Skip to comments.Court Rules Law Abiding May NOT Resist Police Who ILLEGALLY ENTER THEIR HOMES!
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, thats 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 ...
This is an outrage. I will not set foot in Indiana again.
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.
What Good Can a Handgun Do Against An Army?
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).
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.
“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?
“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.
In legal matters on FR I defer to him/her/it.
Does anyone have a link to the decision in either html or text? (My internet device doesn't do pdf)
I don’t defer to anyone in legal matters, probably because I am an attorney. Post the case.
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.
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.
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.
I've posted the URl several times.
“We need to return to electing judges.”
Can’t argut that one.
“We need to return to electing judges.”
Can’t argue that one.
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.
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?
Same here. An appointment for life reduces the concept of accountability.
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.
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.
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.