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

Skip to comments.

Court Rules Law Abiding May NOT Resist Police Who ILLEGALLY ENTER THEIR HOMES!
coachisright.com ^ | May 19, 2011 | Doug Book , staff writer

Posted on 05/19/2011 12:23:21 PM PDT by jmaroneps37

It seems that law abiding homeowners no longer enjoy 4th Amendment rights in the State of Indiana. Thanks to the May 12th decision of three robed assassins of liberty on the state Supreme Court, 800 years of common law dating back to the Magna Carta have been discarded.

Speaking for this majority of judicial prostitutes, "Justice" Steven David said, "If a police officer wants to enter a home, for any reason or no reason at all, a homeowner cannot do anything to block the officer's entry."

Of course the now defunct 4th Amendment says otherwise:

"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."

By today's NEW standards, that’s rather a quaint point of view wasn't it! That is, actually believing the little people have the right to resist or be free from criminal entry on the part of Big Brother's Defenders of the Realm!

And the brilliant Mr. David continues: "We believe...a right to resist UNLAWFUL police entry into a home is against public policy and is incompatible with MODERN Fourth Amendment jurisprudence..."

By "modern", this hack in black obviously means "inconvenient".

"We also find that allowing resistance escalates the level of violence and therefore the risk of injuries to all parties involved without preventing the arrest."

Apparently the "level of violence" exhibited by rogue police doesn't concern the judge.

But the fact that the SWAT team has broken down your door, thrown your family to the ground in handcuffs and ransacked your home just for…

(Excerpt) Read more at coachisright.com ...


TOPICS: News/Current Events; US: Indiana
KEYWORDS: 4thamendment
So much as any other factor, illegal, capricious searches of people's homes drove the American Revolution. This ruling makes my blood boil!
1 posted on 05/19/2011 12:23:32 PM PDT by jmaroneps37
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | View Replies]

To: jmaroneps37

This is an outrage. I will not set foot in Indiana again.


2 posted on 05/19/2011 12:30:27 PM PDT by CowboyJay
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: CowboyJay

Well you can thank Mitch Daniels for appointing the guy. So much for good judgement. I don’t think Mitch is going to get jammed down our throats for 2012.


3 posted on 05/19/2011 12:33:49 PM PDT by Georgia Girl 2 (The only purpose of a pistol is to fight your way back to the rifle you should never have dropped.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: jmaroneps37; CowboyJay

What Good Can a Handgun Do Against An Army?
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-backroom/2312894/posts


4 posted on 05/19/2011 12:34:23 PM PDT by 2ndDivisionVet (How do you starve an Obama supporter? Hide his food stamps under his work boots.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: jmaroneps37
What you need to do is cool off.

Try to find somewhere in the case where anyone illegally entered anything.

When you find it, cry out "Wahoo" ~

See you in a couple of months.

BTW, the news articles don't match the case, and the court brief which is part of the decision doesn't have any facts to match the ruling.

You've been rolled by trolls (a couple of whom are on the bench).

5 posted on 05/19/2011 12:38:59 PM PDT by muawiyah
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Georgia Girl 2
The state nominating commission (7 magical beings gifted with preternatural intelligence) nominate 3 geeks and are gifted to the Governor.

He prays to his god Shatan about it overnight and appoints 1 of the 3 the next day.

This time he picked the chief acolyte. Next time he might pick someone with judicial temperment.

BTW, this case proves the failure of judicial nominations and appointments. We need to return to electing judges.

6 posted on 05/19/2011 12:41:34 PM PDT by muawiyah
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 3 | View Replies]

To: muawiyah

“If a police officer wants to enter a home, for any reason or no reason at all, a homeowner cannot do anything to block the officer’s entry.”

You really don’t have a problem with this opinion coming from the bench?


7 posted on 05/19/2011 12:43:00 PM PDT by CowboyJay
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 5 | View Replies]

To: muawiyah

“Justice” Steven David said, “If a police officer wants to enter a home, for any reason or no reason at all, a homeowner cannot do anything to block the officer’s entry.”

So you are saying that qoute is not correct? The language looks pretty plain to me. Are you sure you are not a troll and full of sh$t? Post a link to the case and I will check it out.


8 posted on 05/19/2011 12:46:42 PM PDT by HwyChile
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 5 | View Replies]

To: HwyChile
muawiyah is not a troll and is only very rarely full of $hit.

In legal matters on FR I defer to him/her/it.

9 posted on 05/19/2011 12:49:29 PM PDT by I Buried My Guns (Novare Res!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 8 | View Replies]

To: jmaroneps37
This is outright contempt of the Constitution.

Does anyone have a link to the decision in either html or text? (My internet device doesn't do pdf)

10 posted on 05/19/2011 12:54:28 PM PDT by Ken H
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: I Buried My Guns

I don’t defer to anyone in legal matters, probably because I am an attorney. Post the case.


11 posted on 05/19/2011 12:55:32 PM PDT by HwyChile
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 9 | View Replies]

To: CowboyJay
You haven't read the decision have you?

BTW, we have about 20 other threads on this particular issue ~ just do a search for INDIANA.

So, about the decision? I think the decision here is irrelevant to the case at law. It's judicial mental masturbation ~ and has nothing to do with the 4th amendment ~ which prevails no matter what a state supreme court says.

BTW, brush up on Shariah law as well. The Chief Justice there is an expert, and he seems to have "gone over".

Your adrenalin is pumping over the wrong issues.

12 posted on 05/19/2011 1:00:01 PM PDT by muawiyah
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 7 | View Replies]

To: HwyChile
Justice Dau'd is FOS. BTW, one of the subtle niceties in this case is that to arrive at the considerations presented in the case cites you'd have to discount the witness of the woman in the case.

She called the cops to her house!

This is her house. The cops are there at her invitation.

Only Shariah law allows you to get to Mullah Dau'd's decision.

13 posted on 05/19/2011 1:02:38 PM PDT by muawiyah
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 8 | View Replies]

To: jmaroneps37
..."Justice" Steven David said, "If a police officer wants to enter a home, for any reason or no reason at all, a homeowner cannot do anything to block the officer's entry."

IF this is a true and accurate quote of the judge, I can lay out a plan for a swift reversal by Hizzoner. This evening, when the judge gets home from work, three or four law enforcement officers should be in his living room, watching his TV, and drinking his beer. When he asks them why they broke down his front door and occupied his home, they could respond "Oh, no reason at all, and you cannot do anything about it".

Repeat the routine daily, until the judge realizes that the 4th amendment actually means something.

14 posted on 05/19/2011 1:02:59 PM PDT by deoetdoctrinae (Gun-Free zones are playgrounds for felons)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: HwyChile
You can go read the other 20 threads on this. You will find the decision pretty quickly.

I've posted the URl several times.

15 posted on 05/19/2011 1:03:51 PM PDT by muawiyah
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 11 | View Replies]

To: muawiyah

“We need to return to electing judges.”

Can’t argut that one.


16 posted on 05/19/2011 1:04:07 PM PDT by Georgia Girl 2 (The only purpose of a pistol is to fight your way back to the rifle you should never have dropped.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 6 | View Replies]

To: muawiyah

“We need to return to electing judges.”

Can’t argue that one.


17 posted on 05/19/2011 1:04:38 PM PDT by Georgia Girl 2 (The only purpose of a pistol is to fight your way back to the rifle you should never have dropped.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 6 | View Replies]

To: jmaroneps37
And the brilliant Mr. David continues: "We believe...a right to resist UNLAWFUL police entry into a home is against public policy and is incompatible with MODERN Fourth Amendment jurisprudence..."

Even a burglar knows he is committing a crime.

Which leaves two points of view.
(a) This judge is completely incompetent when it comes to his knowledge of the Constitution.
(b) This judge believes that if you wear a black robe, the Constitution is merely a document of suggestions which may be disregarded by fiat.

I'll go with (b). If a judge is impeached, what is to stop them from ruling that such an action is 'Unconstitutional?'.

For those who argue that 'King George isn't coming back', I would say that there are many repressive types everywhere. Our present administration is one of them.

Most dictators do not wake up one day and decide 'I'll be a despot'.

The people are prepared with an erosion of individual rights, chipped away gradually. Propaganda organs pepper them constantly, shaping minds and beliefs. Malleable children are indoctrinated by various institutions.

18 posted on 05/19/2011 1:06:15 PM PDT by He Rides A White Horse ((unite))
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: I Buried My Guns
The Constitution is written in plain English.

If police try to confiscate your guns during a natural disaster, you don't need a constitutional expert to tell you your Second Amendment rights are being trampled. More often than not, the "experts" I've seen side with the gun grabbers.

Why would you defer to anyone on basic constitutional matters involving our natural rights?

19 posted on 05/19/2011 1:09:48 PM PDT by Ken H
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 9 | View Replies]

To: Georgia Girl 2
Can’t argue that one.

Same here. An appointment for life reduces the concept of accountability.

20 posted on 05/19/2011 1:13:35 PM PDT by He Rides A White Horse ((unite))
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 17 | View Replies]

To: jmaroneps37
New words for Hoosiers to learn from http://www.newspeakdictionary.com/ns-dict.html:

blackwhite- The ability to accept whatever “truth” the party puts out, no matter how absurd it may be. Orwell described it as “...loyal willingness to say black is white when party discipline demands this. It also means the ability to believe that black is white, and more, to know black is white, and forget that one has ever believed the contrary.”

crimestop -: “The faculty of stopping short, as though by instinct, at the threshold of any dangerous thought.
malreported - When the Times reports a fact which the government later deemed untrue. You see, the government is never “wrong”, the paper merely reported the facts incorrectly.

Thinkpol - ThoughtPolice. Police force in charge of eliminating crimethink. The thought police monitor the public by way of spies (narcs), helicopters, and telescreens.

ungood - Bad.

That is all. await further instructions.

21 posted on 05/19/2011 1:14:50 PM PDT by PATRIOT1876 (The only crimes that are 100% preventable are crimes committed by illegal aliens)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: muawiyah
I've posted the URl several times.

If it is that easy to fine, do me a favor and just post it again here.

From what I read in the articles on this, it looks like the court made bad law when the facts probably gave the police probably cause to enter (because the parties actually called the police in a domestic dispute). The court then went way too far saying that if the police enter unlawfully, there is no self-defence afforded to the homeowner (they have to go to court about it after they are dead).

Here is what a law professor said about it:

Ivan Bodensteiner, a professor at the Valparaiso University School of Law, said:

Bodensteiner said the decision doesn't really give police the power to enter anyone’s home illegally — it simply states that if they do, the resident must turn to the courts for relief.

That is not acceptable.

22 posted on 05/19/2011 1:15:26 PM PDT by HwyChile
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 15 | View Replies]

To: HwyChile
So what ~ the fact is the cops did not arrive there and enter uninvited.

It's not that the "couple" called the cops. The guy had moved out. The woman called the cops. Her rights under American law are paramount in this or any other similar case. Only under Shariah law would her request for help be totally ignored in the development of the case.

To that degree this case is important ~ otherwise it's just another piece of BS churned out by incompetent judges who can't follow simple logic, or link decisions to the cases they hear.

If you are a lawyer you can find the case quite readily. First, search for "Indiana" on FR.

23 posted on 05/19/2011 1:51:01 PM PDT by muawiyah
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 22 | View Replies]

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