Posted on 05/25/2011 4:27:39 PM PDT by Sioux-san
>I am amazed how so many here think that whatever the courts say is just fine.
Which is EXACTLY why I would use that misconception to bolster my argument, though not at the expense of actual/solid reasoning.
(BTW, the 2005 Kelo case is proof that misconception is HORRIBLY wrong; if the government can use imaginary things [’projections’ on ‘increased tax revenue’ from doing so] as satisfying the requirement that Eminent Domain be for “Public Use.”)
>The guy interfered with the officer responding to an alleged victim’s call for assistance.
The alleged victim was RIGHT THERE. (From the decision: “Mary did not explicitly invite the officers in, but she told Barnes several times, ‘don‘t do this’ and ‘just let them in.’”)
How the f—ck hard is it for the officer to say “Ma’am, do you need help here? Can I come in?”
And there’s EXPLICIT PERMISSION!
No he was in the process of moving out it was not complete. He denied access, she did not request or approve their entrance, no warrent therefore illegal.
Turns out there are OTHER DOCTRINES that allow courts to process cases without threat of being accused of criminal acts. It’s like sitting around prognosticating about a murder and people propose various possible perpetrators. None of those named has judicial recourse against the people discussing the possibilities. Judges have more protections, but the principle is the same ~ to wit, that judicial process is more important than petty claims about being offended.
>NO JUDGE in any future case will allow this abomination to be cited as precedent.
Just like no judge would use Roe v. Wade as precedent? Wicard v. Filburn? Kelo v. New London?
I agree on this point, but I fail to see how this validly translates into citizens not having the right to reasonably resist an illegal police entry into their homes. The facts of this case appear to support the legality of the police entry. The court's decision far exceeded that boundary.
How we got here is immaterial. The precedent set by this decision, which declares that a person's security in their own home is secured by lawyers and judges, and not by the person themselves, is a complete non-sequitor to me.
Again, what part of "SHARIAH LAW DOES NOT APPLY" don't you understand. Women have rights under ALL American laws.
You’re the one trying to make it legal to police to violate the law just because a jury instruction was deemed inappropriate.
>Turns out there are OTHER DOCTRINES that allow courts to process cases without threat of being accused of criminal acts.
“But when a long train of abuses and usurpations, pursuing invariably the same Object evinces a design to reduce them under absolute Despotism, it is their right, it is their duty, to throw off such Government, and to provide new Guards for their future security.”
Kelo was about Connecticut ~
Yes too many freepers allow too much leeway for the police. I guess it makes them feel safe.
>You’re the one trying to make it legal to police to violate the law just because a jury instruction was deemed inappropriate.
How so?
So, if a terrorist or felon sneaks into your back room without you knowing, and the police are pursuing him legally, you’ll blow the police away so the felon/terrorist is protected?
nice.
>I guess it makes them feel safe.
It doesn’t make ME feel safe.
She did not want to talk to the officers, If she had wanted to she would have done it in the parking lot. Twist and pull all you like but the police were wrong.
And you’ll know it’s illegal how?
The court's argument was that common law in the US had pretty much eviscerated the old english rule.
The point was simple ~ if you know they're cops, and they are there, whatever they do you have a chance to settle it later in court.
If you don't know they're cops, and they are there, Indiana has a Castle Doctrine law in place ~ just recently updated in fact.
I would not expect a court anywhere to rule that if you know they're cops you can shoot them down if you think they don't have a clear legal right to be there.
That's just not going to happen ~ not here, not anywhere, not even in a syndico-anarchist government.
Not having a warrant is separate issue. That has to do with reasonable search and seizure. Answering a call for help is NOT about search and seizure ~
Yeah...she told the invading husband (remember, that was not his domicile—it was hers) to let the cops in because she didn’t want the cops to come in.
Uh-huh.
I have not done significant investigation as to the facts of the case, but I have (from your posts, primarily) gathered that she invited the intervention. My concern is that the ruling did not address the reasonable reason to refuse the instruction. It would have been reasonable to state that the instruction would have been improper because the police entry was invited by the call from the wife.
What I find unreasonable is that the court based its decision on the proposition that a person has no right to prevent an unlawful police entry under any circumstance. I fail to see how the ruling can be read any other way.
It is not the decision to exclude the jury instruction, but instead the decision to assert that nobody can prevent an illegal entry by the police by “reasonable force” that bothers. In short, the court decided that “reasonable force” was unreasonable.
It’s a bad case. It doesn’t deserve to have risen to this level of scrutiny. But the judges’ decision to write their ruling in this fashion is a problem to me.
Where you from boy? Do they were them there white robes and turbines on their haids?
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.