Replies

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

You really need a cause of action to get yoursef' a new precedent.

There's no cause of action here. It was her house, not his, at that moment, and she called the cops on him. They arrived.

This particular ruling has no substance.

The court's clerk did some interesting research on statutes but that's about that.

The rest of it is a sign that the state has some guys at the top of the courts who do not have judicial temperment.

Yes, sir. I think it was a horrible decision and unlikely to get to the U.S. Supreme Court. It takes very few of the cases it is asked to take and just asking costs time and money. If the Indiana Legislature is interested, it could far more quickly pass a law countering the practical effects of the decision of the Indiana Supreme Court: The right reasonably to resist unlawful entry by, and other unlawful actions of, law enforcement authorities shall not be infringed.

I also wrote this follow up, dealing with the Pima County, Arizona SWAT raid with its "hail" of gunfire from the SWAT folks resulting in a 26 year old former Marine dead with sixty SWAT slugs in his body.

Today I wrote this article about some relevant police activity in Philadelphia.

The three instances seem to be in some way related: lack of respect for constitutional rights, state laws and human dignity.

Obviously, there are circumstances where police need to yell, cuss and get the upper hand. The Pima County and Philadelphia situations do not seem to be among them.