Posted on 05/25/2011 4:27:39 PM PDT by Sioux-san
Last year we had a local Federal judge speak at the Engineers Club. I asked about the Fourth Amendment. He replied that it's still there between the Third and the Fifth, but there's not much of it left.
They can make the Constitution say whatever the hell they want to, but I will hold fast to the original intent of the framers. The intended and declared purpose of the Second Amendment was and still is that the citizen may have the means by which to resist government tyranny.
That is why I practice tactical rifle, shotgun and pistol every weekend ... Let them break down my door—they will not be leaving under their own power... That’s a promise.
“is a false claim” no it is not. Being able to take a police action into the court after the fact does not stop the action. The court said the the citizen can not stop the police during or before the action. The poster did not say that the court made the action of police legal only that we as citizens can not stop police action that are illegal. We now live in a police state. You are wrong because the court said police could enter, who can stop them no one because the court say they are free to do it. Afterwards the city can be sued but the police will not care because the tax payers pay the settlement, not the police, union or individual officer.
Yes, I did.
And the language contained therein is the equivalent of "because Mr. Asshole verbally assaulted Officer Dickhead while demonstrating outside the courthouse we find that the citizens of Indiana no longer have the right to petition the government of Indiana."
HERE is what the case was about:
Barnes appealed, challenging the trial court's refusal to give his tendered jury instruction
This is a direct quote from the decision:
“In sum, we hold that Indiana the right to reasonably resist an unlawful police entry into a home is no longer recognized under Indiana law.”
– It's the VERY FIRST sentence on page 6; FROM THEIR OWN WEBSITE
How the hell does language like that come from the case if it's about jury instruction?
Logically, how?
This video appears to be a health inspector checking to see if someone is installing a septic tank with or without a permit. This video doesn’t belong in this discussion in that health department does have the right in almost every county in every state to check on the septic tank.
This is under adminsitrative law. This is why the deputy did not enter the property but the inspector did. She had all the legal authority to do so. He did not. He could only keep the peace.
The man in the video stated his recourse: ‘you guys are making me rich’. So, by his own statement he knew that he had recourse.
We live in a society of laws. Some laws are inconvenient such as zoning and health codes. But they are laws and they are necessary. Your recourse is civil or criminal action.
This video appears to be a health inspector checking to see if someone is installing a septic tank with or without a permit. This video doesn’t belong in this discussion in that health department does have the right in almost every county in every state to check on the septic tank.
This is under adminsitrative law. This is why the deputy did not enter the property but the inspector did. She had all the legal authority to do so. He did not. He could only keep the peace.
The man in the video stated his recourse: ‘you guys are making me rich’. So, by his own statement he knew that he had recourse.
We live in a society of laws. Some laws are inconvenient such as zoning and health codes. But they are laws and they are necessary. Your recourse is civil or criminal action.
The Indiana Supreme Court, in a less noticed decision issued the week before, said police may force their way into a home for any reason or no reason at all [...]Please show me the page where the ISC said that.
Because the jury instruction brought up the claim, even though it didn’t fit the facts of the case!
The guy interfered with the officer responding to an alleged victim’s call for assistance. The defendant had no way of knowing whether it was illegal or legal entry anyway.
And know we have the SCOTUS agreeing - even Scalia, Alito and Thomas going down the rabbit hole - I am pretty sure this country will be broken apart for real within 20 years...if not sooner. Never in my wildest dreams. And there’s nowhere left to go. This truly is the last best hope going down the chute.
And nowhere will a judge allow a case against officers who make illegal entry in Indiana after this case. The judge is no longer required to instruct a jury about whether there is any such thing as illegal entry. Juries will assume that because judges are unresponsive on the subject that there is no illegal entry by an officer of the law. The jump from that to an officer’s unimpeded right to shoot whoever he finds after an illegal entry is not a long one. Practically speaking that right is recognized tacitly over most of the country now.
Darned, darned, darned. Now I've lost the trick I allas use ~ read the case ~ ignore the newsmedia ~ look for how the court deals with all the persons involved.
“In sum, we hold that Indiana the right to reasonably resist an unlawful police entry into a home is no longer recognized under Indiana law. Accordingly, the trial court‘s failure to give Barnes‘s proffered jury instruction on this right was not error.”
Page 6 of the court ruling at
http://www.in.gov/judiciary/opinions/pdf/05121101shd.pdf
my thoughts exactly- Ginsberg! No Scalia, Thomas or Alito either. If all the so-called conservatives had done the right thing, then Ruthie wouldn’t have been so alone. Bet she was surprised, too.
See post 32.
The justice was also the lead counsel for defending prisoners at GITMO ~ and he picked up some bad habits.
I think here the judge found himself locked into a pattern of Shariah exegesis regarding relevant elements of the law. To wit he informed us that the woman had called the cops and then he turned around and totally removed her and her rights under the law from the case in favor of the male.
There are more signs that the judge relied on his experience defending GITMO prisoners ~ which must necessarily have included explaining parallel processes in the legal system they know ~ Shariah ~ and what they faced in our system.
Maybe he had a stroke or a brain-f--t or something. Whatever, when he erased the woman from the case I went immediately to his legal background to see where that came from.
That particular trick took the case off the tracks and threw it in the ditch.
The other justices who review the case may have done so over cigars and whiskey or something ~ I don't think they actually asked "what happened to her"?
Besides, there are worse things about this decision than what it says ~ what it didn't say is an outrage.
And so the court can unilaterally declare that “In sum, we hold that Indiana the right to reasonably resist an unlawful police entry into a home is no longer recognized under Indiana law.”
That sounds EXACTLY like it qualifies for:
1) US CODE, TITLE 18, PART I, CHAPTER 13 — § 241. Conspiracy against rights
If two or more persons conspire to injure, oppress, threaten, or intimidate any person in any State, Territory, Commonwealth, Possession, or District in the free exercise or enjoyment of any right or privilege secured to him by the Constitution or laws of the United States, or because of his having so exercised the same; or
If two or more persons go in disguise on the highway, or on the premises of another, with intent to prevent or hinder his free exercise or enjoyment of any right or privilege so secured—
They shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than ten years, or both; and if death results from the acts committed in violation of this section or if such acts include kidnapping or an attempt to kidnap, aggravated sexual abuse or an attempt to commit aggravated sexual abuse, or an attempt to kill, they shall be fined under this title or imprisoned for any term of years or for life, or both, or may be sentenced to death.
a) Two or more people: Justices David, Shepard, & and Sullivan.
b) Conspire to oppress ... any person in any State ... in the free exercise or enjoyment of any right or privilege secured to him by the Constitution.
— i) the Citizens of Indiana are, clearly, people and therefore EACH of them qualify as a PERSON.
— ii) by citing the US supreme court rulings on the matter they acknowledge that this right is a matter of the US Constitution.
— iii) they explicitly say: The Supreme Court has affirmed this right as recently as 1948. United States v. Di Re, 332 U.S. 581, 594 (1948) (”One has an undoubted right to resist an unlawful arrest, and courts will uphold the right of resistance in proper cases.”).
— iv) they then say: “In sum, we hold that Indiana the right to reasonably resist an unlawful police entry into a home is no longer recognized under Indiana law.”
c) Therefore this is a defacto confession, entered into an open court, AND FILED BY THE CLERK THEREOF.
2) US CODE, TITLE 18, PART I, CHAPTER 13 — § 242. Deprivation of rights under color of law
Whoever, under color of any law, statute, ordinance, regulation, or custom, willfully subjects any person in any State, Territory, Commonwealth, Possession, or District to the deprivation of any rights, privileges, or immunities secured or protected by the Constitution or laws of the United States, or to different punishments, pains, or penalties, on account of such person being an alien, or by reason of his color, or race, than are prescribed for the punishment of citizens, shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than one year, or both; and if bodily injury results from the acts committed in violation of this section or if such acts include the use, attempted use, or threatened use of a dangerous weapon, explosives, or fire, shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than ten years, or both; and if death results from the acts committed in violation of this section or if such acts include kidnapping or an attempt to kidnap, aggravated sexual abuse, or an attempt to commit aggravated sexual abuse, or an attempt to kill, shall be fined under this title, or imprisoned for any term of years or for life, or both, or may be sentenced to death.
a) Whoever under color of any law [...] or custom
b) subjects any person in any state
— Does not any of the Citizens of Indiana qualify as a person?
c) to the deprivation of any rights, privileges, or immunities secured or protected by the Constitution or laws of the United States
— Does not the Constitution’s 4th Amendment say “The right of the people to be secure in their [...] houses [...] against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated [...]”?
— Does not the 4th Amendment further say “no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause [...] and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized”?
— Does not the 5th Amendment say, in part, “nor be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law;”
—— How then can “due process of law” be followed when the first step in that process, the requirement of the warrant, is the first thing thrown out?
d) shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than one year, or both
— is guilty, and here’s the punishment.
Looks like that high-court needs to be prosecuted for these felonies to me.
You are right except in the Indiana state constitution it is
“Section 11. The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable search or seizure, shall not be violated; and no warrant shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the person or thing to be seized.”
Still applies for the state constituion and thru the 14th ad. to 4th.
Go for it.
Go for it in the other states that have ruled similarly.
The woman called the cops. End of story. Her rights are at stake.
BTW, in Islamic shariah law women do have rights but they are, at best 1/2 those of a man. As a Kaf'r woman, the judge felt it was perfectly all right to FORGET ABOUT HER.
So, go back and try to put her back into the case and see if you find a need for the cops to get a warrant to respond to her call for help.
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.