View Full Version : Police State 4A Dead!
Rust_shackleford
05-13-2011, 13:35
http://www.nwitimes.com/news/local/govt-and-politics/article_ec169697-a19e-525f-a532-81b3df229697.html
DeusExMachina
05-13-2011, 13:41
It's over.
Yikes. That's some terrible ruling.
trlcavscout
05-13-2011, 13:46
Great
Zundfolge
05-13-2011, 13:50
Wow ... so America is truly dead. :(
SCOTUS better overturn this.
Lochinver
05-13-2011, 13:50
Um, the right to resist unlawful entry into one's home is the one of the very basics of one's individual liberties. I hope to find some time to read that ruling.
CMP_5.56
05-13-2011, 13:53
I hate to say it out loud, but if anyone illegally enters my home they will be in a world of hurt. My home is my private domain and as such is under my protection. I will see any illegal entry to my home as a threat on my life, and the lives of my family. If this were put into law here I would either move or made it publicly known the statement above.
So according to the Indiana SC, you have no right to resist the unlawful actions of government agents because you can seek remedies via a court system administered by the very government that sponsored said unlawful actions? Again, throwing away our rights in order to 'protect' us.
CrufflerSteve
05-13-2011, 14:03
The guy quoted at the end had it right. If they had wanted to permit it, they should have carefully limited it. A hot pursuit type argument. Instead they gave civilians no recourse. Very upsetting. I hope this does get overturned.
Steve
OneGuy67
05-13-2011, 14:04
Luckily, that ruling is only valid in Indiana and most likely, will be filed in the Federal Appelate Court.
CMP_5.56
05-13-2011, 14:11
What scares me is that if the citizens of Indiana don't fight this will set a president for other sales to follow. If it can happen in the heartland, it can happen anywhere.
Lex_Luthor
05-13-2011, 14:33
Wow THAT is some seriously F'd up stuff right there! Guilty until proven innocent apparently. They had BETTER fight this court decision. Then get rid of those judges.
SA Friday
05-13-2011, 14:37
So according to the Indiana SC, you have no right to resist the unlawful actions of government agents because you can seek remedies via a court system administered by the very government that sponsored said unlawful actions? Again, throwing away our rights in order to 'protect' us.
Oh ya. You hit the nail on the head. This reeks of the garbage the Fed Govt has done in their relationships with Native American Tribes for over a hundred years now. It looks like a build up leading to an established "trust" relationship, where the citizen is in a position of child and the Fed Govt is in a position of ward.
Lot of historical legalities involving Indians that show they are the canary in the coal mine when it comes to matters like these. If the Supreme Court doesn't take an appeal and spike this, it's trouble. Big trouble.
We all need to remember that we do not need the permission from another human being to protect ones property or self.
Remember that they are natural born rights.
BPTactical
05-13-2011, 15:30
When I read this I thought I was going to break my teeth, my jaws tightened that much. Indiana has its own Constitution and Article 11 basically mirrors the US Bill of Rights, 4th Amendment.
This ruling is in direct contradiction to Indiana's Constitution.
I think the citizens of Indiana should have the right to demand the immediate removal of these Justices from the bench.
Or physically go in and drag their pompous asses out and beat them to a lifeless pulp.
This is the kind of shit that wars are started over.
CMP_5.56
05-13-2011, 15:33
Damn straight Bert, I agree whole heartedly. I wanted to go out and scream at the top of my lungs at the injustice just put upon the citizens of Indiana. I never take it well when some self empowered asshole wipes their ass with the Constitution!
Most of the fellow 2A Hoosiers I know are pretty up in arms about this.
H.
Swell. Hope this doesn't spread here but I wouldn't count the Looper out.
Seems as though eminent domain is becoming increasingly popular among federal and state governments.
This is just another unintended consequence of the nanny state whereby you give up your rights in exchange for "security". Pretty soon the gov will be telling us how many undocumented workers we have to house.
colocowboy01
05-13-2011, 17:03
What do the cops think about this? It makes their jobs easier, and screws the civilians, so it sounds like a win-win situation to me.
[Mad]
Uberjager
05-13-2011, 17:17
Wow! Not a single crazy sh#&bird in this thread stating you shouldn't be upset, if you have nothing to hide.
you guys need to cut this anti cop spew.
if you have nothing to hide you should welcome them in and thank them for their service.
and if you don't want them in your home then, well... you must have something to hide.
Jumpstart
05-13-2011, 17:23
Scary.
I guess I better join the force so I can feel free/safe in my own home...
colocowboy01
05-13-2011, 17:34
Scary.
I guess I better join the force so I can feel free/safe in my own home...
Good call, I might have to join you. Welcome to Amerika.
No way this makes it past the Federal Court of Appeals. There is far too much case law precedent going the other way.
Bad law from the bench. I still have faith that with time these two rulings will be overturned. No one, not even learned judges are perfect. These rulings are obvious examples.
jerrymrc
05-13-2011, 18:04
It is a very disturbing ruling. I might understand what one poster said about the "hot pursuit" or something in action but a blanket anytime/no reason?
BPTactical
05-13-2011, 18:10
Bad law from the bench. No one, not even learned judges are perfect.
Now I am not an overly learned man but even I can understand this:
Information Maintained by the Office of Code Revision Indiana Legislative Services Agency
PREAMBLE.
TO THE END, that justice be established, public order maintained, and liberty perpetuated; WE, the People of the State of Indiana, grateful to ALMIGHTY GOD for the free exercise of the right to choose our own form of government, do ordain this Constitution.
ARTICLE 1.
Bill of Rights.
Section 11. The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable search or seizure, shall not be violated; and no warrant shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the person or thing to be seized.
trlcavscout
05-13-2011, 18:11
you guys need to cut this anti cop spew.
if you have nothing to hide you should welcome them in and thank them for their service.
and if you don't want them in your home then, well... you must have something to hide.
[ROFL1] Yes come in and shoot my dog and go through my stuff anytime you want. Hey wanna stay for dinner? Just dont shoot me 71 times please [Beer] I think this is more anti law/lawmaker then anti cop?
colocowboy01
05-13-2011, 18:33
[ROFL1] Yes come in and shoot my dog and go through my stuff anytime you want. Hey wanna stay for dinner? Just dont shoot me 71 times please [Beer] I think this is more anti law/lawmaker then anti cop?
Are we all going to be required to have fresh coffee and donuts available at all hours of the day now for those who "stop in"?
[Coffee]
claimbuster
05-13-2011, 19:16
Are we all going to be required to have fresh coffee and donuts available at all hours of the day now for those who "stop in"?
[Coffee]
....you want spend some time with my wife too? [Mad][Mad]
The incident that this came from, didn't one of those police officers also shoot the homeowner in the back (and kill him) while he tried to ride away on a bicycle? I swore the first time I read about this story, that was how it ended, but I'm not sure. Anyone remember?
KevDen2005
05-13-2011, 20:27
All I'm going to say is that I think it is a really bad ruling by the Indian Supreme Court and I have no doubt, giving the implications of the ruling, the dissenting opinions, and the precedent of case law before it that this will be appealed. I certainly don't agree with the ruling at all.
As for Colorado (and I would assume other states as well) there are really specific guidelines that an officer must follow before entering a home without a warrant and in many of those cases a warrant will still be needed.
That's all I have to say on that because I can see already the anti-police BS is already starting, even though probably all the LEO's are gonna be thinking the same thing the non-LEO's are.
Zundfolge
05-13-2011, 20:32
... I can see already the anti-police BS is already starting...
I'm probably one of those that would get labeled a "cop basher" around here and even I can see how rulings like this actually make the lives of cops HARDER and not easier.
...even though probably all the LEO's are gonna be thinking the same thing the non-LEO's are.Well lets hope they're more vocal in their opposition to this ruling. While I agree that the vast majority of cops aren't going to like it any more than we do, there is still always a contingent that sees the constitution as an impediment (and those guys make it that much harder for the good cops).
CMP_5.56
05-13-2011, 20:36
I hope people don't take this as an anti cop thread. It's not, it is an anti lawmaker thread. This is a blatant case of lawmakers abusing their power. And wiping their ass with the Constitution.
KevDen2005
05-13-2011, 20:40
I hope people don't take this as an anti cop thread. It's not, it is an anti lawmaker thread. This is a blatant case of lawmakers abusing their power. And wiping their ass with the Constitution.
I think the implications are even more than that...the branch of government that is supposed to interpret the right or wrong of something acted as a legislature, which is why this needs to go to the US Supreme Court
rockhound
05-13-2011, 20:41
the ruling is off, but i have to say that the incident that spurred it on was also off.
if the police officer is there to investigate a domestic violence complaint there is no way they are going to take the husbands word that the wife is ok and doesn't need their help.
in that instance i would say the cop is in the right to enter the home.
now no defense against any entry by LEO is way off.
KevDen2005
05-13-2011, 20:48
the ruling is off, but i have to say that the incident that spurred it on was also off.
if the police officer is there to investigate a domestic violence complaint there is no way they are going to take the husbands word that the wife is ok and doesn't need their help.
in that instance i would say the cop is in the right to enter the home.
now no defense against any entry by LEO is way off.
I see what you are saying and given very little information, the officer could have entered upon exigent circumstances, even if only in the entry way to check the welfare of both parties, then left without causing further problems, but for some reason the court ruled that is was okay for officers to enter no-matter what and if they are wrong just fight it in court later...I disagree with that notion.
Byte Stryke
05-13-2011, 21:26
In before cop-bashing thread locked.
I came her today to post this crazy story that comes right out of Europe, not something you would expect from an American town or state and I cant believe some of you damn fools, so damn eager to give up another of your liberties.
Amendment 4:
The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable search or seizure, shall not be violated; and no warrant shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the person or thing to be seized.
This one they are not even sneeking in with some little breach of the 4th that most people are willing to accept, like a dui check point, this is the whole enchilada.
Come the hell on, really, your giving up the 4th amendment.
CMP_5.56
05-13-2011, 21:31
I came her today to post this crazy story that comes right out of Europe, not something you would expect from an American town or state and I cant believe some of you damn fools, so damn eager to give up another of your liberties.
Amendment 4:
The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable search or seizure, shall not be violated; and no warrant shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the person or thing to be seized.
This one they are not even sneeking in with some little breach of the 4th that most people are willing to accept, like a dui check point, this is the whole enchilada.
Come the hell on, really, your giving up the 4th amendment.
I wouldn't say anyone is giving it up, it is being taken away from them. We will see how hard the folks from Indiana fight this one.
OneGuy67
05-13-2011, 22:13
What do the cops think about this? It makes their jobs easier, and screws the civilians, so it sounds like a win-win situation to me.
[Mad]
There have been a couple of us commenting already on here...
OneGuy67
05-13-2011, 22:15
I hope people don't take this as an anti cop thread. It's not, it is an anti lawmaker thread. This is a blatant case of lawmakers abusing their power. And wiping their ass with the Constitution.
This wasn't a law enacted by their legislature. It was a ruling from their state Supreme Court on a case that went up to them from the lower courts.
OneGuy67
05-13-2011, 22:16
I see what you are saying and given very little information, the officer could have entered upon exigent circumstances, even if only in the entry way to check the welfare of both parties, then left without causing further problems, but for some reason the court ruled that is was okay for officers to enter no-matter what and if they are wrong just fight it in court later...I disagree with that notion.
Yep!
theGinsue
05-13-2011, 22:24
I hope people don't take this as an anti cop thread. It's not, it is an anti lawmaker thread. This is a blatant case of lawmakers abusing their power. And wiping their ass with the Constitution.
I think the implications are even more than that...the branch of government that is supposed to interpret the right or wrong of something acted as a legislature, which is why this needs to go to the US Supreme Court
OneGuy & KevDen are right. Remember we have 3 branches of government: Executive (to apply the laws), Legislative (to make the laws), and the Judicial (to interpret laws and provide for justice [to state this ultra simply: determine guilt or innocence and ensure RIGHTS are not violated in the process]).
Law Enforcement falls under the Executive branch. THANK HEAVENS this branch isn't part of THIS discussion.
The courts are part of the Judicial system are are NOT supposed to be legislating from the bench. But, this is exactly what they've done in this case.
the ruling is off, but i have to say that the incident that spurred it on was also off.
if the police officer is there to investigate a domestic violence complaint there is no way they are going to take the husbands word that the wife is ok and doesn't need their help.
in that instance i would say the cop is in the right to enter the home.
now no defense against any entry by LEO is way off.
As KevDen stated/implied, the fact that this ruling specifically says citizens have "no right to resist unlawful police entry into their homes" is the biggest crux here. Unlawful is the key. I can't see this standing and not getting stuck dow by the U.S. Court of Appeals. If it does, liberty is truly dead.
Wow! Not a single crazy sh#&bird in this thread stating you shouldn't be upset, if you have nothing to hide.
you guys need to cut this anti cop spew.
if you have nothing to hide you should welcome them in and thank them for their service.
and if you don't want them in your home then, well... you must have something to hide.
Well I'm glad you two are ok with having no personal space. [Beer] I for one am glad that a law enforcement officer cannot invade my space without a very good reason and in most cases, a warrant. I don't have anything to hide, but my space is plain and simply black and white, my space call it greed or whatever you want, but come into my house uninvited and you're in trouble.
All I'm going to say is that I think it is a really bad ruling by the Indian Supreme Court and I have no doubt, giving the implications of the ruling, the dissenting opinions, and the precedent of case law before it that this will be appealed. I certainly don't agree with the ruling at all.
As for Colorado (and I would assume other states as well) there are really specific guidelines that an officer must follow before entering a home without a warrant and in many of those cases a warrant will still be needed.
That's all I have to say on that because I can see already the anti-police BS is already starting, even though probably all the LEO's are gonna be thinking the same thing the non-LEO's are.
Unfortunately the cops there are going to be hated even more for the stupid ruling. That sucks because I am guessing that most of the cops there think it is a stupid rule also.
In before cop-bashing thread locked.
I just thought this was funny. [Beer]
The only thing that surprises me is that this didn't happen in Kommiefornia.
mcantar18c
05-14-2011, 01:54
The only thing that surprises me is that this didn't happen in Kommiefornia yet.
Fixed.
Zundfolge
05-14-2011, 12:47
Originally Posted by Elhuero http://www.co-ar15.com/forums/images/buttons/viewpost.gif (http://www.co-ar15.com/forums/showthread.php?p=354282#post354282)
you guys need to cut this anti cop spew.
if you have nothing to hide you should welcome them in and thank them for their service.
and if you don't want them in your home then, well... you must have something to hide.
Well I'm glad you two are ok with having no personal space.
Spyder, you should probably go read this. (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sarcasm) [Beer]
KevDen2005
05-14-2011, 12:53
Spyder, you should probably go read this. (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sarcasm) [Beer]
That is actually pretty funny
I fear the day that the Colorado Legislative body allows something like this... In our town there are several cops that would preform an illegal entry on BS grounds... not bashing all cops, but when a department sends it's rookies right off FTO to our mountain community and a number of them are overly eager and ambitious to prove themselves worthy to work in West Denver they tend to bend rules and become too aggressive for how low our crime rate is. I've seen it several times, especially when a new deputy becomes an SRO and questions a minor without parental consent.
Enter my house illegally and you put me in hot water, I'll have to defend myself in court for killing a cop on the grounds that I thought they were corrupt and wanted to violate any and all rights I had. I keep 3 loaded weapons in easy reach at all times, despite having a low crime rate we have had a lot of larceny and home invasions recently.
Zundfolge
05-25-2011, 14:41
As KevDen stated/implied, the fact that this ruling specifically says citizens have "no right to resist unlawful police entry into their homes" is the biggest crux here. Unlawful is the key. I can't see this standing and not getting stuck dow by the U.S. Court of Appeals. If it does, liberty is truly dead.
I have a question for those of you in law enforcement.
Is there a point at which the law becomes so convoluted, wrong and just downright evil that you will feel the need to leave law enforcement?
If so would this be one of those things (assuming its upheld by the USCOA or even SCOTUS)?
KevDen2005
05-25-2011, 16:11
I have a question for those of you in law enforcement.
Is there a point at which the law becomes so convoluted, wrong and just downright evil that you will feel the need to leave law enforcement?
If so would this be one of those things (assuming its upheld by the USCOA or even SCOTUS)?
Uh, probably not going to be upheld by the Supreme Court based on it saying that Officers can enter no matter what.
Just because this ruling may be in effect I would still only enter the premises upon warrant, exigent circumstances, consent, probable cause....
See my other post about not wanting my name versus someone else going to the Supreme Court...not going to risk everything for something stupid...I think most officers are on the same page. Yes, there are some bad cops out there, I get it, we talk about it every time, and you and I both want them gone.
I would need a better example of such an EVIL law before I left. Mind you, if people that work in the field that oppose it start leaving then the crappier cops replace us. We can't help fix anything if we aren't apart of the system.
Zundfolge
05-25-2011, 16:21
Mind you, if people that work in the field that oppose it start leaving then the crappier cops replace us. We can't help fix anything if we aren't apart of the system.
That's a good point. However I don't know how an officer can fix the system any more than any other citizen (other than not being dicks themselves).
I guess my point is that at some point if the system becomes too corrupt than being part of that system makes one just as corrupt.
No I don't think the system is anywhere near that bad, but we're clearly headed in that direction.
At what point does America stop being America?
At what point does America stop being America?
Everyone has to choose sides during a Civil War. I pray we don't get to that point.
This is not the worst it has ever been and I hope we can all keep some historical perspective. One state supreme court ruling in Indiana does not end the American experiment.
As to the question on what laws will cops enforce or not enforce... Most officers make those decisions everyday. Officer's discretion is still alive and well in most places. Zero tolerance on some laws takes that discretion away. Almost everytime some drunk got arrested you can be certain that at least the drunk thought the cop was an a**hole.
Sometimes you eat the bear and sometimes the bear eats you.
Did anyone ever lie to you and tell you life was supposed to be fair?
daddygat
05-25-2011, 18:40
Perhaps what G.Gordon Liddy said some years ago has a lot of validity now with this ruling on the books.
They've got a big target on there: ATF. Don't shoot at that because they've got a vest on underneath that. Head shot, head shots.”http://thinkexist.com/i/sq/as4.gif G. Gordon Liddy quote (http://thinkexist.com/quotation/they-ve-got-a-big-target-on-there-atf-don-t-shoot/915945.html)
I guess my point is that at some point if the system becomes too corrupt than being part of that system makes one just as corrupt.
I would never work for the TSA or ATF. Not that either one would want me.
I would never work for the TSA or ATF. Not that either one would want me.
ATF kinda makes me laugh- they regulate what some consider the most dangerous legal items in America... I say the most dangerous legal item is power. The best correlation for that would be the whole if you give a mouse a cookie...
KevDen2005
05-26-2011, 00:44
That's a good point. However I don't know how an officer can fix the system any more than any other citizen (other than not being dicks themselves).
I guess my point is that at some point if the system becomes too corrupt than being part of that system makes one just as corrupt.
No I don't think the system is anywhere near that bad, but we're clearly headed in that direction.
I surely don't think we are at the worst point yet. We may or may not be heading in that direction but I think that won't be something we deal with in our lifetimes. However, it's not like you and I and everyone else on here are preparing for the "just in case."
Just because I do one thing at work doesn't mean I don't get poor police service when I need something...just the other day I did and I won't go into detail about it.
I think if the situation was bad enough it would be a "civil war" type of scenario. I have no doubt there would be horrible violence in the streets. I hope you understand that myself, and probably every other cop on here, would be right by your side in the fight to restore the country we love to put it back together.
I surely don't think we are at the worst point yet. We may or may not be heading in that direction but I think that won't be something we deal with in our lifetimes. However, it's not like you and I and everyone else on here are preparing for the "just in case."
Just because I do one thing at work doesn't mean I don't get poor police service when I need something...just the other day I did and I won't go into detail about it.
I think if the situation was bad enough it would be a "civil war" type of scenario. I have no doubt there would be horrible violence in the streets. I hope you understand that myself, and probably every other cop on here, would be right by your side in the fight to restore the country we love to put it back together.
well as I've heard others point out, the U.S. has weathered tough times before. But this has been as bad as it's been since I was a baby.
Sure, gas is over $4 a gallon, but there are no lines around the block to get it.
funny sidenote .... watched good will hunting the other day. in the film he says "And, of course, the oil companies used the skirmish over there to scare up domestic oil prices. A cute little ancillary benefit for them, but it ain't helping my buddy at two-fifty a gallon." I laughed out, and loud. $2.50 gas would be great right now.
we'll get through this, but whether it'll get worse before it gets better... I don't know.
From the aftermath of katrina, news items and videos of civilian/police interactions and posts from leos I've been seeing on other boards, the us vs. them gap is very real, and getting wider little by little.
But even with the chance that things could get really bad, I am still filled with hope... because of your last paragraph
Powered by vBulletin® Version 4.2.3 Copyright © 2025 vBulletin Solutions, Inc. All rights reserved.