Posted on 05/25/2011 4:27:39 PM PDT by Sioux-san
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.
Besides, this wasn't a 4th amendment case anyway, and there was no unlawful entry.
The 3 justices in the majority as well as 1 dissenting justice should be removed from the court.
>Ive done several dozen posts on this case already. Since this is a state court it has no effect on the 4th amendment.
Actually, it could be a case against that Court under the 14th Amendment & 18USC241/18USC242.
The second entence of Section 1 says: “No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.”
Note, carefully, nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law.
Now, where is the Indiana Supreme Court’s authority to declare that prior rights are no longer recognized?
They said: “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.” while ALSO saying “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[...]).”
Or their state Constitution and the the 14th Amendment & 18USC241/18USC242.
Same as above, but by saying that “the right to reasonably resist an unlawful police entry into a home is no longer recognized under Indiana law” they are repealing law, namely Indiana’s Castle Doctrine Law, and their State Constitution says: Art 3, Section 1 — The powers of the Government are divided into three separate departments; the Legislative, the Executive including the Administrative, and the Judicial: and no person, charged with official duties under one of these departments, shall exercise any of the functions of another, except as in this Constitution expressly provided.
Also, their State Constitution says: Art 1, 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.
Further, Amending the State Constitution is NOT permitted the Judicial:
Art 16, Section 1 - Amendments
(a) An amendment to this Constitution may be proposed in either branch of the General
Assembly. If the amendment is agreed to by a majority of the members elected to each of the two
houses, the proposed amendment shall, with the yeas and nays thereon, be entered on their journals,
and referred to the General Assembly to be chosen at the next general election.
(b) If, in the General Assembly so next chosen, the proposed amendment is agreed to by a majority of
all the members elected to each House, then the General Assembly shall submit the amendment to the
electors of the State at the next general election.
(c) If a majority of the electors voting on the amendment ratify the amendment, the amendment
becomes a part of this Constitution.
Ah, so because the Inquest in the Erik Scott Costco found no guilt this means that the police may summarily execute you because you were “not compiling with commands” due the simple fact that the commands given were contradictory in nature?
I pray that you are not involved with law, or its enforcement, in any way, shape, or form.
Yes, that is what is says. So, in light of dozens of court decisions that state only the court can determine what is reasonable:
What do you do? Do you challenge the officers? Shoot them?
Your recourse is: courts. Not street justice. This is all the court is saying.
No not end of story, Barnes denied police entry and “Mary did not explicitly invite the officers in” so they had no not end of case.
>You weren’t doing all that bad on your examination of some of the legal issues involved in this case but then you got to the WARRANT
That’s irrelevant in some of my arguments; as their supreme court DOES NOT have the authority to amend their own State Constitution.
It’s amazing what you find when you read one; and I think I may have glanced at Indiana’s Bill of Rights once before today.
No I am not a slave nor a subjuct. I will defend my property, the police will suffer if they try an illegal entry on my property.
>Besides, this wasn’t a 4th amendment case anyway, and there was no unlawful entry.
It is a fourth-amendment case in that the Indiana Supreme Court cited US Supreme Court cases, thus recognizing its authority, and as the US Supreme Court never* takes on cases which are not related to the US Constitution it must mean that the issue at hand is an issue of the US Constitution, no?
* Slight hyperbole
From Page 2, 3rd paragraph:
Mary did not explicitly invite the officers in, but she told Barnes several times, "don‘t do this" and "just let them in."
The police really have no choice but to enter.
Really? They were not invited. The court admits as much.
Best advice here: treat law enforcement like vampires.
Because it can never help. [Even the police agree.]
Even if you are wrong? Remember, civil liability works both ways. My family knew the first phone call other than to family was to an attorney to sue whoever hurt me.
Because there is a non violent recourse, you will lose everything you ever worked for your entire life. Even if you are right.
I am amazed how so many here think that whatever the courts say is just fine.
I find it curious that legal action after the fact is considered to prevent exposure to danger or harm.
If the affirmation of the verdict stated that the proposed jury instruction was superfluous because the police entering the home was clearly legal, I wouldn't have a problem with it (the accounts of the incident indicate that the wife may have semi-overtly invited the cops in). Instead, the court declared that illegal entry was a protected right of the police, until the accused could obtain a lawyer and air the facts in court.
Many states have a castle doctrine, where one has the definitive right to defend oneself, and in some cases to defends one's property. But, under the Illinois precedent, one cannot defend oneself against an illegal home invasion by the police - while a non-police invasion is not so protected.
I honestly cannot see how this overreach by the Illinois court does not completely abridge the fourth amendment. The right to a lawyer is not the same as the right to be secure in one's home.
>We live in a society of laws.
And where does the Indiana Supreme Court get to repeal laws?
Their decision effectively repeals their Castle laws unless, after the fact, they turn out to have been “bad guys.”
Where does the Indiana Supreme Court get to amend the State Constitution?
Their decision effectively amends the State Constitution which says:
Section 11. — Unreasonable search or seizure; warrant
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.
You can argue all sorts of things. The decision has nothing to do with the fact situation. NO JUDGE in any future case will allow this abomination to be cited as precedent.
They didn't need a warrant. There are no 4th amendment issues in this case.
There are however Shariah law elements in the case ~ that's the only way you can explain why the court failed to consider her rights!
The statement that there is no right to resist an unlawful entry didn't fit the case, either. Rejecting the jury instruction because it didn't fit the case is one thing - a subject of heated debate, but a valid legal point of view (IMO).
The statement that recourse for illegal police entry - under ANY circumstance - is solely in the hands of the judiciary is well beyond the boundaries of this case. I have been unable to understand how an attorney, after the fact, can secure one in one's home.
I do not break the law the police have to have a warrent.
The court is wrong.
Follow what Barnes told the officer ~ he had moved out. He was no longer a resident. It wasn't his apartment.
These things are recorded.
She had no need to plead with the cops to come in.
You are wrong the court will try to use it, it goes along with the further contol of the citizens. It is what they want.
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.