So, here’s a thing.
Imagine there’s this privileged subset of society who are allowed to break into your home with impunity. Let’s call them the “overlords”.
There’d probably be certain rules about exactly when the overlords get to enter your premises against your will. But imagine too that, if some particular overlords broke these rules and tried to barge in anyway, there was nothing you could do to stop them.
You could try and get them punished later on, by reporting them to other overlords who you hope will be on your side, but it would still be illegal for you to make any attempt to prevent them from illegally breaking in.
You’re picturing it? There is a violently enforceable rule in place, which you didn’t agree to, saying that if an overlord invades your home, you may not do anything to resist them, even if the rules in place to restrict the overlords’ behaviour (and ostensibly to protect you) specifically say that they’re not allowed in.
Scary prospect, right?
Now replace “overlords” with “police officers“. Welcome to Indiana.
A decision earlier this year by the state’s Supreme Court said, in part:
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.
Right. Because the responsibility for not unnecessarily escalating the level of violence and risk of injuries should absolutely fall on the person resisting the illegal home invasion, not the people illegally breaking into someone’s home.
You know that thing about how you’re meant to get more right-wing as you get older? Fuck that.