Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

(Indiana) Court: No right to resist unlawful police entry
AP/Chicago Tribune ^ | 5/13/11

Posted on 05/14/2011 3:32:09 AM PDT by markomalley

click here to read article


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-20 ... 61-8081-100101-120121-140 next last
To: hoosierham

Thank goodness for the EMT’s. Being in a car accident, especially a serious one, is extremely frightening and disorienting. Been there, unfortunately. You really aren’t yourself after it happens. Confusion and disorientation are very common. Thank goodness you are okay.


101 posted on 05/14/2011 9:21:21 AM PDT by momtothree
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 99 | View Replies]

To: Raycpa

“If it means deadly force then I might be inclined to agree that the use of deadly force would not be a proper response.”

If one or more armed men enter my house illegally, I have EVERY right (regardless of what that court says) to resist with whatever force I deem necessary. If that means one or more armed men end up as goo on my living room floor, so be it.


102 posted on 05/14/2011 9:38:08 AM PDT by Sporke (USS-Iowa BB-61)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 28 | View Replies]

To: nonliberal

I agree. What’s to stop people from simply calling to report a disturbance at the homes of the justices?

Are there any rights a citizen will have concerning what they must allow the police to do once they are IN the home? Are they allowed to resist theft, gun confiscation, rape of one’s children? Or should we merely file a complaint later?


103 posted on 05/14/2011 9:40:33 AM PDT by dagogo redux (A whiff of primitive spirits in the air, harbingers of an impending descent into the feral.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 20 | View Replies]

To: Flintlock

7.62X54R


104 posted on 05/14/2011 10:02:01 AM PDT by shibumi (Vampire Outlaw of the Milky Way)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 7 | View Replies]

To: markomalley

This is why we have Guns, to “disagree” with the Government employees in black robes arbitrary disregard of the limits of their own power.


105 posted on 05/14/2011 10:07:58 AM PDT by Monorprise
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: mathluv
Proving my contention that we are getting so terribly many of these duplicate threads on such a MINOR point simply because the Libertarians and the Mitbots fear Mitch Daniels.

Sad to say, the Republican primary campaigns of two of the biggest losers in American politics is UNDER WAY!

106 posted on 05/14/2011 10:18:29 AM PDT by muawiyah
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 8 | View Replies]

To: Vor Lady

He’s an Obot who supported Osama Bin Ladens “right” to kill American women and children ~ a nut case!


107 posted on 05/14/2011 10:20:36 AM PDT by muawiyah
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 17 | View Replies]

To: EBH
You are in error. The court ruled in a single case with limited application elsewhere. No unlawful entry was made. A police officer had responded to the request for assistance made by the lady who lived in the apartment.

A man who said he didn't live there ended up attacking the officer inside her apartment.

That's the whole story.

Do you suppose people can request police assistance? Do you imagine cops have some sort of right to be free of physical assault while doing lawful business?

If you don't, you don't belong here!

108 posted on 05/14/2011 10:24:42 AM PDT by muawiyah
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 34 | View Replies]

To: Gondring
See, I said it was a bunch of "seminar posters", Obots, but also Mitbots and Paulistas.

They really don't want Mitch Daniels.

No idea what that means but their internal polling may well be inconsistent with Freeper general consensus.

Can you imagine what they'd be screaming if this involved a real unlawful entry.

109 posted on 05/14/2011 10:29:10 AM PDT by muawiyah
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 56 | View Replies]

To: Gondring
See, I said it was a bunch of "seminar posters", Obots, but also Mitbots and Paulistas.

They really don't want Mitch Daniels.

No idea what that means but their internal polling may well be inconsistent with Freeper general consensus.

Can you imagine what they'd be screaming if this involved a real unlawful entry.

110 posted on 05/14/2011 10:29:27 AM PDT by muawiyah
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 56 | View Replies]

To: Gondring
The Doufous had already told the cops he didn't live there.

Looks to me like a "home invasion" case ~ which is one of the reaons the legal cites look so contrived.

There was no unlawful entry EXCEPT possibly by the guy!

One Freeper noted that the Chief Justice is new to the job and this was the first decision he'd authored there.

Interestingly enough after his many years working in the military judicial system he blew it. It's exceedingly unprofessional for a judge to write a decision about hypothetical events that have nothing whatsoever to do with the case at hand.

111 posted on 05/14/2011 10:34:36 AM PDT by muawiyah
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 62 | View Replies]

To: BykrBayb
Don't get caught up in the propaganda. The case involved a woman who called the cops to come to her aid. The cops ended up in her apartment. They didn't need a warrant. A guy then attacked one of the officers. The same guy had already informed the cops that he didn't live there.

There's much less here than meets the eye.

No one agrees with the ruling, but informed folks condemn the ruling since ALL OF THE POINTS OF LAW mentioned in the ruling have ABSOLUTELY NOTHING to do with this case.

We can get into the "cops as ninjas" stuff with something else. None of that happened here.

112 posted on 05/14/2011 10:41:00 AM PDT by muawiyah
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 82 | View Replies]

To: Nevadan
Actually, the guy barring the cops was engaging in an unlawful detention of the woman ~ that's called kidnapping.

He's lucky he's getting off with three minor felony charges. He could be doing life!

113 posted on 05/14/2011 10:44:49 AM PDT by muawiyah
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 93 | View Replies]

To: LaRueLaDue

it was sarcasm


114 posted on 05/14/2011 10:50:35 AM PDT by bk1000 (A clear conscience is a sure sign of a poor memory)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 95 | View Replies]

To: OldCorps

When the Supreme Court rules on this abomination and crushes it beneath the heel of the Fourth Amendment


115 posted on 05/14/2011 11:39:31 AM PDT by worst-case scenario (Striving to reach the light)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 39 | View Replies]

To: EBH

No, you cannot have a right taken away from you for any reason. They came from God, not man. You think it is bad now let them try to take the guns. It will make the Balkans look like a weenie roast.


116 posted on 05/14/2011 11:45:47 AM PDT by mad_as_he$$ (Ladies and Gentlemen the _resident of the untied States!!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 68 | View Replies]

To: muawiyah

Thanks for the details. What an obnoxious ruling, huh?


117 posted on 05/14/2011 11:54:01 AM PDT by BykrBayb (Somewhere, my flower is there. ~ Þ)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 112 | View Replies]

To: dirtboy
You’ve been reminded repeatedly that Congress approved lethal action against bin Laden years ago.

I thought I had that covered by the "it really really wants to". There is nothing magical about Congress. Under this theory, that killing people is OK as long as it is authorized in advance by Congress, there is no logical limit.

118 posted on 05/14/2011 1:18:54 PM PDT by Haiku Guy (If you can read this / (To paraphrase on old line) / Thank a TAXPAYER!.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 30 | View Replies]

To: Haiku Guy
There is nothing magical about Congress. Under this theory, that killing people is OK as long as it is authorized in advance by Congress, there is no logical limit.

You really are tilting at a windmill here. Bin Laden directed an attack on this country that killed thousands. He admitted such publicly. He was not even a uniformed soldier to where those who captured him were bound by the Geneva Conventions. He could have legally been killed by the soldiers on the spot with or without Congressional or Presidential authorization.

And yes, Congress does matter as a means to check or authorize executive power. And there is a logical limit. Don't engage in lethal terrorism against this country and you won't get greased.

It's pretty pathetic that you are unwilling or unable to grasp the concept without trying to make more out of it than what is there. There are plenty of bona fide usurpations of power going on by the Obama Admin. Killing bin Laden is not one of them.

119 posted on 05/14/2011 1:29:31 PM PDT by dirtboy
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 118 | View Replies]

To: dirtboy

I like it, therefore it is legal.


120 posted on 05/14/2011 2:29:12 PM PDT by Haiku Guy (If you can read this / (To paraphrase on old line) / Thank a TAXPAYER!.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 119 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-20 ... 61-8081-100101-120121-140 next last

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.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson