>I guess you didn’t read the Supreme Court’s opinion. The SC said that if the officer is acting in his official duties, then the Castle Doctrine is not a defense to battery.
>If he is off duty or doing something illegally, then he would not be acting in his official duties and you can shoot him (if the circumstances permit).
That’s certainly NOT what the original opinion said, it said: “we hold that Indiana [sic] the right to reasonably resist an unlawful police entry into a home is no longer recognized under Indiana law.”
That means even if he is off-duty, or acting in a blatantly illegal manner, that the court will not recognize your right to resist.
They are saying that a police officer can now bust down your door and rape your wife in front of your very eyes and YOU CANNOT LEGALLY RESIST HIM. Period.
This is the inescapable conclusion of the declaration that they made that “THE RIGHT TO REASONABLY RESIST AN UNLAWFUL POLICE ENTRY INTO A HOME IS NO LONGER RECOGNIZED UNDER INDIANA LAW.”
The question of whether or not the entry is "legal" is, in fact irrelevant as long as the police are acting in their official capacity. The Supreme Court clearly made the distinction that as long as the police are acting in their "official capacity", the homeowner does not have the defense of the Castle Doctrine to any battery upon a police officer. However if the police officer is NOT acting in his official capacity, then the homeowner is entitled to use the Castle Doctrine to protect his home.
The key element (which you seem intent upon ignoring) is that the police must be acting in their official capacity in order to override the castle doctrine.
I do believe you will find this to be the case in 50 out of 50 states. I doubt very seriously if there is a court in America that would give a homeowner or occupant the right to violently resist police officers who are acting in their official capacity even if it is later determined that the entry was not legal.
Can you show me a single jurisdiction that allows homeowners to batter police officers simply because their warrants are later determined to be improper or their entry was deemed invalid as not being valid exigent circumstances?
Entry and search are one thing. Rape is another.
Please, do not post such stupidity. It makes us all look bad, not just you.
No, only half of that is true. In the court's holding, "unlawful police entry" does not include an off-duty action. It does, however, as you posit, cover blatantly illegal actions conducted while on duty.