Cboldt's "definition" uses the term "unlawful entry" in it; it can't be the definition of how to determine if something's an unlawful entry...try again.
Officer J. Bauer of Tinytown P.D. comes through your door yelling, "Police!" -- legal or illegal entry? Let's say you blow him away, or block his entry. In his dying words, he lets you know he was in hot pursuit of the guy with the detonator switch who's ducked into your back mudroom...it was legal entry. Or that your wife had called 911, asking for police to respond (as was the case in this case).
Tell me...unless you're God, how do you know it's an illegal entry?
Remember also, as a side issue, that the case in question dealt with a lawful entry, but the reason it came up is the attempt by the defense to use a jury instruction that dealt with unlawful entry.
It's not my definition, plus, the term of art that is evaluated is the "reasonable belief."
-- Tell me...unless you're God, how do you know it's an illegal entry? --
That question cuts both ways, for the invader, and for the home occupant. What has changed is the ability of the homeowner to attempt to convince a jury of peers (which, by definition, is an exercise in hindsight) that he had a reasonable belief (not a metaphysical certainty) that he was under an unlawful entry.
>Cboldt’s “definition” uses the term “unlawful entry” in it; it can’t be the definition of how to determine if something’s an unlawful entry...try again.
But the court’s decision said even “unlawful entry” was no grounds for resistance.
And it is patently obvious, according to the 4th Amendment, that ANY non-consensual entry without a warrant is unlawful.
And before you start spouting crap about exigent circumstances and the recent USSC decision, let me ask this: Does the Supreme Court have authority over the Constitution [as in to amend/revise], the very document that chartered their very existence?