Posted on 05/21/2011 5:40:57 AM PDT by John W
Under this ruling what recourse is there if an innocent person loses their life? /S
The state might conclude they are not responsible damaged property in the course of their work and all citizens are in reality property of the state. One need look no further than the right of estate in which the state can take away all property or most of it upon ones passing. /S /S
The problem is this is a decision that might make some sense in Sharia law but not in America. The fact that the judge who wrote the decision had more than his fair share of contact with proponents of Sharia law is troublesome in the extreme.
That one can defend one’s home from unlawful entry is not a right the State can grant: it comes from the Creator. The State’s attempt to intervene in thwarting this inalienable right will not be tolerated nor respected by the citizens, who will resist with violence in individual cases, and at the ballot box.
Power has corrupted the judges, politicians and police. Their audacity is increasingly turning this country into a tense us-versus-them situation, but we surround them.
This might haunt Mitch Daniels.
There is no overreaction on this issue, the court did not limit it’s ruling to the specific case, it used the case to further erode 4th amendment rights. It should tell you something when even the government’s own attorney says the court went too far.
“He went on to say that “if the defendant thought the police officer’s entry into his home was illegal, he has plenty of opportunities to raise that issue through the court system. The risk of harm to both the police and the defendant is too great to allow people to take matters into their own hands.””
I’d say that given the risk of harm to both the police and defendant, the police need to revisit their policy on home entries that are likely to get a violent response from an innocent citizen that isn’t going to take this kind of crap.
I could care less about this ruling as I have no reason to expect police to enter my home and must assume it’s a home invasion robbery. I will deal with the matter appropriately. If the police do need to enter my home, they will have a warrant or they are not coming in.
They will ask you "show us the crime scene" and you will demand a warrant.
Sure you will.
Your insurance company is not going to pay your claim if you don't let the cops take a look.
The central issue here is that the ruling addressed an issue not before the court...and got it wrong. The police had the right to enter in this particular case, but not for the reasons stated in the decision. The court did not need to consider the Fourth Amendment issue, since the wife had given permission.
The average citizen may misinterpret the case, and nobody gets hurt. Not so much when the average LEO misinterprets the ruling.
That vetoed bill would've changed it for just one county and also created a new circuit court. He also saw it as a Democrat power grab.
We have elected judges in CA. It's no great thing. Voters know nothing about them. They collude to avoid saying anything useful by hiding behind an "ethics" code. The press show no interest in vetting them thus the trial lawyer favorites typically prevail thanks to union run GOTV operations.
In Indiana, newly appointed picks do come up for a retention vote after their first two years. Daniels pick should be up in Nov. 2012.
Finally, the minority were 1R, 1D appointees, the majority 2R, 1D appointees.
Won’t say it can’t happen but the likelyhood of someone choosing my house to rob is very slim. There are much, much easier targets to go after. Not to mention safer...
Like they say CROOKS ARE STUPID.
Yes they are which is why I have several layers of security including a pack of land sharks to warn off the stupids.
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.