Indiana Sheriff wants random house searches

Mike Chirch ^

[wrastu]

Here it comes

Sheriff, Don Hartman Sr.

http://www.mikechurch.com/Today-s-Lead-Story/in-sheriff-if-we-need-to-conduct-random-house-to-house-searches-we-will.html

[COBOL2Java]

Hey, is Hartman any relation to this guy?

[Rich21IE]

it was only a matter of time.

[meyer]

I wonder - does the good Sheriff also support random deputy shootings?

[bert]

If you have done nothing wrong there is no probable cause.

The cop’s authority ends at the property line. Beyond that the authority of a warrant is required.

If there is no law, there is no law.

[SERE_DOC]

Then I respectfully apologize for my (not seeing the /s tag) comment. but the reality is there are people that feel that way which are foolish and stupid.

[SERE_DOC]

yes

[BlueLancer]

"Indiana Sheriff wants random house searches"

Why on earth would he want to search a publishing company?

[muawiyah]

Different state ~ BTW, what state courts say about the 4th Amendment is just so much hogwash. It's a federal matter. Settled law is involved.

The real problem is the commissioner method for appointing judges. It's very anti-democratic. Best we dump it wherever it exists. Only elected judges can be trusted. An appointed judge is too often just a political hack or an employee of some special interest group ~ and it's possible this puke was TURNED by AlQaida down in GITMO.

So, things are far worse than you imagined.

BTW, regarding the case ~ the guy had moved out, the lady who lived there called the cops for help, there was no illegal entry.

End of story.

[Recovering Ex-hippie]

Hey..its just “for the chillun...”

[muawiyah]

Hmm ~ publishing company. Did you realize that a recurring problem with "publishing companies" involves pedophiles. They like to work there. I simply cannot tell you how many times we had one of our larger mailers get in trouble with one of these guys ~ it was a lot.

So, maybe the sheriff wants to do a detailed search to see who is keeping what where ~ maybe there's some serious stashes of kiddy porn.

[driftdiver]

‘the reality is there are people that feel that way which are foolish and stupid.”

We can definitely agree on that item.

[The Theophilus]

They’ll also gladly convict any fool that does manage to shoot a cop (now legally entering your home) of murder so don’t think that you’ll get off because of your righteous cause, it ain’t going to happen.

Following your recipe for pacifist surrender to the Totalitarians there are two more stages towards us becoming like the UK. The next stage is that crims will be highly motivated to impersonate police officers during home invasions. Shortly after that, this judge will probably rule that resisting intruders of any sort leads to violence and that the vic should lie back, get raped, robbed and whatever else the perp feels motivated to do - since all of this will be sorted out in court.

[BlueLancer]

Snappy comeback ...

[muawiyah]

You, yourself, can invite the police in to check something out. They won't need a warrant for that. Also, when the cops see/sense that someone is getting a beating they can step in without a warrant.

The law never required the cops to stand there while crimes were commited waiting for a warrant. NOT EVER!

What you have in this case is a situation where the FACTS do not match the concerns of the court.

[muawiyah]

Bet you didn’t expect that one (Bwahahahahah!) (BTW, it’s true)

[DuncanWaring]

The specific quote is:

“We believe ... a right to resist an unlawful police entry into a home is against public policy and is incompatible with modern Fourth Amendment jurisprudence,”

[wrastu]

For what its worth:

http://www.siriusxm.com/siriusxmpatriot

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mike_Church

I think he is a member of the VRWC.

I kinda think he don’t like the pres.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=65U0fyiu-Dk&feature=related

LOL

[wrastu]

OOPS wrong link, here is one that has some of his work, take it or leave it.

http://www.youtube.com/user/theofficialkingdude

[Cboldt]

-- It was my understanding that the SCOTUS review was about a case where a police department entered a home without a warrant using fuzzy logic. I believe the issue was whether the home-owners could justifiably object with use of force. The SCOTUS said no. --

Do you mean Indiana Supreme Court? It ruled in a case where the cops entered the house (presumably lawfully), and the homeowner offered resistance. The homeowner wanted a jury instruction as to the right to offer reasonable resistance to unlawful entry. The Indiana Supreme Court ruled that there is no right to offer reasonable resistance to unlawful police entry.

-- It's my take that the SCOTUS DID NOT okay blanked raids on homes at random. --

Again, do you mean Indiana Supreme Court? If so, your remark is correct. It said that the remedy for blanket raids on homes at random is found in court.

-- It merely said that if a department enters a home without due cause, the owner shouldn't be allowed to open fire on them. --

No resistance is permitted. No shoving, no holding the door, no obstruction, etc. This isn't just about deadly force, this is about the use of reasonable resistance.

[wrastu]

After statement like that I have to agree with you.