The reason that I’m so hot under the collar about the Indiana Supreme Court ruling isn’t just the impact of this specific ruling allowing cops to illegally invade a private residence. As I said earlier, Roberta has that angle covered extremely well.
My greatest concern can be summed up quite easily, and in fact, has already been summed up in a concise and elegant manner:
We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable rights, that among these are life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness. That to secure these rights, governments are instituted among men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed. That whenever any form of government becomes destructive to these ends, it is the right of the people to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their safety and happiness.
Obviously, this summation is from the second paragraph of the Declaration of Independence, adopted by Congress on July 4th, 1776.
Our Creator grants us these rights as individuals and governments are formed to secure them. No government entity – federal, state, county or city – grants these rights. In point of fact, Congress and the courts have recognized that these rights apply to all residents of this country and not just the citizens.
We have the right of self-defense. If a constitutional amendment were passed tomorrow, it would not change the fact that we have that right. It would only proclaim that our government was despotic and tyrannical.
So read the text of Barnes vs Indiana. What do we see?
Barnes appeal was based on the fact that he was denied the opportunity to instruct the jury that he had the right to deny illegal entry into his home. The court restates this as the common law right to resist an unlawful police action prior to arguing against recognizing such right. Further, the court then argues that the right in question is the common law right to resist an unlawful arrest. However, there was no attempt to arrest Barnes at the time of the altercation. The court continually conflates the right to resist illegal entry with resisting arrest, then decides that neither is recognized without acknowledging Indiana’s own Castle law or the Federal 4th Amendment. As others have pointed out, the decision actually states:
In sum, we hold that Indiana the right to reasonably resist an unlawful police entry into a home is no longer recognized under Indiana law.
Which begs the question, was the right to resist recognized at the time of the incident? And if so, doesn’t the prosecution under this decision constitute an ex post facto law?
So a natural right of self defense and constitutional right to be secure in your own home is conflated with a common law right to resist an illegal arrest to generate a ruling that police can kick in your door at their discretion and you are a criminal for defending yourself.
And the court does this rather than making the cops prove that they had a valid reason for entering the home (response to a 911 call for domestic violence) which should have been a slam dunk!
Impeach the bastards.
Entry filed under: Politics.