It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.
Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.
Thank you.
Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.
"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.
"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."
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?
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?
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.
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