Posted on 05/16/2011 8:46:27 AM PDT by SeekAndFind
This judge is a Mitch Daniels appointee.
Daniels’ Presidential Campaign just ended before it got started.
What is the political affiliation of these 5 judges - especially the 3 judges who voted for this monster ruling?
So, you're a former LEO and you didn't pick up on the fact that the case involved a KIDNAPPING?
Hmm.
Ever shoot a dog or two?
Did the dogs live there?
Tell me, which is more important ~ the kidnapping, the guy attacked an officer (doing nothing but standing there), the 911 call the lady made, or the need to discuss points of law that don't apply to the case.
That's four choices ~ (no peeking at other answers either). Back in a couple of minutes.
Indiana also has the Castle Doctrine. What you have here is an event that didn’t happen.
BTTT
“reasonable search” ~ read it all some day.
RE: This judge is a Mitch Daniels appointee.
Daniels’ Presidential Campaign just ended before it got started.
He can redeem himself by consulting with his Atty. General to challenge this ruling in the Federal courts.
There's amovement in the legislature to rescind the commission systems but until then that's all the choice the Governor has. Before this the judges were all elected ~ as God Created it.
In California, Supreme Court judges come up for "confirmation" by citizen vote perodically. In one famous period the Chief Justice and two others were thrown out on their butts quite spectacularly in one single election.
It is possible, and supremely effective in sending a message.
Thank you for that contribution.
Funny how one little detail changes everything.
I can further assume that if a bank calls the cops during a holdup, the responding swat team Does not need to have a warrant.
Funny how that works.
I fell for it again.
Assuming that the MSM will give you all the crucial facts up front.
The majority are 2 Republicans and 1 Democrat. The minority are 1 Republican and 1 Democrat.
Believe me it does. ANYBODY who simply barges into your home without identifying themselves properly and/or producing some sort of a warrant is basically fair game.
Indiana has an "independent board" which gives a governor 3 choices for judicial appointments. He picks one.
Daniels appointed this guy less than a year ago.
If retained, he serves the rest of the 10 year appointment.
There’s only one problem with their review on how one may resist: when the “police” are criminals who bought police uniforms.
Ignoring the fact that a policeman acting illegally is a criminal, how can we know that the guy at the door is really a cop?
That kind of thinking could be applied to rape by a government official. Sit back, take it, and sue later.
Fair enough. I’m not questioning whether such action is illegal.
I’m questioning whether you are legally covered if you resist intrusion with force or even lethal force.
If you know the guy is a cop (or you think he is, he could of course be a phony) and he is forcing his way in, are you legally covered if you blow him away?
Perhaps you should be, but I suspect in most states you’d get a trip upriver for a long stay.
This is so outrageous that the people of Indiana should ask their state legislature to bring impeachment proceedings against the three judges who made and supported this ruling. They have violated their oath to support the Constitution of the United States.
It would also be advisable for Mitch Daniels to speak out about this decision, whether or not he decides to declare himself a candidate for the presidency.
"The problem with with the Consitution is not any structural problem. The problem with the Constitution is that those who take an oath to uphold it don't take their oath seriously."
- Judge Napolitano
You really have to read the decisions in these cases.
This is sickening.
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.