“there is no right to reasonably resist unlawful entry by police officers...”

[Have Blue]

Except in Indiana...

http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2012-...t-when-indianans-may-open-fire-on-police.html

 

[Dave70968]

Every time police Sergeant Joseph Hubbard stops a speeder or serves a search warrant, he says he worries suspects assume they can open fire -- without breaking the law.

Hubbard, a 17-year veteran of the police department in Jeffersonville, Indiana, says his apprehension stems from a state law approved this year that allows residents to use deadly force in response to the “unlawful intrusion” by a “public servant” to protect themselves and others, or their property.
Enlarge image Indiana Governor Mitch Daniels

“If I pull over a car and I walk up to it and the guy shoots me, he’s going to say, ‘Well, he was trying to illegally enter my property,’” said Hubbard, 40, who is president of Jeffersonville Fraternal Order of Police Lodge 100. “Somebody is going get away with killing a cop because of this law.”

Not if the cop is entering lawfully, he isn't. The law would only allow the citizen to shoot if the officer is acting illegally.

 

[Werewolf]

I find my self conflicted by this: on the one hand illegal entry is illegal entry whether by a public servant or private citizen. One has the right to protect themselves. Why is a law like the legislature passed necessary? Don't we have too many laws now?

On the other hand, the Indiana SC did rule that that IN citizens had no right to resist an illegal entry into their home by a police officer - thus creating - a special class of citizen. Whether there's an epidemic of illegal entries into IN citizen's homes or not all it takes is one instance where the police abuse their power to make such a law as the IN legislature enacted to unexempt the special class created by the IN SC necessary.

 

[Dave70968]

Werewolf, I don't see your conflict--it looks like both points argue in favor of the law. The first says "illegal entry is illegal entry," and the second--creating a special class of citizen--flies right in the face of the constitutional precept of equality before the law, so should be shut down, which is exactly what the legislature proposes to do.

 

[Maverick21]

I can see the headlines now....

Crack head shoots officer for entering his residence/lab.

 

[Werewolf]

Werewolf, I don't see your conflict--it looks like both points argue in favor of the law. The first says "illegal entry is illegal entry," and the second--creating a special class of citizen--flies right in the face of the constitutional precept of equality before the law, so should be shut down, which is exactly what the legislature proposes to do.

In the 1st case mentioned it seems to me that a law providing for the defense of one's self from an illegal entry into one's home is unnecessary - illegal entry is illegal entry. There should be no distinction between the police and citizens. That's the cud'a shud'a wud'a position. We don't need a law. None should have to be passed.

In the 2nd case it seems that a law should be necessary because of the totally asinine decision made by the IN SC.

Thus the internal conflict: Reality conflicts with what should be.

 

[Michael Brown]

FYI, Oklahoma law allows a citizen to resist an unlawful arrest.

HOWEVER, you better be 100% sure it is unlawful not just incorrect. Incorrect does not equal unlawful.

Michael Brown

 

[vvvvvvv]

The Indiana SC did rule that that IN citizens had no right to resist an illegal entry into their home by a police officer

...on the basis of the "right" being "against public policy"...

http://www.in.gov/judiciary/opinions/pdf/05121101shd.pdf

 

[berettaman]

FYI, Oklahoma law allows a citizen to resist an unlawful arrest.

HOWEVER, you better be 100% sure it is unlawful not just incorrect. Incorrect does not equal unlawful.

Michael Brown

With all due respect could you expound on the differences of unlawful vs incorrect???

 

[vvvvvvv]

With all due respect could you expound on the differences of unlawful vs incorrect???

"Incorrect" would be when an officer acts reasonably based on the information they were given at that time.

Not saying I agree with the logic. In that case, I would consider whoever wrote down the wrong address or gave the wrong directions directly responsible for any unfortunate events that unfolded, such as no-knocks served on wrong dwellings such as Kathryn Johnston (she was killed and officers later attempted to cover up by planting drugs and submitting false evidence of a previous buy) or Vang Khang (two officers saved by vest and helmet, Khang arrested for firing on officers but not charged).