Indiana Court rules that defending your home against illegal police entry is illegal

[Anthony W.]

So, Indiana cops are pretty unreasonable - especially inner city and state patrolmen - and I've seen quite a few rogue cops that abuse their power.

Now they can break in and rob me - and theres nothing I can do about it.

[August]

Originally Posted by Anthony W.

So, Indiana cops are pretty unreasonable - especially inner city and state patrolmen - and I've seen quite a few rogue cops that abuse their power.

Now they can break in and rob me - and theres nothing I can do about it.

You can blow their heads off. Without announcing who they are you could make a case of just defending yourself against unknown armed assailants.

[Armistead]

We had a case like this years ago in my state. Cops made a mistake and entered the wrong house late at night. The man, being totally innocent saw several men coming up his driveway, he knew he had broken no crimes ever, so thought a gang, he ran to his room and got a shotgun. He had a wife and two kids in the house. He stated they busted down the door, then he shot from from the other side of the living room at the hallway..then they started screaming police entering the home,

Imagine how he felt, were they police, were they playing cops, totally dark. Long story the man was yelling stop, I don't know who you are, the cops yelling for him to come out...it finally settled out, but one cop injured.

The man was arrested, but later released and awarded a multimillion lawsuit. The cops info was terrible, as I recall they weren't even on the right street.

[Molon Labe]

On some level, I understand the decision because I empathize with the idea that it would be better if the homeowner sought a civil remedy after the fact than if s/he resisted with force when it happened. It's certainly better from a public policy point of view. Waco comes to mind.

But "public policy" is exactly why I'm not comfortable with the decision. It's one more step down the path of courts making policy decisions instead of legal decisions. The straight-up legal answer to this is pretty simple: a police officer's authority is limited, and when an officer goes beyond those boundaries s/he no longer has the shield of that authority, and is in the same position as any other person.

EDIT: I think another reason I'm uncomfortable with it is that it represents a shift from an expectation that a citizen will submit to authority according to law to an expectation that a citizen will submit to another individual, regardless of law. That offends my values.

[TorpX]

I think this is a terrible decision. Mistakes happen and there are rogue cops. I am not surprised at the decision, but only that it came from a state like Indiana. I wonder what recourse the people of the state have in terms of the court justices. I hope they make their unhappiness known, and don't just wait for another court to overturn the ruling.

You can blow their heads off. Without announcing who they are you could make a case of just defending yourself against unknown armed assailants.

Whatever any court decides, busting down peoples' doors is going to involve risks, (and it should).