Posted on 05/17/2011 10:08:41 AM PDT by Abathar
I didn’t think a 00 pattern was that big.
I did have a guy tell me, while I was buying some military 00 12g, “that’ll go right through the door of a semi...”
I said, “thanks, I’ll keep that in mind if I ever have to shoot one”.
*sigh*
Yep.
Spread of pattern depends on the choke of the barrel, more than the size of the shot. Mine was improved cylinder, fwiw...
the infowarrior
It actually goes against much earlier US Supreme Court rulings (and Common Law), however the Indiana decision brings it in line with a majority of states (according to the decision), and none of those have been tested in the US Supreme Court in recent times.
There was a recent decision by SCOTUS which is chilling.
8-1 with BADER-GINSBURG as the only dissent, it supported the right of cops to break into a house because one of them smelled marijuana - WITHOUT a search warrent.
Marijuana smoke!!!
We can throw out the fourth Amendment because some jerk was puffing a joint and bunch of overzealous anti-drug NAZIs were too lazy to get a warrant?
Read the actual decision. All courts involved agreed that smelling the marijuana and hearing commotion as if destroying evidence after knocking on the door and announcing "police" was a valid exigent circumstance. However, the Kentucky Supreme court ruled that knocking on the door and announcing "police" created the exigent circumstance. The US Supreme Court overturned them, ruling that since knocking on the door and announcing "police" doesn't violate the 4th amendment, then the exigent circumstance was constitutional.
That makes more sense.
Then knocking on the door and yelling “Police” was not adequate to justify breaking in.
What constituted the constitutional justification was the smell of marijuana and the sounds of something being destroyed.
What concerns me is that the SCOTUS felt that a smell of marijuana, together with the POSSIBLE sound of something being destroyed, justified a search without a warrant.
Marijuana itself, although I am not a user, nor a defender, is not the same category as the sound of somebody being, say beaten or done away with, or evidence of “hard” drugs like heroin, etc.
What is there to stop a couple of cops from saying they smelled marijuana and thought there was the sound of something being destroyed as justification for breaking into a home and tearing it apart?
Given, most cops probably wouldn't do this at this point, but with the current character in the White House, I think giving governmental forces questionable legal powers is a dangerous step.
>>”...a right to resist an unlawful police entry...is incompatible with modern Fourth Amendment jurisprudence...”
>
>What’s the ‘modern’ Fourth Amendment? The one I have was written back in the late 1700s? Is there a newer one I haven’t heard about?
Yes.
The new one is in the Government’s Bill of Rights.
Amendment I
The Congress shall regulate all speech it deems hateful and may require any public gathering to be registered.
Amendment II
The Right of the Government to restrict the buying, selling, manufacture, or possession of weapons shall not be questioned.
Amendment III
Any government agent may, at any time, require that a Citizen provide for his housing, clothing, and/or retirement fund.
Amendment IV
No Citizen shall resist, in any way, an agent of the Government in any action carried out by that agent.
Amendment V
A citizen may be tried for the same crime multiple times, so long as they are in different ‘jurisdictions’; may be compelled to offer testimony against himself or others; and may be deprived of liberty and/or property prior to any conviction; any private property may be taken at any time, so long as ‘projections’ exist.
Amendment VI
The government may drag its feet in criminal cases to extend the length thereof; the government may taint the jury pool; the government may restrict from the jury pool any member who has a substantial knowledge of the law and shall do so if they express sentiments supporting Jury Nullification; the government may shield the accuser from the knowledge or cross-examination of the defendant in any criminal case.
Amendment VII
The rights of trial by jury shall be obscured.
Amendment VIII
There is no such thing as excessive bail, nor excessive fines, and punishments inflicted may be grossly disproportionate to the crime.
Amendment IX
The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to be binding on any level of Government.
Amendment X
The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the United States respectively, and not to the people.
And, let’s say IT’S NOT YOUR DOOR! Then what?
That happened in an earlier period of Ottoman oppression.
Window? Backdoor? I don’t care if they come down the friggin’ chimney, same end result.
The man no longer lived there.
So, if it's not your door, and you, yourself probably don't belong there, and you are and have been threatening and intimidating a legitimate resident, then what?
We are not Moslems. We don't have to discount the testimony of a female by 50%. I think the lady was right, and the cops were right, and her former "man" was wrong.
“We believe … a right to resist an unlawful police entry into a home is against public policy and is incompatible with modern Fourth Amendment jurisprudence,”
And you are fine with that?
Nobody did an unlawful entry except perhaps the man who attacked the police.
Are you fine with that?
Do you believe women should be beaten regularly, or irregularly?!
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.