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
(
Read more... )
[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.
Reply
(The comment has been removed)
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?
Reply
Reply
Reply
Reply
Leave a comment