Court: No right to resist illegal cop entry into home

reply to post by sdcigarpig


Yes.. we can only assume at what point though they were at. She told him "to get the rest of his stuff", that is an invitation into their still shared domicile (they are married). The court even acknowledged that their was no explicit invitation given to the police officers to enter but only "don't do this" and "just let them in". She wasn't talking the officers but her husband. Semantics I know, but like I said. It was a failure on the officers that responded to allow it to go back to the residence when there was a time both parties were outside.

He could have just put him in the cruiser...got his statement than got hers and realized that no threat of violence had taken place and baby-sat the transfer of the husbands goods out of the apartment. It is Monday-morning quarterbacking for sure, but it highlights how an ineffective officer can cause problems to citizens who have done nothing wrong.

reply to post by Vitchilo

we all know what is happening to our Country..
helpful people feeling helpless...

This must be stopped. Every one of those men who voted to make it illegal to defend your home are traitors and villains. They need to be removed from office immediately. Join with us in protest, exercising our constitutional right to bear arms in the process, until they comply with the will of (we) the people.

haha... sure officer, you can come in, but I have a viscious dog who doesn't follow the rule of man, and he sees an entry without warrant, a biteable offense.. and if you attack my dog, a companion in my pursuit of happiness, I will shoot you.

Justice Robert Rucker, a Gary native, and Justice Brent Dickson, a Hobart native, dissented from the ruling, saying the court's decision runs afoul of the Fourth Amendment of the U.S. Constitution.

"In my view the majority sweeps with far too broad a brush by essentially telling Indiana citizens that government agents may now enter their homes illegally -- that is, without the necessity of a warrant, consent or exigent circumstances," Rucker said. "I disagree."

Thank you Judge Rucker.!

.. too bad you/he was the Only dissenting Political voice. :shk:


*beyond pathetic anymore*

reply to post by jude11


the presidents staff has a eagle on top,it means usa is at war and martial law is in place..sounds like the kid against a bully draws a line on the ground and says to him step over this if line,now step over this one and on and on it goes. my point is,its all a big farce and until people come to terms with reality,on and on it will be.men and women all alike must look at reality as it is,not as they wish it is.and face up to it or make another line.reality is scary then,or is it not?

Originally posted by Myendica
haha... sure officer, you can come in, but I have a viscious dog who doesn't follow the rule of man, and he sees an entry without warrant, a biteable offense.. and if you attack my dog, a companion in my pursuit of happiness, I will shoot you.

Well, they have set a precedent of shooting Corgis and other kenneled dogs.

Originally posted by seraphnb
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.

?????Never heard of: "Chuck u. Schumer"(dny?)It's his personal hobby.




SeraphNB

Originally posted by babybunnies
Got news for you, the PATRIOT act gives them the authority to enter your home at any time, regardless of whether you've been charged with a crime, and regardless of whether you are home or if they have a warrant.

And 62 million Americans reelected George Bush, who put this plan into place.

"Those who give up freedom for security deserve neither freedom nor security".

George Bush signed it into law and it was set to expire May 29, 2011

Obama signed an extension for it so it goes on.

One is as bad as the next.......

reply to post by Vitchilo


The cops were called to investigate a breech of the social contract we all signed up for by being born American.

The guy in question refused to agree to the social contract we all signed up for being born American.

What were the cops supposed to do? Leave even though someone filed a complaint against an American breaking the social contract? I mean really, cops are just suppose to leave when the perp claims they have no right to even speak to him?

If he did nothing wrong then he should have just listened to the cops. Instead, he decided to fight the law and the law won.

Yea, suuuure. Plenty of opportunities to sue the cop later. Pffft. Talk about the fox guarding the henhouse. It also seems that this case was used to deliberately further this agenda. The event in question revolved around a reported domestic violence incident. So why didn't police simply invoke probable cause? So that it could go all the way to the Supreme Court to set the precedent that resistance will not be tolerated even in the face of the most blatant violations of the Constitution and abuses of police authority.

Originally posted by Myendica
haha... sure officer, you can come in, but I have a viscious dog who doesn't follow the rule of man, and he sees an entry without warrant, a biteable offense.. and if you attack my dog, a companion in my pursuit of happiness, I will shoot you.

Yeah...let us know how that works out for you and your dog.

reply to post by CobraCommander


Why do people think cops are a special breed of Americans? They don't want extra work like NONE of us want extra work. I know cops. They roll up to a domestic violence situation looking for two things. 1. Was anyone hurt. And 2, how can I just get this guy to leave and cool off.

If no one was hurt then they would just allow the guy to leave for the night. Cooler heads prevail and life goes on.

But knuckleheads want to challenge the system and get arrested.

JUST LEAVE GUYS! But if I roll up and someone is hurt then someone is going to jail. And I have the authority to ask questions and figure out who to arrest.

reply to post by Vitchilo


Wow, I never thought that I'd hear Indiana pulling this stupid crap off. I thought Indiana was one of the most conservative states around in terms of wanting to restrict government intervention and intrusion.

Why isn't there ever any positive forms of government intervention like more affordable health care? Affordable government sanctioned healthcare is unconstitutional, but government sanctioned home intrusions and beatings are perfectly constitutional.

I saw this thread and this popped up into my head......

People should start worrying when small moves to eradicate freedom like this turn into major jumps.
EDIT: nvm

Originally posted by NuclearMitochondria
People should start worrying when small moves to eradicate freedom like this turn into major jumps.

What freedoms have you personally lost? People always say their freedoms are being taken away but they can never cite a particular event.

And don't give me bills submitted in the house or senate. They submit bills to give you more freedoms than you already have all the time.

Give me laws that have been signed that take away your freedoms.

This is probally for the best just prove it in court, also if you try and stop the police and then someone ends up hurt.

reply to post by LosLobos


They had no reason or authority to go into that man's home. Neither he nor his wife called for help, the police were not invited into the home.

Interesting, there appear to be a few slaves all too willing to lie down and be stood on in this thread, and if I am not mistaken, one of the cage handlers is here too, telling us it's all good, the cops are just normal people and they all grow roses and drink lemon tea.

Heh, the cops are normal people just like us all - and that's supposed to be a relief? I DON'T TRUST PEOPLE!

The miranda rights can now be shortened to save time.

"You have the right to remain silent."

That's all that needs to be said, the rest is implied slavery.