She said he tossed her stuff. The cops had every right to make a housecall without a warrant. He had no right to attack the cops.
That's for the court to determine, not a cop. "Her stuff" is a pretty fluid concept when a marriage is dissolving.
He had no more business getting into the middle of it than he would if she was pissed he didn't take out the trash.
Re: “She said he tossed her stuff. The cops had every right to make a housecall without a warrant. He had no right to attack the cops.”
If the police were called, then they DID have probable cause to enter the residence and the occupant therefore had no right to attack them.
“She said he tossed her stuff. The cops had every right to make a housecall without a warrant. He had no right to attack the cops.”
Which is totally irrelevant to how the Legislature responded to the court ruling. The court did not isolate their ruling to this one case saying that the man in question had no right to resist, they went farther and said that no one had a right to resist an illegal action by law enforcement. Apparently both you and the dumb bastards on the Indiana Supreme Court failed to grasp the keener points of the Declaration of Independence.
In short, if a government endorses illegal activity by its agents and then holds itself above the law then that government should and must be overthrown and replaced.
The Legislature acted appropriately to maintain law and order in the face of a statist ruling that threatens the stability of both the State of Indiana and the nation as a whole.
Cops are not above the law and anyone who thinks otherwise is an enemy of the Constitution and overthrowing such people is an act of patriotism.