Posted on 05/16/2011 8:40:02 PM PDT by 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
That is absolutely hilarious, but you are so right.
I tried one similar to that on a guy yesterday and he gave me that blank gap toothed stare of "are you lookin' at me buddy", so I'm sure he is not someone I'd want on my jury!
I think some of the folks posting on this actually fear having the police find out they have eagle feathers and ivory tusks stashed in their homes.
I'm more concerned with the thought that this particular Chief Justice was "turned" earlier at GITMO by AlQaida he was defending.
Saying that earlier I surfaced someone who seems to know the justice and wants to defend him from such charges.
Sec. 1. A person is justified in engaging in conduct otherwise prohibited if he has legal authority to do so.
As added by Acts 1976, P.L.148, SEC.1. Amended by Acts 1977, P.L.340, SEC.7.
The ruling has just removed our legal authority to do so...
I was just describing their potential reasoning, not saying it was good or right.
Funny how I’m playing both sides of the issue via two different threads, and getting criticized each way. Not satisfying anyone.
If you’re talking about Arizona’s Sheriff Joe Arpaio, then yes he is a patriot. If you are talking about the sheriff in Indiana where this court ruling came down, who knows?
Thanks for the ping.
Did`nt take long.
Snerk.
Snerk.
We had MB 500’s in Iraq and quite honestly I can’t think of a better CQB weapon. Usually just the sound of one being racked was enough. Of course wartime is different than protecting one’s own houselhold, but I just had my soldiers go straight for the neck. 00 buck shreds it like it was made of jello.
Undocumented residents that resist said sweep (or seen attempting to break out of cordone perimeter) will be neutralized with out predjudice.
Yeah, that's what it is.
That's my story and I'm stickin' to it.
I sent this sorry ass “sheriff” a blistering email last night asking him if he wiped his ass with the Constitution each morning. I also told him that his Stalinist tactics are going to get his officers killed and that their blood will be on HIS hands. I also told him that I normally consider anyone who kills a police officer to be the lowest form of bottomfeeder, however in the case of his officers invading a home on an “authorized” random illegal search, I would definitely side with the homeowner rather than the dead officer. Maybe the people of his county will luck out and he will be the first officer through the door on one of his KGB “searches”.
Nowadays, an aggrieved arrestee has means unavailable at common law for redress against unlawful police action. E.g., Warner, supra, at 330 (citing the dangers of arrest at common law—indefinite detention, lack of bail, disease-infested prisons, physical torture—as reasons for recognizing the 5 right to resist); State v. Hobson, 577 N.W.2d 825, 835–36 (Wis. 1998) (citing the following modern developments: (1) bail, (2) prompt arraignment and determination of probable cause, (3) the exclusionary rule, (4) police department internal review and disciplinary procedure, and (5) civil remedies). 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— as evident by the facts of this instant case. E.g., Hobson, 577 N.W.2d at 836 (―But in arrest situations that are often ripe for rapid escalation, one‘s ‗measured‘ response may fast become excessive.‖). Further, we note that a warrant is not necessary for every entry into a home. For example, officers may enter the home if they are in ―hot pursuit‖ of the arrestee or if exigent circumstances justified the entry. E.g., United States v. Santana, 427 U.S. 38, 42–43 (1976) (holding that retreat into a defendant‘s house could not thwart an otherwise proper arrest made in the course of a ―hot pursuit‖); Holder v. State, 847 N.E.2d 930, 938 (Ind. 2006) (―Possible imminent destruction of evidence is one exigent circumstance that may justify a warrantless entry into a home if the fear on the part of the police that the evidence was immediately about to be destroyed is objectively reasonable.‖). Even with a warrant, officers may have acted in good faith in entering a home, only to find later that their entry was in error. E.g., Arizona v. Evans, 514 U.S. 1, 11 (1994); United States v. Leon, 468 U.S. 897, 922–25 (1984). In these situations, we find it unwise to allow a homeowner to adjudge the legality of police conduct in the heat of the moment. As we decline to recognize a right to resist unlawful police entry into a home, we decline to recognize a right to batter a police officer as a part of that resistance.
The Amerikan Gestapo?
IOW... Serfs must do as they are told.
You and me, both, my FRiend!
Contemptible response by the Courts. A persons property should be absolutely sacred. I don't care what is going on anyone's property, if someone from the government needs to know, let them get a Warrant -- absolutely no exceptions.
Government power is relentlessly growing -- If not turned around soon, it will become an evil that will bring Hell upon the citizens.
>>“What is that commotion at the door?”<<
Click, BANG
“Someone at the wrong address, go back to sleep Dear.”
When hell freezes over...
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.