No right to resist entry by LEOs

[WWIIIDefender]

Well I guess now they have the right to try.

 

[mrjarrell]

OP: Please read the FAQ. Posting quotes from published stories is against the rules. Sad, but necessary.

 

[mrjarrell]

Mike Vanderboegh, at Sipsey Street Irregulars (one of the guys who broke the GunWalker ATF debacle) has noticed the courts decision and takes a rather...strong...stance on it.
Sipsey Street Irregulars: Indiana Supreme Court erases 4th Amendment: "No right to resist illegal cop entry into home."

 

[E5RANGER375]

You aren't secure any where. If you move to the hills, the ATF will hunt you down and coerce your into selling them a shotgun with an "illegal" barrel, then they'll shoot your kid in the back, and your wife in the face.

Or do they only do that at Ruby Ridge?

yeah, sadly your right. a day doesnt go by that I dont remember ruby ridge or a handful of the other situations where our govt just "wanted to help"

I guess its just wishful thinking. but if we all banded together we could enact the real change needed to make ourselves safe.

 

[RichardR]

They ruled that if the cops are in the wrong and enter your house, you don't have the right to fight them, and instead should sue the crap out of them and the department afterward.

To be honest this ruling really seems like something that would have been handed down in Germany, circa 1938, & historically speaking for the folks who have experienced this sort of treatment there was no vindication inside of a fair & impartial a court room "afterwards".

 

[INGunGuy]

I will be looking forward to the cops that end up dead because they kicked in someone's door illegally and Unconstitutionally because they wanted to. Oh and I will have no problem at all pizzing on their graves...

INGunGuy

 

[WWIIIDefender]

Sounds like a perfect oportunity for an OC event.

 

[justanotherjarhe]

So what can we do to reverse this decision?? And how many good officers do we have out there that will stand up against this crap?? WHO IS HERE TO PROTECT US?! If you are an LEO you should be standing up for your citizens rights. That is what we pay you for.

 

[WWIIIDefender]

I will be looking forward to the cops that end up dead because they kicked in someone's door illegally and Unconstitutionally because they wanted to. Oh and I will have no problem at all pizzing on their graves...

INGunGuy

Well I won't be looking forward to anyone dying this ruling was bad for everyone. I hope the people and the cops stand against this.

 

[E5RANGER375]

little by little people. little by little.

 

[E5RANGER375]

people get all excited about getting back some gun rights that we are already granted by natural right and confirmed by the constitution, but what good are guns when they make it unjust for us to use them for self defense. its like legalizing all guns but making the ammo illegal. but the people keep marching along like nothing is happening because they can still go to the grocery store and other countries are worse, so it must not be that bad here. yeah, keep thinking that.

also why even have warrants when the govt doesnt even care about them or wont be prosecuted or punished if they get it wrong and even kill someone? there MUST be punishments for violating our rights and ****ing up! eliminating proper search and seizure is already happening. cant you people see it? we should be in the streets protesting and DEMANDING they fix this. people rally at the white house when osama is killed even though 9/11 happened when most of them were still in diapers, but no one is concerned about our own government screwing us.

I know whats coming.

 

[Jack Ryan]

.... why push him into a confrontation in his own home, and then arrest him for it?

To make sure he understands who the boss is and because they can. They are the SS, sorry I mean the police, shut up and get on the floor.

 

[Expat]

So what can we do to reverse this decision?? And how many good officers do we have out there that will stand up against this crap?? WHO IS HERE TO PROTECT US?! If you are an LEO you should be standing up for your citizens rights. That is what we pay you for.

Probably nothing. It sounds like the Indiana followed a trend that was going through the country. Can you imagine the State Legislature trying to correct this one? Ain't no way.

 

[CarmelHP]

So, home invaders posing as police have free rein.

 

[E5RANGER375]

So, home invaders posing as police have free rein.

or actual police involved in criminal activity. remember the 3 indy officers a while back busted by the FBI.

 

[justanotherjarhe]

Sounds like a pre-nazi era to me. What is it going to take for folks to wake up? THIS should be your last straw. THIS should wake you up to what they are doing. We should be organizing against this RIGHT NOW! This is an open attack on all of us in this forum. I am fiercely angered over this communist garbage and I'm not standing for it. Who is with me?

 

[finity]

So, home invaders posing as police have free rein.

Seems so.

And so do police if THEY are the home invaders...

Wow, this is such a BAD decision. Unfortunately, not suprising but BAD.

 

[WWIIIDefender]

people get all excited about getting back some gun rights that we are already granted by natural right and confirmed by the constitution, but what good are guns when they make it unjust for us to use them for self defense. its like legalizing all guns but making the ammo illegal. but the people keep marching along like nothing is happening because they can still go to the grocery store and other countries are worse, so it must not be that bad here. yeah, keep thinking that.

also why even have warrants when the govt doesnt even care about them or wont be prosecuted or punished if they get it wrong and even kill someone? there MUST be punishments for violating our rights and ****ing up! eliminating proper search and seizure is already happening. cant you people see it? we should be in the streets protesting and DEMANDING they fix this. people rally at the white house when osama is killed even though 9/11 happened when most of them were still in diapers, but no one is concerned about our own government screwing us.

I know whats coming.

Flash mob, I'm down.

 

[E5RANGER375]

Sounds like a pre-nazi era to me. What is it going to take for folks to wake up? THIS should be your last straw. THIS should wake you up to what they are doing. We should be organizing against this RIGHT NOW! This is an open attack on all of us in this forum. I am fiercely angered over this communist garbage and I'm not standing for it. Who is with me?

oh im with you. we just cant talk about it on this forum

 

[Indy317]

Rule # 1 when dealing with police, never EVER EVER put your hands on a police officer, but still, this just situation and decision stink.

Rule #1 is that one could just ignore the cops. In Indiana, officers can only arrest someone for failing to ID for an infraction or ordinance violation. At this time, there isn't any law that demands a person speak with the officers. Speaking with the officers in this case is what got this guy in trouble to start with. Screaming at anyone, especially agents of the government, is never a good thing.

We have a welfare state of a country, where government pretty much is involved in everything. From employment, to contracts, to direct wealth redistribution, everyone on this board likely has be blessed to some extent by government. As such, we now have an LE/CJ, K-12, higher education, housing, healthcare, etc. system(s) based on letting the state take care of everything and everyone to varying degrees. This is why even non-criminal actions elicit a police response.

Even one of the dissenters writes: "The case before us involves police action in response to a report of domestic violence in progress. Such events present a heightened urgency for police presence for the protection of the dwelling's occupants and to diffuse enraged emotions and animosity. It would have been preferable, in my view, for the Court today to have taken a more narrow approach, construing the right to resist unlawful police entry, which extends only to reasonable resistance, by deeming unreasonable a person's resistance to police entry in the course of investigating reports of domestic violence. Such a formulation would have been more appropriate for the facts presented and more consistent with principles of judicial restraint. Such a more cautious revision of the common law would have, in cases not involving domestic violence, left in place the historic right of people to reasonably resist unlawful police entry into their dwellings."

So long as we take the line of thinking that the state HAS to save people and grown adults can't make their own decisions, agents of the state are going to rule on the side of the state being able to be involved and being the protectors of society.

The Officer is held to be liable if he/she doesn't do everything within his/her ability to prevent the situation from becoming violent.

Maybe, maybe not. While the threat of liability is there, there have been some court rulings that give LEOs a decent sized pass on liability. There was one case, Pennsylvania I think, where officers responded to a domestic. They pulled up as the guy was leaving. Guy ends up running back up into the home and the cops make their way, but not very fast. Well the guy ends up killing one or more people who were still in the home before the cops finally got the situation under control. Last I knew, cops got a pass on that one.

I think this case is another example of where agents of the state are showing the desire of the state to constantly be in control of people. I agree that there is a heightened chance of violence in this case if the cops leave, but if that is true, then make it a crime to even get into a heated verbal argument. I also don't understand why he wasn't arrested immediately for disorderly conduct. That would have ended the issue right there. They want to paint him like someone going off, yet they let the wife come out and interact with him and even allow him to follow her back into the apartment to get the rest of his stuff. Sounds to me that things weren't that bad. What happened here was that he told the cops no, and they weren't going to have nothing of that because this situation is part of the holy grail of, get ready for it, DOMESTIC VIOLENCE. I see a few issues here:
-Possible police liability if they leave
-The debate on if government agents should be peace keepers and save humanity or should they only clean up the messes and protect only those who are unattached innocents in certain incidents?

The thing is, if they weren't going to arrest him for DOC right there (he was warned and quieted down after that), how long are they going to need to babysit these adults? No toys in Happy Meals, smoking bans in private businesses, the war on trans fats, soda pop taxation....we have babied adults for so long, politicians need these new things so they have something to regulate in our lives.

1) Retention votes - keep in mind that 2 justices dissented - Rucker and Dickson.

The Dickson dissent wasn't that great. Basically sounds like he agreed with the ruling so long as the majority had only applied it to domestic violence. The way I read his dissent, he would rather each individual case be judged based on the underlying danger given what is taking place: Domestic violence vs. say an underage drinking party.

Very true. The time I spent visiting Montana was the best time of my life up to now. Wide open spaces, observance of the Constitution, and PRIVACY.

You're kidding right? Montana has a statewide smoking ban....I guess your view of Constitutional may differ from that of the owner of a private business establishment who would like to allow patrons to use a legal product regulated by state and federal governments.

We do have some individual freedom in this country, even with as many restrictions that we do have. Compared to some other countries though, we have it very good here. Only time will tell if we earn or lose more individual freedoms.

WTF... this better end up in the SCOTUS....

I don't see a huge chance they will over-turn this. We have agents of the state making rulings on how other agents, basically their co-workers, can behave. People have to remember that judges and politicians are usually found up higher on the socio-economic ladder. The view that some, not all, in this group take is one of that the world should run in a certain manner: Civility, good behavior, no screaming/yelling, minimal interference to state/government operations, etc..

The SCOTUS has basically ruled that while you can have a handgun in your home, that pretty much is about it. The Heller ruling leaves a wide opening for local registration, local bans on high capacity magazines, bans on certain types of weapons (ie: Assault weapons). SCOTUS also upheld a law in one state that demands a person submit their identity to the police if the police have a lawful right to demand their ID. You can't even stay mute and still, or that would be a crime I guess?

Some folks in these positions don't like trouble. They don't like kinks in the system. They want the system to be able to flow freely with minimal interruption. I have read a few court rulings that basically say the proper way to handle any abuse or wrongdoing by a government entity is to bend over and take whatever they throw at you initially, then file a lawsuit later. Easy to say for folks who make over six-figures a year, great government benefits, and one hell of a pension plan. There is a difference between someone who makes $37K/year and is wronged vs. someone who makes even just $70K/year and is wronged. Say it takes a defense attorney who charges $200/hour (random number from my head) and wants a $6,000 initial retainer. What kind of person is in a better position to be able to get their wrong righted? Someone who makes $37K/year or someone who makes $70K/year? Who is more likely to take a diversion dismissal, with the catch that the person can't sue the police for their actions?