Supreme Court Reaffirms Ruling In Officer Resistance Case

[RonPaulFanInGA]

http://www.theindychannel.com/news/29242332/detail.html


INDIANAPOLIS -- The Indiana Supreme Court on Tuesday reaffirmed its earlier ruling in a controversial case involving unlawful police entry.

The court granted a rehearing, then supplied a five-page opinion on its May 12 opinion that declared that Hoosiers no longer had a legal right to resist police officers who enter their home without a legal basis to do so.

[MoneyWhereMyMouthIs2]

Yeah, but didn't indiana just decide that police could enter if they suspected evidence was being destroyed? Fuck, they always think that if they have a locked door in front of them. So if that is true, then this ruling is encouraging, but pretty much meaningless since they've made police entry legal for pretty much nothing.

[Razmear]

"I can see where a lot of people would be upset about that, but, at the same time, if people have nothing to hide, if they're not doing anything wrong in the first place, there shouldn't be that big of a worry," said Clint Evrard of Indianapolis.

Always a comment by a tool at the end.
At least the court ruled that it was not a constitutional interpretation and the legislature has the power to change the laws.

[Dr.3D]

Yeah, but didn't indiana just decide that police could enter if they suspected evidence was being destroyed? Fuck, they always think that if they have a locked door in front of them. So if that is true, then this ruling is encouraging, but pretty much meaningless since they've made police entry legal for pretty much nothing.

I don't see how this ruling is encouraging. The stupid judge just said:

Hoosiers no longer had a legal right to resist police officers who enter their home without a legal basis to do so.

[Anti Federalist]

Free Wolf B.

That is all.

[aGameOfThrones]

It's Indiana. They also think this...

"At common law, a person was privileged to resist an unlawful arrest. See Gross v. State, 186 Ind. 581, 583, 117 N.E. 562, 564 (1917). Our courts, however, have uniformly accepted that this common law rule is outmoded in today‟s modern society. See Fields v. State, 178 Ind. App. 350, 355, 382 N.E.2d 972, 975 (1978) (holding that a private citizen may not use force or resist a peaceful arrest by one he knows or has good reason to believe is an authorized officer perform-ing his duties, regardless of whether the arrest is legal or illegal)"