Scary Ruling: No right to resist unlawful police entry

This is a discussion on Scary Ruling: No right to resist unlawful police entry within the Home (And Away From Home) Defense Discussion forums, part of the Related Topics category; From the Indiana Supreme Court... People have no right to resist if police officers illegally enter their home, the Indiana Supreme Court ruled in a ...

Page 1 of 5 12345 LastLast
Results 1 to 15 of 69
Like Tree25Likes

Thread: Scary Ruling: No right to resist unlawful police entry

  1. #1
    Senior Member Array DaveJay's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2010
    Location
    Northern VA
    Posts
    536

    Scary Ruling: No right to resist unlawful police entry

    From the Indiana Supreme Court...

    People have no right to resist if police officers illegally enter their home, the Indiana Supreme Court ruled in a decision that overturns centuries of common law.

    The court issued its 3-2 ruling on Thursday, contending that allowing residents to resist officers who enter their homes without any right would increase the risk of violent confrontation. If police enter a home illegally, the courts are the proper place to protest it, Justice Steven David said.

    "We believe ... a right to resist an unlawful police entry into a home is against public policy and is incompatible with modern Fourth Amendment jurisprudence," David said. "We also find that allowing resistance unnecessarily escalates the level of violence and therefore the risk of injuries to all parties involved without preventing the arrest."
    UPDATE: Indiana Supreme Court: No right to resist unlawful police entry | PDF » Evansville Courier & Press

    VCDL Member
    "Let us speak courteously, deal fairly, and keep ourselves armed and ready."
    Theodore Roosevelt

  2. Remove Ads

  3. #2
    Member Array ROFL SQUAD's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2008
    Location
    , Location, Location.
    Posts
    473
    You beat me to it. I just had this emailed to me.

    A lot of things are amiss in this country right now, but this one is unimaginable.



    Edit: This is the link I was going to post http://www.nwitimes.com/news/local/g...3df229697.html
    If you're going to carry one weapon, might as well carry two, because as the saying goes, "Two is one, and one is none."

    "Liberals can decline or whine, but I will still carry and conceal mine." - Cold Warrior. Excellent quote good sir!

  4. #3
    Member Array Cattus Vir's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2011
    Location
    Granville County NC
    Posts
    439
    Good thing there is a delete button on this computer. My first reaction would have had me banned from the forum, my second was after reading the article. While I disagree with the idea overall I can see the need for THAT ONE CASE are cases that involve D.V. In that instantace it's makes sense to me but they left it to wide open for the ruling to be abused

  5. #4
    Senior Member Array justherenow's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2008
    Location
    Ohio
    Posts
    1,112
    One step closer to living in a police state. It just goes with the trend, rulings in favor of the police, some of whom will use these rulings to violate our rights and the law. But the court rules this way for officer safety, forget about citizen safety to be secure in their possessions and more.

    Sent from my EVO via Tapatalk pro.
    oneshot likes this.
    --------------------------
    Gen 4 Glock 32 .357sig and SW M&P 15/22
    Ohio CHL since 1/29/2009
    PA Non-Res 10/12/2010

    Those who trade liberty for security have neither. ~John Adams

  6. #5
    VIP Member Array zacii's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2009
    Location
    arizona
    Posts
    3,749
    They just made it illegal to defend yourself from an illegal act.

    Kind of a slap in the face to the principle of the right to keep and bear arms

    Sent from my phone
    Trust in God and keep your powder dry

    "A heavily armed citizenry is not about overthrowing the government; it is about preventing the government from overthrowing liberty. A people stripped of their right of self defense is defenseless against their own government." -source

  7. #6
    Senior Member Array justherenow's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2008
    Location
    Ohio
    Posts
    1,112
    Quote Originally Posted by zacii View Post
    They just made it illegal to defend yourself from an illegal act.

    Kind of a slap in the face to the principle of the right to keep and bear arms

    Sent from my phone
    Yep, Michigan assaults the 1st amendment, lots of places the second, Indiana the 4th. Let's just destroy that paper our country was founded on.


    Sent from my EVO via Tapatalk pro.
    --------------------------
    Gen 4 Glock 32 .357sig and SW M&P 15/22
    Ohio CHL since 1/29/2009
    PA Non-Res 10/12/2010

    Those who trade liberty for security have neither. ~John Adams

  8. #7
    VIP Member Array dukalmighty's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2008
    Location
    texas
    Posts
    15,177
    If I have done nothing Illegal to warrant a Police Raid on my home,and we have several home Invasions by BG's down here posing as Cops,I will assume you are not LEO's acting in a legal capacity.All that ruling did was give Cops a way out when they screw up and raid the wrong house and in the case of the homeowner basically says,if your house is being invaded and somebody yells Police whether they are Cops or not you better not resist.
    "Outside of the killings, Washington has one of the lowest crime rates in the country,"
    --Mayor Marion Barry, Washington , DC .

  9. #8
    Distinguished Member Array ErnieNWillis's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2009
    Location
    Willis, TX
    Posts
    1,226
    I'd like to get some opinions from our esteemed LEO members.

  10. #9
    VIP Member
    Array oneshot's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2009
    Location
    +42.893612,-082.710236 , Mi.
    Posts
    7,935
    Why did I click on this thread??

    From the article

    “We believe … a right to resist an unlawful police entry into a home is against public policy and is incompatible with modern Fourth Amendment jurisprudence,” David said. “We also find that allowing resistance unnecessarily escalates the level of violence and therefore the risk of injuries to all parties involved without preventing the arrest.”

    What is Justice David's definition of "modern Fourth Amendment jurisprudence?
    BOHICA? Bend Over Here It Comes Again
    Welcome to the NWO



    From article

    Vanderburgh County Prosecutor Nick Hermann said the ruling brings Indiana up to date with what is already recognized in many other states.

    What a Liberal, Police state advocate flunky.
    "Wrong is wrong, even if everybody is doing it. Right is right, even if nobody is doing it."
    St. Augustine



    From article

    Justices Robert Rucker and Brent Dickson strongly dissented with Friday’s ruling, saying it runs afoul of the U.S. Constitution’s Fourth Amendment against unreasonable search and seizure, The Times of Munster reported.

    Good Lord and Sweet Baby Jesus, theres still a wee bit of common sense, and aknowledgement of the law as its written
    and not how its percieved by some dumbell who obviously recieved his law degree out of a Crackerjack box.


    Come to think of it, I did once find a law degree certificate in a Crackerjack box, but thought, naw, no way this would work. Guess I was wrong.



    *"Political correctness is a doctrine, fostered by a delusional,
    illogical minority, and rabidly promoted by an unscrupulous mainstream
    media, which holds forth the proposition that it is entirely possible to pick up a turd by the clean end**.**" Author Undetermined
    TVJ likes this.
    If you want to make God laugh, tell him your plans.

    Washington didn't use his freedom of speech to defeat the British, He shot them!

    Politics is the art of looking for trouble, finding it whether it exists or not, diagnosing it incorrectly, and applying the wrong remedy." -- Ernest Benn

  11. #10
    Administrator
    Array SIXTO's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2006
    Location
    Ohio
    Posts
    19,669
    Quote Originally Posted by ErnieNWillis View Post
    I'd like to get some opinions from our esteemed LEO members.
    OK, here I go...

    First, just what was lost here? When did you ever have the right to resist arrest? Never. When did you ever have the right to decide what was legal and what was not? Never. When was it ever a wise move to challenge an officer curbside? Never.
    Do you know how many drug dealers doors I've kicked in who claimed my search warrant was fake or based on "trumped" up charges? Just about all of them. So, as I read it, its not about having the right to resist, its about choosing the proper venue to make your stand or complaint.
    morintp and kb2wji like this.
    "Just blame Sixto"

  12. #11
    VIP Member Array dukalmighty's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2008
    Location
    texas
    Posts
    15,177
    Quote Originally Posted by SIXTO View Post
    OK, here I go...

    First, just what was lost here? When did you ever have the right to resist arrest? Never. When did you ever have the right to decide what was legal and what was not? Never. When was it ever a wise move to challenge an officer curbside? Never.
    Do you know how many drug dealers doors I've kicked in who claimed my search warrant was fake or based on "trumped" up charges? Just about all of them. So, as I read it, its not about having the right to resist, its about choosing the proper venue to make your stand or complaint.
    Like I said If I am not engaged in Illegal activity,and down here somebody kicks my door yelling police,they are gonna meet armed resistance,There are way too many home invasions by thugs dressed up like Cops,until you live in a border state you have no idea the crap that goes on,they actually arrest local and state LEO's for providing escorts for drug shipments,corruption is unbelievable.Fake home invasions are so bad that the Hidalgo County Sheriff was gonna teach homeowners how to protect themselves from a home invasion.Most of them are actually gangs ripping off drug or money stash houses,but there are enough targeting wealthy people for cash jewels and even kidnappings...yup kidnap the guy and take them to Mexico until the family pays the ransom or they never see them again.

    On the other hand if I know they are real LEO's ,duty uniforms,marked Police cars,flashing lights,I'm gonna comply and find out why I'm being targeted.
    "Outside of the killings, Washington has one of the lowest crime rates in the country,"
    --Mayor Marion Barry, Washington , DC .

  13. #12
    Distinguished Member Array morintp's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2007
    Location
    Vermont
    Posts
    1,233
    I'm with Sixto on this. As much as it would suck to be on the wrong end of mistaken police raid, think how much more it would suck for you after you kill an officer that was doing his job. Sure they may have had bad information that led to the raid, but that is the system we live in. If we do not want a true police state where the government listens to every conversation and watches everything you do, then we have to live with humans acting on their best information coming from the current sources. Not to mention the fact that everybody seems to have a different opinion of what is legal and what is not. In the end, it is the courts that will decide whether the raid was legal. If you resist a legal raid because you are misinformed, it will only be worse.

    Basically, don't threaten the officers, and live long enough to take them to court for busting down your door. I have no illusions that I would live very long trying to "protect myself" from trained LEO's carrying out a raid. I would just do my best to remember everything that happened and look forward to my payday.

    But that being said, I don't believe that a raid based on poor information should be allowed to be a fishing expedition to look for any other evidence of crime to justify the raid after the fact. That just opens up a can of worms best left closed. Then we would truly be in a police state because they could bust down any door they want and then look for justification.
    64,999,987 firearms owners killed no one yesterday.

  14. #13
    Administrator
    Array SIXTO's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2006
    Location
    Ohio
    Posts
    19,669
    Quote Originally Posted by dukalmighty View Post
    If I have done nothing Illegal to warrant a Police Raid on my home,and we have several home Invasions by BG's down here posing as Cops,I will assume you are not LEO's acting in a legal capacity.All that ruling did was give Cops a way out when they screw up and raid the wrong house and in the case of the homeowner basically says,if your house is being invaded and somebody yells Police whether they are Cops or not you better not resist.
    So, if you were a criminal, you'd simply allow the police in with no resistance?

    There is a key difference in the topics here. You are talking about criminals conducting home invasions, but the topic at hand here is LEO's acting in official capacity. However, I get what you are saying, and have no issue with it. I can only say that if you choose to challenge a real raid team, it will always end badly for you. I guess you just need decide what is best for you.
    "Just blame Sixto"

  15. #14
    Member Array Bhamrichard's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2010
    Location
    Birmingham, AL.
    Posts
    234
    Quote Originally Posted by SIXTO View Post
    First, just what was lost here? When did you ever have the right to resist arrest? Never. When did you ever have the right to decide what was legal and what was not? Never.
    What was lost? Apparently the entire 4th Amendment went flying out the window, specifically "The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized." Apparently the Indiana Supreme Court has decided that this Amendment no longer applies to persons residing in that state, and that you really DON'T have the right to be secure against unreasonable searches. They further went on to say in a nutshell, feeling violated? Sue! Personally if an officer comes a knocking at my door without a warrant, or exigent circumstances, and attempts to bypass me anyway, we're going to have a problem. I woke up in the United States of America this morning, and that means something. I strongly disagree with the courts decision, and their behest to file suit in such cases. Breaking and entering is a CRIMINAL charge, not civil, and the offending officers should be arrested and charged as such like anyone else would be.

    You have always had the right to resist an illegal arrest, ignore an illegal order, stop an illegal entry, but you'd better be correct that it was illegal. Unlawful orders do not have to be obeyed, and IMO should not be just on principal. A blue uniform, shiny badge and too much testosterone does not make the police always right.

    I'm not talking about drug dealers, rapists, etc etc etc. But law abiding persons, who through no fault of their own end up the target of some misguided, overzealous, misinformed, or erroneous police force that think they really need to enter someones home without a warrant, or articulable exigent circumstances.

    My home, my castle, and I'm perfectly within my rights to defend it from all those who would attempt to illegally enter it. The Indiana Supreme Court got this one wrong, and I very sincerely hope SCOTUS gets to set this one straight.

    Oh while I'm ranting... I can see how this goes, some police officer screws up, does the wrong thing, or goes where he/she shouldn't have.. And the homeowner does file suit, first thing the officer is going to do is scream "qualified immunity" at the top of his/her respective lungs. There goes the only recourse offered by the Honorable Justices of Indiana, and the homeowner is still the screwed pooch.

    The poorest man in his cottage, may bid defiance to all the forces of the Crown. It may be frail; its roof may shake; the wind may blow through it; the storms may enter; the rain may enter; but the King of England cannot enter; all his forces dare not cross the threshold of the ruined tenement - William Pitt
    rolyat63, Harryball, TVJ and 1 others like this.
    We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal...

    Alabama Constitution of 1901 - That every citizen has a right to bear arms in defense of himself and the state.

  16. #15
    VIP Member
    Array ksholder's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2010
    Location
    Ohio
    Posts
    3,885
    Quote Originally Posted by SIXTO View Post
    OK, here I go...

    First, just what was lost here? When did you ever have the right to resist arrest? Never. When did you ever have the right to decide what was legal and what was not? Never. When was it ever a wise move to challenge an officer curbside? Never.
    Do you know how many drug dealers doors I've kicked in who claimed my search warrant was fake or based on "trumped" up charges? Just about all of them. So, as I read it, its not about having the right to resist, its about choosing the proper venue to make your stand or complaint.
    There were 2 rulings, the other was about serving warrants and granted the police the option to do no-knock raids when they please. So, what was given up? Try this on for size.

    You are a law abiding citizen, the cops do a no-knock on your house (they got the wrong address) and hearing the commotion, you rightly figure your house is being broken into. Knowing the castle doctrine, you arm up and drop the invaders before they announce they are cops. They are in your house illegally and at that time you feel your life is in danger. You rightly assumed your house was being broken into. You acted under the law as you shot prior to their announcing they were cops. Under this set of rulings, you are going to the chair - assuming you survived the initial break-in.
    It's the Land of Opportunity, not the Land of Entitlements - Vote America!!!

    "When governments fear the people there is liberty. When the people fear the government there is tyranny." Thomas Jefferson

    You are only paranoid until you are right - then you are a visionary.

Page 1 of 5 12345 LastLast

Links

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •  

Search tags for this page

illegal police raid indiana court
,
indiana court ruling on police raids
,

indiana police raids

,

indiana police ruling

,
indiana: people have no right to resist if police illegally enter their home
,
nazi police right to search persons and homes laws
,

new law in indiana no search warrant

,
no issue state home defense
,

police do not need warrants to invade homes and search persons

,

police do not need warrants to invade homes and search persons.

,
unlawful police entry
,

unlawful police raid

Click on a term to search for related topics.