QUOTE
The court's decision stems from a Vanderburgh County case in which police were called to investigate a husband and wife arguing outside their apartment.
When the couple went back inside their apartment, the husband told police they were not needed and blocked the doorway so they could not enter. When an officer entered anyway, the husband shoved the officer against a wall. A second officer then used a stun gun on the husband and arrested him.
I'm sure that was totally warranted.
But this ...
QUOTE
"We believe ... a right to resist an unlawful police entry into a home is against public policy and is incompatible with modern Fourth Amendment jurisprudence," David said. "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."
... is by far the most disturbing part. We'd still be British subjects taking it up the ass from the king if pussies like this were in charge back in the day.
So, Dave, what is compatible with modern Fourth Amendment jurisprudence? I mean ...
QUOTE
The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures...
... leaves little room for interpretation unless you're weaseling the "unreasonable" part. Just for future reference, "unreasonable" != "illegal." Good to know.
--------------
Diogenes of Sinope:
"It is not that I am mad, it is only that my head is different from yours."
"Other dogs bite only their enemies, whereas I bite also my friends in order to save them."
Arnold Judas Rimmer, BSC, SSC:
"Better dead than smeg."
