"Because we decline to recognize the right of a homeowner..."

In an opinion given by the Indiana Supreme Court (see attached PDF below) we can read that the court says "[b]ecause we decline to recognize the right of a homeowner to reasonably resist unlawful entry, Barnes is not entitled to batter Reed, irrespective as to the legality of Reed‘s entry."

While this sentence is loaded with double negatives and cloudy meaning, it says that the court will not recognize a right that a homeowner has. The right to which they refer is the one that allows you or me to resist someone coming in to our own home unlawfully.

It takes many people a little time to let this sink in, and what the implications are to a homeowner like the one in this case. To a homeowner.... like you, maybe?

<a href="/sites/default/files/4dd2f6e903509.pdf.pdf">Download the PDF here</a>