Your home is your castle? Not in Indiana

Yes, that is what the decision says. It was the right decision, both policy-wise and, more importantly, Constitutionally.

 

Didn't take you long to resort to that, did it?

Violate the oath by lying, and your warrant is no good. So yes, in fact, there is something in the Constitution that says police can be denied entry.

 

To what?

 

No, it doesn't. It doesn't say that at all.

 

Whether they are police is irrelevant here. They were criminals, plain and simple.

If you or I had done what they'd done -- break into someone's house and kill the occupant -- we'd be convicted of a hell of a lot more than manslaughter. Start with felony murder and work your way down.

 

And that would be a bit difficult to sort out right there on the doorstep, wouldn't it?

 

Well, if the default position wasn't to go in with paramilitary assault vehicles, it might not be so tough.

 

If your position is "there are bad cops and they shouldn't always be believed," you aren't going to get much disagreement on this thread.

But I don't think you understand what the ruling or the issue was in this case.

 

So she defended her home against an unwarranted search by police and ended up dead.

That's your example that people should used force to defend themselves against police entering their homes?

 

I don't understand how there's any "issue" with this.

 

It's, uh, my argument that they shouldn't have to.

And it's not like she had much time to deliberate. She heard someone crashing into her door, heard a whole hell of a lot of shouting and reacted. Hell, who knows whether she could even hear the word police being shouted.

This is what's at the bottom of that slippery slope.

 

Well, first of all, if you really have an issue with the law - and you shouldn't - take it up with the Indiana legislature. Not the judges. They are just applying the Constitution as written and interpreted.