This her???
Uck! A two-bagger.
She be sooo ugly she probably can't even have sex with herself....
Posted on 05/21/2011 6:47:30 AM PDT by dirtboy
On the heels of a ruling by the Indiana Supreme Court that citizens did not have the right to resist an illegal search, internet journalist Allison Bricker broke this story:
CROWN POINT, Ind. – According to Newton County Sheriff, Don Hartman Sr., random house to house searches are now possible and could be helpful following the Barnes v. STATE of INDIANA Supreme Court ruling issued on May 12th, 2011. When asked three separate times due to the astounding callousness as it relates to trampling the inherent natural rights of Americans, he emphatically indicated that he would use random house to house checks, adding he felt people will welcome random searches if it means capturing a criminal.
Unfortunately, we don't have any recording of this statement, because, according to Brickman, she doesn't like the sound of her own voice:
lol. Gosh you people are such voyeurs. Truth be told, I am writer by choice as my oratory skills are usually lost in my indignant exuberance for liberty.
Thus, coupled along with the fact that I cannot stand to hear myself recorded I will most likely stick with :Attribution.
The Newton County Sherrif's Department has since posted this on their website:
On May 16, 2011, I was contacted by a reporter of an internet radio station. Her question concerned a recent Indiana Supreme Court decision, allowing police officers to make random warrantless searches. I advised her that I was not clear on that particular ruling; she then asked how the Sheriff’s Office conducted searches of residences. I informed her that searches were only conducted with a warrant, probable cause or when an officer is in hot pursuit.
When questioned about the Supreme Court ruling, I advised her that as police officers, we enforce those laws set forth by our legislative branch. This reporter then asked about the violation of Constitutional Rights. This State Supreme Court ruling in my opinion cannot override our U.S. Constitutional Rights and I’m sure this state ruling will be revisited.
When I was asked about my thoughts on random searches and how people would react, I gave her the scenario of looking for a criminal or escapee. I advised her that if people were aware of this situation, they would gladly let you search a detached garage, outbuilding, etc., if it meant keeping them safe, but this would only be after securing permission.
This court ruling is just open for lawsuits if a police officer would attempt a random search without due cause. Somewhere in this conversation things were definitely taken out of context. I'm now quoted as saying the Sheriff's Office will be conducting random house to house searches.
I want the citizens of Newton County to rest assured that no member of the Newton County Sheriff’s Office will enter the property of another person without first having a warrant or probable cause to do so. I strongly stand behind my oath to uphold the Constitution of the United States of America, as well as that of the State of Indiana.
Some on the Facebook page linked above say that Sheriff Hartman's clarification backs up Brickman's assertion. So I am asking FReepers, what say you?
Is Brickman twisting Hartman's position, or is she correct? Is Hartman's position constitutionally sound or tyrannical in nature? And does Brickman's unwillingness to record as to have evidence call into question the veracity of the claims?
This story gets to the very roots of Internet citizen journalism.
The ruling in question permitted entry. It did not permit searches.
Then she'd take a conversation with a sheriff and torture it to attract attention.
I'd say her motive is lots of good sex.
My guess is that the original quote was taken out of context, and even if it wasn’t I don’t think it matters.
Things are changing rapidly in this country, with lines of division between citizen and government that deepen every single day. With more and more stories of outright police brutality, corruption, and grotesque abuse of power, more and more of the law-abiding are aligning themselves against law enforcement as a whole.
Let’s say that the sheriff dept.’s original comments were an in-context result of a momentarily-enhanced sense of bravado, the follow-up statement was a result of either: a) getting caught, or, b) realizing that there are a lot more righteously angry, armed Americans who are acting in defense of their families and themselves than there are law enforcement officers.
Pretty words. But will this Sheriff's Dept. live by them?
A point which has not escaped the attention of a great many law enforcment agencies and police departments across the country.
Witness the militarization and over-arming of our police departments in the last 10 years.
Brickman is twisting the sheriff’s remarks. Put her on your list of BS artists - along with nearly all of the rest of the media.
Buying into stories from self-described JOURNOLISTS these days is a high risk venture. You can waste an awful lot of venom, spleen and ire venting over their CR*P.
“I’d say her motive is lots of good sex.”
You’re not right in the head. :)
That is an excellent point that has been overlooked in this entire debate.
All I can say is “advertising pays”.
She asked him three times and she didn’t quote him? Yeah, she’s reputable, alright.
They are both liars?
This her???
Uck! A two-bagger.
She be sooo ugly she probably can't even have sex with herself....
She shows signs of being a Paultard on the Facebook page linked above - she uses the term rEVOLution, for example.
If they are permitted entry what is to stop them from searching?
They already have a hunch which all that is required for entry.
On the Facebook page that she apparently started to get the sheriff removed, there was a critical post yesterday that has been removed today.
That standard has been in place for ages.
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.