Replies

This is part of story reporter chose to ignore.

Man and woman got into physical fight. She called 911. He was on lawn when cops arrived.

To run away from cops, he ran into house, baricaded door, told cops they could not come in.

Wife, also inside asked them to come in to protect her.

Cops entered.

He started fight, hit cops.

DEF sought to have case throw out on two grounds, Entry was illegal, and if entry was illegal, he had right to physically resist.

Courts said no on both counts. Entry/search was legal for a number of reasons; wife’s request, prevent further violence, fleeing suspect, etc.

Secondly, even if entry had been illegal, the husband’s redress is through the courts, not with his fists.

Your fleshing out of the story is appreciated. Under such circumstances, I’d bust through the door and try to plant dude beneath it as I did. This represents the type of “exigent circumstances” I referred to in my previous post. In domestic violence situations, we are required (as in we have no leniency in our decision making) to make an arrest if we can determine the primary aggressor. In this situation, this guy was not an innocent citizen whose rights were violated but a fleeing suspect who had assaulted his wife/girlfriend/significant other.
Now to all you LEO detractors, if it were you who were just assaulted, and you were locked inside your home with the person who’d assaulted you, would you rather the police enter your home without a warrant or wait until we could convince some liberal hack judge that we needed a warrant to come in and save you?

This is part of story reporter chose to ignore.

Man and woman got into physical fight. She called 911. He was on lawn when cops arrived.

I have not read about a physical fight. I read she called 911 after husband threw her cell phone (while in an argument). He was leaving the apartment when the police arrived. She had told them she had not been physically harmed over the phone.

To run away from cops, he ran into house, baricaded door, told cops they could not come in. Wife, also inside asked them to come in to protect her.

That's not what the articles say. The story presented said she went back inside the apartment and so did husband. He refused them entry verbally and blocked the doorway. The wife did not ask them in; she told her husband not to "do this" and to "just let them in"......not the police officers.

Cops entered. He started fight, hit cops.

Again, that's not what has been written. He blocked the doorway. The police officer had to have "started the fight" by, I'm assuming, pushing against him.....otherwise, how would the police officer have entered? He did not hit the cops. Barnes (the husband) shoved a police officer against the wall. After struggling with the police officers, they put him in a choke hold and tasered him. He had to be taken to the hospital because of being tasered.

DEF sought to have case throw out on two grounds, Entry was illegal, and if entry was illegal, he had right to physically resist. Courts said no on both counts. Entry/search was legal for a number of reasons; wife’s request, prevent further violence, fleeing suspect, etc.

The wife never invited them in. There had been no physical violence except for the cell phone being thrown, he was not fleeing. In fact, he was leaving the apartment before the police officers arrived. They said he didn't have the right to "yell" in the parking lot.

Secondly, even if entry had been illegal, the husband’s redress is through the courts, not with his fists.

This case came about because his defense attorney wanted the jury to be instructed that his client had the right to reasonably resist the police from making a warantless entry. The judge in that case denied the jury instruction. The Indiana Court of Appeals ruled it an error for the trial court to deny that instruction and ordered a new trial. The Indiana Supreme Court (what we are discussing in this thread) reversed this ruling.

This is a VERY disturbing ruling, IMO. Oh, by the way, this same court decided LE officers don't even need to get a "no-knock" warrant issued when serving a warrant. OUR VIEW: The Knock on no-knock warrants