Posted on 09/20/2011 12:41:36 PM PDT by FunkyZero
Exactly. If they are acting outside the scope of their official duties, then the right to resist is clearly still open under this holding.
There was a point at which Rodney King had the right to fight back. Once the police cross the line and are in violation of the law (not merely some procedural rule, but in violation of the Penal code or other criminal statute) then all bets are off. The punishment for a violation of a search and seizure law is that the police can't use the evidence found in a criminal proceeding against you. The punishment against the police does not include the right of the property owner to beat the policeman to a pulp. In such a case the evidence wrongfully obtained would be excluded but the property owner would be charged with battery.
This paper examines the growth of government during this century as a result of giving women the right to vote. Using cross-sectional time-series data for 1870 to 1940, we examine state government expenditures and revenue as well as voting by U.S. House and Senate state delegations and the passage of a wide range of different state laws. Suffrage coincided with immediate increases in state government expenditures and revenue and more liberal voting patterns for federal representatives, and these effects continued growing over time as more women took advantage of the franchise. Contrary to many recent suggestions, the gender gap is not something that has arisen since the 1970s, and it helps explain why American government started growing when it did.
You are probably right.
What about a no-knock raid; especially one on the wrong house?
Anyone wanting to read a real case about a corrupt judiciary in a case in which a black man was convicted or battery against a cop when the cops were beating the crap oput of him should read this decision from the Washington State Supreme Court:
http://wa.findacase.com/research/wfrmDocViewer.aspx/xq/fac.19970501_0014.wa.htm/qx
Tough call.
If I'm on the jury its an easy NOT GUILTY from me. But then I'm a firm believer in Jury Nullification. (That's why I'll never sit on a jury in a criminal case).
All you have to say is that you will follow the law as given by the judge; just don’t mention that you will also foolew the law regarding the jury being the judge of both the facts and the law.
If a judge will lie to you about being required to follow his instructions, I’d feel duty to obey an unlawful instruction.
Make that “no duty”.
Where’s the great conservative governor of Indiana on this court problem? Hmmm???
“I want to make it clear folks don’t have to fear calling 911, because that would automatically give police the right to enter their home.”
Problem is that some police are already using any 911 call as a pretext to doing a warrentless entry. A close coworker here in Missouri lives in a “college” town with an over zeolous PD. This friend is a retired U.S. Navy Master Chief Petty Officer (a corpsman). His ederly father lives with him and has medical emergencies on occasion. One evening, his father was having a mild seizure (had occurred before). My friend called 911 for an ambulance to transport his father to the hospital...a calm rational call. The POLICE arrived first and forced their way into his home past his wife at the door. There was no probable cause for the police to respond unless it was to render aid after requesting entry. They didn’t, and felt they had the authority to do so. Fortunately, the ambulance arrived and it was clear that nothing “criminal” was going on (where they got the idea that there was is uncertain). My friend didn’t pursue this issue because small town police in rural Missouri are not to be messed with.
This, in my opinion, was a violation of my friends 4th Ammendment rights. The PD abused and exceeded any authority it had. There was no reason for them to force entry - enter a residence without permission - but they did. Of course nothing criminal was going on, and there was nothing to hide, but the police were violating my friends constitutional rights...in my opinion.
For what it's worth, if my wife calls 911 and tells them "Please send the police, I saw a prowler in my backyard", or "Please send the police, a kid on a dirt-bike just ran over my grandson in my driveway", I will be sure to have her also tell them "By the way, this in NO way grants the police permission to enter and search my house". Any effort to do so, without a warrant, is a violation of my rights.
PS, Rights not defended are rights soon lost.
Entry and search are one thing. Rape is another.
Please, do not post such stupidity. It makes us all look bad, not just you.
Poll at the link re Indiana Supreme Court says you can’t resist police entering your home.
FunkyZero supplied the tip.
FREEP THIS POLL ***PING!*** FRmail me if you want to be added or removed from the Fearless Poll-Freeping Freepers Ping list. And be sure to ping me to any polls that need Freepin', if I miss them. (looks like a medium volume list) (gordongekko909, founder of the pinglist, stays on the list until his ghost signs up for the list)
Ever since 9-11 the so-called institutions (LE, Homeland Security,corporations, airlines, TSA, etc) have been grabbing power at the expense of the rights of every American. It is now 10 years later and the trend continues where citizenry sacrifices and is being reduced to fodder, while those who either serve or work for us as public servants are being given carte blanche ability to do with us as they wish.
We need an individual in power who understands the difference between liberty and rights and protection, and those in government who are there to serve us.
All resistence to police, reasonable or not, is a mini-revolution. That is its legal context. See #74.
the times
Indiana Supreme Court rejects claim of right to resist police entry into home
By Dan Carden dan.carden@nwi.com, (317) 637-9078 | Posted: Tuesday, September 20, 2011 3:30 pm
INDIANAPOLIS | The Indiana Supreme Court has affirmed its controversial ruling that Hoosiers have no right to ever physically resist police entry into their homes.
In a 4-1 decision, the state’s high court said Tuesday the common law rule that “a man’s home is his castle” cannot be used as a defense if a person is accused of attacking a police officer entering a home in an official capacity.
“Our holding does no more than bring Indiana common law in stride with jurisdictions that value promoting safety in situations where police and homeowners interact,” wrote Justice Steven David for the court.
The ruling stemmed from an alleged 2007 Evansville domestic violence incident where Richard Barnes shoved a police officer trying to enter Barnes’ home to investigate after Barnes told the officer he couldn’t come in.
Barnes claimed the jury in his misdemeanor battery case should have been instructed that Barnes had a lawful right to resist what he considered an illegal police entry into his home.
In May, the five-member Supreme Court rejected Barnes’ appeal, 3-2, saying Hoosiers have no right to resist even unlawful police entry into their homes.
That decision sparked Statehouse protests, threats against the court and inspired a General Assembly committee to review changes to state law that would reverse the court’s holding.
The court appeared to narrow its earlier ruling in its four-page decision Tuesday, which granted Barnes’ petition for rehearing while affirming the original outcome.
David noted police were legally entering Barnes’ home at the request of Barnes’ wife and therefore Barnes’ shoving of a police officer cannot be justified under the Castle Doctrine.
Though, in what might be a poke back at the 71 state lawmakers who filed a petition asking the court to review its original ruling, David wrote that if the General Assembly wants to change state law to allow citizens to batter police officers it is free to do so.
Justice Robert Rucker, a Gary native, was the sole “no” vote on Tuesday’s ruling.
In a brief dissent, Rucker said he wanted a more in-depth review of the legal tension between the prohibition on attacking police and a state law that authorizes citizens to use force if it is reasonably believed to be necessary to defend one’s home.
Justice Brent Dickson, a Hobart native, dissented from the court’s decision in May but concurred in Tuesday’s result without comment.
Barnes’ attorney, Erin Berger, previously vowed to appeal an unfavorable ruling to the U.S. Supreme Court.
She did not return several telephone messages left Tuesday seeking comment on the outcome of the case.
Attorney General Greg Zoeller praised the court for protecting both police officers and the right to resist illegal entry.
“The Indiana Supreme Court’s ruling today means that individuals still have the common law right of reasonable resistance to an unlawful entry, though there is never justification for committing battery against a police officer,” Zoeller said.
All resistence to police, reasonable or not, is a mini-revolution. That is its legal context. Make that #75.
Your scenarios seem to presume that if he is acting illegally, he is not acting is his official duties. But the combination of Pin official duties" and "illegal" is possible, although adjudicated in hindsight. The question becomes whether or not a homeowner can raise the affirmative defense provided by the statutory castle doctrine if the police, in their duties, acted illegally. The Indiana Supreme Court says "No."
The state of the law in Indiana, courtesy of the Indiana Supreme Court, is that if a police officer is acting illegally, in his official duty, a homeowner may not offer resistance.
This is a judicially created carve-out to the statutory castle doctrine in Indiana.
b) A person:
(1) is justified in using reasonable force, including deadly force, against another person; and
(2) does not have a duty to retreat; if the person reasonably believes that the force is necessary to prevent or terminate the other person's unlawful entry of or attack on the person's dwelling, curtilage, or occupied motor vehicle.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.