Idiana makes new law protecting the 4th amendment... - Page 3
Firearm & Gun Forum - FireArmsTalk.com > General Firearms Forums > Legal and Activism > Idiana makes new law protecting the 4th amendment...

Reply
 
LinkBack Thread Tools Display Modes
Old 06-14-2012, 03:33 AM   #21
FTF_SUPPORTER.png
Feedback Score: 0 reviews
 
Mason609's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2012
Location: Quincy,MA
Posts: 1,432
Liked 660 Times on 403 Posts
Likes Given: 3700

Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by dog2000tj View Post
So a person clad in tactical gear, unmarked and unannounced breaks down your door and you do what ... lay down and say thank you? just because someone barges through your door dressed in tactical gear using military tactics doesn't make them LEO

as with all the others the 4th Amendment is crystal clear - 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.

the use of no-knock tactics is a violation of the 4th Amendment anyway you look at it. If LE want to use paramilitary tactics against the people they are sworn to protect than they can suffer the casualties of war just like innocent civilians
How, exactly, does a no-knock warrant violate the 4th?
__________________

Insert witty comment here......


Veritas Aequitas

Vincit Omnia Veritas

Vincere est Vivere

Mason609 is online now  
 
Reply With Quote
Old 06-14-2012, 03:46 AM   #22
Feedback Score: 0 reviews
 
dog2000tj's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2008
Posts: 8,309
Liked 3735 Times on 1824 Posts
Likes Given: 13269

Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Mason609 View Post
How, exactly, does a no-knock warrant violate the 4th?
well if you feel that someone kicking down your door is not unreasonable than i guess we will just have to agree to disagree
__________________

Member: NRA GOA

ΜΟΛΩΝ ΛΑΒΕ
Est sularas oth mithas

"either way, you were guilty by association, so you were smited...." JD

dog2000tj is offline  
 
Reply With Quote
Old 06-14-2012, 03:59 AM   #23
FTF_SUPPORTER.png
Feedback Score: 0 reviews
 
Mason609's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2012
Location: Quincy,MA
Posts: 1,432
Liked 660 Times on 403 Posts
Likes Given: 3700

Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by dog2000tj View Post
well if you feel that someone kicking down your door is not unreasonable than i guess we will just have to agree to disagree
But whose definition of unreasonable are we going with? Ours? The legal definition? The courts? Tim's? The criminal's? Well, considering the criminals think that ANY warrant is a violation of their rights....

The only difference between a no-knock and a regular warrant is the fact that they don't have to announce themselves.

Yeah, banning no-knocks would be a great help to the criminals, that way they have time to flush the drugs (or otherwise dispose of / hide the items they don't want the cops to find.... easily).
__________________

Insert witty comment here......


Veritas Aequitas

Vincit Omnia Veritas

Vincere est Vivere

Mason609 is online now  
gmaster456 Likes This 
Reply With Quote
Old 06-14-2012, 04:15 AM   #24
FTF_SUPPORTER.png
Feedback Score: 0 reviews
 
Mason609's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2012
Location: Quincy,MA
Posts: 1,432
Liked 660 Times on 403 Posts
Likes Given: 3700

Default

Now, don't get me wrong...

Personally (I have family/friends that are / were cops), if a cop busted down my door, I'd probably shoot, too.

This law shouldn't be needed. Yes, cops WILL make mistakes. Why? They're human. But, they need to be held accountable. That's one of the reasons IA was created. Another thing would be lawsuits. The DA's office doesn't like it when cops do stupid crap (like bust into the wrong home), and can do something about it. Then you have civil suits. Hopefully, if the cop(s) decide not to settle, he/she/they will be stupid enough to ask for a jury trial (civil suits doesn't usually end in favor of the cop).

In a perfect world, we wouldn't need a law like this, because we wouldn't need cops. But, that isn't the case, and most likely won't be for the next thousand years (give or take a century).

__________________

Insert witty comment here......


Veritas Aequitas

Vincit Omnia Veritas

Vincere est Vivere

Mason609 is online now  
 
Reply With Quote
Old 06-14-2012, 04:17 AM   #25
Feedback Score: 0 reviews
 
dog2000tj's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2008
Posts: 8,309
Liked 3735 Times on 1824 Posts
Likes Given: 13269

Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Mason609 View Post
Yeah, banning no-knocks would be a great help to the criminals, that way they have time to flush the drugs (or otherwise dispose of / hide the items they don't want the cops to find.... easily).
ah yes, the War on Drugs ..... how's that one going? making any progress on that front - drug sales down? drug use down? drug related crime down?

if someone has enough time to get up, grab their stash and make it to, then flush it down a drain, chances are that the LEO are wasting enormous resources on a nobody how about LE put more focus on the big fish criminals and less focus on bashing down doors of Joe Nobody

and when LE can GUARANTEE that they will not be bashing down the doors of innocent civilians, then I will change my stance on the position until then, a mans home is his castle and he has every right to defend it
__________________

Member: NRA GOA

ΜΟΛΩΝ ΛΑΒΕ
Est sularas oth mithas

"either way, you were guilty by association, so you were smited...." JD

dog2000tj is offline  
rjd3282 Likes This 
Reply With Quote
Old 06-14-2012, 07:29 AM   #26
Feedback Score: 0 reviews
 
paintsplat's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2012
Posts: 262
Liked 72 Times on 42 Posts

Default

On a no knock warrant you don't know who's coming in, somebody crashes through my door, the dogs are going to meet them first, and the lead won't be far behind.

__________________
paintsplat is offline  
 
Reply With Quote
Old 06-14-2012, 09:46 AM   #27
FTF_SUPPORTER.png
Feedback Score: 0 reviews
 
Mason609's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2012
Location: Quincy,MA
Posts: 1,432
Liked 660 Times on 403 Posts
Likes Given: 3700

Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by paintsplat View Post
On a no knock warrant you don't know who's coming in, somebody crashes through my door, the dogs are going to meet them first, and the lead won't be far behind.
Usually, when a door gets smashed in, and a bunch of men in body armor, and tactical gear carrying either M4s or MP5s... there's a far better chance they're either police or feds than anything else.

Plus, after they do bust in, they're yelling "police" or "FBI" or some other LE agency. They don't just run in and start throwing people to the ground.
__________________

Insert witty comment here......


Veritas Aequitas

Vincit Omnia Veritas

Vincere est Vivere

Mason609 is online now  
gmaster456 Likes This 
Reply With Quote
Old 06-14-2012, 10:42 AM   #28
Feedback Score: 0 reviews
 
Yunus's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2009
Location: |,Maryland
Posts: 4,808
Liked 1109 Times on 657 Posts
Likes Given: 348

Default

I don't believe no-knock warrants are a violation of the 4th, they serve a purpose in certain cases. Executing that warrant against the wrong home obviously violates the 4th.

You are a law abiding citizen, it's the middle of the night and you are awakened by the sound of your front door being smashed in. At this point I believe that my house is being broken into and I have no idea the intent of the people breaking in, I will use the force necessary to stop the threat.

The police have been accused many times of not identifying themselves during these raids. I don't know in the example I gave if they did or not because I can't find the article. I'll do some research.

Here's an interesting map of no-knock raids gone bad. http://www.cato.org/raidmap/

__________________

"Good people drink good beer."
Hunter S. Thompson

Yunus is offline  
 
Reply With Quote
Old 06-14-2012, 01:08 PM   #29
Feedback Score: 0 reviews
 
knfxda's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2011
Location: FL
Posts: 692
Liked 19 Times on 14 Posts
Likes Given: 6

Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by fmj View Post
If you read the very first paragraph you will SEE what brought this about. The high court ruled that citizens had no right to defend their homes from unlawful entry by police.
I get that. I just don't understand why this case went to this level. I don't see how this guy could even begin to claim that he was defending his home from unlawful entry.

In actuality, the court case is about the ability/right to even make the arguement and not actually about the merits of his case. They weren't considering the merits of his case, but whether or not he is even permited to make the arguement at all.
__________________

"Ideology deludes, inspires dishonesty, and breeds fanaticism. Facts, experience, and logic are much better at leading you to the truth."

"Despite the conviction and seeming depth of knowledge with which ideologues speak, they are intellectual weaklings--joiners--who defer to systems of belief and charismatic gurus for their ideas." -- Daniel J. Flynn

GOA

knfxda is offline  
 
Reply With Quote
Old 06-14-2012, 03:09 PM   #30
FTF_SUPPORTER.png
Feedback Score: 0 reviews
 
Join Date: Dec 2009
Location: Pendleton, 29670,South Carolina
Posts: 2,586
Liked 1273 Times on 736 Posts
Likes Given: 1937

Default

There was a situation in Indianapolis a while back where some man's dog got loose and was running around the neighborhood. Someone called the police, and a cop went to the man's house and was on the front porch, ranting and raving at this man about his dog. The man said, OK, I'll be more careful about the dog, and shut the door. The cop was out of control. He called for backup, and they broke down the door of this man's house, and proceeded to beat him mercilessly. He was able to get to a shotgun and shoot one of the cops. They both shot him multiple times in the arms and legs, crippling him for life. Then they arrested him for resisting arrest, assaulting a police officer, and other charges. He went to prison. All because some cop was insulted because he didn't think the man was humble enough in his presence.
This was not an isolated incident.
It looks like Indiana got fed up with that kind of crap.

__________________
AIKIJUTSU is offline  
towboater Likes This 
Reply With Quote
Reply

Thread Tools
Display Modes


Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Firearms Forum Replies Last Post
New York S1427-2011: Proposes a constitutional amendment protecting the RKBA mrreynolds Concealed Carrying & Personal Protection 7 05-15-2012 01:13 PM
The Second Amendment: What a Difference a Comma Makes tracker Legal and Activism 7 06-22-2008 08:41 PM
Protecting Blades? gatgurl Other Weapons 7 02-21-2008 01:46 AM