No right to resist entry by LEOs

[PatriotPride]

So I'll give you the bare bones of the argument again. Can/Should you physically resist the unlawful actions of police in all instances?

In a word: YES. Can you give me a reason, other than the much-touted "officer safety", that should preclude me from physically resisting the UNLAWFUL actions of the police?

 

[Prometheus]

Let's vote against Justice David and vow to pass a statutory right of resistance just as Indiana had before recodification.

I really liked that... until I realized that statutes are lower down the totem pole than Constitutional laws.

Passing a law might be a warm gooey feeling, but it still doesn't change the fact that the Republic is dead in the eyes of 'our' government.

The supreme Law preventing this is already there.

 

[PatriotPride]

Does it matter? How many last chances should we give? How many more warnings before we take action?

I thought it was a valid question regarding temp or perma ban. I wouldn't mind knowing if at least one member will be back and posting again.

 

[mms]

IN Sheriff: If We Need to Conduct RANDOM HOUSE to HOUSE Searches We Will | Today's Lead Story

i'm at a loss for words

 

[Kirk Freeman]

Passing a law might be a warm gooey feeling, but it still doesn't change the fact that the Republic is dead in the eyes of 'our' government.

Cheer up, Prom, Justice David may think this, but we can show him what "public policy" really means.

 

[miguel]

i'm at a loss for words

Remember what Solzhenitsyn said in Volume I of Gulag Archipelago: Gulag Archipelago by Aleksander Solzhenitsyn

I ain't sayin, I'm just sayin...

 

[Kutnupe14]

In a word: YES. Can you give me a reason, other than the much-touted "officer safety", that should preclude me from physically resisting the UNLAWFUL actions of the police?

Let's say there's a fight at a bar that you weren't involved in, police are called, and arrive. The entire scene is confusing, some one in error points to you as being one of the combatants, and police try to detain you. Do you resist?

 

[Kirk Freeman]

That's not unlawful.

 

[ckcollins2003]

Let's say there's a fight at a bar that you weren't involved in, police are called, and arrive. The entire scene is confusing, some one in error points to you as being one of the combatants, and police try to detain you. Do you resist?

If that were the situation, he wouldn't be doing anything UNLAWFUL. If there is a bar fight and people point to you, he'd be doing his job by detaining you until proven otherwise.

We're not discussing public situations here. We're discussing the legal right that was given to LEO's to enter your home with no warrant, no probable cause, and no call to your house. Actual UNLAWFUL situations where they were never supposed to be in the first place.

 

[Bunnykid68]

That's not unlawful.

What is not unlawful sir?

 

[ckcollins2003]

What is not unlawful sir?

Mr. Freeman was referring to the irrelevant comment by Kutnupe14.

 

[Bunnykid68]

Notice on front door should be " The Greenwood residence of 1705 Monroe ave is protected by 12G loaded with deer slugs and flachettes, enter at your own risk" This means everyone.

 

[Kirk Freeman]

Let's say there's a fight at a bar that you weren't involved in, police are called, and arrive. The entire scene is confusing, some one in error points to you as being one of the combatants, and police try to detain you. Do you resist?

That's not unlawful. Cops just made a mistake in the bar.

 

[Bunnykid68]

That's not unlawful. Cops just made a mistake in the bar.

Cops make mistakes......say it isn't so Mr. Freeman. I thought they were above that.

 

[aikidoka]

Correct on both. In the case of Barnes, I don't think anyone can reasonably argue that it wasn't prudent for the LEO to enter. The 2 justices who dissented on the overall Court decision agreed that, in Barnes, it was proper.

There are many who post on these gun forums (this is rabid on all of them) who probably were not the valetictorian of their senior class. They live a simple life and have a simple understanding of the law. They live in a world of Clint Eastwood movies and wishing for better days. It's pretty easy for "pot stirrers" to get them riled.

In reality, this Court decision changed virtually nothing. This is only going to be applicable in cases where an LEO arrives at a private residence w/o a search warrant. All the talk of "wrong addresses", etc., is from the movies. It just doesn't happen in real life. "The cops can't just kick my door in at 2am!!!" No, and they don't want to. Again, too many movies. Raids on meth houses, etc., occur with a warrant. This Court ruling will have no affect on them. It ONLY will apply to those situations where LEO's arrive at a private residence w/o a warrant. Guess what, folks? Virtually 100% of the time, that is a domestic dispute call! When else does LEO's show up at someone's door step w/o a warrant and want entry? It doesn't happen.

Less Clint Eastwood, less unbridled testosterone, more common sense. That's what we need. Your world will be ok. The end is not near because of this ruling. If the bad LEO enters your house and you don't think it was proper, there's a civil (and perhaps criminal) court just waiting to hear from you. That's all the Court said: you do not have the right to resist but you definitely have the right to litigate. It replaces gunfights and bodily injury (battery) with a court room. Frankly, the only ones who will be complaining are the domestic dispute participants. The ones who cause LEO runs in the first place. If you're not part of the problem, relax.

If you think you have such a good argument why resort to the ad hom so much?

 

[Kirk Freeman]

Cops make mistakes......say it isn't so Mr. Freeman. I thought they were above that.

A mistake does not warrant force. A rebuke perhaps, but not violence, unless the mistake brings violence with it.

E.g. I am frequently mistaken for Brad Pitt. That's just a mistake, not something to get violent about.

 

[Bunnykid68]

A mistake does not warrant force. A rebuke perhaps, but not violence, unless the mistake brings violence with it.

E.g. I am frequently mistaken for Brad Pitt. That's just a mistake, not something to get violent about.

Sorry Brad......I mean Kirk...by the way... I love your posts

 

[aikidoka]

A mistake does not warrant force. A rebuke perhaps, but not violence, unless the mistake brings violence with it.

E.g. I am frequently mistaken for Brad Pitt. That's just a mistake, not something to get violent about.

Well, if it's the Brad Pitt in 12 Monkeys

 

[youngda9]

"Let us remember that if we suffer tamely a lawless attack on our liberty, we encourage it." Samuel Adams

 

[Sailor]

Now an Indiana Sheriff wants to use the new law to conduct random house checks.

IN Sheriff: If We Need to Conduct RANDOM HOUSE to HOUSE Searches We Will | Today's Lead Story