no right to resist unlawful police entry into their homes

Status
Not open for further replies.
Al said it best.

The ruling opens the door too wide and could lead to potential abuse.

A standard is there for a reason.

Public policy is a changing standard.

Probable cause is a defined standard.

There is a reason that our founding fathers did not favor a full democracy and chose a republic form of government. They realized the potential for misuse and abuse over a period of time.

Just because I feel that I have the right to resist an unlawful act by an officer of the law does not mean I should and set myself up for potential abuse. There is is plenty of time after the act to seek legal and other remedies. The founding fathers also wanted you to be responsible and use common snesne when excercising your rights as they are not absolute in some cases.
 
so it is "unlawful" to resist wrongful arrest, now, in indiana anyway, it is "unlawful" to resist unlawful entry. Instead we are expected to take the abuse of our liberty and fight it out in court? When we are found not guilty of what we are acused of, or it is proven that the officer was wrong, who pays for our defense, our aggravation, or time lost to our defense and unlawful incarseration? Maybe it is time we begin standing up for ourselves? Our founders did. They sacraficed thier lives and fortunes so that we would be free, so that we would have the right to be secure in our persons and property. How much more liberty are we willing to sacrafice in the name of security?
 
Webleymkv said:
Honestly, I think we both know that the type of situation you are describing is extremely unlikely anyway. Lone cops don't go kicking in doors and I've yet to hear of a street gang that could convincingly impersonate a SWAT team since the St. Valentine's Day Massacre.
Click to expand...
No, we DON'T both know that this type of situation is unlikely. The CATO Institute has a huge database of police warrants served illegally, and the news at least every week reports somewhere in the U.S. a home invasion by thugs claiming to be police. Maybe not SWAT, but "police."

"Convincingly" has nothing to do with it when they are outside pounding on the door and I'm inside in my pajamas trying to get my wife and kid out of what might be the line of fire within seconds.

As for lone cops kicking in doors -- just last week there was an incident reported on this forum of an OFF DUTY cop who followed a man into the man's own home and shot him in front of the guy's fiancee and her child -- then walked back across the street without even calling for medical assistance.

If you don't think this kind of stuff happens all too often, and certainly often enough to make it unwise to assume that anyone outside hollering "Police!" is really police, you either live in a very small town or you haven't been paying attention to what's going on in the real world.
 
Last edited:
Whoa man..just read the whole thread and there is some scary strings attached to that law...as people have already said it is easy to abuse..but how many times have y'all gotten ****** off because some rapist or murderer was set free because the overwhelming evidence they had on the perps was obtained illegally....that drives me nuts..however..I have yet to see a sinlge cop or a couple of cops do hard knocks on people ( I am no expert and they may have..and hard knock is like kicking doors in or snatching them off )....but if im setting in my living room reading a book and next thing I know my door is being beat down with a battering ram and some dude with a shield and 5 of his buddies is behind him shouting at me and maybe even throw me on the grown and have a squashing contest..I would be a little shocked..and idk about mad.im a mellow person..but if it turned out that I wasnted the country king pin and they had the wrong adress..I would certainly expect to have my stuff fixed..and fixed right..a new pair of underwear..and my couch cleaned...I wouldn't sue them...but alot of people do..which is bs..people make mistakes...but if 2 cops was outside my house..with no flashy cars going open up its the police..then ima probably call the cops and then do a quick investigation to determine if they drove up in a honda civic or squad car..I do not agree with the law..but understand its place..however laws like that is the reason this country is about to go in the toilet :(
 
I think the point is... In resisting an unlawfull arrest, or a warrant may result in your physical injury or death. It is very difficult for the courts to make a dead person whole again. In the case of an illegal arrest or incursion by the police can be taken to court and the victim can be made whole with a monitary settlement.

I know it's difficult to digest... but these laws are to protect the public. Not the police.
 
If this is how the government "protects" its citizens, i think i would feel safer without its comforting arms. :rolleyes:

It was mentioned earlier that the right to resist unlawful assault by a LEO dates back to the Magna Carta; this was merely the first time the right was written about; the right dates back the creation of the first authority.

As i've seen and said before, "Legal does not always equal right, and right doesn't always equal legal".
 
While I understand the need for doctrines such as hot pursuit and exigent circumstances, and it looks like the girlfriend in this case was at least advising the defendant to "let them in," I do think that the wording of this case opens the door way too wide. The Indiana Supreme Court seems to think its citizens should always let the police in and then fight about it in court, where the officers can take advantage of things like qualified immunity. While I don't think resisting officers is a good idea, I'm just waiting for the other shoe to drop: no right to refuse them entry.
 
Last edited:
That's is very true glenn however the only problem with that is its a road that leads toward civilians being unable to protect themselves and have to solely depend on the government..and that is giving way to much power to the police.....they may or may not exploit it but I would rather my privacy and protection not rest in the hands of the government but my own...and the thought of that I will admit is a little scary..and I believe that thomas jefferson once said that when the government fears the people there is liberty and when the people fear the government it is tyranny...someone around here has that on there signature ...just cannot remember who...would y'all say this is a fair statement?
 
I know it's difficult to digest... but these laws are to protect the public. Not the police
Click to expand...

This, unfortunately, is the problem. All law started out as an attempt to protect the public. But individual rights are incompatible with a bubble wrapped nanny state.

People will hurt themselves and others. People will kill each other. People will kill themselves. If and when this all stops you can be assured that freedom will have vanished from the face of the earth.

Every oppressive government starts out trying to protect the people. Our government rarely addressed "the people". It confined itself to the sphere of individual people and their relationship with each other and government. The further we get from that the worse it is.
 
its a road that leads toward civilians being unable to protect themselves and have to solely depend on the government..and that is giving way to much power to the police.....
Click to expand...

This statement says a mouthfull. Police are civillians too. Far too many folks forget that. They should never be separate from us, they should always be subject to the same law we are.
 
I hadn't heard of Cory Maye until this thread came up. Just read the linked article, then did a google search. Wow.... just, wow.

It will be interesting to see how the new trial goes. Assuming the proper instructions are given the jury this time, and the "medical examiner" from the first trial gets his previous record thrown in his face during cross-examination (the guy once claimed he could tell from a bullet wound that two shooters were holding the gun when it was fired), and that the defense team currently working the case remains on the case, I can't see how the State of Mississippi expects to prevail.

Should be educational.
 
We need to remember that the Indiana court did not strike down a constitutional right. It apparently overturned long-standing common law. The common law is judge-made law and changes from time to time.

Let's also don't confuse what are possible bad facts with bad law. The Cory Maye case may have lots of problems, but it wasn't with the law or statute itself under which he was convicted. He was given an instruction about the mistaken need for self-defense and the jury rejected his argument, perhaps erroneously.

As far as I can determine, a person can still exercise self-defense against a police officer if he justifiably believes the officer is going to kill or seriously injure him. It simply does not give a person the right to use force against an officer who might technically be on the property unlawfully, but in good faith.
 
You in Missisippi now boy...
Click to expand...

I am, not too far from Prentiss actually, and quite glad to be in a state that allows me permit-free carry in my car.

That case raised many questions around here, mostly about small town law enforcement's competence and such. I await the outcome as do many other Mississippians. This state has had many problerms, but progress is being made, albeit slowly. I personally do not appreciate generally derogatory comments toward my home that don't involve heat or humidity.
 
Orangello

I mean no offence to you or your state. This is a firearms related forum, and a politically subjected thread. The state of Mississippi has a history. No amount of rhetoric, or blather can make this history disapear. I have personal knowledge that things have changed, and it's in no way the Missisippi of the 50's or 60's, not even the Mississippi of the 70's.This incident could have happened in NY state. In fact a similar one did happen.

At the time I was working as an electrician in a depressed section of the Bronx. As it happens I was working behind a bulding that backs up to the location and I saw the entire thing happen. A team of police officers hit an apartment looking for a wanted felon. One officer in the back of the bulding crashed through a fire escape window prompting the man laying in bed inside to produce a handgun, and shoot the intruder dead. Officers who entered the apt. door then shot dead the man living in the apartment. He wasnt the guy they was looking for. It happens... It can happen anywhere.

Again... My comment " You in Missippi now boy" is, and will be revelent to some people forever.
 
We need to remember that the Indiana court did not strike down a constitutional right. It apparently overturned long-standing common law. The common law is judge-made law and changes from time to time.
[snip]
As far as I can determine, a person can still exercise self-defense against a police officer if he justifiably believes the officer is going to kill or seriously injure him. It simply does not give a person the right to use force against an officer who might technically be on the property unlawfully, but in good faith.
Click to expand...

That common-law right was affirmed by the US Supreme Court in the John Bad Elk case. The Indiana court does not have the authority to overturn or ignore a USSC ruling.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top