Question for those who say they are losing rights in the US

I also believe Moral decline's argument about the state supreme court in indiana's ruling is a valid one...The Bill of Rights, and the constitution is the supreme law of the land...and those Justices in Indiana took away the 4th with their broad ruling.

reply to post by xMoralDeclinex


Ok lets try it this way.

Read through all or it wont make sense -

A Law Enforcement Officer is acting under color of law, and as such can violate a person civil rights if they act illegally / innapropriately.

In Indiana, the police were called to a domestic disturbance. Upon arrival the male wqas outside the house, the female inside the house. While dealing with both parties, the female told him to get his crap and get out of the house. The male went to go back into the house, which he can do, however, he attempted to prevent law enforcement from entering, which int that case he cant do.

Law Enforcement is responsible for the safety of both people, and a domestic disturbance has explosive possibilities, especially when one person is being kicked out of the house. Law Enforcement forced their way in, which again they had every right to do so. The reason for this is they were not conducting a search, and were not making an arrest at the time (until the individual refused entrance then actively fought them).

Because they were there from a 911 call (neighbor) they have every right to investigate if any crimes took place. Domestic violence is one of the few crimes that does not require the victims assistance or even consent to prosecute (this goes back with many court issues of the victims being threatended etc).

The court case looked at the overall situation of police actions vs. totality of circumstances.

example - If you are stopped for speeding and written a ticket, and you dont agree with the ticket, are you going to argue with the police at road side? Since we dont determine guilt or innocense, or punihsment for that matter, what good is arguing with us going to do?

The bubble that law enforcement operates in gives the officers the benefeit of the doubt until such time it can be reviewed and argued in a more structured setting.

If an officer is blatantly violating the law, and you know this, you dont have a right to resist the illegal arrest. The reason being for this is law enforcement has the ability to raise the level resistance to overcome the force being used against them.

If I am arresting you for an outstanding warrant, and during that arrest you actively resist, resulting in a fight to get you into custody, the resisting an arrest charge is completely and totally seperate from the initial charge.

Is possible to be illegally arrested, resisting the arrest, only to have the intial charge thrown out but the resisting arrest chagre sustained and prosecuted.

The Idea is to prevent a person from escalating a situation that they dont completely understand. In an effort to protect law enforcement, as well as citizens, the laws would prefer an unlawful arrest be handled by the judicial system, and not the person who is affected.

Im sure people are going to throw a fit and say its not fair, but its is present for a reason. As far as Indianas law goes, their Supreme Court, not the federal, have stated that a person cannot resist law enforcement entry into their house, regardless of whether its valid or not.

This does NOT protect law enforcement at all. If we illegally enter a house, and that claim is sustained, we are not only in violation of state law, we are in violaten of Federal law (42 USC 1983) as well.

Now, with this being said the question you havre to ask yourself is this -
What is the 4th amendment?
Who does it apply to?
Are their exceptions to it?
Who can violate it?

The 4th prevents police from searching you, your house, car , property etc without a warrant. It only applies to the Government, since we are the ones who have to go to a judge and affirm the info is valid and truthful in roder tog et it approved (the PA is involved as well).

There are execptions to the 4th amendment -
Consent to search - A homeowner / driver of a car is aksed and agrees to a search.
Contraband in plain sight - Open beer cans / drug material in plain sight.
Exigent circumstance - We are hasing an individual who runs into a house, or we are called and see a person in the house lieing on the floor not moving or responding to our presence.

What Indian has done is to say that regardless if an officer is acting lawfully, you cannot prevent them from entering your house. the reason they are saying this goes back to the info above. If the actions of the officers are illegal, you are not being restricted in your ability for redress of grievences.

Law Enforcement only knows what dispatch is telling them, and that is assuming the people calling in are being truthful and accurate. Our actions are on the fly most of the time until we can figure out all the info present and go from there. Since a reivew of an officers use of force is based on totality of circumstances, you can see why they dont want thm taking action into their own hnds.

Originally posted by ur86d
So That McDonald vrs Chicago ruling, didnt state that the 2nd amendment applies to state and local gun laws?...because if it did..i still stand by my argument..that New Jersey, by not allowing citizens to obtain the CCW they require is indeed infringing on the right to bear said arms... which is guarenteed by the 2nd... if they simply will not issue the CCW...they are infringing.

Your argument is based on how you think it should work and not what it actually says. A person can own a weapon without a CCW. It just means you cant carry that weapon, concealed, into certain areas.

It does not prevent you from owning a gun though, and thats in compliance with the court ruling.

the 2nd amendment sayyou can own a weapon as a citizen. It says nothing about where you can carry it. All it protects is the right to own one.

anything else is incidental and not covered. I know you dont agree with it, but it is what it is until the people of New Jersey demand it be changed, or a person from New jersey is charged under the state law and challeneges it in federal court as a violation of their rights.

Until the DC and Chicago rulings, the Supreme Court never ruled on who the 2nd applied to. If you read it it referes to a well maintained militia, which is what in todays terms?

My argument in college on that was since the federal government requires males to submit information for selective service, I am a member of a well regulated militia since im subject to call up and forced conscrption. Although my teacher vehemently disagreed with it I got an A on the paper.

Those 2 rulings said the 2nd amendment applies to the states, and applies ot the individuals in those states. the next step now is for people to challenege the local / state laws using the supreme court rulings as their grounds to challenege.

Originally posted by ur86d
And no, i get the method to your madness here..it's a good thing. in my book...i do believe i have a point though, but i have not read the entire court decscion. I will admit.

The simple fact your continuing to engage and ask questions reinforces my belief that there is still hope for this country, and that people do still care.

So thank you for that

Originally posted by ur86d
I also believe Moral decline's argument about the state supreme court in indiana's ruling is a valid one...The Bill of Rights, and the constitution is the supreme law of the land...and those Justices in Indiana took away the 4th with their broad ruling.

Actually they didnt. The ruling in that case came from Indianas Supreme Court, not the Federal Supreme Court. I gave a lengthy response in that topic a few posts up. Check it out and see if the ruling makes snese based on the current laws.

reply to post by Xcathdra


So in short you continue to call an apple an orange?

Ehem then you claim we are all wrong yet you are right, ahh us sleeping folk that is

You clearly are either in perpetual denial, a troll or perhaps you simply want to uphold the status quo of Big Brother with your drivel. Maybe you are big brother. You can believe it is for your own protection, for your own good and ours of course until your hearts content. However anyone with a functioning brain will not buy your tripe
Enjoy your police state, i will be right over here in reality.

Tell that to the dissenting judges who are on record stating that the ruling effectively strips the 4th, because it's too broad... it didnt say anything about the officers having suspicions of domestic violence..or anything of that nature. The ruling states, that a citizen has no right to offer any resistance to a police officer illegally entering the home, and that they should take any grievences to the court, if an officer does illegally enter the home.

Hasnt a court that has made a ruling stripping the 4th already proven itself to be corrupted by the state, if the court can rule you have no 4th amendment right, how can a private citizen expect to find justice within that court,lol

reply to post by Xcathdra


Honestly it would at this time take me forever to find. When I was petitioning for my husband to immigrate from CA in 2002 I searched for government decisions and rules because I couldn't believe that they would impose such heavy fee's and long stressful waits on a US Citizen marriage....happiness..and future, and after all that they could still deny the petition and I would be faced with moving to Canada to be with him and leaving my daughter with her father here in the US, which I couldn't even bear the thought of without being reduce to tears, or abandoning my marriage to remain in the US with my daughter.

In my search I found a case where someone in such a situation attempted to appeal to an immigration court on the basis of right to life liberty and persuit of happiness and it was ruled that a US Citizen did not have the RIGHT to live with their spouse in the US.

PS : sorry about posting info without source,

Pretty much says it all

reply to post by Unknown Soldier


Nothing wrong with living in ognorance and screaming at the moon because the sun is setting.

have fun

Originally posted by ur86d
Tell that to the dissenting judges who are on record stating that the ruling effectively strips the 4th, because it's too broad... it didnt say anything about the officers having suspicions of domestic violence..or anything of that nature. The ruling states, that a citizen has no right to offer any resistance to a police officer illegally entering the home, and that they should take any grievences to the court, if an officer does illegally enter the home.

Hasnt a court that has made a ruling stripping the 4th already proven itself to be corrupted by the state, if the court can rule you have no 4th amendment right, how can a private citizen expect to find justice within that court,lol

The court ruling is not stripping anyone of the 4th amendment rights. Read it in its entirety, and the reason for the ruling. If an officer is in the wrong, they can and will be charged with a violation of the 4th amendment. The ruling states a person cannot resist an officer entry. It makes aboslutely no changes to how the 4th works, and still requires the officers to comply with the 4th amendment.

The domestic violence portion was one of the MAIN reason that law was even brought about. 1 half of a party saying no, you cant come into the house.

If an officer goes to a judge, and lies about information to obtain a search warrant, and shows up at your house, and executes that warrant, leaves you with the exact same position and recourse if the officer shows up and enters your house without a warrant.

Anytime a law is challeneged, its done in court, not in the field, and not by the parties involved.

The 4th amendment is still repsent, it has not been stripped, and people still ahv redress for violation of it.

reply to post by Pixiefyre


That decision is based on the circumstances of that crime, not everyones situation.

In Iowa, their state government recognizes common law, where as in Missouri we dont. When we have people from Iowa come down, and state they are married under common law in Iowa, we cant accept it as valid in Missouri.

That view could be taken as Missouri doesnt recognize the right of people who arent married to live together. Until you check the specifics of the case and resasons behind the court action, all it is is a general statemtn that may look like it applies to you, but in reality does not.

reply to post by Unknown Soldier


Continue to troll all you want. Your time might be better spent learning about these issues and contributing peoductive information to the thread?

Or do topics like this scare you that much where you must distrust anything you dont know about?

You are proving my point and I dont think you even realize your doing it.

ironic.

Originally posted by Xcathdra
reply to post by Unknown Soldier

 

Continue to troll all you want. Your time might be better spent learning about these issues and contributing peoductive information to the thread?

Or do topics like this scare you that much where you must distrust anything you dont know about?

You are proving my point and I dont think you even realize your doing it.

ironic.

Not trolling at all, merely stating the facts and the obvious. If the truth does not bode well with you then my services are no longer required. You asked a question and me as well as many have answered it. You did not like the end results.. tough

Originally posted by Xcathdra
reply to post by Unknown Soldier

 

Nothing wrong with living in ognorance and screaming at the moon because the sun is setting.

have fun

Be my guest, not sure what ognrorance means im thinking it is some type of Pareidolia but instead you see an Orange where an apple should be? Well have fun with that. When life gives you apples make orange juice

reply to post by Unknown Soldier


Ah yes, nothing like resorting to the "lets point out spelling mistakes" to make your point. As I said, feel free to join in and remain on topic, or pack your jakcs up and head home. Anything else is trolling and derailing the thread - so again remain on topic or leave.

reply to post by Xcathdra


A U.S. citizen can be detained, indefinitely, with no hard evidence against them, by the U.S. military, if they are determined to be a threat to national security. That's a U.S. citizen who should, under the constitution, have a defense lawyer and a fair trial.

Originally posted by rockintitz
reply to post by Xcathdra

 

A U.S. citizen can be detained, indefinitely, with no hard evidence against them, by the U.S. military, if they are determined to be a threat to national security. That's a U.S. citizen who should, under the constitution, have a defense lawyer and a fair trial.

edit on 16-10-2011 by rockintitz because: (no reason given)

Posse Commitatus prevents federal military from engaging in law enforcement functions. The Patrioat Act doesnt authorize it, so where are you getting that from?

there are a group of the typical law makers calling for this and that, however the courts are saying no, and have said no, to indefinite detainments of american citizens.

Military does not use civilian criminal law, so there is no jurisdiction there.

I will read the entire Indiana ruling on the 4th concerning this case..just because i want to know what they are trying to say. But strictly on a common sense level, the problem with an officer being charged with entering illegally is that you first have to get those cases to court when and if an officer does commit a crime.

The Indiana Supreme court rulling, in my mind already states it will side with the officer. Not needing a warrant only makes it easier for law enforcement to become corrupt.. if they for any reason one cop in Indiana decides you're a trouble maker you're toast.

Originally posted by Xcathdra

That decision is based on the circumstances of that crime, not everyones situation.

No it's not based on a crime at all....well it could be I know when I was on the forums regarding immigration one spouse was denied because when they were 16 they stole a can of beer from a shop. (I'm quite serous)

But your life is in the hands of immigration officials when you are going through the legal process, and you can get all the way to the interview and spend all that time and money and if for some reason the immigration official conducting the interview doesn't approve....you can be screwed.

Once prior to our marriage I had gone up to visit him and then he was going to come down and spend the 4th of July with my daughter and I, we were stopped at the border and detained by a customs agent because my husband had sunglasses on and a pierced ear and the agent didn't like the way he looked. They searched my car in great depth, and then finally after around 2 hours they told me I had to drive him back. Requiring him to bring his birth certificate and a police record if he ever attempted to return. And there was nothing other than the mood of the border patrol agent and him not liking the look of my hubby that was in any way shape or form a violation. We had no food in the car, we were drinking soda, we had no plants or any items that were prohibited, literally only 2 changes of clothes for each of us because I had stayed 2 days and he was only going to stay for around the same amount of time. We even had all documentation at the ready and in order that was officially required at that time for crossing the border.

When dealing with the legal immigration system along with customs and border patrol, your life is in their hands, literally

reply to post by Xcathdra



No need you created a thread based on a question, like i said the question was answered in several different ways. From the Patriot Act being an example to one woman's example of her experiences with the government's denial of right's. Then you insulted the body of people who proved a point that you did not agree with hence you set this thread up for that reason, you were and are not open to the facts therefore this is trolling. Not here to argue who is a troll, just dropped my 2 cents and it is what it is. You can believe your government loves you and is only working in your best interests and that is fine. However projecting your denial on those who know better will be responded to in the kind of format you will very much dislike.

Now you have to eat Crow

edit: why would you ask a question to something you think you all ready have an answer to?