[Cboldt]

-- Excuse me, but you should actually read the case. --

I did, back then. The only reason the Indiana Supreme Court reheard the case, was to address the fact that it hadn't mentioned the effect of its ruling on the statutory provision.

-- The defendant did not raise a statutory defense because the statute was clearly inapposite to the facts of this case. --

That's a different discussion from your assertion that there was NO statutory provision when the Barnes decision was first handed down.

By striking the common law right, but not discussion the statutory right, the original Barnes decision left a question about the statutory right.

[Mr. Lucky]

Barnes didn't assert a statutory right because the statute clearly didn't apply to him IC 35-41-3-2 (e) provides that the use of force is not justified when "the person has entered into combat with another person or is the initial aggressor...". Barnes did not dispute that he was the initial aggressor.

Unlike the self defense statute, the common law right to repel an illegal arrest doesn't prohibit the individual from initiating the violence. That is the right asserted by Barnes, that is the right the Supreme Court decided in the May 12, 2011, case that it would no longer recognize and that is the right the State Legislature has restored.