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!
muawiyah -
It's not a precedent.
News to me.
From the Indiana Supreme Court ruling itself, via
sciforums:
"The Court of Appeals addressed this issue in Casselman v. State, 472 N.E.2d 1310, 1318 (Ind. Ct. App. 1985). In Casselman, the defendant did not appear at a judgment proceeding on the advice of his attorney. Id. at 1311. When the sheriff‘s deputy went to his home to effect a civil arrest, the defendant attempted to close the door in the deputy‘s face. A brief struggle ensued, and the defendant was arrested when he retreated into his house. Id. at 1311–12. The Court of Appeals found that the deputy ―was not lawfully engaged in the execution of civil process‖ when he prevented the defendant from closing the door to his home. Id. at 1314. Although the Court of Appeals acknowledged the trend of abolishing the common-law right to resist an unlawful arrest,
it ultimately focused on the heightened expectation of privacy in one‘s home and recognized a right to resist an unlawful entry into a home by a police officer. Id. at 1315–18. "
But the Indiana Supreme Court decided in ANY case for ANY reason, the following:
“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.”
Quite a reach, IMO.
BTW, Dan Miller, did you write the blog you are being attributed with at Advance Indiana for Pajamaa Tattler/Pajamas Media?
Indiana Supreme Court Abrogating Citizen's Right To Resist Unlawful Police Entry Into Home Making Headlines