Indiana Supreme Court to Hoosiers: You can't resist illegal police entry to your home
Results 1 to 10 of 10

Thread: Indiana Supreme Court to Hoosiers: You can't resist illegal police entry to your home

  1. #1
    Join Date
    Mar 2009
    Location
    Indiana
    Posts
    993

    Indiana Supreme Court to Hoosiers: You can't resist illegal police entry to your home

    Court: No right to resist illegal cop entry into home

    "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," [Justice] Rucker said. "I disagree."

    Rucker and [fellow Justice] Dickson suggested if the court had limited its permission for police entry to domestic violence situations they would have supported the ruling.

    But Dickson said, "The wholesale abrogation of the historic right of a person to reasonably resist unlawful police entry into his dwelling is unwarranted and unnecessarily broad."
    I foresee a boom in sales of secure doors, windows, and gates that can resist for the homeowner the entry of ANYONE the homeowner does not want in their home.

    It'll also not result in what the 5 wise men in Indy claim makes it necessary, to prevent violence in a situation where there's a judicial remedy. Namely, don't resist warrantless searches of your property by excluding the rogue cops. Let them search and then file a complaint. This, I foresee, will get more cops killed because they think they're immune to homeowner objections, when they're not immune to 00 Buck.

    This flies in the face of the 4th Amendment to the United States Constitution, which reads:
    The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.
    We have the right to be "secure" in our "houses". If we cannot resist illegal searches or seizures in our houses, we are NOT secure in our houses, and replacing that guarantee of home security with an abrogation of Common Law and an exhortation to petition for redress of grievances after the fact does not satisfy the plain language guarantees of the 4th Amendment.

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Writ_of...#Malcom_Affair
    When they "Nudge. Shove. Shoot.",
    Don't retreat. Just reload.

  2.   
  3. #2
    I suspect this issue may go to a much higher court and be rectified! It is CLEARLY in violating of settled SCOTUS law.

    -Doc

  4. #3
    Quote Originally Posted by CathyInBlue View Post
    the 5 wise men in Indy claim makes it necessary,
    Actually only two "wise" men. The two who dissented and actually agree with the fourth amendment.

  5. #4
    Quote Originally Posted by Bighouse Doc View Post
    I suspect this issue may go to a much higher court and be rectified! It is CLEARLY in violating of settled SCOTUS law.

    -Doc
    Doc: I hope you are right and that it will happen before someone gets hurt. I am like CathyInBlue, it would seem that a rogue police officer pulling a stunt like this would be hurt. Fortunately, in Alabama, we do not have judges who would have made a decision like that. The South will rise again!

  6. #5
    This, of course, will lead, eventually, to a LEO (or two) getting killed by a surprised homeowner, thinking home invasion. (Already we have reported incidents of HI types dressed in Police Uniforms.)

    At that time, the "gun ban lobby" will go absolutely berserk railing about the dangers to "hard working Police" of having guns in the home.

    "All in all, it's just another brick in the wall."

    GG
    Fanatics of any sort are dangerous! -GG-
    Which part of "... shall NOT be infringed..." confuses you?
    Well now, aren't WE a pair, Raggedy Man? (Thunderdome)

  7. #6
    Like most of us, in the case of multi-person home invasion, said invaders are going to be met with a barrage of fire.

    I see no logic in half measures for one (or two, with wife) versus any number who have the chutzpah to break in, knowing full well that we are home. Their intent is clear, my determination to not become a victim equally so.

    Just another chip in the veneer of the protection that the Constitution is supposed to give citizens.

    When do the rank and file Americans say "Enough!"? Or are we so "sheeplike" toward our Government that they can do anythng they want with little resistance from the sheeple?

    GG
    Fanatics of any sort are dangerous! -GG-
    Which part of "... shall NOT be infringed..." confuses you?
    Well now, aren't WE a pair, Raggedy Man? (Thunderdome)

  8. #7
    Quote Originally Posted by Grognard Gunny View Post
    When do the rank and file Americans say "Enough!"? Or are we so "sheeplike" toward our Government that they can do anythng they want with little resistance from the sheeple?

    GG
    Lambs to the slaughter! Anybody that dares to expose the travesty that is our government, is labeled a "conspiracy theorist" and ridiculed. Tyranny? I laugh! The Constitution demands that we push the reset button on this establishment.
    "The 2nd amendment was never intended to allow private citizens to 'keep and bear arms'. If it had, there would have been wording such as 'the right of the People to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed'." -- Ken Konecki on Usenet, on 27 Jul 1992

  9. #8
    Join Date
    Feb 2010
    Location
    Santa Fe Area, New Mexico
    Posts
    3,487
    Quote Originally Posted by Grognard Gunny View Post
    This, of course, will lead, eventually, to a LEO (or two) getting killed by a surprised homeowner, thinking home invasion. (Already we have reported incidents of HI types dressed in Police Uniforms.)

    At that time, the "gun ban lobby" will go absolutely berserk railing about the dangers to "hard working Police" of having guns in the home.

    "All in all, it's just another brick in the wall."

    GG
    Nice, I won't of figured you for a Floyd man.

    This will clearly go to the SCOTUS if pushed. Violation of our Forth Amendment Rights cannot be allowed. BUT only with a minority of us that understand, I feel the Liberal Masons will continue to erode and erect and violate under the guise of Social Justice. It still amazes me that the same people were the ANTI-Gov't in the 60's.
    "The smallest minority on earth is the individual. Those who deny individual rights cannot claim to be defenders of minorities." --author and philosopher Ayn Rand (1905-1982)

  10. #9
    Quote Originally Posted by mappow View Post
    Nice, I won't of figured you for a Floyd man.

    ..... I feel the Liberal Masons will continue to erode and erect and violate under the guise of Social Justice. It still amazes me that the same people were the ANTI-Gov't in the 60's.
    1) I'm not. But the quote was appropriate.

    2) No, it hasn't changed at all. Those "same people" were anti-conservative, anti-moral, anti-religion, anti-self responsible back then, as now. All they wanted and stood for was "doing whatever they wanted, whenever they wanted" without regards for consequences. They termed it "in search for freedom" when all it was was a search for lisence to evade responsibility for one's actions.

    Freedom of choice is a given. But, with every choice in life there comes a certain set of responsibilities and a certain predictable set of consequences. "Freedom" without regard for how those actions affect the rest of society and with avoidance of consequences of those actions is NOT freedom, it is counter cultural/societal and anarchistic.

    It is very much like the behavior of a two year old. They want, they demand, they "act out" until they get their way. No one has ever told them, in their "training" period of childhood, that "their way" is not always going to be allowed.... particularly if it is detrimental to society overall. They grow up (sort of, let's say they just "age") sans self discipline, sans manners, sans respect for anyone but themselves and consider the rest of us just bit players on the self centered stage of their life's story.

    We are but reaping the inevitable consequences of "liberal" child rearing practices first used by the "Greatest Generation" to raise the Boomers. Then the Boomers used them on Generation "X" (Generation X are now those gaining offices at the highest levels of the Government) and on it goes. Each subsequent generation less inclined toward self responsibility and self discipline than the previous. (In general. There are ALWAYS exceptions to generalities.)

    Now we are at a crossroads. Roughly half of the population believes that the Government is responsible for their well being, regardless of level of effort the individual puts forth in his/her own behalf toward that same goal. The other half still believes in social responsibility and self determination, ethics and self actualization. The first half wants someone else (anyone else) to foot the bill for their well being. The second half is getting tired of footing the bills for the free lunches/free loaders.

    The way I see it, only another generation or two separates the US from the first half completely dominating the political climate. Why? Because the "dependency route" seems the easiest way to go. No stress. No mess. Unfortunately, the "workers paradise" scenario has never come true for any Nation that has tried it. Why? Because there does have to be a certain segment of the population that produces the wealth necessary to "keep" the adult dependents in lifestyle. Without the producers... the whole concept flounders and everyone becomes equal. Equally poor. What in the world gives the Social Elitists the idea that they are going to do it and have it turn out any differently this time around?

    GG
    Fanatics of any sort are dangerous! -GG-
    Which part of "... shall NOT be infringed..." confuses you?
    Well now, aren't WE a pair, Raggedy Man? (Thunderdome)

  11. #10
    Quote Originally Posted by Grognard Gunny View Post

    What in the world gives the Social Elitists the idea that they are going to do it and have it turn out any differently this time around?

    GG
    The only thing different most of the elitists hope for is that they will be at the very top of the pyramid and the rest of us will be willing serfs for them.

    Of course there are SOME elitists who believe that we will all become equal as long as they get to set the rules that will cause the equality. Still, even they will expect to be "more equal" than the rest of us!

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •  
Quantcast