Court Rules Law Abiding May NOT Resist Police Who ILLEGALLY ENTER THEIR HOMES!

coachisright.com ^ | May 19, 2011 | Doug Book , staff writer

[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…

[PATRIOT1876]

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.

[HwyChile]

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.

[muawiyah]

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.