Skip to comments.(IN State) Supreme Court Reaffirms Ruling In Officer Resistance Case
Posted on 09/20/2011 12:41:36 PM PDT by FunkyZero
INDIANAPOLIS -- The Indiana Supreme Court on Tuesday reaffirmed its earlier ruling in a controversial case involving unlawful police entry. The court granted a rehearing, then supplied a five-page opinion on its May 12 opinion that declared that Hoosiers no longer had a legal right to resist police officers who enter their home without a legal basis to do so.
(Excerpt) Read more at theindychannel.com ...
They just outlawed the “Declaration of Independence”.
In addition to absolutely guaranteeing the deaths of a few cops and even more pissed off citizens.
81% disagree with the ruling
19% agree with the ruling
Gimme a break; enter at your own peril, whoever you are.
I bet every home invasion perp in the state is heading to the costume shop to get a police uniform and fake badge...
you can’t protect anyone’s rights by infringing on everyone’s rights.
sounds like an overly broad, idiotic ruling.
Once they make an unlawful entry, they are mere thugs not police. People need to wake up.
Ever since his appointment, Chief Justice Randall Shepard has been pushing for centralization of all judicial power in the central organs of State Court Administration, which of course Shepard controls. On the way there, he has uniformly written opinions in favor of the power of the state over the rights of the individual. While he didn’t write this opinion, he certainly concurred in it.
He’s just the sort of judge Stalin was looking for to conduct his show trials.
It’s time for the Legislature to get into action then. This is too important to not be ‘clarified’.
Of course knowing the legislature they will wait until a horrible incident occurs and then call it XXXXXXXXX’s law.
I see dead people.
Let these so-called “justices” be subject to the death sentence for all of the bloody murders that will ensue on both sides of the thin, blue line.
“sounds like an overly broad, idiotic ruling.”
I’d say it was a wrong ruling. They should have been questioning whether or not the woman who called 911 was in fact giving them permission to enter the premises and whether or not she was doing so legally. If she gave them permission, does that trump the man who tried to prevent them from entering? Was she legally able to do so or not? Not enough clarity on this point AT ALL and the half assed ruling doesn’t help.
for your ping list, sir
I don't think that is the question. In the event of an illegal entry into my home, I would assume it was not the police (I wouldn't have to pretend, I would really believe they were not cops), and I would respond appropriately to an illegal entry by armed criminals. And, yes, I am willing to shoot an armed criminal who breaks into my home. Sadly, if it really is the police, I suspect that will end badly for me and possibly for a few cops.
Mark my word: this reckless ruling will be “clarified” one way or another; by Law or by lead.
Stack the bodies on the steps of the State Supreme Court, and indict the judges as accomplices.
Did you read the decision?
I hate to say it, but I agree with the Supreme Court on this one. The defendant's wife called 911 because her husband was allegedly beating her. The husband refused to allow the police entry but his wife had granted them permission by calling 911.
The police had every right to enter to protect the wife and the husband had no right to prevent the police from entering under those circumstances.
The castle doctrine is not applicable to the facts of this case. There was a crime in progress and one of the occupants of the home wanted the police to enter and the alleged perpetrator stood in the way.
At least one of the justices (David, I believe) is up for a retention vote in 2012. Will Hoosiers vent all of their frustration on internet chat rooms or will they organize as necessary to toss Justice David off the bench?
I read the decision, and based on he facts of this particular case, I don’t really disagree with he decision.
To repeat, based on the particular facts of this case,...
His domestic partner called 911 to make a report, and I can easily contrue that to be an invitation to enter the residence. This is not a case of a search without a warrant where any resident can object to search.
I think the court was very clear that this decision was based on a very narrow set of facts.
Before anyone thinks I am pro-cops, I am totally suspicious of cops, DA and judges based on personal experiences.