Better:
Posted on 05/16/2011 8:40:02 PM PDT by wrastu
“blocked the officer from entering while the wife was telling him to let the officer in.”
Someone there on the spot expressing distress — no illegal entry. If that isn’t probable cause, I don’t know what is [although I’m no lawyer either].
“... the case didn’t really have to go into the illegal entry arena because it was conceded as likely legal entry even in dissenting opinion.”
I agree. Since the judge forced the issue with his ruling, here we are.
I can heartily respect your defending the safety of police officers who are merely trying to perform their duties. At the same time, I like the concept of natural deterence and modernized warrant issuing. We have i-pads now, so I’m thinking that the window of “probable cause” could be tightened with more modern technology. We might need aroudnd-the-clock “warrant specialists”, but big deal.
And if a search turns out to actually be illegal and against the will of the home owner, a man blocking a doorway shouldn’t get in any trouble. Heck, I’d even allow warning shots so long as the officer isn’t hurt.
No offense taken.
Gotta run. But, informally, I'd increase civics education and increase police standards (incl. removing affirmative action reqs) with the increased compensation that would require. I recognize that latter is "increased government spending" but I think it's a priority over a lot of other junk.
“I believe that most illegal entries that occur are made in good faith.”
I agree, although I can understand a minority feeling persecuted, and in fact, we all know that “bitter clingers” are indeed being persecuted in some local areas and sometimes by the ATF.
“I believe that we must get to the point where we can agree that when a law enforcement officer is on the scene, it’s not something to fear. And if that trust is broken, then it’s the time we resist.”
Mutual respect comes from mutual power. The magna carta, the longbow, and the need for hearty sea farers forced British nobles to respect the common man. That was what moulded our culture, especially when we had colonists being attacked by some of my ancestors [’injuns]. They needed to be strongly armed, and the British government had little choice but to encourage that prior to Lexington and Concord.
Thank you for your feedback. Interesting point:
“I’d increase civics education and increase police standards (incl. removing affirmative action reqs) with the increased compensation that would require. I recognize that latter is “increased government spending” but I think it’s a priority over a lot of other junk.”
The root problem is we have a chaotic legal system. We’re no longer grounded enough in the Constitution. As for education, youtubes could educate police online in the comfort of their homes. And then all they’d need is multiple choice tests which are automatically graded by computers. Education need no longer be expensive.
Agreed.
Mutual respect comes from mutual power
Funny thing is, it's the cops who get screwed over by the courts more than anyone else. The private citizen already has lots of power over the police (ability to sue).
Plus, I think there should be personal liability in cases of negligence that lead to illegal entries, for example. (I also favor personal responsibility on public officials, too...not just "oh, well, the municipal insurance [i.e., the taxpayers' money] will pay for it.")
WOO-HOO! What fun the crackers (i.e., black-hat hackers) would have with that!
I have to wonder what, if there are any FReepers in Indiana who are in Law Enforcement, or know someone who is in LAw Enforcement what they think about all of this...
I would listen intently to their opinion, because you know they’re the ones who are going to have to deal with the backlash because of this idiocy...
>Cboldt’s “definition” uses the term “unlawful entry” in it; it can’t be the definition of how to determine if something’s an unlawful entry...try again.
But the court’s decision said even “unlawful entry” was no grounds for resistance.
And it is patently obvious, according to the 4th Amendment, that ANY non-consensual entry without a warrant is unlawful.
And before you start spouting crap about exigent circumstances and the recent USSC decision, let me ask this: Does the Supreme Court have authority over the Constitution [as in to amend/revise], the very document that chartered their very existence?
>For the love, I apologized to the original poster, what else do you clowns want, a pound of flesh.
Well, I’m not a clown; but if the pound of flesh you offer is Salmon I’ll gladly accept! ;)
{But in seriousness, due to the linear nature of the threads if you say something early-on there’s more chance that new viewers will comment on it before continuing to read the thread. And also there’s the chance of miscommunication.}
Golly I am sure sorry if you were offended.
I'll put you on my thin skin ignore list from here on out.
BTW, I didn't even direct my comment at you. I only noted that attempts at sarcasm apparently don't achieve their goal.
I am a FReeper who has worked in the Hoosier state since my graduation from an Indiana high school in 1966, including one stint as an Indiana city cop and another working at an Indiana airport. [before the current airport security policies allowed undertrained federal airport security guards] I've also been a newspaperman resopnsible for courts, crime & cops coverage both as a newswriter and investigative columnist.
Nothing in the Indiana suptreme court's ruling overrides the United States Supreme Court's previous ruling and observations in >i>Plummer v. State and other related precedents noted in that decision:
“Citizens may resist unlawful arrest to the point of taking an arresting officer's life if necessary.” Plummer v. State, 136 Ind. 306. This premise was upheld by the Supreme Court of the United States in the case: John Bad Elk v. U.S., 177 U.S. 529. The Court stated: “Where the officer is killed in the course of the disorder which naturally accompanies an attempted arrest that is resisted, the law looks with very different eyes upon the transaction, when the officer had the right to make the arrest, from what it does if the officer had no right. What may be murder in the first case might be nothing more than manslaughter in the other, or the facts might show that no offense had been committed.”
“An arrest made with a defective warrant, or one issued without affidavit, or one that fails to allege a crime is within jurisdiction, and one who is being arrested, may resist arrest and break away. lf the arresting officer is killed by one who is so resisting, the killing will be no more than an involuntary manslaughter.” Housh v. People, 75 111. 491; reaffirmed and quoted in State v. Leach, 7 Conn. 452; State v. Gleason, 32 Kan. 245; Ballard v. State, 43 Ohio 349; State v Rousseau, 241 P. 2d 447; State v. Spaulding, 34 Minn. 3621.
“When a person, being without fault, is in a place where he has a right to be, is violently assaulted, he may, without retreating, repel by force, and if, in the reasonable exercise of his right of self defense, his assailant is killed, he is justified.” Runyan v. State, 57 Ind. 80; Miller v. State, 74 Ind. 1.
Nevertheless, I can see the writing on the wall and it includes descriptions of dead homeowners and their children, folloed by incidents of criminals who were once public servants hdangling from utility poles and burning alive in their patrol cars following IED detonations.
I plan to be far from Indiana when it begins to happen, and there's not much in Indiana that I'll miss.
Why bother? Just raid his home without a warrant, plant a little *flake* evidence and tainted cash, and charge him with money laundering as well, then sieze his home and personal property as assets of his continuing criminal enterprise. And if he should resist in any way, or refuse to cooperate, just kill him on the spot.
After all, that's how they've been doing iot to other citizens. And they're supposed to be equal in the eyes of the law. And many of them have accumulated quite a bit of tasty stuff over the years of their *public service.*
Better:
Neca eos omnes. Deus suos agnoscet.
That's easy for you to say
If the cops randomly bust into your house and find you weighing out 100's of 1/4 LB baggies of meth they'll arrest you. Then they haul you downtown and book you. Then they take you behind the woodshed and work you over with coins in a sock, strap you into a chair, klieg lights shining into your eyes and force you to listen to hours of Helen Redy The Las Vegas Years. You crack, sign a confession you killed Kennedy, and implicate the WH in your meth ring.
Then they haul you in front of a judge with a fat lip, broken teeth, black eye, and oozing head lac and read the charges. The judge asks "What happen to him?" They say you fell. He asks "How do you plea." Your deaf with Helen Redy ringing in your ears. The judge enters a plea of "Didn't do it, your honor." and sets a date for preliminary hearing.
The prosecutor chimes in that you're a flight risk and menace to society and recommend $trillion for bail (cash). Judge says $billion (10% surety).
Judge asks who your equire will be. You state you don't have one on account of being indignant. Judge says you get one pro bono. Judge looks around the courtroom and says, "you there, step up here. You're now this man's counsel." The guy happens to be prosecutor's brother and big-wig at some $million/hour law firm.
At that point your attorney now asks some questions and then says, "Judge, my man wasn't Mirandized. The state had no probable cause to invade his domicile. My man was illegally arrested. My man was tortured and subject to cruel and inhumane punishement to illicite a confession." Then he says some arcane latin legal mumbo jumbo.
The judge dismisses the case. Furthermore, any evidence uncovered during the investigation is ruled to be fruit from a poison tree. And Obama get off scotch free.
On the other hand, if you put up a fight when the cops bust in, they got all kinds of resisting, obstruction of justice, assault on LEO, grievous bodly injury, etc. And you end up going away for 15 years.
On the first situation you have the option to sue for damages on account they seize your 1/2 ton of meth (plus lack of consortium and inability to ply your trade). You walk away with a cool $10 million dollar judgement.
All the case decided in Indiana was that two wrongs don't make a right. Three lefts do though, just FWIW. Everything else is a bunch of non-sequitor.
BTTT! Thanks for posting this.
When they started random searches/roadside checks of cars and drivers without reasonable or probable cause Some said it would lead to random searches of homes.
Others said, NO WAY. Law Enforcement would always recognize that there was a difference between a car on a public road and a house on private property.
What next? The quartering in private property of people designated by the government a la the colonies experience? First it might be the private property of banks ... foreclosed homes where the government quarters favored people in those homes... appropriating the usage with no worry about the title, which becomes meaningless.
Then maybe the quartering of designated people in empty houses not in foreclosure... Then maybe the quartering of designated people in UNDER-USED houses. Why should a single mom and here 13 children suffer in a slum when that rich old lady in a 13 room home can be re-assigned to a senior citizen complex for the general welfare?
Thank you for your input...
It is suffice to say that this court ruling will basically make it extremely unsafe for any Indianan whether you are on one side of the badge, or another...
And the criminal element is back there laughing their arses off at all of this...The heat will generally be off them because the attention of Law Enforcement will be wider spread, and their odds of getting caught, or at least tipped off better will be enhanced by this new initiative...
Archy, we have plenty of room left here in Texas...We’ll leave the light on for ya...It’s not too bad here...
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.