Only that you don't justify their action in that particular instance; I gave you another incident and you justified, unlawful search & trespass.
>>you aren't intelligent enough to discuss constitutional matter
>
>I've been trying, but you keep running away.
I've not: you've been moving goalposts. -- I gave you the lawful justification my mother could have used to drive off the officer and you want case law.
Precedent *spit* -- is nothing more than the Judiciary playing the children's game 'telephone' with your legally recognized rights. Do you want proof? Here.
Summary:
The IN State supreme court declared that the State no longer recognized the right to resist unlawful police intrusion. (top of pg. 6)
Despite the state constitution's guarantee of security from unwarranted search & sieziure and bearing arms in one's own defense despite being unable to alter the constitution -- that in turn is a violation of federal law (conspiracy against rights) OR, if they are not overturning the State's Constitutional guarantee, they are rejecting the supremacy of the US Constitution, which a State judge is bound by.
That's correct, a particular instance. Unlike you criminal apologists that find the police at fault in every instance.
I gave you the lawful justification my mother could have used to drive off the officer
You go ahead and shoot at a police officer, neighbor kid, delivery person, standing on or crossing your property, and see what happens to you.
The Indiana supreme reheard that case, and didn't back down. So, the Indiana legislature AGAIN passed a statute that recognized the right of the people to resist unlawful force in home entry, no matter who is exerting it. The Indiana Supreme court did not get the last word on that principle, although it endeavored mightily to do so; and can't be trusted to follow the law, in general, based on the original decision with completely overlooked the existing statutory framework.