Plus, the homeowner would have to bring an action that an extended stay had become quartering.
The courts require the law to be blind, but not stupid.
The ONLY issue in this entire debate is whether the appropriate time to contest what a homeowner believes to be an illegal search is at 3:00 AM with guns drawn, or later, in court, when everyone is awake, sober, rested and reasoned.
>Sorry, but that would die a quick death on court.
I would agree that it _should_ die a quick death in court; but when a State Supreme Court says there is NO right to resist even an _unlawful_ entry that is by no means certain.
>The courts require the law to be blind, but not stupid.
I disagree with you; with things like the imprisonment of Brian Aitken, in whose trial the judge refused to allow the jury to read/know the exceptions to the law he was being charged under (one of which was the transportation of weapons between residences), compounded with the open hostility toward the right of Jury Nullification (and given that the Jury is supposed to be representative of the people, is it not meet that they should have the power to say “no, this is NOT what we meant when we sent OUR representatives to make laws?) makes the law VERY stupid indeed.
And the law is not very blind at all; elsewise can you explain the Philadelphia New Black Panther voter intimidation case and its subsequent File-13ing by the “Justice Department?”
>The ONLY issue in this entire debate is whether the appropriate time to contest what a homeowner believes to be an illegal search is at 3:00 AM with guns drawn, or later, in court, when everyone is awake, sober, rested and reasoned.
If that is the case; then why should the law provide protection to someone who is making an ILLEGAL entry into your home, threatening you with force (government *is* force), and claiming to be an agent of the law acting lawfully?
No; what this does is, effectively, make a protected class of citizen. You are free to protect yourself, even with lethal force [in Indiana], from illegal entry. This decision, however, specifically said that there is no right to resist a *Law Enforcement Officer’s* illegal entry; there is one, and only one, distinction in this situation: being an agent of the government. Therefore, it is patently obvious that this decision creates a special, protected class of person.