It's a wasted effort to try to get grand juries both a) aware of their power [presentment] and b) unafraid to use it against government corruption?
Please explain that one.
The judge who wrote the decision was relatively new to the court, and apparently UNFAMILIAR with American standards of jurisprudence.
And as we "mere civilians" are always being told: Ignorance of the law is no excuse.
But, aside from that, there is the matter that three other Judges on that court concurred with him; that means that they either a) did not read it, or b) agree with it.
In either case, those judges do not have the excuse of being "relatively new to the court."
He spent several years as chief counsel FOR the AlQaida pukes at Gitmo. Which is neither here nor there until you take a look at the case. First off the WOMAN living in the apartment called the cops for help. To a degree this is a relatively simple domestic dispute sort of case but it got to the Indiana Supreme court where this idiot judge could convince TWO OTHERS (including the Chief Justice of the court) to SIMPLY IGNORE THE WOMAN'S RIGHTS.
I do not see it as being Sharia law, certainly not provably so. (Or can you prove it, with citations and everything?)
I am trying to build a case that is legally provable and therefore actionable by the Grand Juries.
While the case mentions the woman at first, and then does not mention her again, the operative portion of the decision didn't involve the woman directly [as she did not, herself, give the police direct permission to enter], but whether the jury's instruction in the man's case were correct (the argument given to the appeals court).
BTW, there are laws that protect cops even in what turn out to be unlawful searches and seizures. Everybody's got such laws. After all, the cops aren't judges, and they aren't lawyers, and they can't be expected to apply every subtle nuance to every situation.
Interestingly, the text of the laws I cited should cut through those protections: they are unqualified as to who perpetrates the act.
What that means in most cases is that if you decide you know more than they do and take a 2X4 and bust one of them up against the head he can probably ruin you with a civil suit.
You might even be charged with a crime.
The standard these days is to be patient and then go to court on their blue hides.
Interestingly, that 'standard' was cited in the argument that they used: because people don't spend months/years rotting in jails, and because the courts are open to them, the need to forcibly resist unlawful police actions is anachronistic.
If you didn't already know that you are probably a kafir ~ and that's someone whose testimony only counts for one-quarter the weight of a moslem man in court.
The judge slipped it in and that is important.
Sharia law has at its core the idea of CLASSES OF CITIZENS.
They acted lawfully.
American patriots argued on behalf of the troops.
Many times you have someone allege that the cops acted unlawfully on a search or seizure ~ then, later on, it's found they acted lawfully. Sometimes it's found they acted unlawfully. In virtually every case the call is best made by someone who has sufficient command of the law to work his way through a myriad of factors.
You've never been allowed to just shoot a cop who shows up in your place.