“Guard with jealous attention the public liberty. Suspect everyone who approaches that jewel. Unfortunately, nothing will preserve it but downright force. Whenever you give up that force, you are inevitably ruined.”
(And BOY did that court Approach that public liberty! [...and took a dump on it.] )
“The Constitution is not an instrument for the government to restrain the people, it is an instrument for the people to restrain the government - lest it come to dominate our lives and interests.”
(And yet look at how many laws GOVERNMENT AGENTS are exempted from...)
“The liberties of a people never were, nor ever will be, secure, when the transactions of their rulers may be concealed from them.”
(A warrant is the official documentation of what they're looking for.)
INDEED TO THE MAX.
AND
WHEN
the people
persistently, routinely
believe the
GOVERNMENT/OLIGARCHY’S OWNED PRESS AGENTS/MEDIA
as purveyors of truth
it is just as suicidal as surrendering our guns.
The SCOTUS needs to slap this down right away. Its insane. Good old Mitch Daniels appointed one of those morons that voted for the ruling.
Mitch you don’t use good judgement. We already have a guy like that in the Oval Office.
If Patrick Henry were alive today, Napolitano would put him on a list of potential domestic terrorists.
Amen. God bless our Founding Fathers. Clearly we have the right to secure our homes.
I’m also curious about the counter point. When we defend our homes from illegal searches by the police, what if a police officer gets hurt because he was given the wrong address?
It’s not cut-and-dry to me — does our protection from illegal searches/seizures also include the right to injure officers?
On the one hand, I’d say that someone shooting at police is going to risk death himself. Officers are allowed to defend themselves.
On the other hand, is it reasonable to presume that the police are so evil that we should shoot at them?
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...
BTTT! Thanks for posting this.
I agree with all you say and quote.
In my experience domestic violence does escalate very fast and you never really truly know what is happening inside the house. For instance a woman may be too frightened to actually say that they are frightened. Or they may rely upon the abuser to keep them fed and such. A psychological addiction if you will.
So I can see where in todays day and age there has to be some slack to protect victims (men and women) and the officers who intervene. But we must be very careful guarding the law itself and it’s intents. I see where this law could be pushed to go beyond where it is for the safety of people and that is what bothers me.
I have seen a few cops using exigent circumstances in appropriate ways. That is .. VERY seldom and only under VERY select circumstances.
But I have seen other cops trying to “bend” circumstances into exigent circumstances and told them flat out that is not why they are there. Once they understand the intent, they are more in line with what I would think is reasonable.
It is not just the people that have to be respected but the law as well. I hope that officers faced with the decision that this sheriff is making remember that.
Indeed, government is a servant and should be treated as a slave, with force. Now wonder where all these pro-slave bleeding heart stories are coming from?
Indeed, if we are not strong with our government, it will slack against enemies, foreign or domestic. Hence Zero needs a lesson, but RIno wusses still sit clueless or lazy and incompetent. We need a government proud of its master citizens, not this wishy washy insulting lib groupie talk.