The Indiana Ruling...

Yes. *That* ruling. I've refrained from comment so far, but with more folks sending me the link, I guess I might want to say something about the issue.

I guess what surprises me most about this ruling is that people are shocked by it. With the "War" on Drugs, so-called "no-knock" raids have become such a part of the scenery that the ruling in Indiana has been in effect for years - they just hadn't actually put it into law yet. Let's face it - if a SWAT team mistakenly kicks your door down, and you manage to take one of them out, you're most likely going to die. Even if you survive, you're liable to end up a candidate for a date with ol' Sparky. Cory Maye, anyone?

This is not anti-cop; rather, it's anti-war-on-nouns. The cops going into the houses are, by and large, under erroneous assumptions. Any cop that knows they're going into the wrong house and proceeds anyways deserves everything that's coming to them. Joe LEO gets the word from Sarge that they've got credible evidence of [CRIME X] at [ADDRESS Y] and he needs to suit up. There's no reason for him to suspect that [ADDRESS Y] is really [ADDRESS Y+1] - at least on the first screw-up.

What the Indiana ruling did was formalize what happens in these events naturally. Cops bust into the wrong place. Resident, hearing their door breaking down, grabs their defensive arm and starts shooting (absolutely rightfully). Most of the time, the resident winds up dead - the entry teams have superior gear and weaponry, and most often the armed homeowner becomes another sad statistic in the War on [Noun Z]. In the rare cases where the armed homeowner prevails, the full fury of the "justice" system is brought to bear. The IN ruling only codified what has been happening for decades.

It doesn't make it right, of course; the judges responsible for this piece of litigious excrement deserve to be drummed out of office, stripped of their right to practice law, and reduced to asking "would you like fries with that" for the next 30 years or so. Instead, it will (hopefully) be quietly overruled, the responsible parties incurring no penalties other than having their ruling overturned. If IN judges are elected, hopefully the good folk of Indiana will vote them the hell out; if they are appointed, hopefully the good folk of Indiana will vote out the bums that appointed them. If we start applying sufficient negative reinforcement, perhaps these sorts of rulings will cease.

And while I'm dreaming, I'd like a pony*...

That is all.

*Calvin & Hobbes reference. I'm still waiting for my gasoline-peeing unicorn.