Indiana Supreme Court rules no right to resist unlawful police entry into homes.

JackJack Regular
edited May 2011 in Spurious Generalities
http://www.nwitimes.com/news/local/govt-and-politics/article_ec169697-a19e-525f-a532-81b3df229697.html
INDIANAPOLIS | Overturning a common law dating back to the English Magna Carta of 1215, the Indiana Supreme Court ruled Thursday that Hoosiers have no right to resist unlawful police entry into their homes.

In a 3-2 decision, Justice Steven David writing for the court said if a police officer wants to enter a home for any reason or no reason at all, a homeowner cannot do anything to block the officer's entry.

It's real guys. :(

http://www.in.gov/judiciary/opinions/pdf/05121101shd.pdf found at http://www.in.gov/judiciary/opinions/supreme.html
A jury convicted Richard Barnes of Class A misdemeanor battery on a law enforcement officer, Class A misdemeanor resisting law enforcement, and Class B misdemeanor disorderly conduct. Barnes contests that the trial court's failure to advise the jury on the right to reasonably resist unlawful entry by police officers constituted reversible error and that the evidence was insufficient to sustain his convictions. We hold that there is no right to reasonably resist unlawful entry by police officers. We further hold that the evidence was sufficient and affirm Barnes's convictions.

If you read the story in the case, you may note that the police may well have had reason to enter etc. I don't really care about that and it's not the point. The point is this:
We believe however that a right to resist an unlawful police entry into a home is against public policy and is incompatible with modern Fourth Amendment jurisprudence. Nowadays, an aggrieved arrestee has means available at common law for redress of against unlawful police action. E.g., Warner, supra, at 330 (citing the dangers of arrest at common law -- indefinite detention, lack of bail, disease-infected prisons, physical torture -- as reasons for recognizing the right to resist); State v. Hobson, 557 N.W.2d 825, 835-36 (Wis. 1998) (citing the following modern developments: (1) bail, (2) prompt arraignment and determination of probable cause, (3) the exclusionary rule, (4) police department internal review and disciplinary procedure, and (5) civil remedies).

Great! So if the police illegally enter my home and I resist they can beat and electrocute me, but it's all right because after they kidnap me for a while, I'll get to pay them to get out, they'll be quick about making something up to charge me with, they might not be able to use some evidence, there's the possibility of internal review (what a joke!) and I might get to sue them after. Well that's just fine and dandy then.

Screw you guys, I'm going to Iceland. Enjoy your police state.

Comments

  • MasturbatronMasturbatron Regular
    edited May 2011
    Good. Let them make their fucking laws until the people are sick of it.
  • proudclod9proudclod9 Regular
    edited May 2011
    So basically...a cop can go into your house(unlawfully), beat you to death and get away with it by saying : "He was resisting."

    :fap:
  • SpiffSpiff Regular
    edited May 2011
    proudclod9 wrote: »
    So basically...a cop can go into your house(unlawfully), beat you to death and get away with it by saying : "He was resisting."

    :fap:

    Pretty much.
Sign In or Register to comment.