Court doubles down on intent to build jurisprudence of police state

Bryan Brown
September 23, 2011

Last May the Indiana Supreme Court surprised constitutionalists and patriots the nation over by calling the “castle doctrine” — that is, the age-old view that a man’s home is his castle, his place to defend from all unauthorized invasions — a thing of the past.

The newly minted Justice Steven David, writing for himself, Chief Justice Randall T. Shepard and Justice Frank Sullivan, decreed the following to be Indiana law (over the dissent of justices Robert Rucker and Brent Dickson):

“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 available at common law for the redress against unlawful police action.”

Read more

Print this page.

Comment Rules

7 Responses to “Court doubles down on intent to build jurisprudence of police state”

  1. These people are traitors. Hopefully we will get the upper hand. Suppot your LOCAL Tea Party people and PUSH to vote these clowns or or to impeach them. It sure aint goin to be pretty in the near future.

  2. Generally when one comes into someones home and it is unlawful it is called breaking and entering. Well, I pitty anyone that comes into my home, I will not hesitate to defend my family regardless of who it is coming through the door. You have the right to defend yourself within your home if you are in fear of your life whether it is the police or another armed intruder. I live in a southern border state, we have home invasions by people dressed as swat teams as their MO. A reasonable person has no choice but to defend first and deal with the consequences later, I refuse to be a victim of a criminal or the state, which, more and more, they are looking like the same thing.

  3. I googled it, and the Judges are all REPUBLICAN.

  4. This Steven David jackoff needs to be executed for treason.

  5. “incompatible with modern Fourth Amendment jurisprudence” ???? The 4th Amendment is very specific and what does the word “modern” mean? Are they implying that this is no longer up to date? I think it still holds pretty true myself. I just love the way the courts can decide whatever the hell they want to.

  6. public policy is called color of law and is illegal in the first place a null void act you tresspass on property you deserve what you get doa and this applies to coming into a home with out consent this violates every 4th amendment rights and tenth amendment rights so wake up or else and fuck the govt troops to dictate to come into my home i will not consent but a passing of lead to them free of charge

    • unfortunately, i agree. the govt. doesn’t seem to understand anything else and has blatantly gone against the people for soo many years. perhaps when a few of us start responding to fire with fire, we will begin to get our point across. hopefully the day of the rope is not far off.

Leave a Reply

You must be logged in to post a comment.

You can skip to the end and leave a response. Pinging is currently not allowed.

Leave a Reply

Powered by WordPress | Designed by: Premium WordPress Themes | Thanks to Themes Gallery, Bromoney and Wordpress Themes