Your 4th amendment is gone. At least in Indiana. Where next?

page: 1
14
<<   2 >>

log in

join

posted on May, 13 2011 @ 12:10 PM
link   
www.infowars.com...

Folks it's time to take back our rights. The Globalist and those that have fallen under their spell are way over the line. We need to get behind a candidate like Ron Paul or Gov Johnson who will make some changes for the better.

When I quit fuming over this I will come back and post some more information.


If some one beat me to this, or already posted, sorry. I searched and didn't see it, but it took me awhile to get this out seeing how my blood pressure has blacked me out a few times while typing.




posted on May, 13 2011 @ 12:16 PM
link   
reply to post by EssenceOfSilence
 


Here is the original article link.

www.nwitimes.com...



posted on May, 13 2011 @ 12:18 PM
link   
This will last about as long as it takes for the first crooks to realize all they need is a police uniform to gain entry into someone's home, then let the rape and robbery begin. Personally, without that court order to enter, you're just a trespasser, subject to trespasser law. (Take that however you will).


If this is to be the norm for the whole of the United States, I predict a lot of anarchy in the near future, and a rise in the number of innocent people hurt by police, and the number of Police deaths.
edit on 13-5-2011 by Mactire because: (no reason given)



posted on May, 13 2011 @ 12:23 PM
link   
reply to post by Mactire
 


Problem is they can simply call in a warrant or bring the judge along.

Besides, even if they haven't got a court order and they do bust in you can't do much about them. They're armed, armored, and will cover each others back. Pretty messed up.



posted on May, 13 2011 @ 12:26 PM
link   
reply to post by EssenceOfSilence
 


Ummm, this was not an unlawful entry.
Even though the media article says so.
The police went to investigate a domestic disturbance and the male occupant would not allow entry.
Seems suspicious, and there is much more i would like to know but, if "Scare em all Al Jines" says so....
People stop watching Al, all you get out of it is propaganda and fear.



posted on May, 13 2011 @ 12:27 PM
link   
you know, im looking all over google searches to try and find a mainstream article about this (because without it I can get deemed crazy). It then dawned on me that the mainstream isnt covering this because indiana news is more focused on that kid from American Idol getting voted off.


-Perpetually shaking my damn head.

Edit: found the chicago tribune to report it. Mainstream enough for me. article
edit on 13-5-2011 by derst1988 because: (no reason given)



posted on May, 13 2011 @ 12:34 PM
link   

"We believe ... a right to resist an unlawful police entry into a home is against public policy and is incompatible with modern Fourth Amendment jurisprudence," David said.


Ahhh, the "modern" 4th Amendment. When did it get amended? I must have missed that.


"We also find that allowing resistance unnecessarily escalates the level of violence and therefore the risk of injuries to all parties involved without preventing the arrest."


Who exactly is escalating the violence? The guy behind the door or the guy trying to get through the door?



posted on May, 13 2011 @ 12:35 PM
link   
reply to post by g146541
 


I do not think the man in this case should have struck the officer. I think he should have handled it differently. But I do support the right of the man to defend his dwelling from unlawful entry. In my opinion the police did not have any probable cause to enter without a warrant. Some folks arguing is not probable cause of a crime or that a crime will be committed, so the officer did not have any right to enter the premises.

If this was the case the police should be breaking down doors all over the place when someone raises their voice.

The officer should have written the two a ticket for disturbing the peace at best. But they had no reason to enter the premise.

The problem with this whole ordeal is not what the police did, but how the Judges ruled. A 3 to 2 vote to void the 4th amendment is what gets me. It shows the that the Globalist mentality has permeated the state judicial systems.



posted on May, 13 2011 @ 12:43 PM
link   
More and more of our rights are being taken away every single day.

The government justifies this by saying they're protecting us. They will use anything that scares people as an excuse to take away more of our constitutional rights.

The average person will go along with it and say tired lines like "freedom isn't free."

Wake up America!

You do not gain freedom by handing over your rights as a citizen over to the government!



posted on May, 13 2011 @ 12:44 PM
link   

Originally posted by thisguyrighthere

"We believe ... a right to resist an unlawful police entry into a home is against public policy and is incompatible with modern Fourth Amendment jurisprudence," David said.


Ahhh, the "modern" 4th Amendment. When did it get amended? I must have missed that.


"We also find that allowing resistance unnecessarily escalates the level of violence and therefore the risk of injuries to all parties involved without preventing the arrest."


Who exactly is escalating the violence? The guy behind the door or the guy trying to get through the door?


My issue with this case is exactly what you quoted, the Justice's statements after the ruling. So modern jurisprudence is incompatible with the rights the Fourth Amendment provides us?

Excuse me, but this means our current "understanding of the law" is a bit screwed up.

We have a judge here saying that it's more permissible for a cop to act unlawfully that for a citizen to resist his unlawful actions, 'cause violence is bad.

[sarcasm] Don't worry, don't resist. I promise, everything is fine. [/endsarcasm]

edit on 5/13/2011 by Konah because: Was mad, used bad grammar
edit on 5/13/2011 by Konah because: Was so mad, I used bad grammar TWICE



posted on May, 13 2011 @ 12:52 PM
link   
reply to post by EssenceOfSilence
 


That is the thing, there is so much that we do not know about the situation.
Did the gentleman in question try to bar the officers from speaking with the female?
If this is the case no rights were violated, the police must speak to both parties in an altercation to make sure there was no wrongdoing.
Bottom line is I just do not have enough information on the story but, I kind of side with the officers if things went down the way I believe they would have,
All we have to go on is one piece of media.
If both occupants met the officers at the door and said "no we don't need help, please leave" and there was no visible evidence of physical harm, then yeah the officers need to go.
edit on 13-5-2011 by g146541 because: eye exam, eyes dialated




posted on May, 13 2011 @ 12:53 PM
link   
reply to post by Konah
 


Exactly. There's this entire belief amongst the Law Enforcement community that they are somehow above the law, when in truth this is the exact opposite. Our "Law Enforcers" are suppose to be the Standard of the Law, and during times of great chaos they may ask permission (per incident) to stretch the limits of these laws to apprehend a criminal (Via Captain's Consent). For instance I'm sure you've all seen cops doing 15-20 over the speed limit, or have hit their sirens just to roll a stop sign or red light. This is a no no. These guys and gals should be stopping to a roll back at every sign and waiting at red lights like the rest of us. If its a true emergency and time is of the essence I understand, but I was behind a cop the other day that flashed his way through two red lights, then pulled into the police station and got out with his bag of Micky D's.
These cops are really getting out of hand. About 90% of the people I know are hesitant to even call a cop, and have to seriously evaluate whether or not its worth the headache in what would normally be a "call the police" situation. The "Protect & Serve" logo on the side of the cruiser should be replaced with "Harass & Abuse".
edit on 13-5-2011 by Mactire because: (no reason given)



posted on May, 13 2011 @ 12:55 PM
link   

Originally posted by thisguyrighthere

"We believe ... a right to resist an unlawful police entry into a home is against public policy and is incompatible with modern Fourth Amendment jurisprudence," David said.


Ahhh, the "modern" 4th Amendment. When did it get amended? I must have missed that.


"We also find that allowing resistance unnecessarily escalates the level of violence and therefore the risk of injuries to all parties involved without preventing the arrest."


Who exactly is escalating the violence? The guy behind the door or the guy trying to get through the door?


I am glad you pointed out the judicial amending of the 4th amendment. That statement alone show that the decision was from an activist judge, legislating from the bench.

Legislating from the bench, in my opinion, is the Globalist strongest tool against our liberties. It takes both other branches of government to overturn a ruling of the court. They have to explicitly legislate against the decision to undo it.
edit on 13-5-2011 by EssenceOfSilence because: Grammar correction - I made a C in English



posted on May, 13 2011 @ 01:00 PM
link   
reply to post by g146541
 


The way the article reads it seems that only the man met the police officers at the door. But, the point in this case is the precedent the verdict sets. According to the two judges who voted "nay";


Both dissenting justices suggested they would have supported the ruling if the court had limited its scope to stripping the right to resist officers who enter homes illegally in cases where they suspect domestic violence is being committed.


It's one thing if the police suspect violence is being committed, a totally different story when they just want to enter.



posted on May, 13 2011 @ 01:00 PM
link   

Originally posted by g146541
reply to post by EssenceOfSilence
 


That is the thing, there is so much that we do not know about the situation.
Did the gentleman in question try to bar the officers from speaking with the female?
If this is the case no rights were violated, the police must speak to both parties in an altercation to make sure there was no wrongdoing.
Bottom line is I just do not have enough information on the story but, I kind of side with the officers if things went down the way I believe they would have,
All we have to go on is one piece of media.
If both occupants met the officers at the door and said "no we don't need help, please leave" and there was no visible evidence of physical harm, then yeah the officers need to go.
edit on 13-5-2011 by g146541 because: eye exam, eyes dialated



I think the police and the man should have handled it differently and yes the facts of the actual incident may make a good story
, but that is not the problem here.

The problem was the way the ruling was worded. It is a strike to the 4th amendment.

Thanks for the replies.



posted on May, 13 2011 @ 01:12 PM
link   
The following is my opinion as a member participating in this discussion.

Still not seeing it.

This doesn't give police the "right" to enter your home illegally. It's clarifying that in the event it happens, your legal remedy is in the courts, not by physically preventing it.

So, if the police attempt an illegal entry and you physically prevent it, then it all gets sorted out in court, anyway.

No private citizen has the "right" to even come on my property without permission. That doesn't mean I have the right to do whatever I want to whomever might.


As an ATS Staff Member, I will not moderate in threads such as this where I have participated as a member.



posted on May, 13 2011 @ 01:15 PM
link   
Ha, I dont care who you are or what kind of fascist criminal judicial system is behind you, intrude on my property as a threat to me or my loved ones you will be shot. Sorry!



posted on May, 13 2011 @ 01:17 PM
link   
In general reply to all who may see.
You must read the article very closely, see exactly who said what, notice "quotations" as when you insert words into them the meaning can change drastically.
I support our rights just as much as any hardcore Militiaman so, I do believe a man or woman is the king of their castle.
But there is much left out and or suggested, embellished in the story, that makes me question.
Now if the story did go down just as all of the folks who want to read or report a bad story did, then yes take these judges, disbar, and put them on trial for no less than treason.
Now please listen and understand.
The msm is a tool used against us by the PTB.
It is a way of angering us with deniable lies, so when we slip up and do something rash they can "Wako" us.
Then we know how the headline reads, "several lunatics die in fire".
Be careful eating what the msm puts on your plate as it is most certainly fatty and probably poisoned.
Peace.



posted on May, 13 2011 @ 01:23 PM
link   
reply to post by BanMePlz
 


This is exactly what "they" are counting on.
The PTB does not care about 1 or 10 dead cops.
They do care about the average Joe with a rifle however.
If you kill a cop then they will put you down and like i said above the headline will read, "lunatic goes on rampage".
When you and I know it should read "Patriot dies defending his rights".
Divide and conquer doesn't just happen to countries, it happens in small communities too.
We just need to get the police to realize that they are going to be held to the same standards as us, and there are some out there that do, more than you might think.
Cool heads will prevail.



posted on May, 13 2011 @ 01:37 PM
link   
reply to post by g146541
 


Yep. The police are just the unsuspecting tools. They think they are doing the right thing and don't see how they are being used to destroy the 4th amendment and with it the rest of our liberties. They get brainwashed to only look at the small picture (IE keep the woman from getting beat, save the kids from drugs etc etc.) This is honorable, but they need to see the bigger picture and realize why we have a constitution.

To all officer's reading this. "Wake up, before it's too late!"





new topics
top topics
 
14
<<   2 >>

log in

join