I think the Judges went waaaaay to far in their opinion on this one.
Quote-"We hold that there is no right to reasonably resist unlawful entry by police officers."
underline for affect
The next Police State - Indiana
- Thread starter toadermcgee
- Start date
Quote-"We hold that there is no right to reasonably resist unlawful entry by police officers."
I'll just go ahead and take the contrary perspective and say that I think they went the correct direction with their decision; there are plenty of ways to seek redress and given the circumstances the guy getting jacked up wasn't really that far out of the box.
Or to go a step further, any police officer walking into a domestic dispute is already in an unenviable situation of essentially lose/lose-forcibly reacting to them really isn't the best idea.
But to each their own.
r-
Ray
Or to go a step further, any police officer walking into a domestic dispute is already in an unenviable situation of essentially lose/lose-forcibly reacting to them really isn't the best idea.
But to each their own.
r-
Ray
Sounds like a bunch of trashy people to me.
Unlawful is unlawful, though, and if that's what people are on about, so be it. I've got a right to defend my property until I'm incapable of doing so. I've got that right, just as I've got the right to jump over a table and stick a fork in your ear.
I don't need Uncle Sam to tell me what I can and can't do.
...as if the legal recognition of that right would prevent them from throwing your ass in jail. Whatever.
If you are caught, you are fucked whether or not the law says you were right.
Cheers,
Kennith
Unlawful is unlawful, though, and if that's what people are on about, so be it. I've got a right to defend my property until I'm incapable of doing so. I've got that right, just as I've got the right to jump over a table and stick a fork in your ear.
I don't need Uncle Sam to tell me what I can and can't do.
...as if the legal recognition of that right would prevent them from throwing your ass in jail. Whatever.
If you are caught, you are fucked whether or not the law says you were right.
Cheers,
Kennith
ptschram
Well-known member
Old news, this was started months ago.
The Allen County Sheriff likely won't be re-elected due to his statements on the topic where he basically told the citizenry that if a Sheriff shows up on your front porch, open the door.
The Whitley County Sheriff has made it clear none of his officers will be entering a home without a warrant, hot pursuit or articulable exigent circumstances.
What's missing from the newspaper articles is that the state Attorney General and the Governor have both strongly suggested that the Supremes revisit this sooner rather than later.
The Allen County Sheriff likely won't be re-elected due to his statements on the topic where he basically told the citizenry that if a Sheriff shows up on your front porch, open the door.
The Whitley County Sheriff has made it clear none of his officers will be entering a home without a warrant, hot pursuit or articulable exigent circumstances.
What's missing from the newspaper articles is that the state Attorney General and the Governor have both strongly suggested that the Supremes revisit this sooner rather than later.
ptschram
Well-known member
Question:
If someone is banging on your door claiming to be a LEO and you're in fear of a home invasion and shoot the person as they break down the door, how will it be handled?
Conversely, if someone bangs on your door claiming to be a LEO and you open the door and it's not a LEO, is the Supreme Court liable? Absent this ruling, one would have assumed the right to self-defense.
If someone is banging on your door claiming to be a LEO and you're in fear of a home invasion and shoot the person as they break down the door, how will it be handled?
Conversely, if someone bangs on your door claiming to be a LEO and you open the door and it's not a LEO, is the Supreme Court liable? Absent this ruling, one would have assumed the right to self-defense.
ptschram said:
Sadly, this happened here in Pittsburgh back in 2008...or at least the wife involved tried to claim they thought it was a break-in when she shot an FBI agent during a drug bust...http://www.wtae.com/news/18013676/detail.html
This January, she took a deal by pleading guilty and got ~16 years for 'voluntary manslaughter' and 'use of a firearm in the commission of a crime' instead of murder.
http://www.wtae.com/news/26516433/detail.html
The fact that her husband had run downstairs and was flushing cocaine down the toilet made it tough for her to prove they didn't know it was LEO's at the door...
My thoughts are the ruling is too broad and gives law enforcement too much power; which is why I posted. Hopefully LEO will be like the Whitley County Sheriff but there needs to be more than one smart sheriff's personal beliefs to be protecting everyone.
Our state Legislature doesn’t know how to react to the ruling ether. It looks like they will side on taking away rights instead or upholding them.
My son said "Well, I guess we can use unreasonable force to prevent unlawful entry."
Indiana seems to be filled with douche bags anyway.
http://rivals.yahoo.com/ncaa/basket...playing-the-national-anthem-?urn=ncaab-wp4428
http://rivals.yahoo.com/ncaa/basket...playing-the-national-anthem-?urn=ncaab-wp4428
If LEOs enter unlawfully, any evidence they find basically gets thrown out of court, right? So if it happens, why resist? More like, laugh and point because they made such a bonehead move and got nothing on you, plus you can sue the shit out of the department for damages.
ptschram
Well-known member
knewsom said:
Google "exclusionary rule" it will open your eyes to the abuses that SCOUS allows to take place against us.
Even if you're not flushing cocaine down the toilet, it's too late. You'll end up with your name in the paper, lose some time out of your life that you spent in the company of folks you wouldn't want to look at, much less share a shower with. Then you get to pay an attorney and gamble that the jury sees it your way.
The attitude of the judges shows the arrogance of the wealthy and connected who can afford to say things like "you don't need rights, you can buy them"-cue The Clash!!!
My attorney colleague told me he's praying that someone funds the appeal to SCOTUS but he's concerned that it might be upheld there as well.
My greatest concern is and has been that we'll see an increase in home invasions with folks dressed and saying they are LEOs. Fortunately, most of the LEOs around here know that I'm a proper person in spite of my appearance and I can feel fairly safe in saying that I can answer my door any damned way I'd like, and you all know what that means. (cue the critics who think I should not be allowed to possess firearms, much less carry one).
knewsom said:
Are you the type of person that when pulled over for a burnt out taillight, or speeding, or whatever by a LEO, and they ask to search your vehicle, you say, "sure." cause you have nothing to hide?!! How many more of your rights and freedoms do you want to give away? Good lord, that is what is the matter with alot of this country, folks are just handing over their rights and freedoms to not only law enforcement but to the government! I know laying down is just easier and more comfortable, but at some point folks are gonna need to get back up and make a stand.
I think there is too much reactionary rhetoric being thrown out about 'losing freedoms and rights'; I struggle day to day to find people who are being subjugated by our fascist government...but maybe it's just me.
The context of this ruling can't be lost by parsing out quotes from the text and then saying that there will be a rash of cops barging into your house, or fake cops conducting home invasions on that premise. Basically what happened was a piece of trash got tazed when he was acting like all the other participants on 'Cops.' A better solution for Law Enforcement would be to not respond to domestic violence disputes in the first place-let Darwin take its course and not be involved, right? Or maybe people should use their rights and freedoms to not act like jackasses-going back to the whole premise that an individual's rights end where the next person's begins.
I mean, it's not like we're talking about California here...
The context of this ruling can't be lost by parsing out quotes from the text and then saying that there will be a rash of cops barging into your house, or fake cops conducting home invasions on that premise. Basically what happened was a piece of trash got tazed when he was acting like all the other participants on 'Cops.' A better solution for Law Enforcement would be to not respond to domestic violence disputes in the first place-let Darwin take its course and not be involved, right? Or maybe people should use their rights and freedoms to not act like jackasses-going back to the whole premise that an individual's rights end where the next person's begins.
I mean, it's not like we're talking about California here...
btp98w said:
No, but I'm also not the kinda guy who's gonna try and shoot a cop for doing so or even give him shit about it. More along the lines of "If you really feel you have to search my care I'm sure you'll get a warrant for it, but if it's not truly that important, then I'd just as soon be on my way."
Police have a very difficult job and I absolutely respect and admire them for doing it. I'd like to help them do their job without giving away the farm so to speak.
If the laws on the books say what they say, then a judge is bound to uphold it in the court. If you don't like the law, then go talk to your legislative reps and change it. Pretty amazing how accesible our government is when it really boils down to it.