(Untitled)

[gunslnger]

To partially answer the question of why some people want smaller government, here are two examples.

Indiana Supreme Court: citizens have no right to resist unlawful police entry

Short version: A police officer is within his rights to enter a home for any reason or no reason at all, while a homeowner is powerless to block or interfere in any with

Comments

[a_new_machine]

Also: You're misreading the decision. What it says is "If this was illegal, then you need to come to the courts. You have no right to make the decision of its illegality, and then enforce it, on your own. That's the courts' role." The article is, frankly, a shitty synopsis. For instance, from the article:
[quoting the decision] "a right to resist an unlawful police entry into a home is against public policy and is incompatible with modern Fourth Amendment jurisprudence. 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."

[the reporter's restatement]Short version: A police officer is within his rights to enter a home for any reason or no reason at all, while a homeowner is powerless to block or interfere in any with the officer's entry.

The difference between the court's statement and the reporter's version is vast. One states that force in the moment is an improper means of obtaining a remedy to an illegal entry. The other (incorrect) one says that there is no available remedy for illegal entry.

[a_new_machine]

It's the difference between "violence is not the answer to this conflict" and "there is no answer to this conflict." But leaving that aside for the moment...

I still don't see you offering any rationale for why a private citizen should get to decide what is reasonable with regards to a search of their home. It's just way too subjective to leave to so vitally interested a party. I'm sure every drug dealer in the world would think that a search of their home was unreasonable. Should we let them decide to fight the police off with force? Should we allow that as a defense when they're later taken up on charges for fighting the police off?

[gunslnger]

Since the court here explicitly refused to provide a remedy for an illegal entry, resisting yourself seems to be the only provable remedy available, as the reporter concludes correctly.

[a_new_machine]

Except the decision states that the entry was reasonable in its final paragraphs on the topic, and thus not illegal.

[gunslnger]

Which is certainly a problem with the wording of the Amendment to allow such a stupid ruling, but it's also a problem with the judges.