I’ve mentioned several times on this blog that I believe a conflict of interest exist in our legal system. Namely the government controls the courts and the police thus the courts generally have a bias towards believing police officers. How far does that bias go though? In Indiana it goes pretty fucking far:
Citizens have “no right to reasonably resist unlawful entry [to their homes] by police officers,” Indiana’s Supreme Court declared May 12 in a controversial 3-2 decision, Richard L. Barnes v. Indiana.
Justice Steven David wrote for the court in the decision that “this Court is faced for the first time with the question of whether Indiana should recognize the common-law right to reasonably resist unlawful entry by police officers. We conclude that public policy disfavors any such right.”
There you have it ladies and gentlemen, if the police are acting outside of their government granted authority you have no right to protect yourself against their actions. Just think about that for a minute and let it sink in. If a police officer unlawfully enters your home and attempts to cause physical harm to you it is illegal for you to fight back in Indiana. I just shook my head when I read this bucket of statis bullshit:
Justice David concluded: “We believe however that a right to resist an unlawful police entry into a home is against public policy and is incompatible with modern Fourth Amendment jurisprudence. Nowadays, an aggrieved arrestee has means unavailable at common law for redress against unlawful police action.” Specifically, Justice David found not that anyone had amended the Fourth Amendment to the U.S. Constitution or that the legislature had passed any new laws, but rather that Americans are the beneficiaries of “modern developments” that include: “(1) bail, (2) prompt arraignment and determination of probable cause, (3) the exclusionary rule, (4) police department internal review and disciplinary procedure, and (5) civil remedies.”
Wow… just wow. Basically this guy has said you must submit to unlawful police actions because you have options available to you that apparently didn’t exist back when the Bill of Rights was ratified. Options including (1) pay the state to allow you to leave jail knowing you’ll never be reimbursed that bail money should you be found innocent, (2) hope that the courts will decide to side with you instead of the police in regards to determining if the arrest was lawful, (3) hope that the courts will find evidence unusable, (4) hope a conflict of interest doesn’t exist when the police department tries to determine the lawful nature of one of their officer’s actions, and (5) hope the government courts will allow you to sue the government for their wrongful actions.
Those options are not valid reasons to force people to submit to the will of a police officer executing a wrongful entry into a home. The article also points out the fact that the file options listed by David have been violated by the government before (not surprising at all).
So the state ruled that you can’t resist the state when the state is performing unlawful actions against your person. Yeah that doesn’t simply reek of conflict of interest or anything.