I may be confused on this issue, but I don’t recall that common law authorized violent resistance to unauthorized entry by an officer of the law.
The court’s decision is not about whether the entry is legal or not, but about how the illegal entry can be legally resisted.
see fourth amendment
castle doctrine
(even the quartering act)
no government official, in any form, can just enter without a warrent.
RE: The court’s decision is not about whether the entry is legal or not, but about how the illegal entry can be legally resisted.
OK, I’ll bite, I am a non-vilent person... how do I LEGALLY resist an insistent and unlawful police entry?
My first instinct would be to say NO THANK YOU and SHUT THE DOOR on his face.
If he leaves, fine with me. But here’s the next question...
What if he bangs on the door and then forces himself in? What next?
If you have no "legal" way to resist on the front end, then "illegal" is the only alternative.
I'm glad my home state, Missouri, has "Castle Doctrine" laws on the books; illegal entry is illegal entry no matter who is involved.
Believe me it does. ANYBODY who simply barges into your home without identifying themselves properly and/or producing some sort of a warrant is basically fair game.
There’s only one problem with their review on how one may resist: when the “police” are criminals who bought police uniforms.
Ignoring the fact that a policeman acting illegally is a criminal, how can we know that the guy at the door is really a cop?