Ind. S.C. "No right to resist illegal cop entry"; Ind. legislature strikes back

[Admiral Yi]

While this ruling may be fine under Indiana law, I don't see how it could pass muster in a federal court--it seems at odds with the constittuional protection against unreasonable searches.

As far as I know you're not authorized to use force defend yourself against other infringements on constitutional rights, are you?

[dps]

While this ruling may be fine under Indiana law, I don't see how it could pass muster in a federal court--it seems at odds with the constittuional protection against unreasonable searches.

As far as I know you're not authorized to use force defend yourself against other infringements on constitutional rights, are you?

Generally speaking, not directly, but if those infringements involve unlawful entry into your home, then you should be able to use violence just as you would be alllowed in any other case of unlawful entry.

[Slargos]

So if a cop decides to break into your home and rape your wife, you have no legal right to defend yourself?

[dps]

So if a cop decides to break into your home and rape your wife, you have no legal right to defend yourself?

Apparantly not in Indiana.  You just get to sue the cop later.  Which, if you don't really care all that much about your wife, could be a windfall.

[grumbler]

We had a terrible case in Canada that went the other way.  POlice were executing a search warrant in Montreal.  The accused claimed he did not hear them yell "police!" and shot one of the officers, killing him.  He was acquitted at trial.

We had a terrible case in Atlanta that went the other way.  Police were executing a no-knock search warrant issued in defiance of the requirements for no-knock warrants, and when the 61-year-old woman in the house fired a round into the ceiling to scare them off, the police killed her.   The four were all allowed to avoid murder charges by pleading guilty to "conspiracy to violate civil rights resulting in death," whatever that is.  They also confessed to extortion, burglary, and various other charges arising out of the wide-spread police conspiracy to steal drugs seized in raids.  They got less than half the recommended sentences (one of the killers serving less than five years and only more than six). 

[grumbler]

So if a cop decides to break into your home and rape your wife, you have no legal right to defend yourself?

Wrong thread.

[Slargos]

So if a cop decides to break into your home and rape your wife, you have no legal right to defend yourself?

Wrong thread.

Wrong life. 

[grumbler]

Wrong thread.

Wrong life. 

Oh, is that your mistake?  I thought you were just posting in the wrong thread.   

[Slargos]

Wrong thread.

Wrong life. 

Oh, is that your mistake?  I thought you were just posting in the wrong thread.   

Oh, is that your mistake? I thought you were just putting off killing yourself because you thought your existence had meaning.   

[Eddie Teach]

Grumbler is a living organism and thus has a survival instinct.

[grumbler]

Oh, is that your mistake? I thought you were just putting off killing yourself because you thought your existence had meaning.   

You thought:  poorly.

[Slargos]

Grumbler is a living organism and thus has a survival instinct.

Debatable.

[Slargos]

Oh, is that your mistake? I thought you were just putting off killing yourself because you thought your existence had meaning.   

You thought:  poorly.

You thought: not at all.

[Ideologue]

So if a cop decides to break into your home and rape your wife, you have no legal right to defend yourself?

Apparantly not in Indiana.  You just get to sue the cop later.  Which, if you don't really care all that much about your wife, could be a windfall.

I assume that the ruling is limited to cops entering under color of authority.  I suppose a cop could claim to be acting under color of authority while he's violating your wife, but this seems so transparently wrong as to make his occupation merely coincidental to his being shot in the face.

[jamesww]

We had a terrible case in Canada that went the other way.  POlice were executing a search warrant in Montreal.  The accused claimed he did not hear them yell "police!" and shot one of the officers, killing him.  He was acquitted at trial.

We had a terrible case in Atlanta that went the other way.  Police were executing a no-knock search warrant issued in defiance of the requirements for no-knock warrants, and when the 61-year-old woman in the house fired a round into the ceiling to scare them off, the police killed her.   The four were all allowed to avoid murder charges by pleading guilty to "conspiracy to violate civil rights resulting in death," whatever that is.  They also confessed to extortion, burglary, and various other charges arising out of the wide-spread police conspiracy to steal drugs seized in raids.  They got less than half the recommended sentences (one of the killers serving less than five years and only more than six).

Interesting.

Over here, given that guns killings of or by police are far less common, my gut instinct is it's harder to find police responsible for an 'unlawful killing'*.



*an inquest verdict in England and Wales