“We hold that there is no right to reasonably resist unlawful entry by police officers.”
“Now this Court is faced for the first time with the question of whether Indiana should recognize the common-law right to reasonably resist unlawful entry by police officers. We conclude that public policy disfavors any such right.”
How has either of those sentences been misinterpreted?
I just cannot imagine that those are the exact words of the court ruling.
No right to “reasonably resist” throws up questions in my mind. Reasonably resist is not what happened in this case. It seems to have nothing to do with this particular case.