Back to the forefront
Operator Dan has a post up here concerning an article Jonn noted earlier.
I think others have noted this:
INDIANAPOLIS | Overturning a common law dating back to the English Magna Carta of 1215, the Indiana Supreme Court ruled Thursday that Hoosiers have no right to resist unlawful police entry into their homes.
To say both are outrageous is quite an understatement.
I don’t confuse the circumstances in Arizona with other issues, and neither should you, but the juxtaposition is certainly odd. YMMV.
Aside: And THIS is only my opinion!!! Emphatically added! One of the blunders in the AZ case is that the Marine was remiss – from available evidence? If that seems obscure… I would drop the hammer if anyone came through one of my doors as described.
Category: Politics
In Michigan You have the right to get out of the way of the home invasion. I read about this when I was getting my NRA instructor’s cert. If you have ANY avenue of escape you can NOT use a firearm to defend yourself. THAT is ridiculous.
I think law school should focus on the English language. I vaguely recall some document telling me I have an inalienable right, meaning man can not take it from me, an inalienable right to life.
This decision, besides being execrable, seems designed to open the doors to lawsuits against cops, municipalities and citizens, depending on who lawyers up for a payday first. Lawyers supporting lawyers.
You folks need to move to the South where the law exempts us from even civil liability when we smoke a home invader. We are also allowed to resist an unlawful arrest with force, up to and including the deadly kind. Trust me – when I went through the police academy all those years ago that law had a VERY large impact on me.
Our law enforcement, in order to protect those of us who choose to obey the law must be “Reactive”, rather than “Proactive”; meaning, that if I tell a cop that my neighbor is going to kill me tomorrow morning, he cannot go and arrest said neighbor. That is a good thing, but by the same token, we do, as Dave O said, have that Inalienable Right to defend our liberty. We cannot, and should not, expect the police to protect us from a home invasion. Also, we should expect the police to conduct themselves in a responsible manner at ALL times in the pursuit of their duty. I will protect myself and what is mine. If some sucker wants to come into my world and steal the mud off my boots, his ass is mine.
B&R: That’s the way it should be. Granted, not all police are corrupt, just as not all gun owners are homicidal maniacs (as we have been portrayed by the anti-gunners), however, i don’t care what state you live in, if you are not “allowed” to defend yourself, family, home, then what the hell is the point of even bothering locking the door?
Well said, FO! Someone decides that my house is worth the risk, fine, if they get by the dog (170 lb. Great Dane with an attitude when it comes to strangers) and manage to not get either 2 in the chest and one in the head from a 185 grain JHP .40 cal., or 2 abdomen and chest removing 12 ga. Duplek’s Hexolit 32 slugs, then I guess it’s their lucky day and can have it all.
I thought SCOTUS had already said that you can defend yourself from illegal police actions and ignore illegal police orders?
One big problem I have with this is, lets say an overzealous police officer unlawfully enters a home and an abundance of evidence of a crime is present. Could all of that illegally gained evidence be nonadmissable in court?
I love my state (MO) we have a wonderful Castle law wich protects us in our homes and cars.
Well, as a resident of Indiana, I spent part of last night looking into what it takes to void the decision and to recall three so-called justices. This decision, along with another about a week ago, are a travesty of justice and shred the Constitution to bits. Indiana has a good bit going for it, quite a bit actually, but this ain’t one of them and makes me seriously consider moving back to the South.
DaveO -unalienable actually, if you are referring to the Declaration of Independence.
“We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable rights, that among these are life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness.”
Inalienable rights would be applicable though: Rights which are not capable of being surrendered or transferred without the consent of the one possessing such rights.
I know, a bit pedantic on my part, but…
I think that’s how it works, JPJ, if you didn’t get evidence through legal avenues, you can’t use it in court. So, the police SHOULD have an incentive to be very careful that any search they do is completely legal, or they could completely screw up any prosecution of a real bad guy… Of course, I’m not a lawyer, just took 2 semesters of B-law as an undergrad. Of course, my B-law prof (an older a woman, and this was about 20 years ago), when covering a perp breaking into your house, said something to the effect of “if you shoot him and he gets outside, just drag him back in” – at that time, at least, if the perp was fleeing, you apparently lost any protections of self defense. Not sure how that law may have changed here in Texas in the intervening years…
Doc, you might want to revisit the state law in Michigan. PA 309 of 2006 revised the law, MCLA 780.972. It’s still not as good as some states castle doctrine laws, but it’s an improvement from what we had.