[Peace-discuss] dream about the moonlight on the wall bash...

[C. G. Estabrook]

Your title is almost funny enough to justify the loss of a little more liberty...


On 5/14/11 8:48 PM, "E. Wayne Johnson 朱稳森" wrote:
> 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.
>
> In a 3-2 decision, Justice Steven David writing for the court said if a police 
> officer wants to enter a home for any reason or no reason at all, a homeowner 
> cannot do anything to block the officer's entry.
>
> "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."
>
> David said a person arrested following an unlawful entry by police still can 
> be released on bail and has plenty of opportunities to protest the illegal 
> entry through the court system.
>
> The court's decision stems from a Vanderburgh County case in which police were 
> called to investigate a husband and wife arguing outside their apartment.
>
> When the couple went back inside their apartment, the husband told police they 
> were not needed and blocked the doorway so they could not enter. When an 
> officer entered anyway, the husband shoved the officer against a wall. A 
> second officer then used a stun gun on the husband and arrested him.
>
> Professor Ivan Bodensteiner, of Valparaiso University School of Law, said the 
> court's decision is consistent with the idea of preventing violence.
>
> "It's not surprising that they would say there's no right to beat the hell out 
> of the officer," Bodensteiner said. "(The court is saying) we would rather opt 
> on the side of saying if the police act wrongfully in entering your house your 
> remedy is under law, to bring a civil action against the officer."
>
> Justice Robert Rucker, a Gary native, and Justice Brent Dickson, a Hobart 
> native, dissented from the ruling, saying the court's decision runs afoul of 
> the Fourth Amendment of the U.S. Constitution.
>
> "In my view the majority sweeps with far too broad a brush by essentially 
> telling Indiana citizens that government agents may now enter their homes 
> illegally -- that is, without the necessity of a warrant, consent or exigent 
> circumstances," Rucker said. "I disagree."
>
> Rucker and Dickson suggested if the court had limited its permission for 
> police entry to domestic violence situations they would have supported the 
> ruling.
>
> But Dickson said, "The wholesale abrogation of the historic right of a person 
> to reasonably resist unlawful police entry into his dwelling is unwarranted 
> and unnecessarily broad."
>
> This is the second major Indiana Supreme Court ruling this week involving 
> police entry into a home.
>
> On Tuesday, the court said police serving a warrant may enter a home without 
> knocking if officers decide circumstances justify it. Prior to that ruling, 
> police serving a warrant would have to obtain a judge's permission to enter 
> without knocking.
>
> _______________________________________________
> Peace-discuss mailing list
> Peace-discuss at lists.chambana.net
> http://lists.chambana.net/mailman/listinfo/peace-discuss