May 16, 2011 at 4:57 PM

G M on May 16, 2011 at 4:50 PM

Stop stalling…..answer the constitutional question.

csdeven on May 16, 2011 at 4:58 PM

Again:

In these situations, we find it unwise to allow a homeowner to adjudge the legality of police conduct in the heat of the moment. As we decline to recognize a right to resist unlawful police entry into a home, we decline to recognize a right to batter a police officer as a part of that resistance.

G M on May 16, 2011 at 4:58 PM

G M on May 16, 2011 at 4:56 PM

Stop stalling…..answer the constitutional question.

csdeven on May 16, 2011 at 4:58 PM

G M on May 16, 2011 at 4:08 PM

Stop stalling…..answer the constitutional question.

csdeven on May 16, 2011 at 4:59 PM

In these situations, we find it unwise to allow a homeowner to adjudge the legality of police conduct in the heat of the moment. As we decline to recognize a right to resist unlawful police entry into a home, we decline to recognize a right to batter a police officer as a part of that resistance.

Answered.

G M on May 16, 2011 at 4:59 PM

If you ever found yourself in the most extreme circumstances, where a utterly corrupt law enforcement agency was trying to crush you, you’d then have no choice but to do what you had to and hope you were vindicated in court.

This is not America in 2011.
G M on May 16, 2011 at 4:28 PM

You do not know that without a doubt.
You have no idea what law enforcement or the government is capable of unless you have been a victim of their illegal actions.
Your ignorance of these things does not indicate that it is fact.
You stating this is not America 2011 speaks volumes of your naetivity.

Badger40 on May 16, 2011 at 4:59 PM

Stop stalling…..answer the constitutional question.

csdeven on May 16, 2011 at 4:58 PM

Stop spamming already.

Uncle Sams Nephew on May 16, 2011 at 5:00 PM

G M on May 16, 2011 at 4:59 PM

Stop stalling…..answer the constitutional question.

csdeven on May 16, 2011 at 5:01 PM

You do not know that without a doubt.
You have no idea what law enforcement or the government is capable of unless you have been a victim of their illegal actions.
Your ignorance of these things does not indicate that it is fact.
You stating this is not America 2011 speaks volumes of your naetivity.

Badger40 on May 16, 2011 at 4:59 PM

Educate me. Tell me what you know and how you know it.

G M on May 16, 2011 at 5:01 PM

In these situations, we find it unwise to allow a homeowner to adjudge the legality of police conduct in the heat of the moment. As we decline to recognize a right to resist unlawful police entry into a home, we decline to recognize a right to batter a police officer as a part of that resistance.

Answered.

G M on May 16, 2011 at 4:59 PM

What have you answered?
The state on IN is declining to recognize the right of a citizen to use violence against their agents during unlawful entry into their homes.
This answers nothing proposed here.
And it especially does not answer csdeven’s question of Constitutionality.

Badger40 on May 16, 2011 at 5:01 PM

Uncle Sams Nephew on May 16, 2011 at 5:00 PM

Stop stalling…..answer the constitutional question.

csdeven on May 16, 2011 at 5:02 PM

G M on May 16, 2011 at 5:01 PM

Stop stalling…..answer the constitutional question.

csdeven on May 16, 2011 at 5:02 PM

Stop stalling…..answer the constitutional question.

csdeven on May 16, 2011 at 5:02 PM

Stop spamming…act like someone who knows basic Internet etiquette.

Uncle Sams Nephew on May 16, 2011 at 5:04 PM

Educate me. Tell me what you know and how you know it.

G M on May 16, 2011 at 5:01 PM

You tell me how you know America in 2011 has no corruption in government, how no citizen has ever been bullied violently by the governement.
Tell me how you know this for a fact.
You provide the proof that this ruling is necessary.
BTW-have you ever been physically bullied by a cop before?
I know someone who has. Had the crap beat out of them for nothing.
It doesn’t matter how I know.
There is no link to provide for your viewing pleasure.
Bcs I was an eye witness.
And there is nothing in any official records that denotes this unjust violence upon an American citizen.
The whole point is that this ruling makes self defense against the state a criminal act.

Badger40 on May 16, 2011 at 5:05 PM

Uncle Sams Nephew on May 16, 2011 at 5:04 PM

Stop stalling…..answer the constitutional question.

csdeven on May 16, 2011 at 5:05 PM

What have you answered?
The state on IN is declining to recognize the right of a citizen to use violence against their agents during unlawful entry into their homes.
This answers nothing proposed here.
And it especially does not answer csdeven’s question of Constitutionality.

Badger40 on May 16, 2011 at 5:01 PM

Does the court have the constitutional authority to decide what jury instructions are given? Yes. Is there a constitutional right to resist arrest? No.

G M on May 16, 2011 at 5:06 PM

G M’s Nephew sock puppet is into control big time!

Roy Rogers on May 16, 2011 at 5:07 PM

The whole point is that this ruling makes self defense against the state a criminal act.

Badger40 on May 16, 2011 at 5:05 PM

It is, unless a jury finds you justified.

G M on May 16, 2011 at 5:07 PM

Educate me. Tell me what you know and how you know it.

G M on May 16, 2011 at 5:01 PM

Google Wayne Hage & read up on his extensive case.

Badger40 on May 16, 2011 at 5:07 PM

It is, unless a jury finds you justified.

G M on May 16, 2011 at 5:07 PM

We’ve already established this.
That is why this ruling is not necessary.

Badger40 on May 16, 2011 at 5:08 PM

G M’s Nephew sock puppet is into control big time!

Roy Rogers on May 16, 2011 at 5:07 PM

Wow. So you agree that it’s ok to spam the same nonsensical question dozens of times?

Oh wait, of course you do, they don’t have such a high-falutin’ thing as ‘courtesy’ in the mudhole you live in.

Uncle Sams Nephew on May 16, 2011 at 5:09 PM

The whole point is that this ruling makes self defense against the state a criminal act.

Badger40 on May 16, 2011 at 5:05 PM
It is, unless a jury finds you justified.

G M on May 16, 2011 at 5:07 PM

So you consider people guilty until proven innocent?

Badger40 on May 16, 2011 at 5:09 PM

G M on May 16, 2011 at 5:06 PM

Stop stalling…..answer the constitutional question.

csdeven on May 16, 2011 at 5:09 PM

Oh wait, of course you do, they don’t have such a high-falutin’ thing as ‘courtesy’ in the mudhole you live in.

Uncle Sams Nephew on May 16, 2011 at 5:09 PM

So are you on board with GM that you should never be able to resist tyranny? And that if you do so against the state, you are considered a guilty criminal?

Badger40 on May 16, 2011 at 5:09 PM

It is, unless a jury finds you justified.

G M on May 16, 2011 at 5:07 PM

We’ve already established this.
That is why this ruling is not necessary.

Badger40 on May 16, 2011 at 5:08 PM

It is if it educates some yahoo who thinks he’s defending the constitution if he is resisting arrest after a little domestic violence.

G M on May 16, 2011 at 5:11 PM

Does the court have the constitutional authority to decide what jury instructions are given? Yes. Is there a constitutional right to resist arrest? No.

G M on May 16, 2011 at 5:06 PM

We are talking about the state perpetrating illegal acts upon a citizen.
We are not talking about resisting arrest.

Badger40 on May 16, 2011 at 5:11 PM

It is if it educates some yahoo who thinks he’s defending the constitution if he is resisting arrest after a little domestic violence.

G M on May 16, 2011 at 5:11 PM

I don’t care about if it’s a yahoo or not.
I care that the state is telling people they criminals if they resist illegal actions against them.

Badger40 on May 16, 2011 at 5:12 PM

Wow. So you agree that it’s ok to spam the same nonsensical question dozens of times?

Oh wait, of course you do, they don’t have such a high-falutin’ thing as ‘courtesy’ in the mudhole you live in.

Uncle Sams Nephew on May 16, 2011 at 5:09 PM

The question is valid and a legitimate response is desired. Up to this point, you have not legitimately answered it and now you are trying to take the thread off topic with your childish whiny crying.

So, I say unto you again, and will do so until you answer it:

Stop stalling…..answer the constitutional question.

csdeven on May 16, 2011 at 5:12 PM

G M on May 16, 2011 at 5:11 PM

Stop stalling…..answer the constitutional question.

csdeven on May 16, 2011 at 5:13 PM

The whole point is that this ruling makes self defense against the state a criminal act.

Badger40 on May 16, 2011 at 5:05 PM
It is, unless a jury finds you justified.

G M on May 16, 2011 at 5:07 PM

So you consider people guilty until proven innocent?

Badger40 on May 16, 2011 at 5:09 PM

Resisting arrest is a crime, and if you are charged with it, you’ll be arrested and booked and then go in front of a jury. If the jury finds you guilty, you are guilty, if they find you not guilty, then you are not. Simple enough?

G M on May 16, 2011 at 5:14 PM

Note to Axelrod:

SEND NEW TROLLS!

These trolls suck!

Roy Rogers on May 16, 2011 at 5:18 PM

I care that the state is telling people they criminals if they resist illegal actions against them.

Badger40 on May 16, 2011 at 5:12 PM

Every time I read your response to these traitorous sacks of $hit, I have to laugh at how absolutely crystal clear your point is and they continue to ignore it! lol I am ROTFLMFAO because I believe they are simply deficient in cognitive reasoning because of inbreeding! hahahaha

But I think the truth is more sinister. They really are evil. They know they are and relish it.

csdeven on May 16, 2011 at 5:19 PM

G M on May 16, 2011 at 5:14 PM

Stop stalling…..answer the constitutional question.

csdeven on May 16, 2011 at 5:19 PM

Every time I read your response to these traitorous sacks of $hit, I have to laugh at how absolutely crystal clear your point is and they continue to ignore it! lol I am ROTFLMFAO because I believe they are simply deficient in cognitive reasoning because of inbreeding! hahahaha

But I think the truth is more sinister. They really are evil. They know they are and relish it.

csdeven on May 16, 2011 at 5:19 PM

Yes, anyone who dares disagree with you is obviously evil. There could be no other reason.

G M on May 16, 2011 at 5:21 PM

G M on May 16, 2011 at 5:21 PM

Stop stalling…..answer the constitutional question.

csdeven on May 16, 2011 at 5:21 PM

But I think the truth is more sinister. They really are evil. They know they are and relish it.

csdeven on May 16, 2011 at 5:19 PM

As a HS teacher, it really amazes me how many people out there do not understand when they have proven nothing.
How many times you can go round & round with someone, & they still never ever will get it.
I really do wonder at these kinds of folks, are they really that ignorant, stupid, or evil?
Evil comes in all forms.
I would hope at least in this troll case that it is mental deficiency we are talking about.

Badger40 on May 16, 2011 at 5:23 PM

Yes, anyone who dares disagree with you is obviously evil. There could be no other reason.

G M on May 16, 2011 at 5:21 PM

I’m hoping in your case it’s mental deficiency.
Better to be mentally deficient than evil.

Badger40 on May 16, 2011 at 5:23 PM

The whole point is that this ruling makes self defense against the state a criminal act.

Badger40 on May 16, 2011 at 5:05 PM
It is, unless a jury finds you justified.

G M on May 16, 2011 at 5:07 PM

So you consider people guilty until proven innocent?

Badger40 on May 16, 2011 at 5:09 PM

Resisting arrest is a crime, and if you are charged with it, you’ll be arrested and booked and then go in front of a jury. If the jury finds you guilty, you are guilty, if they find you not guilty, then you are not. Simple enough?

G M on May 16, 2011 at 5:14 PM

I’m not talking about resisting arrest.
You know what I am talking about.
You clearly really are mentally deficient.
LEssons are over, pupil.
You fail.
Good night.

Badger40 on May 16, 2011 at 5:25 PM

Badger40 on May 16, 2011 at 5:25 PM

They are doing the best they can to fit in!

THAT is the scariest part.

Roy Rogers on May 16, 2011 at 5:29 PM

Mom must be fixing up extra shloppy, Shloppy Joe’s for supper. Trolls and sock puppets must eat too.

Roy Rogers on May 16, 2011 at 5:39 PM

We’ve had all sorts of assertions in this thread on how oppressive police will come in guns blazing and plant evidence on you as a routine procedure.

G M on May 16, 2011 at 4:38 PM

Who said that this happens as a routine procedure?

holygoat on May 16, 2011 at 5:55 PM

Who said that this happens as a routine procedure?

holygoat on May 16, 2011 at 5:55 PM

They have not covered “Straw man arguments” at G M’s high school yet. That’s a sophomore year class.

Roy Rogers on May 16, 2011 at 5:59 PM

THINGS LIKE THIS are why I will NEVER trust police. Especially disturbing is the “explanation” to “justify” the violence against this kid, offered about 1:50 in.

Just listen to this guy, after hearing what had already just happened to this kid. His first “explanation” to justify the violence by police is ridiculous enough, but the second part certainly does NOT pass the smell test.
Here is another site which deals almost exclusively with abuse of authority by those “brave” men in blue, and the legal system turning a blind eye to these abuses. This is but one site of many.

YOU want to leave things to chance and fate, hoping the flatfoots treat you fairly, or at least the legal system will do so? That’s YOUR decision. I, however, will ALWAYS defer to my God given rights. NOBODY has the moral authority to revoke them from me when I act defensively for myself and my family.

That is NOT being a “keyboard commando.” It is also NOT saying that I have a fantasy to kill cops. If they do not aggress against my life, my liberty, or my property unjustly, I will NOT need to defend myself in any manner I may feel necessary. If they do aggress against my God given, Constitutionally recognized, and Supreme Court verified rights, then I can do what I need to do. THAT is standing up for what is MINE.

Badger State Dave on May 16, 2011 at 6:01 PM

So, as a standard practice, in a realistic scenario for the world we live in today, this is the correct ruling. If this was the “Warsaw Ghetto” scenario, then this would be different. There is a difference between vigilance and police state hypochrondria.

G M on May 16, 2011 at 4:45 PM

Finally a position I can understand.

Because we live in a free and tolerant society; where the government isn’t actively oppressing you; you don’t need your Constitutional rights… so it’s ok for the government to ignore or remove them.

If you do need your rights later… tough sh** you gave them away when the government wasn’t really oppressive… so you’re scr*wed.

That’s your point, right? That if the government was truly oppressive; fighting for your rights would be reasonable; but fighting to keep them against a government that isn’t so bad isn’t worthwhile?

I mean who cares about your rights; it’s pretty ok so let the government do whatever they want…

Or did you have a different point there? Vigilance means giving up all your rights now so you won’t have them if you need them?

Can I see your dictionary’s definition of “vigilance”? I think mine must be out of date.

gekkobear on May 16, 2011 at 6:01 PM

In these situations, we find it unwise to allow a homeowner to adjudge the legality of police conduct in the heat of the moment. As we decline to recognize a right to resist unlawful police entry into a home, we decline to recognize a right to batter a police officer as a part of that resistance.

Answered.

G M on May 16, 2011 at 4:59 PM

In sum, we hold that Indiana the right to reasonably resist an unlawful police entry into a home is no longer recognized under Indiana law.”

So the citations and the stuff about “In these situations” are irrelevant to the ultimate ruling, because “In sum” the ISC ruled that any reasonable effort to resist any unlawful police entry is not allowed in Indiana.

You’re cool with this, because you don’t think that American citizens have any right to forcibly resist unlawful entry of their homes for any reason.

holygoat on May 16, 2011 at 6:06 PM

Not too many lawyer commenters, from a quick scan–this is the existing and long-standing law in most states and is certainly the law the U.S. gummint thinks is in force across the land (though it’s not–it’s a state by state matter). In short, in most states (other than Louisiana, afaik), once an officer is id’d as such and/or is operating “under color of law” a citizen’s first duty is to obey. If the entry is unlawful, the citizen may have some recourse against the gummint. If it is full-on rogue, citizen might get a “Bivens” action and a “suit-case” against the gummint. Is this bad? Yes, it is very very bad. Does it really matter? Not all that much. Cops respect or abuse citizen rights pretty much without regard for the potential that the citizen will pop a cap in dey azz and get away with it. Cops universally and probably necessarily figure that they’re in the right and that they or their peers will take down any perp. They also universally expect obeisance from all the rest of us, also regardless of right or wrong. If you’re not an idiot, and it’s not a true life or death situation, no matter how wrong a cop is, you’re not gonna resist much.

First and foremost, if this kind of thing bugs you, actually study up on your own states’ and locals’ laws before starting a tirade and take action to get “castle doctrines” and the like enacted in your own communities. The more that’s done locally, the more all law enforcement, even feds will have to recognize that we are still a free people and should be treated with basic respect.

Ay Uaxe on May 16, 2011 at 6:21 PM

Cops respect or abuse citizen rights pretty much without regard for the potential that the citizen will pop a cap in dey azz and get away with it. Cops universally and probably necessarily figure that they’re in the right and that they or their peers will take down any perp. They also universally expect obeisance from all the rest of us, also regardless of right or wrong. If you’re not an idiot, and it’s not a true life or death situation, no matter how wrong a cop is, you’re not gonna resist much.

First and foremost, if this kind of thing bugs you, actually study up on your own states’ and locals’ laws before starting a tirade and take action to get “castle doctrines” and the like enacted in your own communities. The more that’s done locally, the more all law enforcement, even feds will have to recognize that we are still a free people and should be treated with basic respect.Ay Uaxe on May 16, 2011 at 6:21 PM

You are correct.
This is just a blatant usurpation done out in the full open.
Our rights have been eroded for years all acrossw the country.
The fact that the state, govt, etc is not taking advantage of their unConst powers is lucky for us.
Unlucky for the victims of such abuses.
Bcs at the very least, they’re going to have large bills in the form of attorney’s fees.
Of course the true action must always happen at the state & local levels.
But governments are getting bolder & bolder in how they erode our rights.
They are no longer even trying to hide it.
This ruling is an example.

Badger40 on May 16, 2011 at 6:29 PM

As a HS teacher, it really amazes me how many people out there do not understand when they have proven nothing.
How many times you can go round & round with someone, & they still never ever will get it.
I really do wonder at these kinds of folks, are they really that ignorant, stupid, or evil?
Evil comes in all forms.
I would hope at least in this troll case that it is mental deficiency we are talking about.

Badger40 on May 16, 2011 at 5:23 PM

How many high school teachers have used their positions to abuse their students? Should I post some news reports showing crimes committed by teachers so we can get all hysterical over that?

G M on May 16, 2011 at 6:34 PM

Maybe students need to be armed to prevent their rights from being violated by abusive teachers? Sure, most teachers are professionals who treat their students professionally, but what if a teacher decided to assault and kill a child? Not if that kid has the Glock that is his/her god given constitutional right to have at all times.

Right?

G M on May 16, 2011 at 6:45 PM

How many high school teachers have used their positions to abuse their students? Should I post some news reports showing crimes committed by teachers so we can get all hysterical over that?

G M on May 16, 2011 at 6:34 PM

Maybe students need to be armed to prevent their rights from being violated by abusive teachers? Sure, most teachers are professionals who treat their students professionally, but what if a teacher decided to assault and kill a child? Not if that kid has the Glock that is his/her god given constitutional right to have at all times.

Right?

G M on May 16, 2011 at 6:45 PM

You certainly keep proving your mental deficiency over & over again.
These statements certainly support my hypothesis that you are, indeed, suffering from some sort of mental deficiency.
Where does HS students abusing students come into play on this discussion here?

Badger40 on May 16, 2011 at 6:47 PM

Sure, maybe American schools are mostly ok now, but what if they are filled with corrupt, abusive teachers in the future?

Did Stalin allow kids to carry guns at the Soviet schools? No! See what happened!

G M on May 16, 2011 at 6:47 PM

Where does HS students teachers abusing students come into play on this discussion here?

Badger40 on May 16, 2011 at 6:47 PM

But perhaps the fixing of that statement is lost on you, as is everything else here.
Of course you’ve already agreed with the point
I have been making here on the thread.
But your ridiculous antics make it hard to discern if you really knew what you were agreeing to.
This is why the mentally impaired often need guardians.

Badger40 on May 16, 2011 at 6:48 PM

Sure, maybe American schools are mostly ok now, but what if they are filled with corrupt, abusive teachers in the future?

Did Stalin allow kids to carry guns at the Soviet schools? No! See what happened!

G M on May 16, 2011 at 6:47 PM

This is good.
You are definitely on some sort of bizarre mental rampage.

Badger40 on May 16, 2011 at 6:49 PM

Where does HS students abusing students come into play on this discussion here?

Badger40 on May 16, 2011 at 6:47 PM

Teachers. How many teachers have been convicted of crimes against their students in recent years?

Obviously an armed population of students able to use force against the illegal acts done by teachers is the only reasonable and constitutionally correct answer, right?

G M on May 16, 2011 at 6:49 PM

This is good.
You are definitely on some sort of bizarre mental rampage.

Badger40 on May 16, 2011 at 6:49 PM

Obviously you are one of those teachers that fears a constitutionally armed student population. There is nothing in the second amendment that gives an age limit, right?

G M on May 16, 2011 at 6:52 PM

Obviously an armed population of students able to use force against the illegal acts done by teachers is the only reasonable and constitutionally correct answer, right?

G M on May 16, 2011 at 6:49 PM

You should remember you already agreed with the point I was making here, that this ruling makes it criminal for citizens to defend themselves against tyranny & that when a citizen does do, they should be judged by a jury of their peers whether their actions were justified or not.
The ruling is unnecessary.
You are devolving into insanity here.

Badger40 on May 16, 2011 at 6:53 PM

Now, there are some who might say that children should not take guns to school, but they are Tories who obviously hate our children and the constitution.

G M on May 16, 2011 at 6:53 PM

Obviously you are one of those teachers that fears a constitutionally armed student population. There is nothing in the second amendment that gives an age limit, right?

G M on May 16, 2011 at 6:52 PM

It is great you have gotten to this point in your tirade on this thread.
You are starting to spiral now into a whole new depth of depravity.
You agreed earlier with the point I was making.
What is this new wierd nonsense you’re raving rabidly about?

Badger40 on May 16, 2011 at 6:55 PM

Comment pages: 1 11 12 13 14