Originally Posted by Jinn

Wow, somehow I missed that big fucking box that said "PDF: SUPREME COURT RULING" - haha, sorry about that. I apologize.

However, after reading through this I still agree with the majority. Specifically, in upholding the appeals' motion:

"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. Nowadays, an aggrieved arrestee has means unavailable at common law for redress against unlawful police
action. E.g., Warner, supra, at 330 (citing the dangers of arrest at common law—indefinite detention, lack of bail, disease-infested prisons, physical torture—as reasons for recognizing the right to resist); State v. Hobson, 577 N.W.2d 825, 835–36 (Wis. 1998) (citing the following
modern developments: (1) bail, (2) prompt arraignment and determination of probable cause, (3) the exclusionary rule, (4) police department internal review and disciplinary procedure, and (5) civil remedies). 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—as evident by the facts of this instant case.

I don't think there's a really solid rationale for allowing *physical* resistance to unlawful arrest by a uniformed police officer in the 21st century. I know the (not dismissively) cowboy defense of home ideal is appealing, but they have a point that we don't really have issues of indefinite detention, lack of bail, torture to worry about if arrested by an actual police officer. Likewise, we have remedies like above and the very solid right to sue the police department.

Even if I were to grant what I suspect you believe, that a high percentage of police officers abuse their powers and will attempt you arrest you unlawfully, I don't personally think that reasonably resisting an armed police officer does anything to resolve the situation. It increases the likelihood that one or both of you will be grievously injured or killed, over what would likely be a minor detention and a posted bond and return home. If the person was not a police officer, failed to identify themselves clearly as such or I believed they would reasonably commit more than simple detain and arrest, then I would reasonably resist; understanding that I was now resisting in self-defense, rather than as an extension of my Fourth Amendment.

Perhaps, as always, it comes down to a level of faith in the police force to do what is right and just a significant majority of the time (90%) and to protect the civility AND rights of its citzenry. I haven't lost nearly as much faith as you, I imagine; nor do I see a reasonable reason for your loss of faith.

This isn't particularly new, by the way. As the opinion noted, most states have through jurisprudence long-removed the right to reasonable physical resistance to arrest.