[paratrooper82]

ON THE OTHER HAND if I know they are cops, or children seeking candy, the burden of proof changes and I need some other reason than simply fear for my life and limb to shoot ‘em down.

Why would you allow the government to shift the burden of proof from the government on to you?

Like it or not, the U.S. Supreme Court has ruled in many cases that an American can use what ever force necessary to defend him or her self against an unlawful arrest, even the use of deadly force!

What if your significant other called the law, can the law enforcement officer now assault you simply because she called them, for whatever reason? I don't think so, and the U.S. Supreme Court has ruled that if one occupant has refused entry, the other occupant cannot give law enforcement consent to enter the private home.

[muawiyah]

The assault in this case was Perp On Cop. When it's Cop On Perp you have a slightly different situation but the basic body of law is the same ~ cops get to restrain you once probable cause is ascertained.

That's primarily for safety ~ the Courts have decided pretty regularly that safety for all during an arrest situation might even reqauire putting handcuffs on folks at the scene who are not subject to arrest.

Now, let's say they come by your house and see your dogs playing behind your fence, barking and so forth and they shoot the dogs and then run into your house guns in hand, Indiana courts have earlier ruled that you can shoot the cops dead!