Posted on 05/16/2011 8:46:27 AM PDT by SeekAndFind
Either that, or unseat this judge and his like-minded compadres.
Notre Dame speech and abortion
Gary ‘vary’ vote tallies
Elkhart and ‘all’ those new jobs
The confirmed death of 4A.
So, of course, the governor will be considered as a Republican candidate for POTUS in 2012.
How is it that this now makes perfect sense? Of course!
Thanks justiceseeker93.
I’m confused here. Are you guys saying that the initial conservative take was knee-jerk?
I’d rather keep it simple myself. If police mess up and are blocked, slowed, or even confronted with warning shots from illegal entry, I’m inclined to presume that the home owner should not be blamed for defending his home, his castle.
You might want to check muawiyah’s posts on this. There are points that blur the lines, although I’d prefer to err on the side of home defense aganinst possibly tyranny or scams.
That's what you are arguing. Take the facts of the case first. Then look at what happened to the cops.
Then pull a decision out of thin air that's not grounded to any facts in the case.
The other point made earlier (and in the decision though quite inartfully), was that let's say you have a cop on the scene and down the road it was found he might have been there unlawfully, was it OK to shoot him earlier?
The court restated some standard boilerplate which amounts to the idea that whether they are there legally or illegally, as long as you know they are really the police you are not allowed to just kill them.
The court didn't address the part about "if they are not really the police" because that was even further divorced from the facts of the case.
So far the decision looks like one of those abominations cooked up when you have someone trained in Shariah law doing the briefing on the case.
Hey, did you know the Chief Justice spent something like 8 years in charge of defense for the AlQaida crowd at GITMO? What ya' wanna' bet this fruitcake studied Shariah law ~ his only excuse for this has to be that he's senile or demented. Else, maybe we should take a real good look and see if he's GONE OVER (which I think he has).
only if the person being raped had jumped on the government official
“... is a little frightening. That’s what you are arguing.”
Now look, you don’t have to villify an inclination as a ‘decision’. I’m not trying to pick a fight, OK? I don’t read PDF, and your remarks so far are confusing. I respect the point that you are counter-point. That’s what I search for sometimes, silly.
“let’s say you have a cop on the scene and down the road it was found he might have been there unlawfully, was it OK to shoot him earlier?”
We are mainly concerned about jack booted thugs of the future, hypotheticals down the road. And recent news has been alarming, such as seniors being tazed because they sit up in bed in a “threatening” manner. Maybe technology will help cool things down in the future, but so far what I’m learning is doing the opposite.
“The court restated some standard boilerplate which amounts to the idea that whether they are there legally or illegally, as long as you know they are really the police you are not allowed to just kill them.”
Such boilerplate concerns me. I don’t respect our power hungry government one bit. For example, Kelo. Any home that’s Kelo’d should be allowed to defend itself with any possible weapon imaginable. I’m not saying we should, because the law is no longer constitutional, and we must obey our infernal, stinking, hideous “legal” system — no argument from me that we must submit before our current tyranny. But we need to quit respecting tyranny.
OK ... back to this subject ...
“Hey, did you know the Chief Justice spent something like 8 years in charge of defense for the AlQaida crowd at GITMO? What ya’ wanna’ bet this fruitcake studied Shariah law ~ his only excuse for this has to be that he’s senile or demented.”
You talking about the honorable Chief Justice, John Roberts? I’d rather have him than one of Obama’s “justices”.
I think the judges will never say it's just OK to shoot a cop for just standing there. Like that'd put the doughnut shops out of business wouldn't it.
Please help me understand since you read the PDF — did any police suffer any serious injury?
“judges will never say it’s just OK to shoot a cop for just standing there.”
I wouldn’t be surprised if you are correct. But please bear in mind, there are a lot of sleazy sheriffs. Over in Bedford, Virginia, there was a sheriff neck deep in drug dealing. He got away with it for over a decade, and it took the FBI to end his regime.
Bump.
“Hey, did you know the Chief Justice spent something like 8 years in charge of defense for the AlQaida crowd at GITMO?”
I scanned sourcing mentioned in wikipedia that referred to something like that. I’m definitely no fan of Shraia law.
Is there any html page that details specifics of this case?
Judge Steven David [wikipedia alert]
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Steven_David_(Judge)
[NOTE QUOTABLE but raw info for more research ...]
References^
“New Ind. Supreme Court justice swearing-in Oct. 18”. Chicago Tribune. 2010-10-02. http://www.chicagotribune.com/news/chi-ap-in-supremecourt-newj,0,1478863.story. Retrieved 2010-10-02. “A decorated Army officer who once served as chief defense counsel for Guantanamo Bay detainees will be sworn in as a justice on the Indiana Supreme Court on Oct. 18 at the Statehouse in Indianapolis.” mirror
^ “Daniels: Steven David to interpret rather than invent our laws”. The Journal Gazette. 2010-09-17. http://www.journalgazette.net/article/20100917/BLOGS01/100919568/1044/LOCAL08. Retrieved 2010-10-02. “Governor Mitch Daniels today announced he has selected Boone County Circuit Court Judge Steven H. David as the next member of the Indiana Supreme Court. David will replace Justice Theodore R. Boehm, who will retire from the court on September 30.”
^ “History unfolds”. The Wire (Guantanamo). 2008-06-06. p. 12. http://www.jtfgtmo.southcom.mil/wire/WirePDF/v9/Issue15v9.pdf. Retrieved 2008-06-10. [dead link]
^ How the trials will work. 144. U.S. news & world report, Volume 144, Issues 1-6. 2. p. 83. http://books.google.ca/books?id=pespAQAAIAAJ&q=%22Steven+David%22+Guantanamo&dq=%22Steven+David%22+Guantanamo&hl=en&ei=JeWnTIKwHMT9nAf5pNiqDA&sa=X&oi=book_result&ct=result&resnum=1&ved=0CCwQ6AEwAA. Retrieved 2010-10-02. “Steven David, head of the military defense for Guantanamo, has said he does not have enough lawyers or resources.”
^ William Glaberson (2008-02-13). “Doubts as six face death over September 11”. Sydney Morning Herald. http://www.smh.com.au/news/world/doubts-as-six-face-death-over-september-11/2008/02/12/1202760302022.html. Retrieved 2010-10-02. “Colonel Steven David, the chief military defence lawyer for the Guantanamo cases, said he did not have six lawyers available to take the cases, which the Pentagon described as a milestone in the “war on terror”.” mirror
^ William Glaberson (2008-04-10). “New roadblocks delay tribunals at Guantánamo”. International Herald Tribune. http://www.iht.com/bin/printfriendly.php?id=11844641. Retrieved 2009-03-10.
^ “Capital cases in Kangaroo courts”. Boston Globe. 2008-02-25. http://www.boston.com/bostonglobe/editorial_opinion/editorials/articles/2008/02/25/capital_cases_in_kangaroo_courts/?page=full. Retrieved 2009-03-10.
^ “Guantanamo: justice mocked — The Pentagon must see sense and accept the verdict of its own tribunal at Guantanamo”. The Times. 2008-08. http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/comment/leading_article/article4488826.ece. Retrieved 2010-10-02. “Nor does it ensure that the other 19 detainees due to be prosecuted will have their rights protected. As Colonel Steven David, Hamdan’s defence counsel, said afterwards, the trial was marked by the acceptance of hearsay evidence and secret testimony, restrictions on media coverage and allegations of abusive interrogations. It was time, he said, to scrap this “mess”.”
URG ... noTTTTTT quotable. NOT. Not “note quotable.”
NOTE QUOTABLE but raw info for more research ...]
when will the cops put the courts out of business.
Looks like your brave stand was solid, FRiend, and we both agree that the judge is a wacko to word his ruling the way he did, right?
Someone finally laid out the facts. Is this your take?
Gondring’s summary:
- - -
[quote]
It’s all laid out in the opinion. As I recall...
His wife called 911 because he was throwing stuff around. He hadn’t actually hit her.
When the police officer arrived, he said he was leaving (she was throwing him out) and that the officer wasn’t needed. But when the wife went back inside, the husband went to the doorway and blocked the officer from entering while the wife was telling him to let the officer in.
There was a scuffle and the guy tried to get jury instructions entered about blocking illegal entry. These were denied and the guy appealed. I am not a lawyer, but it seems to me that 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.
[unquote]
Well darned!
Being a resident of an apartment/house has got to have a start and stop. For him it stopped!
She had a right to call the cops and lo and behold she called the cops. The reason for a police presence is SHE CALLED THE COPS to come on over.
To write this case Mr. Sharia Law, the Chief Justice ignored her participation. That's pretty much it.
Only thing remaining is to REMOVE the Judge and send him to GITMO. We know where he stands. Guy went over.
Well darned!
Being a resident of an apartment/house has got to have a start and stop. For him it stopped!
She had a right to call the cops and lo and behold she called the cops. The reason for a police presence is SHE CALLED THE COPS to come on over.
To write this case Mr. Sharia Law, the Chief Justice ignored her participation. That's pretty much it.
Only thing remaining is to REMOVE the Judge and send him to GITMO. We know where he stands. Guy went over.
“To write this case Mr. Sharia Law, the Chief Justice ignored her participation. That’s pretty much it.”
Ah! Now I see what you are getting at.
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.