No right to resist entry by LEOs

[jsharmon7]

I think some folks are crossing the line with their comments. I'm gonna go ahead and get out of Dodge for a while before it goes any further. Hopefully Scutter will be along to clean some of this up.

 

[Scutter01]

I think some folks are crossing the line with their comments. I'm gonna go ahead and get out of Dodge for a while before it goes any further. Hopefully Scutter will be along to clean some of this up.

After discussion with the rest of the staff, two of INGO's number are no longer with us. We are not kidding when we say that personal threats against elected officials and threats of rebellion will absolutely not be tolerated on INGO. Do not test us in this matter.

 

[VUPDblue]

^^ what Scutter said. I advise anyone and everyone on this site to heed his warning.

 

[lovemachine]

I read thru the thread. Gave me a headache. This stuff is WAY over my head.

 

[ViperJock]

On a strictly lawful basis, what is the best way to overturn this ruling? I apologize if it has been discussed already, I read several pages of comments that were rightly upset but did not offer any guidance such as I am looking for and admittedly, I skipped to the end.

Legal eagles out there, what do we do to fight this thing legally?

 

[T.Lex]

Uh... as the original poster.... about all I can say is... "Oops."

Yikes, this thread went way ugly.

In terms of a lawful public reaction, it comes down to the democratic process, in 2 forms. (This is IMHO, of course.) These are not mutually exclusive.

1) Write your legislators. Laws can be crafted, then compromised, to try to accomplish what a majority of legislators think they can vote for without getting un-elected.

2) Start a PAC, watch for another case that might come up through the appellate process, then pay an attorney to write an amicus brief to try to convince a majority of justices to limit the holding.

As for the other stuff, every person draws their own lines about the extent they want to follow the rules. An ounce of prevention is worth an ammo can of cure. IOW, if you don't want to risk unlawful law enforcement interactions, do your best not to draw the attention of law enforcement.

Just IMHO, naturally.

 

[Expat]

After discussion with the rest of the staff, two of INGO's number are no longer with us. We are not kidding when we say that personal threats against elected officials and threats of rebellion will absolutely not be tolerated on INGO. Do not test us in this matter.

temp or perm?

 

[Scutter01]

temp or perm?

Does it matter? How many last chances should we give? How many more warnings before we take action?

 

[ViperJock]

As for the other stuff, every person draws their own lines about the extent they want to follow the rules. An ounce of prevention is worth an ammo can of cure. IOW, if you don't want to risk unlawful law enforcement interactions, do your best not to draw the attention of law enforcement.

Just IMHO, naturally.

Thanks for the whole response. I chose this section to comment on though. I absolutely agree. The problem I see with this is the slippery slope. It is how they start sliding things in by saying "If you are obeying the law, you don't have to worry..." THEN the law starts to include things that make regular law abiding people into criminals for political views, religious convictions, arguments with a person who has political connections.... All of a sudden what seemed like a good idea to help keep our good LEOs safe from bad guys and help them do their job turns into a way to keep the citizens in line.

 

[youngda9]

^^ Like Germany in the late 1930's. (It wasn't that long ago)

 

[Kirk Freeman]

IOW, if you don't want to risk unlawful law enforcement interactions, do your best not to draw the attention of law enforcement.

The problem is, T. Lex, that sometimes we do not draw the attention of law enforcement as they come to us.

I was obeying the law and minding my own business when I was spit upon, yelled at and had a pistol pointed at me in Broad Ripple.

There are plenty of examples of people not drawing the attention of law enforcement who have their heads caved in, shot or have their doors shot off hinges because of law enforcement mistakes.

Besides, why is the burden on us? Should not be the burden be on law enforcement to have in a lawful manner?

I agree as to the remedy. Let us back legislation that codifies a right to resist law enforcement when they are acting in an unlawful manner.

 

[eldirector]

IOW, if you don't want to risk unlawful law enforcement interactions, do your best not to draw the attention of law enforcement.

I'm not too worried about MY behavior. With reports of SWAT kicking in doors at the wrong address, I guess I now need to worry about everyone around me?

Seriously, I can't imagine too many reasons why LE would need to visit my house in a professional capacity. BUT, since both my GPS and Google Maps show my address is actually a few houses down the street, and there is another street in Brownsburg with the same name (we get their mail sometimes), how do I avoid this entirely?

 

[Dogman]

With this court ruling the people of Indiana have no place to say anything negative about other states. At least the American citizens of 49 other states have a right to be safe in their homes from illegal entry by anyone.
May as well dump all those HD weapons in the lake for all the good they'll do.

Wonder how long it will be before we hear about home invasion by police impersonators?

 

[hooky]

Front page of the Anderson paper today.

Does anyone remember John Leaf or Deputy Ronald Shelnutt ?

Deputy Ronald Shelnutt

They made a mistake and it only cost taxpayers 950,000.

And it cost John his life...

 

[Scutter01]

Wonder how long it will be before we hear about home invasion by police impersonators?

It's apparently already happening.

2nd home invasion in three days - southbendtribune.com

 

[Kirk Freeman]

At least the American citizens of 49 other states have a right to be safe in their homes from illegal entry by anyone.

No, they do not. Many states abolished the right to resist by legislation or judicial opinion.

 

[ckcollins2003]

Wonder how long it will be before we hear about home invasion by police impersonators?

Already 2 incidents since the ruling was approved... which is why I say defend yourself if you aren't doing anything illegal. Even if they yell "POLICE!" it could still be the same criminals that have broken into people's houses and robbed them at gun point.

At some point you would have thought this happening would have crossed the minds of the "oh so smart" politicians that allowed this ruling to pass, but, then again, (I'm anti-politician here in the state of Indiana) I also thought we'd elect people with somewhat of an I.Q. level higher than a dust mop.

 

[Dogman]

No, they do not. Many states abolished the right to resist by legislation or judicial opinion.

Isn't it that they have to retreat if they can? If not people can defend themselves instead of being murdered?

 

[Kirk Freeman]

Dog, different railroad track. I believe you are thinking of the "duty to retreat" prior to using deadly force in self-defense.

Re-read the opinion, Justice David references the other states which have abolished the right of resistance by law or judge.

 

[henktermaat]

It's apparently already happening.

2nd home invasion in three days - southbendtribune.com

Well damn

I know what to do if I ever decide to turn to a life of crime.