I've spent a bit of time following up on the IN Supreme court ruling which stated:
“We hold that there is no right to reasonably resist unlawful entry by police officers.”
I joined many other people in contacting our Attorney General, who issued a press release that included this interesting bit:
“So while there is no right to commit battery against police, I believe the individual has the right to shut the door, stand his ground and communicate with police without engaging in an altercation.”
I found that both of these statements appear to directly contradict Indiana's Castle doctrine code, which was passed in 2006. The code is IC 35-41-3-2(b)and states:
"A person:
(1) is justified in using reasonable force, including deadly force, against another person; and
(2) does not have a duty to retreat;
if the person reasonably believes that the force is necessary to prevent or terminate the other person’s unlawful entry of or attack on the person’s dwelling, curtilage, or occupied motor vehicle."
There is no exclusion that I can find for police officers. I have been pursuing this line of reasoning with my representatives and with Attorney General Zoeller. I asked AG Zoeller's office for guidance on how I as a citizen should interpret this conflicting information.
It was sort of useful that there was an incident that occurred immediately after the court ruling in South Bend. Criminals claiming to be police invaded a woman's home:
http://www.southbendtribune.com/news/sbt....
The response from AG Zoeller's office:
"Our office is prohibited from giving legal advice or "guidance.""
Similarly I have been in contact with my State representative, who has been quite responsive, and penning personal replies. She was a rep who voted for the Castle code in 2006. Her last response:
"Roger, Since my response to you Speaker Bosma and Senate Pro-tem Long have asked the Supreme Court to reconsider their decision and if not several members are looking at filing a bill next year to make the needed adjustments. I appreciate your information and wanted you to know it is certainly a concern to us and we will do what we can within our capabilities in the General Assembly when we are next in session."
If you're in Indiana, please join me in keeping up the pressure. My next step I think is to write the court encouraging them to reconsider the decision.
“We hold that there is no right to reasonably resist unlawful entry by police officers.”
I joined many other people in contacting our Attorney General, who issued a press release that included this interesting bit:
“So while there is no right to commit battery against police, I believe the individual has the right to shut the door, stand his ground and communicate with police without engaging in an altercation.”
I found that both of these statements appear to directly contradict Indiana's Castle doctrine code, which was passed in 2006. The code is IC 35-41-3-2(b)and states:
"A person:
(1) is justified in using reasonable force, including deadly force, against another person; and
(2) does not have a duty to retreat;
if the person reasonably believes that the force is necessary to prevent or terminate the other person’s unlawful entry of or attack on the person’s dwelling, curtilage, or occupied motor vehicle."
There is no exclusion that I can find for police officers. I have been pursuing this line of reasoning with my representatives and with Attorney General Zoeller. I asked AG Zoeller's office for guidance on how I as a citizen should interpret this conflicting information.
It was sort of useful that there was an incident that occurred immediately after the court ruling in South Bend. Criminals claiming to be police invaded a woman's home:
http://www.southbendtribune.com/news/sbt....
The response from AG Zoeller's office:
"Our office is prohibited from giving legal advice or "guidance.""
Similarly I have been in contact with my State representative, who has been quite responsive, and penning personal replies. She was a rep who voted for the Castle code in 2006. Her last response:
"Roger, Since my response to you Speaker Bosma and Senate Pro-tem Long have asked the Supreme Court to reconsider their decision and if not several members are looking at filing a bill next year to make the needed adjustments. I appreciate your information and wanted you to know it is certainly a concern to us and we will do what we can within our capabilities in the General Assembly when we are next in session."
If you're in Indiana, please join me in keeping up the pressure. My next step I think is to write the court encouraging them to reconsider the decision.