Police State America. Court: No Right To Resist Illegal Cop Entry Into Home...

Discussion in 'Politics' started by LibocalypseNow, May 14, 2011.

  1. LibocalypseNow
    Offline

    LibocalypseNow Senior Member

    Joined:
    Jul 30, 2009
    Messages:
    12,337
    Thanks Received:
    1,356
    Trophy Points:
    48
    Ratings:
    +1,357
    This is very sad and disturbing. I guess this is what we have to look forward to for our Nation...



    Related Documents
    Related: PDF: Supreme Court ruling in Barnes v. State
    INDIANAPOLIS | Overturning a common law dating back to the English Magna Carta of 1215, the Indiana Supreme Court ruled Thursday that Hoosiers have no right to resist unlawful police entry into their homes.

    In a 3-2 decision, Justice Steven David writing for the court said if a police officer wants to enter a home for any reason or no reason at all, a homeowner cannot do anything to block the officer's entry.

    "We believe ... a right to resist an unlawful police entry into a home is against public policy and is incompatible with modern Fourth Amendment jurisprudence," David said. "We also find that allowing resistance unnecessarily escalates the level of violence and therefore the risk of injuries to all parties involved without preventing the arrest."

    David said a person arrested following an unlawful entry by police still can be released on bail and has plenty of opportunities to protest the illegal entry through the court system.

    The court's decision stems from a Vanderburgh County case in which police were called to investigate a husband and wife arguing outside their apartment.

    When the couple went back inside their apartment, the husband told police they were not needed and blocked the doorway so they could not enter. When an officer entered anyway, the husband shoved the officer against a wall. A second officer then used a stun gun on the husband and arrested him.

    Professor Ivan Bodensteiner, of Valparaiso University School of Law, said the court's decision is consistent with the idea of preventing violence.

    "It's not surprising that they would say there's no right to beat the hell out of the officer," Bodensteiner said. "(The court is saying) we would rather opt on the side of saying if the police act wrongfully in entering your house your remedy is under law, to bring a civil action against the officer."

    Justice Robert Rucker, a Gary native, and Justice Brent Dickson, a Hobart native, dissented from the ruling, saying the court's decision runs afoul of the Fourth Amendment of the U.S. Constitution.

    "In my view the majority sweeps with far too broad a brush by essentially telling Indiana citizens that government agents may now enter their homes illegally -- that is, without the necessity of a warrant, consent or exigent circumstances," Rucker said. "I disagree."

    Rucker and Dickson suggested if the court had limited its permission for police entry to domestic violence situations they would have supported the ruling.

    But Dickson said, "The wholesale abrogation of the historic right of a person to reasonably resist unlawful police entry into his dwelling is unwarranted and unnecessarily broad."

    This is the second major Indiana Supreme Court ruling this week involving police entry into a home.

    On Tuesday, the court said police serving a warrant may enter a home without knocking if officers decide circumstances justify it. Prior to that ruling, police serving a warrant would have to obtain a judge's permission to enter without knocking.

    http://www.nwitimes.com/news/local/...cle_ec169697-a19e-525f-a532-81b3df229697.html
     
    Last edited: May 14, 2011
  2. NoEconomist
    Offline

    NoEconomist Member

    Joined:
    Apr 6, 2011
    Messages:
    207
    Thanks Received:
    34
    Trophy Points:
    16
    Location:
    Just a figment of your imagination....
    Ratings:
    +34
    It sounds like they had PC, would have to read the whole case to be sure. Its not as if they brushed in, kicked their feet up and started making long distance calls. They were called in on a disturbance and it is their job to investigate the well being of all parties involved. Most domestic violence victims don't want to press charges but it sounds like he was trying to prevent access to his wife and that ain't kosher.

    They don't know whats going on in there. What if he had just slit her neck and was bleeding her out in the bath tub while playing point counter point in the door way with the cops?
     
    Last edited: May 14, 2011
  3. William Joyce
    Offline

    William Joyce Chemotherapy for PC

    Joined:
    Jan 23, 2004
    Messages:
    9,693
    Thanks Received:
    1,135
    Trophy Points:
    190
    Location:
    Caucasiastan
    Ratings:
    +1,349
    Feminists created this situation. Police used to just treat domestic violence incidents on an individual basis. Now they are forced to use total war... believe me, they don't really WANT TO, but the feminists demand it.
     
  4. Big Fitz
    Offline

    Big Fitz User Quit *****

    Joined:
    Nov 23, 2009
    Messages:
    16,917
    Thanks Received:
    2,473
    Trophy Points:
    48
    Ratings:
    +2,475
    Feefth Amendment? What Feefth Amendment?? I don't see no steeking Feefth Amendment!

    Yeah, this is going right to the supreme court.
     
  5. NoEconomist
    Offline

    NoEconomist Member

    Joined:
    Apr 6, 2011
    Messages:
    207
    Thanks Received:
    34
    Trophy Points:
    16
    Location:
    Just a figment of your imagination....
    Ratings:
    +34
    Feminist? I thought it was the Jews!
     
  6. LibocalypseNow
    Offline

    LibocalypseNow Senior Member

    Joined:
    Jul 30, 2009
    Messages:
    12,337
    Thanks Received:
    1,356
    Trophy Points:
    48
    Ratings:
    +1,357
    I understand some peoples' thinking on this but it's still not the right way to go. Once you start making excuses for why your rights need to be taken away,it's all downhill from then on. This excuse-making is happening far too much in this country right now. The Government is whittling away at our Freedom & Liberty. People need to stand up before it's too late. If you keep making excuses for them,before you know it you'll be living in a full-blown Police State.
     
    • Thank You! Thank You! x 2
  7. C_Clayton_Jones
    Offline

    C_Clayton_Jones Diamond Member

    Joined:
    Apr 28, 2011
    Messages:
    41,543
    Thanks Received:
    8,933
    Trophy Points:
    2,030
    Location:
    In a Republic, actually
    Ratings:
    +23,869
    I agree with the minority opinion – the problem is, however, most anything can be construed as an ‘exigent circumstance.’

    Irrelevant – the purpose of a warrant is to protect against unlawful detention, whether bail can be posted or not. Also, it’s not the role of the judiciary to rule based on what might happen in a given situation.

    The blame goes to those who willingly surrender their liberty for security.
     
  8. LibocalypseNow
    Offline

    LibocalypseNow Senior Member

    Joined:
    Jul 30, 2009
    Messages:
    12,337
    Thanks Received:
    1,356
    Trophy Points:
    48
    Ratings:
    +1,357
    Yea it really is perplexing to me that so many Americans can make so many excuses for the Government taking their rights away. Is it a result of years & years of Government propaganda brainwashing? I mean some will excuse anything the Government does and that is pretty scary.
     
  9. Contumacious
    Offline

    Contumacious Radical Freedom

    Joined:
    Aug 16, 2009
    Messages:
    17,072
    Thanks Received:
    1,469
    Trophy Points:
    205
    Location:
    Adjuntas, PR , USA
    Ratings:
    +3,851
    I believe that the Fourth Amendment has been effectively abolished by the US Supreme Court.

    But under the facts of this case even if the 4th was still applicable , I would have to agree with the majority opinion:


    "Officer Jason Henry arrived on the scene and observed that Barnes was ―very agitated and was yelling.‖ Barnes ―continued to yell, loudly‖ and did not lower his voice until Reed warned that he would be arrested for disorderly conduct. Barnes retorted, ―if you lock me up for Disorderly Conduct, you're going to be sitting right next to me in a jail cell.‖ Mary came onto the parking lot, threw a black duffle bag in Barnes's direction, told him to take the rest of his stuff, and returned to the apartment. Reed and Henry followed Barnes back to the apartment. Mary entered the apartment, followed by Barnes, who then turned around and blocked the doorway. Barnes told the officers that they could not enter the apartment and denied Reed's requests to enter and investigate. Mary did not explicitly invite the officers in, but she told Barnes several times, ―don't do this‖ and ―just let them in.‖ Reed attempted to enter the apartment, and Barnes shoved him against the wall. A struggle ensued, and the officers used a choke hold and a taser to subdue and arrest Barnes. Barnes suffered an adverse reaction to the taser and was taken to the hospital."


    Richard L. Barnes v. State of Indiana,
    No. 82S05-1007-CR-343
    (Ind. 05/12/2011)


    .
     
    Last edited: May 14, 2011
  10. TheBrain
    Offline

    TheBrain BANNED

    Joined:
    Apr 26, 2011
    Messages:
    3,014
    Thanks Received:
    237
    Trophy Points:
    0
    Ratings:
    +237
    Can't believe anyone would argue that in THIS case the police effected an illegal entry into the home. Some of yall need to learn the damn law.
     

Share This Page