Court: No right to resist illegal cop entry into home

page: 3
158
<< 1  2    4  5  6 >>

log in

join

posted on May, 13 2011 @ 02:42 PM
link   
reply to post by ownbestenemy
 


A bit extreme? I think not.
Just take for example what happened to this woman that had too much to drink, at the...err... hands of the NYPD several months ago:
www.youtube.com...

I see nothing but trouble and tragedy in the wake of the rulings recently handed down in Indiana.
Such a blatant blow to our Constitutional Rights is nothing short of treason.
edit on 13-5-2011 by Elostone because: (no reason given)




posted on May, 13 2011 @ 02:45 PM
link   
This will not make it past the SCOTUS. I don't see the ACLU laying down on this one, and i surely don't see the 4th Amendment being thrown away by SCOTUS.

I ignore law. I don't care about law. I do what i want, when i want. Funny thing is, i rarely violate the law. But i will willfully violate laws that are stupid (like betting on a game, etc). My morals are my law. that is the way our Creator intended it.

Cop or not, come in my door without permission you will end up with 00 Buckshot. Or a large knife wielded by a 300lb former college lineman. Just because you say you are a cop and have a badge means nothing to me. I live by the border, those things are easy to come by.



posted on May, 13 2011 @ 02:45 PM
link   
reply to post by Elostone
 


Meaning its extreme to think she doesn't have the legal and moral right to resist such an advance. Those types of incidents will take place no matter what common-law or even legal law says. That is why I said it was extreme.

A bad person will do bad things regardless of law or morals. An officer that wants to forcefully enter your place of residence stating "I'm going to rape you and you can't resist because Indiana says you can't" is twisting the logic of the ill-ruling given. Any court that upholds that officer's "right" of entry to perform an illegal act would I hope be all removed from the bench.



posted on May, 13 2011 @ 02:45 PM
link   
reply to post by ownbestenemy
 


Shouldn't the police have arrested your father for leaving a 6-year-old at home alone?

Very poor example with opinion mixed with assumptions.

This law is bad...PERIOD!



posted on May, 13 2011 @ 02:50 PM
link   

Originally posted by EyeHeartBigfoot
reply to post by ownbestenemy
 


Shouldn't the police have arrested your father for leaving a 6-year-old at home alone?

Very poor example with opinion mixed with assumptions.

This law is bad...PERIOD!


They had no idea I was home alone and this friend was a LONG time ago when the police and the State didn't regulate every aspect of our lives. Thing is, I went home rather than walking to my friend's mom's house who was watching me.

The example is shown to give an idea of the different outcome. In mine, the police respected the owner of the house and because they had no reasonable reason to demand entry they did not force their way in. Whereas, if it were today in Indiana, the officer could possible decide arbitrarily that they have the right to force entry and my father would not be able to resist without fear of prosecution.

And I wholly agree, but it really isn't law. It was the court saying Indiana no longer recognizes the common-law practice.



posted on May, 13 2011 @ 02:59 PM
link   
Having read the article, that caused this ruling to come around, the following can be stated:
Based off of what we know to be true and the facts of the case, a review is needed:
A husband and wife were arguing outside in the publics eye, and the police were called in to investigate the potential domestic violence and disturbance of the peace. They arrived and the argument had ended. As per the laws of the state that the Police are sworn to uphold, they would have to check out both parties. (As in many cases, the one without marks goes to jail for the night and detained for investigation.) The person in question, who was arrested, ultimately provoked his arrest, as he did lay hands on the police officer, assault and battery. There was no cause for the person to stop the police or not allow them into their house, cause it is in the line of duty, a complaint was filed, and therefore it is up to them to investigate it. But take it down to the lowest common denominator in the case. 2 people were having an argument, out in the publics eye, and by the time the police got there, it had ended and one person was not seen. What would you do or think? Would you take the word of one person, that the other person was alright, or would you investigate to ensure that the person was alright? What if the other person was badly injured or needing medical treatment, or had died or was seriously harmed in a way that would require medical attention, would it be all right? We charge the police to do a duty, and by restricting them from doing their duty will ultimately cause more harm than good. You can not pick and choose what laws to follow, nor should the police pick and choose what laws to enforce. When reading the opinion, there are some points that are there that is not pointed out in the articles. He was charged with disorderly conduct, and it was proved in a court. He was charged with battery, and did not contest it. He was moving out, and it was no longer his home to defend, as he had no legal grounds to block or deny the officers entrance, and the person who legally lived there, did ultimately give permission to enter the home. As there was a domestic disturbance going on, there was sufficient evidence to require the police to respond and check out. When the facts of the case come out, it is very clear that what the articles point out and the facts are often 2 separate things.



posted on May, 13 2011 @ 03:00 PM
link   
reply to post by ownbestenemy
 


I stand corrected on the law statement.

Power Corrupts -- Absolute Power Corrupts Absolutely.

While I respect most LEO and have many who are friends, there are some very bad apples that are being more empowered to do as they please.

What I dislike most as of late is Laws Being Broken In The Name Of Upholding The Law.

Nobody Is Above The Law - is now just a phrase with little to no meaning because in the fateful words of Justice Steven David:


"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.
My Bold Emphasis on the word modern.

A better quote from the Justice might have been - "We believe... Jefferson and Franklin were a@@holes."



posted on May, 13 2011 @ 03:01 PM
link   
Richard L. Barnes v. State of Indiana
That is the link to the courts decision and how they based their rulings. The evidence is presented and where anyone can read.



posted on May, 13 2011 @ 03:13 PM
link   
reply to post by bigfatfurrytexan
 



This will not make it past the SCOTUS. I don't see the ACLU laying down on this one, and i surely don't see the 4th Amendment being thrown away by SCOTUS.

Really? Those bastards upheld lots of unconstitutional stuff in the past.

Patriot Act, no warrant phone/internet/mail spying, torture, ect... All of which is still going on.



posted on May, 13 2011 @ 03:24 PM
link   
reply to post by sdcigarpig
 


sdcigarpig -

Read up a few posts and I give the break down of what happened straight from the Court's opinion.

The police were called by the wife, after she attempted to call her sister. The dispute was not in the public eye initially, but became so once the husband was outside carrying a 'brown bag'.

Notably, after an argument with a spouse, it should be known to the officers who respond that tempers are flared and things are heated. The 9-11 call made gave no indication of violence, but the operator who took the call classified it as "domestic dispute".

Outside is where the officer confronted the husband and things escalated but at that point the officer did a fairly good job and explained to him that he needed to calm down.

The wife than came outside and threw a bag in the direction of the husband and told him to get the rest of his stuff. Which I take as an invitation to the husband to come back inside and get your crap before I sell it on ebay! The husband than went back inside and it was then that the officer, without explicit consent from either the husband or even the wife forced their way into the home.

In my view, they should have kept the couple outside when they were both there to sort out the situation and the problem could have been solved with no charges to the husband at all. Instead, the officers allowed the parties to go back into their private residence creating the situation presented in the case.

The officer has ample amount of opportunity to determine the level of 'domestic dispute' occurring but failed at the opportunities to handle it. The courts here are took that opportunity presented to nullify common-law practices in regards to lawfully resisting an officer from unwarranted entry.

If someone barged into my home, without my consent you can bet the farm I would put them against the wall and probably more. Regardless of the fact he was an officer, it was all poorly handled. I am really surprised that the defense didn't address this in the original jury trial that the situation could have been handled outside, when both parties were present.

The court failed to protect the citizen's Fourth Amendment rights and the officers failed at handling the issue when it would have been easily handled.



posted on May, 13 2011 @ 03:28 PM
link   

Originally posted by EyeHeartBigfoot
What I dislike most as of late is Laws Being Broken In The Name Of Upholding The Law.

Nobody Is Above The Law - is now just a phrase with little to no meaning because in the fateful words of Justice Steven David:


"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.
My Bold Emphasis on the word modern.

A better quote from the Justice might have been - "We believe... Jefferson and Franklin were a@@holes."


Exactly and the Court's opinion used the basis of scholar works and lessor courts to form their opinion while only giving brief review of two SCOTUS rulings that favored the common-law practice.

They firmly believe that personal liberty should be shoved aside in the name of public safety. Which, in many cases can be justified on very narrow situations. The problem here, as shown by the dissenting judges is that the majority applied a broad brush stroke and wiped out hundreds of years of precedence.



posted on May, 13 2011 @ 03:30 PM
link   
Why do we not just burn the contitution? First, we require of all American citizens Health Care. Now, we take away privacy. What is next? Taking away my guns? Thank God nobody is working on that.


SeraphNB



posted on May, 13 2011 @ 03:32 PM
link   
I guess I can see how this makes sense, in a way. If a cop's going to break into your house, whether you fight back or not, he's going to arrest you anyways.

Where they go wrong is.. they make it illegal to fight against an illegal activity, which could be performed by someone impersonating police, and at the same time, aren't discouraging or giving higher penalties to Police that enter your house illegally.

What I really don't like about this, is that if a police officer breaks into your house illegally, and you fight back, does that give them an upper hand on whether he came in illegally or not?
edit on 13-5-2011 by jessejamesxx because: (no reason given)



posted on May, 13 2011 @ 03:50 PM
link   
reply to post by Vitchilo
 


So if a police officer decides to waltz on in to merely help himself to my refrigerator I have no legal right to use force? Heh, Yeah we'll see how that plays out. Ill just become a cop to do this to other cops at their residence.



posted on May, 13 2011 @ 04:07 PM
link   

Originally posted by seraphnb
Why do we not just


burn the contitutionText
? First, we require of all American citizens Health Care. Now, we take away privacy. What is next? Taking away my guns? Thank God nobody is working on that.


SeraphNB


Needless to Say, BUT! If you live in Indiana



burn the contitutionText

liberalindiana.com...
It has been Stated,,,, Indiana looks good in blue.


It’s been a long, long road but Indiana is finally blue. Our representation in Washington is majority Democrat. The Indiana House has been saved from Bosma’s hands. And, for the first time in over 40 years, Indiana has chosen the Democrat in a Presidential race.


The hard work begins now.Text

Indiana, I'm sorry to tell you this,,,, But you're becoming a Government Owned State and you will obey the Government and be good little children,,, your checks are in the mail
edit on 13-5-2011 by guohua because: (no reason given)
edit on 13-5-2011 by guohua because: spelling
edit on 13-5-2011 by guohua because: (no reason given)



posted on May, 13 2011 @ 04:10 PM
link   
reply to post by ownbestenemy
 


Thank You and appreciate your information to give a fuller view of this issue.

Ironic That The Link Below Is The Current ATS Front Page Thread:
After Serving Two Tours in Iraq, Ex Marine is Killed in Own Home by SWAT Team

Warmest regards,

t



posted on May, 13 2011 @ 04:14 PM
link   
reply to post by Vitchilo
 


Cop or no cop, you come into my house unlawfully, you get 2 warnings....first me telling you to get out, second is the racking of my 12ga. I dont care who you are, defending my family comes first.



posted on May, 13 2011 @ 04:47 PM
link   
reply to post by ownbestenemy
 


But according to the court documents, he was in the process of leaving the home to reside elsewhere, leaving her in control and in charge of the domicile. It is also reported that she even stated to be heard to tell her (Ex) husband to go ahead and let the police in. So if we use common sense, he is leaving to reside elsewhere and would have no real legal standing to say who may or may not come into the home, she would. She did state, that she stated to let the police in. The court documents were very clear cut on that. The question must be, who has legal authority to allow or not allow anyone into a place of residence? It would be to the person who is living there, and if one of the 2 people there are leaving to reside elsewhere, they would no longer have that legal standing to say who may or may not enter into that dwelling. The man was in the wrong, and did not have the legal stance to stop anyone from entering, as at that time, he did not live there. Now if they reconciled, then after such, he would have the right, but at that time frame, no he did not. It is kind of like a marriage, if you look at the courts decisions, they are very clear on how assetts and debts are devided from that institution. When the couple is together, it has to be devided between both of them, but when one leaves, then that all stops. That is the point of division and control over assets.



posted on May, 13 2011 @ 05:41 PM
link   
reply to post by Vitchilo
 


you may be right. and if (or when) my countrymen are ready to take up arms, i have guns, ammo, and a very accurate shot.

But i don't see it being washed away without a catalyst (like 9-11 was for the Patriot Act)



posted on May, 13 2011 @ 05:58 PM
link   
DEFEND YOURSELF www.abovetopsecret.com...





new topics
top topics
 
158
<< 1  2    4  5  6 >>

log in

join