Posted on 06/12/2012 4:31:20 AM PDT by Rennes Templar
Police officers in Indiana are upset over a new law allowing residents to use deadly force against public servants, including law enforcement officers, who unlawfully enter their homes. It was signed by Republican Governor Mitch Daniels in March.
The first of its kind in the United States, the law was adopted after the state Supreme Court went too far in one of its rulings last year, according to supporters. The case in question involved a man who assaulted an officer during a domestic violence call. The court ruled that there was “no right to reasonably resist unlawful entry by police officers.”
The National Rifle Association lobbied for the new law, arguing that the court decision had legalized police to commit unjustified entries.
Tim Downs, president of the Indiana State Fraternal Order of Police, which opposed the legislation, said the law could open the way for people who are under the influence or emotionally distressed to attack officers in their homes.
“It’s just a recipe for disaster,” Downs told Bloomberg. “It just puts a bounty on our heads.”
“when considering original intent”
Original meaning controls, not intent. According to original meaning the right to petition for a redress of grievances refers to no more than petititioning, suing, and lobbying the government.
Sometimes giving up legal residence in a place is easier than renting it or buying it and living there. Sometimes it's the other way around. However, mere ownership in Illinois is not sufficient to prove continuity of residency (ask the mayor of Chicago ~ he had to go to court on the matter and won with a technicality). Then, over in Indiana they have a pioneer tradition that allows for three clay floor beerjoints in Bloomington and yet does not require anyone to construct a shelter of any kind on a piece of land they might own ~ in order to qualify as a resident of a specific jurisdiction (see Senator Lugar on that one).
What we had here was a break up of a marriage and conflict. The cops knew what was going on ~
His hollering and screaming out in the parking lot was enough to pick him up. Then, after he tells them he's moved out showing up at the door to the apartment physically blocking the cops from checking on his wife's welfare ~ at her request ~ well, that was a set up wasn't it.
No, Barnes didn't get to shoot the cops. His wife even told him she didn't want him making all that fuss either. Her intention was equally clear ~ she wanted him out of there and he was gone ~ but he came back.
No, after all that your mere presence on a lease doesn't make you a lawful resident of that place ~ as your word is your bond he was OUT OF THERE.
I don't recall reading anything filed by his lawyer claiming lawful residence in the apartment. His issue was downstream with the court of appeals and what they'd decided which was, as I believe, that he was going to stay in jail. The state supreme court gave him a new trial ~ and then that stupid judge and his buddies stepped way out of line and discussed matters way beyond the facts of the case.
The judges should have been removed as the first order of business.
Wow, that's interesting; where'd you find it out?
The Indiana legislature picked up the challenge, and passed the law again.
I think the should also impeach the judges... and request the Feds charge them with Conspiracy Against Rights.
The wonton disregard of the law, and the State Constitution, by the IN supreme court is inexcusable.
“I’m sorry, we are talking politics, history, and the strange things that pop up in that mix ~ and although Mitch is a nice guy he really screwed up here.”
Most of us are talking about whether or not people have the right to defend their property with deadly force from unlawful entry, be the intruder a cop or Joe Thug. You are the only one stuck within the case that prompted the court to deny an individual’s right to self-defense against cops. Either the cops in that case did or didn’t have probable cause to enter his house. Eiother way, it doesn’t whatsoever control whether or not we have the right to shoot lawbreaking cops, and in neither case does this have anything to do with Sharia law.
By the way, what about all the legislators who passed this law? Were they Arabs, too?
This is different than your right to a fair trial, but it is a fundamental right.
There have been times in history where a citizen's attempt to consult with an officer of the government might mean execution.
If you don't like the First Amendment go complain to George Washington and that crowd. They did it. Not me.
“All of us have a constitutional right to call the cops”
This is a radical misreading of the Constitution. What happens when there are no cops, as there haven’t been for vast swaths of the country for the majority of its existence?
A Dutch Treat American McNazi ~ a complex subject way beyond the ability of any dozen poor Freepers to resolve.
When they were getting ready to bury William the Conqueror the man who owned the land approached the officials in charge and said "I must be paid first" ~ so, supposedly, they paid him since, after all, he had a right to approach the government agents and demand his privilege (payment).
There's always been someone in authority somewhere. In general government recognizes the right of citizens, subjects, even prisoners to approach its officers in some manner and ask for assistance.
In true tyrannies that's not the case.
I don’t know what planet you came from, but it takes more than words for someone to not become the resident of a certain domicile. If someone decides to move out of a place and skip on paying rent, the landlord could still take them to court for not living up to the contract of a lease.
So basically, if you continue to live up to the terms of the lease, ie. paying rent on time, you continue to the be the resident of that place until you sign a contract saying you no longer want to be.
Word is his bond................. look who our president is. Look at all the promises he made to so many people that he never kept. Can I sue him personally for breaking so many promises?
What's going on is Indiana has judicial preview ~ the laws get looked at by the supreme court right after passage to test them for constitutional adherence.
This Barnes guy got another trial as well, and that's sometimes looked at as a redo on the first trial ~ and that gets pretty complex when it comes to what happened on appeal to an intermediate court.
Nobody seems to want to come to grips with the fact this poor cop was there to defend a woman at her request. Next time we have somebody in here start kvetching about the cops not coming around to deal with crime I suggest we highjack his thread and revisit this Indiana situation.
“The right to call the government ~ so it’s by telephone rather than written with a quill pen on parchment ~ the meaning is clear ~ to wit: citizens have the right to call upon or ask the government for help (redress of grievance)”
Firstly, redress of grievances does not translate to “ask for help,” and I think the idea was that your grievance was against the government, not other private citizens, though that’s not specified. Also, SCOTUS has been pretty clear and I agree that the government is under no obligation to listen to your petition, or in this case your telephone call. They just can’t outlaw petitions/phone calls/emails/whatever.
“This is different than your right to a fair trial, but it is a fundamental right.”
It is different, in that the right to due process actually exists and is in the Bill of Rights, whereas the right to call the cops to your house was made up by you.
“There have been times in history where a citizen’s attempt to consult with an officer of the government might mean execution.”
Okay.
There are several terms you need to learn to deal with ~ residence, residency, domicile, and depending on what you're talking about ~ taxes, voting, buying, selling, marriage, running for office, etc ~ the meaning of each may change in subtle ways. These things are not as absolute as you might imagine.
I left Indiana in 79 and vowed never to go back.
Luger gets tossed and now this, I am getting homesick.
Ten years ago I would have agreed with you. Today, they’ve become a dog-shooting bs d of thugs that couldn’t card less when they off a grandmother instead of the drug dealer at the correct address they were too lazy or incompetent to verify.
How many cops are militarized? The same percentage that would Wang yo be on the SWAT teams; i.e. most of them. Even if I accept your 5% figure for SWAT teams, that doesn’t consider the wannabes on every force.
Young cops are largely thuggish and indistinguishable from gang member often. They are disrespectful of the public and people I wouldn’t want my daughters to marry. I’m not alone in this snd the growing public view is based on direct observation; camera phones make it possible to see lots of official criminal behavior. I’m sorry to say these things and worrier to believe them. They weren’t true ten years ago and certainly not true twenty years ago.
I am responding to your post 118 in which you think that I simply do not understand the issue here. I do understand it completely and I maintain that there is no situation in which I would want police assistance. I can take care of myself very well, thank you.
And I don’t want them around or in my house. Or my dogs.
Tuble, then, look at this way. i believe i have a right to call the cops. At the same time you don’t believe you have a right to call the cops. Whatever you want.
“When they were getting ready to bury William the Conqueror the man who owned the land approached the officials in charge and said ‘I must be paid first’ ~ so, supposedly, they paid him since, after all, he had a right to approach the government agents and demand his privilege (payment).
There’s always been someone in authority somewhere. In general government recognizes the right of citizens, subjects, even prisoners to approach its officers in some manner and ask for assistance.”
Being approachable, perhaps, falls within the “redress of grievances” umbrella, but where you fall down is on this äsk for assistance” business. As I said, the courts have been clear and I agree that the authorities do not have to pay heed to your petition. So even if the first amendment makes it so that cops, being government, have to be open in whatever limited way to your phone calls, it still does not mean you have the right to ask them for help, let alone get them to help you.
You want it to be so that the husband was standing in the way of the wife’s right to have the cops come in the house. But no such right exists. The cops responded to her call, obviously. But on the basis of her supposed right and that call they did not have the authority to force the husband to stand down and to enter the property. The cops would easily have the authority had they probable cause, and they could easily assert PC and have it cursorily checked off by a judge had they argued with a minimum of evidence exigent circumstances based on their uncertainty as to the safety of the caller.
For what it’s worth, even if the right to ask cops for help exists you can’t get directly to point B): the cops legal entry on the husband and wife’s property from point A): the right to petition the government for redress of grievances. The cops were open to her call, obviously, so there isn’t even any question on the matter. As to in what matter they responded, that was a different matter altogether.
First codified in Indiana in 1893 under the Plummer decision regarding false arrest by Indiana police and other "Public Servants," Plummer v. State, 135 Ind. 308, 34 N.E. 968 Ind. 1893
“Citizens may resist unlawful arrest to the point of taking an arresting officer's life if necessary.”
The way I see it the real issue is nothing to do with the case per se, but rather the Supreme Court. If they are allowed to decree, as they did, that the State does not recognize the legitimacy of using violence against illegal police entry (essentially voiding the State Constitution's copy of the 4th Amendment), then there is nothing that the IN Supreme Court cannot do as they are not bound by the very constitution which instituted their office.
This does not excuse their failure, as you said, to consider the woman; but it does move things into an entirely new arena: the implementation of sharia (while detestible) does not strip everyone of their rights -- the acquiescence of the execuitive and legislative to the IN SC however creates a Kritarch in which the judges are not bound by God or Man and nobody has any right (save them).
“In general government recognizes the right of citizens, subjects, even prisoners to approach its officers in some manner and ask for assistance.”
I feel compelled to emphasize that be that as it may,asking for help is not asking for “redress of grievances.”
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.