This is friggin unbelievable.
Threads from yesterday if anyone is interested in reading the comments thereon.
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-bloggers/2719594/posts
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-chat/2719318/posts
Tick... Tock...
Would be nice if the courts continued to respect this common law right. It exists whether they care to acknowlege it or not.
This makes me wonder what kind of “police” we’ll be dealing with in a few years.
You can forget the shotgun, here.
Pistols, too.
Your proper response to assailants with “bulletproof” apparal is standard military metal-cased ball. From a rifle. Armor-piercing is even better when you can find it.
Good ‘ol buckshot just won’t “cut it” as it were.
Just hit center mass and you’ll be fine.
Combine this with the new Obama policy, supported whole-heartedly by almost everybody here on FR, that the government can now break into your house in the middle of the night and pump two bullets into your head as you stand defenseless in your underwear, as long as it really, really wants to.
So, all a criminal need do, is dress like a cop...
The next step is for courts to uphold evidence obtained in searches resulting from illegal police entires, if the police made the entry with the impression they were entering legally.
My father lived to 56 and he never had the police illegally enter his home.
Both my grandfathers lived into their 90’s and never had the police illegally enter their homes.
46 + 56 + 90 + 90 - 20 (years I lived with my father) = 262 years
So . . . warrents were never needed?
So . . . warrants were never needed?
Chip, chip, chip......
Sounds like some Judges need impeached. Or at least to have someone plant an anonymous tip that they are running drug smuggling operations from their house.
“If police enter a home illegally, the courts are the proper place to protest it, Justice Steven David said.”
Nope. Freedom that must be ajudicated in a courtroom is not freedom. Rather it is license to the state to do as they damn well please. If armed men entering a home illeagaly is not an escalation of “violence” then I don’t know what is. Iknow what I would do if I felt the state treating me like some kind of cockroach.
Sounds like the Indiana Supreme Court has a few a priori considerations and is torturing the law to fit them, if so.
If the court feels that way then perhaps they could put their money where their mouth is and provide a cheap, easy way for the aggrieved citizen to get them to consider a case. As it is now the deck is stacked against the common guy who is the victim of either an honest mistake or outright excessive force. Between the jurisdiction, and the union that represents the law enforcement entity, it’s all but impossible to seek, let alone actually get, redress for harm.
I have a cousin who spent the day in jail because he snapped a picture, from his front porch, of a crime scene and declined to surrender the exposed film without a court order. No local attorney would touch the case for fear of reprisal from the police, and the nearest attorney would consider taking the case wanted money, lots of it, up front.
A law that is to expensive for the average person to use in his or her defense is the same as no law at all for that person.
4th Amendment? What 4th Amendment?
I do not grant the government that right, period.
I am of two minds depending on what "resist" means. If it means deadly force then I might be inclined to agree that the use of deadly force would not be a proper response. If it means locking the door and refusing entry and using non deadly means then I would think that is reasonable.
If however, the person has reason to believe the officers might do them or their property physical harm then the resident should have the right to protect themselves.
“”We also find that allowing resistance unnecessarily escalates the level of violence...”
Allowing resistance?