Naked Capitalism Link of the Day

Today's naked capitalism post has a number of good links.  Among them are a story about how Fox News spreads their propaganda, another article about Australia's economy on the brink with evidence that Chinese commodity consumption may be slowing, a good Krugman column and a story about how regulators and banks are making the economy more fragile in enacting the Dodd-Frank "reforms."  I wanted to highlight Indiana Supreme Court: citizens have no right to resist unlawful police entry, at the Evansville Courier-Press:

People have no right to resist if police officers illegally enter their home, the Indiana Supreme Court ruled in a decision based on a Vanderburgh County case.
The ruling overturned centuries of common law, a fact the court acknowledged in the decision, noting that some scholars trace its origin to the Magna Carta in 1215.
The court issued its 3-2 ruling on Thursday, contending that allowing residents to resist officers who enter their homes without any right would increase the risk of violent confrontation. If police enter a home illegally, the courts are the proper place to protest it, Justice Steven David said.
"We believe ... a right to resist an unlawful police entry into a home is against public policy and is incompatible with modern Fourth Amendment jurisprudence," David said. "We also find that allowing resistance unnecessarily escalates the level of violence and therefore the risk of injuries to all parties involved without preventing the arrest."
The court's decision stemmed from a Vanderburgh County case in which a man yelled at police and blocked them from entering his apartment to investigate a domestic disturbance. Evansville resident Richard Barnes shoved a police officer who entered anyway, and was shocked with a stun gun and arrested.

Vanderburgh County Prosecutor Nick Hermann said the ruling brings Indiana up to date with what already is recognized in many other states.

In some ways, this fits in with the "sovereign citizen" story.  In an abstract way, it is correct that since the Magna Carta, people have the right to protect themselves and their property.  Unfortunately, the methods of resistance may make a bad situation much worse.  I get a bad feeling about this ruling from the perspective of police abuse of power, but at the same time, if police surprise someone in a raid, and the person starts shooting at the "intruders," this is going to end badly.  It is a delicate balancing act, which needs some restraint on both sides of the issue.  Referring to the "sovereign citizens," it is clear that these guys are often going to react very badly to run-ins with police or the courts, and police expecting violent reactions in routine police business makes them more trigger-happy.  It is hard to decide how to handle a domestic disturbance case, when somebody's temper has already flared prior to police involvement.  This ruling is interesting, while being somewhat disconcerting.