Your post #8 asserted that the Indiana Supreme Court ignored an Indiana stautue. I pointed out that there was no Indiana statute on point for it to ignore. That the self defense statute was nor available to Barnes was the one thing he, the State and the Supreme Court Agreed on.
No. You said, "There was no statutory provision before the Decision." That's different from saying Barnes didn't assert a statutory right, or the court ruled that the statutory defense was unavailable to Barnes.
Before the decision, there were two places one could find a right to use force to resist unlawful entry. Common law, and Indiana statute. The Barnes decision eliminated ALL right to use force to resist unlawful entry, and in doing so it never mentioned the statutory right. I find that odd, and so did the Indiana legislature.
-- That the self defense statute was nor available to Barnes was the one thing he, the State and the Supreme Court Agreed on. --
There is no remark in the Indiana Supreme Court case that a statutory right existed at all, for anybody. The ruling removed ALL right to assert an affirmative defense for the use of force to resist unlawful entry.
I'll rephrase that then, to the Court invalidated the statute without mentioning it.
Very strange way for a court of law to operate.