Replies

In this case, the entry was legal. End of discussion,

I have done a lot of appellate law and one of the primary things you have to do in appellate law is to make sure that you don't make bad law. The last thing you want to do is to have your name or your client's name attached to some ruling that will hurt your client's interests or your own reputation.

Here this idiot's lawyer decided to take this silly jury instruction issue to the Supreme Court and as a result he has made some bad law, or at least made the law worse than it was.

I think the ultimate effect of the ruling will be minimal. You have to batter a police officer as he enters your home before this will have any effect. Your Castle doctrine defense will still be available but you will not only have to prove that the entry was illegal, but that the police were acting in either a criminal manner or outside the scope of their duties as police officers. It's an extra hurdle, but in the end it is no big deal. Anyone who batters a police officer (whether they have a right to do so or not) is an idiot unless their life is in imminent danger. This defendant was clearly an idiot. His attorney was an idiot. A pox on both their houses.

The idiot Indiana Supreme Court made a ruling about castle doctrine, and not one time in the ruling, did they mention the castle doctrine statute, and you call the defendant an idiot?

-- I think the ultimate effect of the ruling will be minimal. --

Yes, it only affects people who resist unlawful entry by the police. They can't justify any resistance to the unlawful entry, as a matter of law.

-- Your Castle doctrine defense will still be available --

Did you read the opinion?

Because we decline to recognize the right to reasonably resist an unlawful police entry, we need not decide the legality of the officers' entry into Barnesas apartment.

-- Your Castle doctrine defense will still be available but you will not only have to prove that the entry was illegal, but that the police were acting in either a criminal manner or outside the scope of their duties as police officers. --

Being impolite about it, I think you are just making shit up.

There is nothing in either the original opinion, or in the rehearing, that has a conditional grant of the affirmative defense if "the police were acting in either a criminal manner or outside the scope of their duties as police officers."

-- Anyone who batters a police officer (whether they have a right to do so or not) is an idiot unless their life is in imminent danger. --

It doesn't take much in the way of resistance to commit a "resisting" charge. Pushing the door closed, if you have superior force, is probably enough to get the charge. You know, there really are idiot police officers, and sometimes they act illegally.

-- This defendant was clearly an idiot. --

I agree with that.

-- His attorney was an idiot. --

Many vigorous defenses end up looking like idiots, in my opinion.

How could this attorney predict the Court would go off the reservation?

Regarding your correct comment on “bad law,” I wish some here would stop for a moment and think what they are advocating.

They want the right to resist any entry they deem illegal. So what are the SWAT cops going to do when such a person displays a firearm or shoots at them? The SWAT team is going to kill them. And even if the search was improper, they will still be quite dead.

Their might be a large civil award to the survivors, or their might not be, but the homeowner is still very dead.

Be well.