Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

(IN State) Supreme Court Reaffirms Ruling In Officer Resistance Case
http://www.theindychannel.com ^ | 12:49 pm EDT September 20, 2011 | WRTV

Posted on 09/20/2011 12:41:36 PM PDT by FunkyZero

INDIANAPOLIS -- The Indiana Supreme Court on Tuesday reaffirmed its earlier ruling in a controversial case involving unlawful police entry. The court granted a rehearing, then supplied a five-page opinion on its May 12 opinion that declared that Hoosiers no longer had a legal right to resist police officers who enter their home without a legal basis to do so.

(Excerpt) Read more at theindychannel.com ...


TOPICS: Breaking News; Constitution/Conservatism; Crime/Corruption; Government; News/Current Events; US: Indiana
KEYWORDS: 0feminism; 0police; 0socialism; 0teachers; 4thamendment; banglist; bloat; bloodoftyrants; communism; corruption; cwii; donttreadonme; donutwatch; govtabuse; jbt; judicialtyranny; libertyordeath; lping; nazistate; police; policestate; rapeofliberty; sourcetitlenoturl; swat; tyranny; unconstitutional; waronliberty
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-2021-4041-6061-80 ... 121-129 next last
Note the poll on the right side of the page. Let's smash it
1 posted on 09/20/2011 12:41:44 PM PDT by FunkyZero
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | View Replies]

To: FunkyZero

They just outlawed the “Declaration of Independence”.


2 posted on 09/20/2011 12:43:26 PM PDT by bvw
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: bvw
They just outlawed the “Declaration of Independence”.

In addition to absolutely guaranteeing the deaths of a few cops and even more pissed off citizens.

3 posted on 09/20/2011 12:44:56 PM PDT by Lurker (The avalanche has begun. The pebbles no longer have a vote.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

Comment #4 Removed by Moderator

To: FunkyZero

81% disagree with the ruling
19% agree with the ruling


5 posted on 09/20/2011 12:47:05 PM PDT by Erik Latranyi
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Lurker
A uniformed criminal, wearing police garb and a badge, and you are not allowed to defend yourself?

Gimme a break; enter at your own peril, whoever you are.

6 posted on 09/20/2011 12:50:13 PM PDT by traditional1 ("Don't gotsta worry 'bout no mo'gage, don't gotsta worry 'bout no gas; Obama gonna take care o' me!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 3 | View Replies]

To: FunkyZero

I bet every home invasion perp in the state is heading to the costume shop to get a police uniform and fake badge...


7 posted on 09/20/2011 12:52:56 PM PDT by apillar
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Erik Latranyi

you can’t protect anyone’s rights by infringing on everyone’s rights.

sounds like an overly broad, idiotic ruling.


8 posted on 09/20/2011 12:55:58 PM PDT by WOBBLY BOB (See ya later, debt inflator ! Gone in 4 (2012))
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 5 | View Replies]

To: FunkyZero

Once they make an unlawful entry, they are mere thugs not police. People need to wake up.


9 posted on 09/20/2011 12:57:47 PM PDT by freedomfiter2 (Brutal acts of commission and yawning acts of omission both strengthen the hand of the devil.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: FunkyZero

Ever since his appointment, Chief Justice Randall Shepard has been pushing for centralization of all judicial power in the central organs of State Court Administration, which of course Shepard controls. On the way there, he has uniformly written opinions in favor of the power of the state over the rights of the individual. While he didn’t write this opinion, he certainly concurred in it.

He’s just the sort of judge Stalin was looking for to conduct his show trials.


10 posted on 09/20/2011 12:58:46 PM PDT by henkster (Socialists and liberals all want jobs; they just don't want to work.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: FunkyZero

It’s time for the Legislature to get into action then. This is too important to not be ‘clarified’.

Of course knowing the legislature they will wait until a horrible incident occurs and then call it XXXXXXXXX’s law.


11 posted on 09/20/2011 12:58:55 PM PDT by The Working Man (The mantra for BO's reign...."No Child Left a Dime")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: FunkyZero

I see dead people.

Let these so-called “justices” be subject to the death sentence for all of the bloody murders that will ensue on both sides of the thin, blue line.


12 posted on 09/20/2011 12:59:44 PM PDT by HKMk23 (YHVH NEVER PLAYS DEFENSE)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: WOBBLY BOB

“sounds like an overly broad, idiotic ruling.”

I’d say it was a wrong ruling. They should have been questioning whether or not the woman who called 911 was in fact giving them permission to enter the premises and whether or not she was doing so legally. If she gave them permission, does that trump the man who tried to prevent them from entering? Was she legally able to do so or not? Not enough clarity on this point AT ALL and the half assed ruling doesn’t help.


13 posted on 09/20/2011 1:01:29 PM PDT by jessduntno (Obama shanks. America tanks.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 8 | View Replies]

To: AZ .44 MAG

for your ping list, sir


14 posted on 09/20/2011 1:01:46 PM PDT by FunkyZero ("It's not about duck hunting !")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 3 | View Replies]

To: Titus Quinctius Cincinnatus
people will just have to decide whether they’re willing to shoot cops

I don't think that is the question. In the event of an illegal entry into my home, I would assume it was not the police (I wouldn't have to pretend, I would really believe they were not cops), and I would respond appropriately to an illegal entry by armed criminals. And, yes, I am willing to shoot an armed criminal who breaks into my home. Sadly, if it really is the police, I suspect that will end badly for me and possibly for a few cops.

15 posted on 09/20/2011 1:02:03 PM PDT by Pollster1 (Natural born citizen of the USA, with the birth certificate to prove it)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | View Replies]

To: The Working Man

Mark my word: this reckless ruling will be “clarified” one way or another; by Law or by lead.

Stack the bodies on the steps of the State Supreme Court, and indict the judges as accomplices.


16 posted on 09/20/2011 1:02:36 PM PDT by HKMk23 (YHVH NEVER PLAYS DEFENSE)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 11 | View Replies]

To: FunkyZero; xzins; wmfights; Forest Keeper; blue-duncan
Note the poll on the right side of the page. Let's smash it

Did you read the decision?

I hate to say it, but I agree with the Supreme Court on this one. The defendant's wife called 911 because her husband was allegedly beating her. The husband refused to allow the police entry but his wife had granted them permission by calling 911.

The police had every right to enter to protect the wife and the husband had no right to prevent the police from entering under those circumstances.

The castle doctrine is not applicable to the facts of this case. There was a crime in progress and one of the occupants of the home wanted the police to enter and the alleged perpetrator stood in the way.

Guilty!

17 posted on 09/20/2011 1:04:28 PM PDT by P-Marlowe (LPFOKETT GAHCOEEP-w/o*)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: FunkyZero

At least one of the justices (David, I believe) is up for a retention vote in 2012. Will Hoosiers vent all of their frustration on internet chat rooms or will they organize as necessary to toss Justice David off the bench?


18 posted on 09/20/2011 1:05:43 PM PDT by Mr. Lucky
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: P-Marlowe
"I hate to say it, but I agree with the Supreme Court on this one"
Yes, I did read the decision (the original, read the WHOLE thing, not just parts related to this particular incident). There are some missing facts in this article. This PARTICULAR case is not the argument. In fact, the woman who was being allegedly abused DID give the police permission to enter; case closed.
However, the SC took it upon themselves to write the decision with a VERY wide brush and declare it illegal for ANY citizen under ANY circumstances to resist unlawful police entry into their home. THAT is where the problem lies. They took this opportunity to smash 4th amendment rights to bits and in my humble opinion, they should all be hanged for it.
19 posted on 09/20/2011 1:09:20 PM PDT by FunkyZero ("It's not about duck hunting !")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 17 | View Replies]

To: FunkyZero

I read the decision, and based on he facts of this particular case, I don’t really disagree with he decision.

To repeat, based on the particular facts of this case,...

His domestic partner called 911 to make a report, and I can easily contrue that to be an invitation to enter the residence. This is not a case of a search without a warrant where any resident can object to search.

I think the court was very clear that this decision was based on a very narrow set of facts.

Before anyone thinks I am pro-cops, I am totally suspicious of cops, DA and judges based on personal experiences.


20 posted on 09/20/2011 1:10:25 PM PDT by SeaHawkFan
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-2021-4041-6061-80 ... 121-129 next last

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson