Shake out a few over here
Posted on 05/16/2011 9:22:18 AM PDT by Halfmanhalfamazing
In a move that flies not only in the face of the U.S. Constitution but defies common law dating back to the Magna Carta of 1215, the Indiana Supreme Court has ruled that residents of the Hoosier state have no right to resist unlawful police entry into their homes.
In a 3-2 decision, Justice Steven David, writing for the majority, expressed the view that
a right to resist an unlawful police entry into a home is against public policy and is incompatible with modern Fourth Amendment jurisprudence. 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.
(Excerpt) Read more at examiner.com ...
The English fought this battle with King John and prevailed and James Otis fought this battle with the British in the Writs of Assistance case and prevailed.
We don’t need to pay attention to these judges and their “opinions.”
If a police officer or any other “official” enters your home without cause or without a warrant, shoot him dead just as you would any other criminal.
Daniels appointed this slug who wrote the opinion..
And many here are touting this idiot Mitch Daniels for president.
God save us!
Keep your powder dry, a civil war is about to start.
http://www.in.gov/judiciary/opinions/supreme.html
I don’t know...sees like Barnes was in the right here and its the Court who is wrong.
The Ciourt is saying to allow the ploice in to do what they want and file a complaint later.
That sounds like bull...file a complaint???? You kiddin me?
Liberal Judges, Liberal Politicians, Liberal Academics - will all lead eventually to a Totalitarian State.
http://www.in.gov/judiciary/opinions/supreme.html
I don’t know...seems like Barnes was in the right here and its the Court who is wrong.
The Court is saying to allow the police in to do what they want and file a complaint later.
That sounds like bull...file a complaint???? You kiddin me? So it can be ignored?
This particular case seems a bit tough because it involved “do-mestic violence” and we all know if a woman complains she is immediately in the right, giving police powers they would not normally posess. In a sense Barnes is lucky he was not simply killed for upsetting a woman.[/sarc]
Sorry, tho I am no lawyer nor do I play one on tv, I do see the 4th ammendment issues here, from reading the case history: Barnes denied the cops entry and they requested entry. They did not say the had cause they requested entry and he said no and the woman did not give permission either. Not sure why that isn’t 4th ammendment territory.
Sorry for the sloppy first post...tried to stop it....
This doesn’t cancel the 4th amendment - although it surely is not friendly to the 4th amendment. They do encourage people to pursue legal action AFTER any arrests or seizures are made. They still acknowledge the 4th amendment here. (But I wish to repeat: They are TRYING to supercede it)
Right now, even outside of Indiana, if the police come knocking at my door, even forcefully - EVEN IN PLAIN CLOTHES - What am I to do ?
Do I start shooting ? Do I take them all down ? Do I run ? I’ll be caught ! I’ll be prosecuted to the fullest extent of the law, and I do believe that killing a LEO carries a broader penalty across all states. Even armed with a 4th amendment - What do I do ? Politely ask them to leave ? Make them at gun point ?
Chances are, any of these options will see me zipped up in a body bag before nightfall. Even if I’m totally in the right - could be the most righteous kill in the world - I’m still not going to be able to resist a police raid with or without this new Indiana law.
Nothing has changed, sadly.
“a right to resist an unlawful police entry into a home is against public policy and is incompatible with modern Fourth Amendment jurisprudence”
Isn’t this absolutely the opposite of fourth amendment jurisprudence?
“It’s not a Fourth Amendment case. Read it.”
I think it doesn’t matter if it’s a fourth amendment case. The ruling is a violation of it whether it’s a fourth amendment case or not.
Ms Kimber, Smith and Wesson voted 3-0 voted the other way.
Much easier to CYA and obfuscate things AFTER the fact.
We need to stand up against this, NOW. Of all the other slippery slopes we've gone down, this one is a bad one.
Unfortunately one person (the governor) can't control 100% of the thoughts of one individual (The SC justice). Think GHB and Souter. Souter certainly didn't turn out to be a positive in grand scheme of things.
If the woman was in danger of harm the officers had a duty to intervene. If this was a simple argument between a husband and wife and there was no danger, this is most definitely a 4th amendment issue. It was a 3-2 decision.
Oh, puh-leeze. The GOP knew exactly what Souter was. As they did with O'Connor. As Nancy said, they never gave a d*** about pro-lifers. They got exactly what they wanted. And we just let them walk all over us.
Palin appointed a Planned Parenthood director to Alaska’s Supreme Court...what are you feelings on that?
The woman had called the cops ~ they didn't just wander in imagining they'd be investigating something. They answered a call for help.
It turned into a kidnapping. He had no goods there. She pleaded with him to open the door and get out of the way.
He got off the hook with three minor felony charges. He should have gone up the river for life eh!
There was no unlawful entry.
If he got a reverse and remand to the trial court, the Prosecutor can bring in the kidnapping or unlawful detention charge he should have laid on the guy.
The cops responded to the call from the woman who lived in the apartment. The guy had moved out. Not his apartment. They lawfully entered the apartment.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.