No right to resist entry by LEOs

[henktermaat]

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.

Yep. This crossed my mind the very instant I heard about the ruling.

Indiana, you voted retards into the courts and now you're paying for it.

 

[T.Lex]

All this is, of course, IMHO.

Police-impersonators/Wrong-Address SWAT type event: I believe that (and I may have mentioned this up-thread), if I am ever in that nightmare scenario where there is a sudden group of men coming in my door in the middle of the night, there are going to be shots fired, hopefully at least some of them by me. That's just the reality.

And, that really gets back to the opinion I posted. That guy was an idiot and deserved what he got. I certainly don't anticipate being that stupid. The opinion deserves to be limited, though, to those situations where the officer on the scene is already at the point of having at least reasonable suspicion, or ideally probable cause.

But, there are other strategies available. Get to know the LEOs that would most likely be directed to visit you. Even in larger urban areas, your house probably sits within a district or beat that has either regular officers or a rotation of several officers. Get to know them. Make sure - in a friendly way - that they know you and know where you live. First - it can't hurt. Police are people, too. Second - if they ever get a warrant for someone at your address that isn't you, they'll at least have reason to pause and question it. Give them a reason to ask their supervisor, "Hey, are you sure this is the address?"

I dunno. I certainly cringe whenever I read of those wrong-address situations - both for the officers and the homeowners.

 

[lovemachine]

Police are people, too.

It's obvious you've never meant INGO cop frankenstien.

 

[under32hurts]

Justice Steven David said this is to reduce the violence towards both LEOs and citizens....Don't they think just "entering a home" might actually INCREASE the likelihood of injuries to LEOS??? The public in general will not know this new law and IMHO this will cause a lot of misunderstandings in the public relations of LEOs at large.

 

[under32hurts]

This decision basically says to accept what is happening, and if it was a mistake, make use of the civil courts.

The Civil court won't work because the police DID NOTHING OUTSIDE THE LAW!!! We will have no leg to stand on...

 

[T.Lex]

In the case in the opinion - true. Dude wouldn't have much of a case.

But, in the case of mistaken-identity/wrong-address, well... it is more complicated than that. The majority of the court figures the better place to deal with those issues is in court.

 

[Jake46184]

In the case in the opinion - true. Dude wouldn't have much of a case.

But, in the case of mistaken-identity/wrong-address, well... it is more complicated than that. The majority of the court figures the better place to deal with those issues is in court.

Correct on both. In the case of Barnes, I don't think anyone can reasonably argue that it wasn't prudent for the LEO to enter. The 2 justices who dissented on the overall Court decision agreed that, in Barnes, it was proper.

There are many who post on these gun forums (this is rabid on all of them) who probably were not the valetictorian of their senior class. They live a simple life and have a simple understanding of the law. They live in a world of Clint Eastwood movies and wishing for better days. It's pretty easy for "pot stirrers" to get them riled.

In reality, this Court decision changed virtually nothing. This is only going to be applicable in cases where an LEO arrives at a private residence w/o a search warrant. All the talk of "wrong addresses", etc., is from the movies. It just doesn't happen in real life. "The cops can't just kick my door in at 2am!!!" No, and they don't want to. Again, too many movies. Raids on meth houses, etc., occur with a warrant. This Court ruling will have no affect on them. It ONLY will apply to those situations where LEO's arrive at a private residence w/o a warrant. Guess what, folks? Virtually 100% of the time, that is a domestic dispute call! When else does LEO's show up at someone's door step w/o a warrant and want entry? It doesn't happen.

Less Clint Eastwood, less unbridled testosterone, more common sense. That's what we need. Your world will be ok. The end is not near because of this ruling. If the bad LEO enters your house and you don't think it was proper, there's a civil (and perhaps criminal) court just waiting to hear from you. That's all the Court said: you do not have the right to resist but you definitely have the right to litigate. It replaces gunfights and bodily injury (battery) with a court room. Frankly, the only ones who will be complaining are the domestic dispute participants. The ones who cause LEO runs in the first place. If you're not part of the problem, relax.

 

[ckcollins2003]

All the talk of "wrong addresses", etc., is from the movies. It just doesn't happen in real life.

You are wrong, sir. The cases of wrong addresses is most certainly a serious issue in real life.

Just not too long ago 2 police officers were killed in Henry County because of a situation where the police were serving a no-knock warrant at the wrong house. The home owner and former United States Marine veteran called 911 and said, "There are people breaking into my home, you'd better get the police here because if they enter I'm going to kill them."

You may not have heard of any cases of this happening but it is more common than what you may think.

While you say this has changed nothing, it most certainly has, otherwise there wouldn't have been 2 cases of robbery already where people have impersonated police officers and continued to bust down a door and rob their victims. If nothing has changed then why is this an issue everywhere you look?

Let's face the facts. If you're a LEO your rights to defend your home against unlawful entry has not changed. If you're a public citizen, you are no longer allowed to resist unlawful entry by a LEO, therefore if someone busts open your door while screaming "POLICE!" you have 2 options.
1. Surrender your rights and home right away, hoping they are in fact the police.
2. Defend your home and family and hope it's not the police.

Now, while even I have stated this ruling could be a good thing in certain cases such as domestic disputes and child abuse/neglect cases, I still don't feel the need we need to surrender our homes just because someone kicks in our door and yells, "POLICE". I have a feeling other people feel the same way, including my mother and father, sister's husband, best friend, uncle, and just about every other citizen I have spoken to.

As for this statement:

If the bad LEO enters your house and you don't think it was proper, there's a civil (and perhaps criminal) court just waiting to hear from you.

You can file a civil charge against him, but with the "no right to resist" ruling, you have no case. Think about it. It is a ruling that states that no matter who the LEO is or what he wants, he has every right to enter your home without warrant or probable cause. There is no civil suit to be filed when they have done nothing wrong.

 

[T.Lex]

In reality, this Court decision changed virtually nothing.

This part, I (respectfully) disagree with.

If nothing were to be changed, then the In. Sup. Ct. wouldn't have needed to opine.

I do agree, in the sense that this is really a single (big) step further than the courts have previously gone. They have been leaning this direction for awhile. I think a smaller step, maybe even a mere shuffle, would have sufficed for this case.

By the by... here is a link to the Appellate Court opinion:
http://www.in.gov/judiciary/opinions/pdf/04151005pdm.pdf

Interestingly, if you add it all up: 3 justices believed there is no right to resist unlawful entry, 3 judges would have left it to a jury, and 2 justices thought it wasn't necessary to decide that particular issue.

This is... difficult... for me to admit...but... I think the Court of Appeals may've gotten it right. (This is particular painful for me, since Mathias wrote it.) But, it kinda gets back to, "Better judged by 12 (or 6) than carried by...." Indiana juries are generally pretty reasonable. Let them figure it out.

I tend to think that they would've backed the officer on this one.

 

[Kirk Freeman]

All the talk of "wrong addresses", etc., is from the movies. It just doesn't happen in real life.

. . . except when they do happen in real life.

While panic and gun board hysteria is not helpful, Jake, there is a legitimate concern over wrong addresses as it does happen.

This is only going to be applicable in cases where an LEO arrives at a private residence w/o a search warrant.

I believe you can read Justice David's decision a little broader than that and that is what has everyone upset. If the Court had held that, there would be considerably less flak.

Raids on meth houses, etc., occur with a warrant. This Court ruling will have no affect on them.

The vast majority may but we've had cases where they do not.

It ONLY will apply to those situations where LEO's arrive at a private residence w/o a warrant. Guess what, folks? Virtually 100% of the time, that is a domestic dispute call!

No, incorrect as to 100%--you are overbroad, just like the Court!

Being from where I am we see po-po arrive at university parties at private residences and then enter into the homes without warrants because they can smell .03 BAC though doors, if only they worked for IMPD and could smell .19!

I've had dope, meth, disorderly conduct, leaving the scene, operating while intoxicated (including attorneys), public intoxication (in a living room), batteries, inter alia cases where police enter into the home without warrant.

The ones who cause LEO runs in the first place. If you're not part of the problem, relax.

Again, it is not necessary to anything to "cause" police/citizen interaction. Again, I was commiting no infraction, no crime, no ordinance violation when I was spit upon, yelled at and had a pistol pointed at me.

It is part of the defense mechanism of denial that people think that the police will not act illegally to them as that person is "one of the good guys". However, most on INGO realize that the police can go feral as I had happen in Broad Ripple, even when we do not "cause" them to approach us.

The best response is to bring back the pre-1976 (before recodification) statutory right of resistance which outlined the right of resistance including the deadly force provision. If Justice David wishes to prevent violence, then he should have no problems with Indiana citizens preventing violence being launched at them.

 

[ckcollins2003]

Here you go Jake, you can keep your Clint Eastwood movies on your boob tube, I'll stick to the real thing.

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/art...oop-wrong-house-40-TIMES-address-blunder.html

http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1971304/posts

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/3592933...s/t/nyc-couple-cops-have-wrong-address-again/

[ame]http://www.liveleak.com/view?i=3af_1195672488[/ame]

 

[Slapstick]

Well this whole topic is getting interesting, Google "Indiana fourth amendment". Apparently this is getting to be the talk of the nation.

 

[mrjarrell]

All the talk of "wrong addresses", etc., is from the movies. It just doesn't happen in real life.

Guess you're going to be one of those posters who, when they're wrong, are supremely wrong. Wrong address raids happen in the real world ALL too frequently. And they often end up with the police shooting someone or killing their animals. I'd suggest you actually do some research on the matter, but I doubt you would.

Police Confront Broward Judge at Gunpoint | NBC Miami

Bungling cops raid wrong home... for 41st time - mirror.co.uk

DC Police Execute Drug Raid on Wrong Home; 86-Year-Old Man Suffers Injuries

Limestone County man shot in search warrant mix-up gets $500,000 legal settlement | al.com

DA Issues Report on the Eurie Stamps Raid: Cop Who Killed Unarmed, 68-Year-Man Tripped, Accidentally Fired His Gun | The Agitator

Police Raid Roundup - Hit & Run : Reason Magazine

Computer snafu is behind at least 50 'raids' on Brooklyn couple's home - New York Daily News

Cop Kills Dog During Raid on Wrong House | NBC Philadelphia

Really Wrong Door Raid | Cato @ Liberty

Two Rutgers students claim excessive force by New Brunswick Police Department | 7online.com

Longview police investigate raid on wrong residence - Longview News-Journal: News

Crime Scene - Settlement in Md. town mayor's lawsuit

Man hospitalized after Minneapolis police raid | StarTribune.com

Mucky Duck Probe | MontereyCountyWeekly.com

Another Isolated Incident - Hit & Run : Reason Magazine

These links are from a very quick search on police militarisation in the US. If these only happen in the movies then these particular victims of police violence would like to speak with you. If you would like more links just give me a holler.

 

[Kirk Freeman]

Come now, Mr. J., it doesn't happen to people like me so it doesn't ever happen . . . right? I mean, I'm right thinking that, right? I mean if I think good thoughts about the police then they'll be nice to me, right?

 

[TheDude]

Looks like a simple case of resisting law enforcement? Creating more laws and amendments to those laws is how it starts.

 

[mrjarrell]

Looks like one Indiana sheriff is welcoming the decision and has spoken out on it. He'd like to do random house to house searches in his jurisdiction. Says the people would welcome them. Yep. I'm pretty sure they'd be made welcome.

IN Sheriff: If We Need to Conduct RANDOM HOUSE to HOUSE Searches We Will | Today's Lead Story

 

[Expat]

Looks like one Indiana sheriff is welcoming the decision and has spoken out on it. He'd like to do random house to house searches in his jurisdiction. Says the people would welcome them. Yep. I'm pretty sure they'd be made welcome.

IN Sheriff: If We Need to Conduct RANDOM HOUSE to HOUSE Searches We Will | Today's Lead Story

Sounds like a moron.

 

[ckcollins2003]

Looks like one Indiana sheriff is welcoming the decision and has spoken out on it. He'd like to do random house to house searches in his jurisdiction. Says the people would welcome them. Yep. I'm pretty sure they'd be made welcome.

IN Sheriff: If We Need to Conduct RANDOM HOUSE to HOUSE Searches We Will | Today's Lead Story

I'm trying to find the "bend over and take it" smiley... anyone know where that's located?

 

[jeremy]

Looks like one Indiana sheriff is welcoming the decision and has spoken out on it. He'd like to do random house to house searches in his jurisdiction. Says the people would welcome them. Yep. I'm pretty sure they'd be made welcome.

IN Sheriff: If We Need to Conduct RANDOM HOUSE to HOUSE Searches We Will | Today's Lead Story

Just another reason to not move to Newton County to me...

 

[Kirk Freeman]

Raids on meth houses, etc., occur with a warrant. This Court ruling will have no affect on them.

Jake, did you Kentucky v. King just released today? We are right back to the Writs of Assistance under the British Crown.

Raids on drug houses without warrants happen all the time. Police show up and create an excuse to enter without a warrant. "I heard a gun being cocked", "the dog told me he heard something emergency-ey", "I heard dope being flushed", "I used my Jedi powers to see beyond the walls", etc.

Here's King: http://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/10pdf/09-1272.pdf

Now the police want to go door to door, kicking in doors, tossing the place (but not YOUR place, of course) and see what they find. And, thanks to Mitch Daniels' prize appointment, Justice David, we have to smile and take it.

Well, I'm not smiling and I'm not taking it. However, no reason to go nuts, let's get organized and get even.

Let's vote against Justice David and vow to pass a statutory right of resistance just as Indiana had before recodification.