get out of Indiana !!!

[tank_post142]

they dumped the fourth amendment:
http://www.in.gov/judiciary/opinions/pdf/05121101shd.pdf

now 5 days later:
http://www.mikechurch.com/Today-s-Lead-Story/in-sheriff-if-we-need-to-conduct-random-house-to-house-searches-we-will.html

[fudgie]

I can tell you that if my door is kicked in, there will be gun fire.

I bet this goes further in courts.

I read all the time of wrong house is hit and home owner is killed. Sad.

[tank_post142]

.45 on my hip and an MP-44 on the bedroom wall

[BigAl]

Barnes is a Lucky Man.

His wife was peaved and so was Barnes.

But When the Authorities arrive, it's time to quit being an arse and pay attention.

First the Officer did not want those two alone together, already arguing and if they kill one another right then, guess who gets blamed.



The Indiana Officer in the Second Story must be smoking or taking some of the Dept. Drug Stash, because he is looney as a Gooney Bird.


But really none of my Bees Wax,,just an Opinion.

[Jabba]

I don't reallt think it's as clear cut as it might sound on the surface.

They will be discussing it tomorrow with a radio guy I like and trust.  I want to hear HIS take on it before I decide. 

Jabba

[ptgb]

Did anyone actually read the Indiana Supreme Court decision?!? This wasn't like a entry into a house to search for drug/gun/etc. from out of the blue! This was receiving a 911 call for a domestic and responding to investigate said domestic violence complaint. The guy there, Barnes, was a complete as*hole start to finish...

His contention is you can resist unlawful police entry into your residence. Guess what? The police absolutely had a right to enter that house as they were investigating the domestic violence complaint, (thus making a lawful entry); the "victim", Barnes wife, was inside the residence. Barnes tried to forcibly stop the police from entering.... and got knocked around and tasered... the poor bastard.

This wasn't like a family of four were sleeping and the jack-booted thugs randomly kicked in their door for body-cavity searches of the family goldfish.

***TIP... if you think the police are making an "unlawful" entry into your house, my suggestion would be to maybe not grab the AK... you'll probably end up regretting it. Take 'em to court and collect your $$$$.

P.S. - And people wonder why many cops don't give a crap anymore...

[JimC]

Sheriff Hartman has obviously taken an extremely harsh stance on the supreme court ruling. It will be people (cops) like him that will stretch the ruling into yet another ruling that brings searches back into perspective.

I just hope no one gets killed while they are instituting their rather asinine perspective of the court ruling.

Jim

[tank_post142]

"Did anyone actually read the Indiana Supreme Court decision?!? This wasn't like a entry into a house to search for drug/gun/etc. from out of the blue! This was receiving a 911 call for a domestic and responding to investigate said domestic violence complaint. The guy there, Barnes, was a complete as*hole start to finish..."

i agree with you wholeheartedly, BUT, the courts decision is a blanket repudiation of the 4th amendment. leading to situations like the sheriff's statement.

[ptgb]

...the courts decision is a blanket repudiation of the 4th amendment...

Absolutely not.

[3fan4life]

...the courts decision is a blanket repudiation of the 4th amendment...

Absolutely not.

The two justices that dissented would disagree with you.

[tank_post142]

"The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized."

[B]

..."Rocky had come equipped with a gun to shoot off the legs of his rival"...   

[alph]

when are people going to realize that the police don't like to argue with you!!  you will not win the fight!!  if a cop pulls you over, chances are, he has a reason, if he comes to your house, he's probably been invited with some 911 call, if you fight him, it's obvious that you've got something to hide!! 

3 or 4 years ago, i had the police over to our house.  the neighbor lady was pissed off at our kids, or something like that, she was banging at our door, my wife opened the door to tell her to leave then she tried pushing her way in when my wife shoved her out and locked the door, i could see her yelling at me on the side window and since i had JUST come out of the bathroom and decided to drop my pants and tell her to kiss my arse.  she got all offended, ran home, and called the police saying i was exposing myself.  cop came by (just one) asked me if i did, i told him my story, he got hers, then told me that if i wanted i could have her arrested for trying to break in.  i left it alone, didn't want to make things worse......  funny thing, she become an awsome neighbor!!  her kids started getting along great with mine,


end of story....  don't know how it relates, just had to share it with you all......

[tank_post142]

" sure they were a little pushy at first, but we assumed they would calm down after a while in power, worst case we could vote them out in four years!"  Albert Kingfeld remembering the election of 1932 in Germany. Albert is a friend of mine, he lost 23 family members between 1936 - 1945 he is the only survivor of his generation.

" I remember the Kristallnacht.... they never touched our store so we said nothing"

[ptgb]

" sure they were a little pushy at first, but we assumed they would calm down after a while in power, worst case we could vote them out in four years!"  Albert Kingfeld remembering the election of 1932 in Germany. Albert is a friend of mine, he lost 23 family members between 1936 - 1945 he is the only survivor of his generation.

" I remember the Kristallnacht.... they never touched our store so we said nothing"

You're actually comparing this ISP decision to the rise of the Nazis in pre-war Germany?   ???

[sarcasm] Yeah, I can see that [/sarcasm]
 


In your quote of the 4th amendment you neglected to underline the part that actually applies to this ruling.... "...against unreasonable searches and seizures..."

It was absolutely reasonable; the cops followed the law... plain and simple. I guess I have to ask again... did you actually read the ISP decision? Before you try to apply this to some grand conspiracy to take away your rights... read about what happened in this case and the arguments that were made.

I'll write you a brief on it:

Cops get called to a domestic... cops try to investigate said domestic... mouth-breather decides to be an a**hole throughout... a**hole tries to stop police from lawfully (or reasonably) entering a residence to investigate said domestic... a**hole gets thumped and arrested (or reasonable seizure)... later, a**hole wants to cry about it.

...and I am not even a Constitutional scholar  

 

[Jabba]

I am a HUGE constitutional supporter.  Libertarian, and small government advocate.

This does NOT affect the 4th amendment rights.  It basically says... that the COMMON LAW rules from the last 300 years that allow REASONABLE resistance should no longer apply because we have many means of redress now, plus in today's world resistance escalates to violence that all too often results in irreparable harm of death to either the resistor or the police.  That persons can't make the judgement to decide if an entry is lawful or unlawful in the heat of the moment, and that MOST often even illegal entries are THOUGHT to be legal when executed by the officers, and are not exposed as illegal until after the fact.  That even these illegal entries are executed with proper intent by the LEO's and their RIGHT to safety trumps a persons RIGHT to privacy.

Even the dissent opinion on this admitted that this persons resistance was not reasonable, but preferred a more narrow ruling, rather than the broad one that was posted.

Now... agree or disagree with the ruling, but argue over what it was.

When confronted by LEO's I will tend to cooperate, and seek redress later.  that is, until they come knocking on doors confiscating guns, or just doing random searches.  At that point all bets are off.

That's NOT what this is about.  

Jabba

On edit: PS 20 other states have already made this or a similar ruling.  This isn't groundbreaking.

[ILcruiser]

In any judicial opinion, any statement that is not essential to the outcome of the case is called obiter dictum, and is not law.  I agree with the dissent that to issue the broad purported "holding" abolishing the right to reasonably resist an unlawful entry was unnecessary in this case.  All the court needed to do was to find that Barnes' resistance was unreasonable.  The court did not abolish the 4th Amendment to the U.S. Constitution, which it obviously was powerless to do, but the practical effect of a broad reading of this decision would have the same effect, at least as it relates to entry into one's home. 

[Daniel Meyer]

Around here the home invaders (as in, the "not cops that will kill you") often shout "Police!" as they break your door in.

Sooo...does this effect my right to shoot them dead?  

[Jabba]

In any judicial opinion, any statement that is not essential to the outcome of the case is called obiter dictum, and is not law.  I agree with the dissent that to issue the broad purported "holding" abolishing the right to reasonably resist an unlawful entry was unnecessary in this case.  All the court needed to do was to find that Barnes' resistance was unreasonable.  The court did not abolish the 4th Amendment to the U.S. Constitution, which it obviously was powerless to do, but the practical effect of a broad reading of this decision would have the same effect, at least as it relates to entry into one's home. 

Except that even after an illegal entry, the 4th amendment still protects you.  Now... if the cops break in and KILL you it's different.  You don't have redress for THAT.  But for loss, damage, their garnering of evidence illegally, the 4th is still there to shield you. 

LEO's guilty of bad entries need to be cut loose, because it will cost their jurisdiction a load of $$ on the inevitable bigass civil suit.

just my non-lawyer opinion.

Jabba

[ILcruiser]

Jabba, you're right on the money.  The 4th Amendment would preclude further warrantless searches of the premises, subject to the usual exceptions, most notably the seizure of contraband in "plain sight."  Also, both the entry, any further search of the premises and any injury to or death of the occupants could subject the LEOs to liability for violation of civil rights under color of state law, under 42 U.S.C. 1983.

[Jabba]

I tell my wife all the time... it's a real bitch being right ALL the freaking time.

Jabba

[Titan]

3 or 4 years ago, i had the police over to our house.  the neighbor lady was pissed off at our kids, or something like that, she was banging at our door, my wife opened the door to tell her to leave then she tried pushing her way in when my wife shoved her out and locked the door, i could see her yelling at me on the side window and since i had JUST come out of the bathroom and decided to drop my pants and tell her to kiss my arse.  she got all offended, ran home, and called the police saying i was exposing myself.  cop came by (just one) asked me if i did, i told him my story, he got hers, then told me that if i wanted i could have her arrested for trying to break in. 

Now that's funny!!
 

[tank_post142]

let me repost this link about the fact that 5 days later this sheriff says he will start RANDOM house searches:
http://www.mikechurch.com/Today-s-Lead-Story/in-sheriff-if-we-need-to-conduct-random-house-to-house-searches-we-will.html

[MP]

let me repost this link about the fact that 5 days later this sheriff says he will start RANDOM house searches:
http://www.mikechurch.com/Today-s-Lead-Story/in-sheriff-if-we-need-to-conduct-random-house-to-house-searches-we-will.html

Read this!

This is the attitude that "some" LEO's will take.  They now have open season to go in.  This is what worries me, not the good cop.  This sheriff is NOT talking about the situation in the case, he believes it gives him license to do house to house searches, not the "reasonable" ones.

MP

[fudgie]

Up here they say it stems from a instance were police was raiding a house and they did not knock. They busted the door in and seized drugs and stuff.
A medic I work with was on the local SWAT and they said they 'have' to knock, anounce who they were, count to ten and then go in. He said that it was dangerous and they can get rid of stuff and grab a gun and wait till the police come through the door.
Well knocking or no knocking I still will have a gun drawn. I dont expect my house to be raided cause someone has a joint or two but you never know.