Replies

There are NO future situations like this ~ nothing happened until he attacked the cops. They didn't unlawfully enter ~ SHE ASKED THEM TO BE THERE.

This ruling is not about this one case alone. The unlawful entry is a question that has not been fully answered at this point, regardless of whether she made the initial phone call. What was at question was whether the jury should have been given instruction that he had the right to reasonably resist an unlawful entry by police officers. The Appeals Court said the judge should have done so, the Indiana Supreme Court not only said they did not need that instruction, they went further with their ruling:

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

IOW, I have no legal right to resist an unlawful police entry if I live in Indiana. That is precedent that can only bring a ton of problems. So a police officer decides something suspicious is going on in my home. Later that night, they unlawfully enter my home on their suspicions. Something really bad happens because I, or someone in my home resists their home being invaded. I now have no right to resist or to sue based on the consequences of that right being violated.

The Chief Justice, though, should resign. We agree on that. This case may not seem like a big deal to you because you feel the guy was in the wrong. Fine. He might have been convicted in a second trial with the new jury instruction, regardless.

What the Indiana Supreme Court just did, was take away EVERYONE'S right to resist unlawful police entry, regardless of the circumstances. That is huge.

It's not a precedent. The laws you are complaining about were put in place several decades back by "enlightened progressive Democrat leadership" (/s).

It's really not new stuff.

At the same time the gratuitous comments by the Chief Justice were BIZARRE!