[Gondring]

Did you read the thing? HERE is what the case was about:

Barnes appealed, challenging the trial court's refusal to give his tendered jury instruction [...]

It was about an irrelevant jury instruction. And because the jury instruction didn't meet the facts of the case, it was legitimately denied.

Whether or not the entry was legal was immaterial to the jury instruction--which is what was at question in the case!

[OneWingedShark]

Did you read the thing?

Yes, I did.
And the language contained therein is the equivalent of "because Mr. Asshole verbally assaulted Officer Dickhead while demonstrating outside the courthouse we find that the citizens of Indiana no longer have the right to petition the government of Indiana."

HERE is what the case was about:
        Barnes appealed, challenging the trial court's refusal to give his tendered jury instruction

This is a direct quote from the decision:
“In sum, we hold that Indiana the right to reasonably resist an unlawful police entry into a home is no longer recognized under Indiana law.”
– It's the VERY FIRST sentence on page 6; FROM THEIR OWN WEBSITE

How the hell does language like that come from the case if it's about jury instruction?
Logically, how?