Senate Bill 0001

[Kirk Freeman]

It allows you to resist, does resisting constitute "fighting" in some situations?

It allows you self-defense under certain circumstances.

Self-defense is not a crime and does not constitute "fighting".

All I know is that there's some lawyer on INGO who is always talking about it. Must be true.

Et tu, cor? Et tu?

 

[TheReaper]

Well, we do know that the attorneys know it all, just ask them.

 

[JeremiahJohnson]

I'm not a lawyer - never pretended to be. But I am an Engineer and as such think things through as a problem solver. I have a couple questions about SB1. I have no axe to grind at all, just want to know:

1) Was SB1 solving a problem of specific unlawful entry? If so, what happened? Was it unlawful entry by LEO or someone pretending to be LEO?

2) Since SB1 became law, has anyone successfully used it as a defense?

Thanks.

 

[TheReaper]

I'm not a lawyer - never pretended to be. But I am an Engineer and as such think things through as a problem solver. I have a couple questions about SB1. I have no axe to grind at all, just want to know:

1) Was SB1 solving a problem of specific unlawful entry? If so, what happened? Was it unlawful entry by LEO or someone pretending to be LEO?

2) Since SB1 became law, has anyone successfully used it as a defense?

Thanks.

Look up the Barnes decision and you can read all about it. It was officers on a domestic call that the wife called for being battered, the officers showed up and she recanted. They entered to check the well being of the caller and Barnes attempted to stop their entry which resulted in his arrest. The courts want people to "fight it out" in the courtroom but our legislators see it otherwise. Barnes was a borderline soverign citizen and tried to say that under common law he had a right to resist and the court ruled otherwise. Barnes is still convicted of the crimes that he was charged with. To date, nobody has used it in a defense, but it's a wet dream for every whack job, soverign citizen and criminal.

http://jonathanturley.org/2011/05/15/barnes-v-state-of-indiana-2011/

 

[JeremiahJohnson]

Look up the Barnes decision and you can read all about it. It was officers on a domestic call that the wife called for being battered, the officers showed up and she recanted. They entered to check the well being of the caller and Barnes attempted to stop their entry which resulted in his arrest. The courts want people to "fight it out" in the courtroom but our legislators see it otherwise. Barnes was a borderline soverign citizen and tried to say that under common law he had a right to resist and the court ruled otherwise. Barnes is still convicted of the crimes that he was charged with. To date, nobody has used it in a defense, but it's a wet dream for every whack job, soverign citizen and criminal.

Barnes v. State of Indiana (2011) | JONATHAN TURLEY

So, if I read you right - on question #2 - that's a no.

 

[TheReaper]

So, if I read you right - on question #2 - that's a no.

As to date, that's a no.

 

[Timjoebillybob]

The Barnes decision had NO bearing on the rights of Hoosiers and it's a solution to a problem that never existed.

Say what? The Barnes decision stated that the people of Indiana have no right to use force to prevent an unlawful intrusion into their homes, simply because the criminal happens to have a badge. How did that have NO bearing on the rights of Hoosiers?

If they had simply applied the ruling to Barnes and stated that in his case he had no right in that instance, that would be one thing. But that is not what they did, they stated that all people in Indiana do not have the right period. There is a very big difference.

 

[JeremiahJohnson]

As to date, that's a no.

So.....question 1?....

 

[JeremiahJohnson]

Say what? The Barnes decision stated that the people of Indiana have no right to use force to prevent an unlawful intrusion into their homes, simply because the criminal happens to have a badge. How did that have NO bearing on the rights of Hoosiers?

If they had simply applied the ruling to Barnes and stated that in his case he had no right in that instance, that would be one thing. But that is not what they did, they stated that all people in Indiana do not have the right period. There is a very big difference.

Wait...what? Are you saying Barnes is a case that in fact reversed SB1?

 

[Timjoebillybob]

Wait...what? Are you saying Barnes is a case that in fact reversed SB1?

No SB1 reversed the Barnes decision. The Barnes decision stated that people in Indiana have no right to resist an unlawful entry into their homes simply because the person unlawfully attempting to enter happens to have a badge.

SB1 reversed that and codified that a person has a right to resist unlawful entry into their home against anyone. It was passed after the Barnes decision.

 

[TheReaper]

Say what? The Barnes decision stated that the people of Indiana have no right to use force to prevent an unlawful intrusion into their homes, simply because the criminal happens to have a badge. How did that have NO bearing on the rights of Hoosiers?

If they had simply applied the ruling to Barnes and stated that in his case he had no right in that instance, that would be one thing. But that is not what they did, they stated that all people in Indiana do not have the right period. There is a very big difference.

Hoosiers have always had the right to resist unlawful entry, we did pre Barnes decision, post Barnes decision and Pre SB1.

 

[Timjoebillybob]

Hoosiers have always had the right to resist unlawful entry, we did pre Barnes decision, post Barnes decision and Pre SB1.

Yes your right we have had the right to resist. The Barnes decision stated we did not have a legal right to resist if the offender was wearing a badge. Quoted from the decision.

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.

Unless your saying that the right to resist is only to tell them "no please stop, pretty please"? "If you don't stop I'll be forced to ask again".

 

[JeremiahJohnson]

"(c) A person may use force in accordance with this section to prevent or terminate a law enforcement officer's unlawful entry into the person's dwelling or into the dwelling of a member of the person's immediate family under one (1) or more of the following conditions:
(1) The person does not have actual knowledge that the officer is a law enforcement officer, and the officer:
(A) has not identified himself or herself as a law enforcement officer; or
(B) is not wearing a distinctive uniform or badge of authority.
(2) The law enforcement officer is not engaged in the execution of the law enforcement officer's official duty."

It would appear to me if the Barnes decision to hold the man responsible for unlawful resistance was due to the fact the officer was indeed wearing a badge and was indeed executing the law of enforcement while on duty, then that decision strengthened SB1 with regard to LEO and lawful entry.

 

[Timjoebillybob]

It would appear to me if the Barnes decision to hold the man responsible for unlawful resistance was due to the fact the officer was indeed wearing a badge and was indeed executing the law of enforcement while on duty, then that decision strengthened SB1 with regard to LEO and lawful entry.

I believe you have the timeline backwards. The Barnes decision came first, SB1 was passed because of it. SB1 simply returned the "legality" of it.

The actual wording of the decision is this. Bold mine.
"A jury convicted Richard Barnes of Class A misdemeanor battery on a law enforcement officer, Class A misdemeanor resisting law enforcement, and Class B misdemeanor disorderly conduct. Barnes contests that the trial court‘s failure to advise the jury on the right to reasonably resist unlawful entry by police officers constituted reversible error and that the evidence was insufficient to sustain his convictions. We hold that there is no right to reasonably resist unlawful entry by police officers. We further hold that the evidence was sufficient and affirm Barnes‘s convictions."
http://www.in.gov/judiciary/opinions/pdf/05121101shd.pdf

My above quote was from the discussion regarding the ruling. What I just posted is the entirety of the ruling.

 

[JeremiahJohnson]

OK.

So first came Barnes. Decision was badge = never resist a badge for any reason.

Therefore, along comes SB1 which says oh yes you can (regarding LEO with a badge) but only if LEO is off duty (not sure how anyone would know that).

Am I in the right galaxy yet?

 

[TaunTaun]

OK.

So first came Barnes. Decision was badge = never resist a badge for any reason.

Therefore, along comes SB1 which says oh yes you can (regarding LEO with a badge) but only if LEO is off duty (not sure how anyone would know that).

Am I in the right galaxy yet?

Not quite....LEO can be ON duty as well. Illegal entry is illegal entry...

 

[Rookie]

I believe the judge in Barnes made this a bigger problem than it ever was. For me, nothing has ever changed from pre Barnes all the way to post SB1. I don't need a judge's ruling and I don't need a state law to give me permission to protect myself from unlawful entry.

 

[JeremiahJohnson]

Not quite....LEO can be ON duty as well. Illegal entry is illegal entry...

Then, in light of the wording of SB1, what constitutes illegal entry?

 

[TheReaper]

Yes your right we have had the right to resist. The Barnes decision stated we did not have a legal right to resist if the offender was wearing a badge. Quoted from the decision.
Unless your saying that the right to resist is only to tell them "no please stop, pretty please"? "If you don't stop I'll be forced to ask again".

If an officer, whether on duty/in uniform or not goes out on his/her shift with the intent to commit crimes, he/she is a common criminal and Indiana has always given Hoosiers a right to resist that, Barnes or no Barnes. The Justices would just rather see cases such as the Barnes case wind up in civil court if the officers are wrong instead of it escalating to a confrontation, which makes sense.

 

[Rookie]

OK.

So first came Barnes. Decision was badge = never resist a badge for any reason.

Therefore, along comes SB1 which says oh yes you can (regarding LEO with a badge) but only if LEO is off duty (not sure how anyone would know that).

Am I in the right galaxy yet?

The law states you can resist unlawful entry if you reasonably believe it to be unlawful. For example, I haven't had even a traffic citation in twenty years. I have no reason to believe that anyone (police officer or not) would have a lawful reason to enter my house uninvited.