Replies

Note that what you just posted contradicts the erroneous claim made in the article posted above.

From http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/bloggers/2720824/posts?page=82#82:

Nowhere did the court affirm the right of the police to conduct random searches. Just because the court said there was no right to make a specific response to an illegal activity doesn't make the activity suddenly legal.

By the logic being used, if a court case ruled that a cop was wrong in just shooting someone for speeding, we'd have a chorus of FReepers claiming the case said that people had the right to speed.

I have as many questions about the ISC case as anyone, but that doesn't mean we should be making things up or acting like idiots.

82 posted on 05/17/2011 3:11:13 AM PDT by Gondring (Paul Revere would have been flamed as a naysayer troll and told to go back to Boston.)

By posting "will be given ample opportunities to protest the illegal entry through the court system," you note that "[...] said police may force their way into a home for any reason or no reason at all [...]" is a false claim.

“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.

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.