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

[E. Wayne Johnson]

I grew up thinking that Wabash, river, and cannonball, had at least one 
or 2 ells in it.

It's a thin line between paronomasic eleutherianism and cruel&unusual 
pun ish ment.


On 5/15/2011 11:05 AM, C. G. Estabrook wrote:
> 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
>
>