Court: No right to resist illegal cop entry into home

page: 8
158
<< 5  6  7    9  10 >>

log in

join

posted on May, 14 2011 @ 08:36 AM
link   
reply to post by Vitchilo
 
No doubt the people of the USA; I would have said Citizens of the United States of America but, that does not appear to matter anymore, are going to have plenty of opportunity to show what they think of this ruling and the assumptions Law Enforcement have and undoubtedly will make throughout this country; How they show is it not prudent for me to detail.

However, the people of Indiana will have their opportunity to voice their opinion loudly by removing this judge from the bench' let's see what they do about this traitor.




posted on May, 14 2011 @ 08:42 AM
link   
Wow i feel safer allready.....cause i dont live in Indiana.



posted on May, 14 2011 @ 08:50 AM
link   

Originally posted by sdcigarpig
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.


you don't need a ruling this broad to justify this entry then. if the officers had reason to believe there was an injured person inside the home, or a victim being restrained from speaking with them, they could enter the home due to 'exigent circumstances' . . . that's been ok'd for years

or, if entry was consented to by another occupant, that would cure any unlawful entry

i haven't read the ruling, just your abbreviated synopsis of the fact of the case . . . but it seems there were two justifiable ground the court could have reliend on that are grounded in legal precedent. the court chose not to, and issued a decision that greatly enhances the ability of law enforcement to enter a private home.

which, well, is not good for most of us.

edit on 14-5-2011 by SecretGoldfish because: (no reason given)



posted on May, 14 2011 @ 09:29 AM
link   

Originally posted by CobraCommander
reply to post by Doublemint
 


The police are not special. Just like the apologist in this thread said, they are just like you and me. You have every right to shoot and kill an intruder in most states. Or at the very least, in EVERY state you have the right to block an intruder. Without a warrant or probable cause, the police are every bit as much an intruder as anyone else. This changes that. This makes the police "special" flying in the face of everything this country has ever stood for. It makes you a second-rate citizen who must bow to the whims of an officer without question.

I am suddenly reminded of a clip from an old movie I grew up watching. A movie that made me proud to be an American. To life in a country where we would never have to put up with something like this...

(Jump to about halfway into the clip)


"Talkin' 'bout an officer, I could charge you for that!"
edit on 14-5-2011 by CobraCommander because: (no reason given)




well if you are prepared to kill them then its no problem, but how many people are actually prepared to kill another human? I don't see ho it makes them special take it to court and rip the whole damn law in half thats the point of the court.



posted on May, 14 2011 @ 09:43 AM
link   
This is to big, when will we say no more! this is the introduction to random searches and gun seizures. hello gestapo



posted on May, 14 2011 @ 09:49 AM
link   
Don't some states already use firefighter presence for this purpose?



posted on May, 14 2011 @ 10:02 AM
link   
 


off-topic post removed to prevent thread-drift


 



posted on May, 14 2011 @ 10:51 AM
link   
I'm not from the Hoosier state but If down here it's ok for a cop to enter unlawfully and they do and I know I didn't do anything, I'll be going to jail for the first time then, cause nobody is going to come into my house all angry and shhh ready to go, thats just how it is. F that!
edit on 14-5-2011 by JAGx1981 because: (no reason given)



posted on May, 14 2011 @ 11:20 AM
link   
Unfortunately, most, if not all of you, don't know the difference between a United States citizen and an American. A US citizen is a member of the corporation known and registered as United States. This is not a country, it is a corporation. This corporation went bankrupt in 1933 and was taken over by it's creditors---THE CROWN. Yes, that's British. Why do you think when you go to court you are dealing with and are represented by members of the B.A.R? That's British Accredation Regency or British Accredited Registry[I forget which-same thing]. Again, British.
If you have a birth cert, marriage cert/license, SS#, you are actually a British subject[since 1933]. Your birth cert is a security sold on the market. If you do not claim ownership of that security then someone else owns it. By being a US citizen you are owned by THE CROWN. That's the Central Bank, not the royalty, even though she does have her hand in there. You, your children, and everything you think you own, have been pledged as collateral against the national debt.
By being a US citizen you have signed away all your God-given natural rights. I am an American. My land is patented and I hold allodial title. Myself and my land and everything I own are in the Wisconsin Republic. Not United States.
United States is run by statutes not law. The Republic is run by law not statutes.
The police[corporation policy enforcers] can't even come on my land, much less into the house.
If you allow them to do what they are doing to you it's your own fault. If you don't rebut their presumption that they own you, then, yes, they can do whatever they want to you. You need to prove to them through documentation that they have no jurisdiction.
I, for one, will not allow a foreign owned, bankrupt corporation, with no standing in law to dictate what I can and cannot do. As long as I don't injure another or trample their rights or property I can do anything I want. Can you say that? No, you can't.
You are ruled by a beast system that cares nothing for your rights. You are ruled by statute instead of law. Look into restoring the Republic. Then the corporation policy enforcers can not just walk all over you and into your house.



posted on May, 14 2011 @ 11:34 AM
link   
But we will just sit here.... and take it.. I bet the citizens of Indiana won't be out protesting this decision. We have become too lazy people. At some point we have got to say enough is enough! The judicial system is stomping the constitution in the mud. We have to quit posting quotes from our founding fathers and start living by them!



posted on May, 14 2011 @ 11:39 AM
link   
reply to post by Vitchilo
 


What happens if the officers kill you?

How can you make a civil case against them if your are dead ?

What if they plant evidence now.

They can literally walk into anybody's house at any time and plant any evidence they want and have it become "legal" by them doing that and their is no way to stop them because in a court how can you prove they planted the evidence when there is like 5-6 officers against you ?

That is why it's wrong because we really are not protected. it just seems like we are..that sucks



posted on May, 14 2011 @ 11:58 AM
link   

Originally posted by Vitchilo

Court: No right to resist illegal cop entry into home


www.nwitimes.com

Overturning a common law dating back to the English Magna Carta of 1215, the Indiana Supreme Court ruled Thursday that Hoosiers have no right to resist unlawful police entry into their homes.

In a 3-2 decision, Justice Steven David writing for the court said if a police officer wants to enter a home for any reason or no reason at all, a homeowner cannot do anything to block the officer's entry.
(visit the link for the full news article)



First off you must understand that the Zip Code made ALL homes "federal territory" and seing as ALL police officers are corporate security guards, they do have a right to enter the federal zone of your home.

HOW do you defeat this tactic used by the corporation/state? TAKE THE ADDRESS OFF YOUR HOME, place it on a piece of wood, a rock, the curb, whatever next to the street. Put this new address sign in the easement of the street, about 2 feet from the curb, THIS WILL REMOVE THE JURISDICTION. Cop shave NO jurisdcition nor does the court, to enter PRIVATE PROPERTY. Post a NO TRESPASS sign in your door and anywhere else so it is visible. By having an address ON your dwelling, it is NOT private but PUBLIC property.

Know the LAW or NO LAW!!

This is such an age old and decietful tactic as there is.

Edit to add....ALSO remove your doorbell, door knocker or any other "invitation" and they CAN NOT lawfully enter your home NO MATTER WAHT LAW WAS PASSED. An unconstitutional law is just that. And to be secure in your persons, papers, home and effects, the 4th amendment, SHALL NOT BE VIOLATED!!!

UNCONSTITUTIONAL is just that UNCONSTITUTIONAL and has NO EFFECT, SHOOT THE FREAKIN COP WHO ENTERS YOUR HOME WITHOUT A WARRANT!!!
edit on 14-5-2011 by daddio because: (no reason given)



posted on May, 14 2011 @ 12:12 PM
link   
reply to post by Vitchilo
 


I said it a few weeks ago and I will say it again..Its time for Gods people to prepare to exit Babylon...the ignorance of the masses gives us no time to fight. If only we would stop cooperating with "them", then maybe we would have a chance but at leaste 1/2 of America would have to stand up to the powers that be and I just dont see that happening b4 martial law is declared.



posted on May, 14 2011 @ 12:18 PM
link   
reply to post by Vitchilo
 


Welcome to the Right Wing polices state,

Then I will be in jail for killing a cop and his family can take solace in knowing that he had judicial blessing.

If we don't overthrow the whole damned thing, it's all over and soon.



posted on May, 14 2011 @ 12:22 PM
link   
reply to post by daddio
 


I might add that you should also remove the doorbell button and the knocker if you have those. For some reason those give permission to enter. If they knock or yell and you don't answer they cannot enter. If you refuse entry, by verbally speaking, they can come in just because of being refused entry. If you do not answer, there is no refused entry, they cannot enter. Confusing, but their entire process is that way. Slavery = freedom, yeah, right.
More info on this address thing.
The stamp you put on a letter pays for it to go from post office to post office. Anything after that is a federal benefit. If you have mail pisked up at your house/box and/or have it delivered to your mailbox or house, you are partaking of a federal benefit. Just another hidden contract to bind you to their system. You need to have your mail sent general post and held at your post office for you to pick up. Then tear out your mailbox. One less thing to give them jurisdiction over you. And don't forget that the two letter ID for your state is denoting a federal zone. Spell it all the way out.



posted on May, 14 2011 @ 01:06 PM
link   
reply to post by Vitchilo
 


Everyone should be railing against this totalitarian horse sh*t that 3 wind-sucking morons on the indiana high court have decided to impose there; it might give other idiots in robes in other states even stupider ideas.

Can indiana citizens recall appointees to their supreme court? Is there a mechanism for this kind of action?

If I were a citizen of that pitiful state, I would consider this an act of deliberate infringement on my constitutional rights and a provocation on the part of the three assenting justices to incite me to exercise my second amendment rights directly against the offending parties.

"Justice" (what a joke) David needs this decision and his opinion rolled up, stuck in a beer bottle, and pounded up his ass with a sledge hammer.



posted on May, 14 2011 @ 01:09 PM
link   
Are you SERIOUS????

Wow another bad sign of where we are heading.

Get ready everybody!!!



posted on May, 14 2011 @ 03:10 PM
link   
I think that is completely ridiculous. That's against the 14th amendment



posted on May, 14 2011 @ 03:30 PM
link   
reply to post by Bildo
 


Yes, you MUST spell out your state and "republic" after that. "without the U.S." underneath that.

Consent is response to a knock at the door. And it is "Postal Service" and not post office, the post office IS a government agency, the Postal Service IS a private corporation. There is a big difference in a lot of agencies that we are led to "believe" are government agencies but are not, like the IRS, it IS NOT a government agency. Cops are corporate security guards, I have stated that over and over, and IT IS the truth.

Time to wake up and get with the program or cease to exist.



posted on May, 14 2011 @ 03:33 PM
link   
reply to post by daddio
 


Could the address be painted or in some way put at the end of the driveway? I'm very curious about this and I think I might do it. Or, how about on the mailbox?





new topics

top topics



 
158
<< 5  6  7    9  10 >>

log in

join