Firearm & Gun Forum - FireArmsTalk.com

Firearm & Gun Forum - FireArmsTalk.com (http://www.firearmstalk.com/forums/)
-   Legal and Activism (http://www.firearmstalk.com/forums/f97/)
-   -   Can't stop the po po in Indiana (http://www.firearmstalk.com/forums/f97/cant-stop-po-po-indiana-42468/)

fireguy 05-14-2011 01:49 PM

Can't stop the po po in Indiana
 
Crazy news from the state where my family came from. The Indiana supreme court idiotically rules that a citizen does not have a right to resist an illegal entry to their home by the police. The fourth amendment has died a little more, here folks.

Court: No right to resist illegal cop entry into home

Jesse17 05-14-2011 03:12 PM

That's just bull-pelosi beyond belief. I respect LEOs (on an individual basis) for risking their life the same as someone serving in the military, but this continual infringement on personal rights is just moving us more and more to a big brother state.

Respecting the men who serve as police officers does not translate to giving them free rein to walk in to my home.

That being said I want to point out that I believe the officers had the right to enter the home because they were responding to a crime in progress (domestic disturbance). So in the case that went to the Court they were probably correct, but the ruling was much broader than the specific situation that they were suppose to be deliberating on.

Quote:

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.

"We believe ... a right to resist an unlawful police entry into a home is against public policy (not against the law, against policy so we're just going to legislate NEW law from the bench) and is incompatible with modern Fourth Amendment jurisprudence," David said. "We also find that allowing resistance unnecessarily escalates the level of violence and therefore the risk of injuries to all parties involved without preventing the arrest."
They said it was in an effort to prevent violence. Here's an idea...get a GD search warrant and do your job legally!

bkt 05-14-2011 03:23 PM

Yeah, I saw this yesterday. This judge's ruling boils down to this: "Armed government thugs may break the law with impunity and you are guilty if you resist them even if they put you, your family and your property in harm's way."

Let's see what an appeal brings. If there's an appeal. If this turd's ruling is allowed to stand, it will become precedent in the future.

armoredman 05-14-2011 03:39 PM

In writing, it's illegal to resist an illegal act. I think that invalidates the concept entirely, and SCOTUS will have a field day with this one.

orangello 05-14-2011 04:44 PM

Illegal doesn't always equal wrong, and legal doesn't always equal right.

I have seen more than one report of home invasion robberies and attempts at such by persons impersonating LEO's. I will continue to consider ANY group of masked men attempting to enter my home a threat and respond with whatever force needed to protect myself. It would be better for all parties involved if the government and its agents followed the 4th amendment.

Jesse17 05-14-2011 05:12 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by orangello (Post 504320)
Illegal doesn't always equal wrong, and legal doesn't always equal right.

Quote:

Originally Posted by +1 with clarity
Shooting someone barging in to your home doesn't always equal wrong, and barging in to someones home illegally doesn't always equal right.

Quote:

Originally Posted by orangello (Post 504320)
I have seen more than one report of home invasion robberies and attempts at such by persons impersonating LEO's. I will continue to consider ANY group of masked men attempting to enter my home a threat and respond with whatever force needed to protect myself. It would be better for all parties involved if the government and its agents followed the 4th amendment.

I think the majority of LEOs will continue to follow the law, they don't want any kind of lawsuits against them for 'illegal entry' whether or not the home owner is 'allowed' to stop them, nor would they trust the home owner to actually yield to a law like that. After all, the type of person who is going to shoot/fight a LEO barging in to their home is going to do it regardless of if it's legal or not.

Where I do see a INCREASE (not decrease) in violence is the occasional Barney who is on a power trip and going to 'prove who's boss' and take this as a right to enter anywhere he pleases. I know the majority of LEOs out there don't have this sort of mentality, but they are out there we've all seen them. They WILL be met with an INCREASE in violence!

M14sRock 05-14-2011 05:33 PM

This sets a bad precedent on every level.

orangello 05-14-2011 05:47 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Jesse17 (Post 504334)
Where I do see a INCREASE (not decrease) in violence is the occasional Barney who is on a power trip and going to 'prove who's boss' and take this as a right to enter anywhere he pleases. I know the majority of LEOs out there don't have this sort of mentality, but they are out there we've all seen them. They WILL be met with an INCREASE in violence!

That seems wholly appropriate.

therewolf 05-14-2011 06:02 PM

Doe this judge come from Kenya, too?

Something tells me taking away our constitution is

not going to be a good way to


* * * "avoid violence" * * *...

Texgunner 05-15-2011 12:51 AM

This Indiana ruling sets a very bad precedent. I surely hope SCOTUS dumps it.


All times are GMT. The time now is 09:38 AM.

Copyright ©2000 - 2014, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.