Replies

The justices didn't rule that an unlawful entry was made. What they were doing was saying "If it was an unlawful entry, so what". The plaintiff said it was an unlawful entry and he said (through his lawyer) that he had a right to smack the cop around.

This case didn't have to go beyond the lady's call to 911. She lived there ~ not the perp.

There's probably some circumstance where you come upon a cop just minding his business and it is your job to leap out and give him a beating. I don't know what it would be, but I can imagine the Indiana Supreme Court thinking about it a lot and telling us what it might be.

This time, though, deep in thought (or their cups) they decided that when it's an unlawful entry the guy didn't have the right to push the cop.

There are laws that make it a crime to assault cops anywhere when you know they are cops. This guy knew he was dealing with the cops.

BTW, I really can't defend the logic the court followed. I think they were sloppy to the point of negligence ~ and that Mitch Daniel's star lawyer was a mistake to appoint to this job. The guy's a zoner.

The very first instance of "unlawful entry" was prefaced at the beginning of the sentence with: "Barnes contests ...." ~ that's not the Justices ruling that it was an "unlawful entry" ~ it's the plaintiff, Barnes, calling it that.

He can call it to the cows come home if he wants, but it wasn't an unlawful entry.

Now, to the Court's discussion, it is bizarre. They didn't need to say anything at all since it was strictly a hypothetical situation concocted by the plaintiff ~ and not tried in a court.