Liberty Commentary

Indiana: Full Frontal Fascism

by Larken Rose

Something huge–huge and not good–just happened in Indiana, which
will be little more than a blip in the propaganda that passes for
national news. The Supreme Court of Indiana just ruled that in
Indiana, if a police officer decides to ILLEGALLY come into your
house, you’re not allowed to do anything to stop him. According to
“Justice” Steven David, resisting an admittedly “UNLAWFUL police
entry into a home” is against “public policy.” Got that? If you
live in Indiana, and a cop decides to invade your home without a
shred of legal justification, it is considered a CRIME for you to
do anything to stop him.

Bizarrely, “Justice” David also said that resisting law-breaking
cops goes against “modern Fourth Amendment jurisprudence.” You see,
only judges are wise enough to know that when the Fourth Amendment
says you have a right to be free from “unreasonable searches and
seizures,” it actually means that the cops have the right to COMMIT
“unreasonable searches and seizures,” and you have no right to do
anything to stop it.

Please allow me to toot my own horn here, by pointing out that in
my novel, “The Iron Web” (page 231), I predicted this step
occurring. It is an essential, major step towards totalitarianism,
for the control freaks to decide that even when they break their
own laws, their victims have no right to resist. There is a huge
PRINCIPLE at stake here, and what these three Indiana jackass
“judges” have just done is guarantee either complete
totalitarianism, or a bloody revolution (or both, in that order).
Because this ruling means, quite literally, that residence of
Indiana have NO RIGHTS AT ALL. What would it possibly mean to say
you have a “right” to not have your home illegally invaded by a
jackbooted thug, while also saying that you cannot do anything to
defend that right?

Never fear, because, according to the Supreme Jackass Court of
Indiana, you can always come crawling to your masters, after you’ve
been illegally victimized by one of their jackboots, to beg for
some restitution. (Good luck with that.) “Justice” David says that,
AFTER you let the cop illegally invade your home, you can always
“protest the illegal entry through the court system.” That’s almost
straight out of my novel, where a new (fictional) law would “mak[e]
it a crime to forcibly resist any arrest, while also providing
legal remedies to those who have been subjected to improper

If anyone considers this reasonable, keep in mind that by the exact
same “reasoning” (and I use that term extremely loosely), they
might as well also rule that if a cop decides to shoot your dog, or
steal your car, or rape your wife, you have to quietly stand by and
LET HIM DO IT, and then later file a complaint, or a lawsuit. In
other words, the jackboots can do ABSOLUTELY ANYTHING THEY DAMN
WELL PLEASE, “legal” or not, and your ONLY recourse is to later
whine to the very control freaks that the jackboots work for.

What was the rationale for this? In case all of the above wasn’t
Orwellian enough, check this out. “Justice” David argued that
“allowing resistance [to law-breaking cops] unnecessarily escalates
the level of violence and therefore the risk of injuries to all
parties involved.” Why wouldn’t this psychotic reasoning (a.k.a.
“retroactive tyranny justification”) also mean that if ANYONE
breaks into your house, or assaults you, or steals your stuff, or
otherwise attacks you, you’d better LET HIM DO IT in order to avoid
“escalat[ing] the level of violence”? Using DEFENSIVE violence to
combat AGGRESSIVE violence is completely justified and righteous,
notwithstanding the opinions of the tyranny apologists appointed by
the parasite class. If a cop illegally barges into your home, you
have every right to escalate the level of violence to any extent
necessary to stop him, including blowing the fascist’s damn head

I’m glad I don’t live in Indiana, because if some cop decided to
barge into my house without a shred of legal justification, I’d now
know that if I tried to hold him back, or push him out, I’d be
arrested and prosecuted. So I’d just have to shoot the bastard
instead. And since it’s tough to do that sort of thing without
anyone noticing, I would then be a fugitive, for having DEFENDED my
family against an invading CRIMINAL. And if that much happened, and
I was forced to become a fugitive, I might feel obliged to go pay a
visit to the three stupid, tyrant-loving fascist jackasses on the
Indiana Supreme Court who just decided to declare it a CRIME for
someone to DEFEND HIMSELF against illegal trespassing, breaking and
entering, and assault, if the scumbag attacker happens to have a

Hmmm, I have an idea. If there are any Indiana cops who still
respect the Constitution, please do your state a huge favor, and go
barge into the home of “Justice” Steven David–during supper would
probably be a good time. Barge in, without a warrant, and without
any legal justification, guns drawn, and start ordering people
around. See if “Justice” David does anything to resist. If he does,
lock his fascist ass up for violating his own idiotic legal ruling.
In fact, since he just declared it to be illegal for him to resist
your illegal invasion of his home, if he lifts a finger to stop
you, shoot the bastard, or at least give him a good tasering.
(That’s exactly what happened in the case where “Justice” David
sided with the law-breaking cop.) After all, we can’t just let
people assault police officers, now can we? If some Indiana cop had
the spine to do that, I know several thousand people who would be
thrilled beyond words.

Larken Rose

(P.S. Incidentally, in U.S. vs. John Bad Elk, the U.S. Supreme
Court made it clear that resisting an unlawful arrest, even if
doing so requires killing the cop, can be legal. Whether this
conflict between the Supreme Court and the Indiana Nazi Brigade
will be resolved in court remains to be seen. But whatever any
black-dress-wearing, wooden-hammer-wielding narcissist says, if
someone decides to barge into your home, you have the right to
evict him, with a harsh word, a fist, or a 12-gauge–whichever you
deem necessary.)