Sunday, May 15, 2011

Knock-Knock

Court: No right to resist illegal cop entry into home
WHAT THE FF?

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. 


Barry Meets the Founders

Thursday, Rush had an extended conversation with an ardent Mitch Daniels supporter.  Rush asked, why, if he's so durned conservative, doesn't he talk like it?  Caller explained that Daniels must be judged, not on what he says, but on what he does. 

Justice Steven David was appointed to the Indiana Supreme Court by guess who?

And screw "Overturning a common law dating back to the English Magna Carta of 1215.

  The Fourth Amendment (Amendment IV) to the United States Constitution is the part of the Bill of Rights which guards against unreasonable searches and seizures, along with requiring any warrant to be judicially sanctioned and supported by probable cause.

In Mapp v. Ohio, 367 U.S. 643 (1961), the Supreme Court ruled that the Fourth Amendment applies to the states by way of the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment.


WTFF? 

"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."

Taken in the sum and context of what's been happening to us under Obamunism, it ought be manifestly clear that, before long, lots of people will feel damned sorry (but won't dare express it) that they didn't take to the hills, in guerrilla fashion (in the good way, and as a manner of speaking.  Ahem).

Finally,  I'll  add these seemingly unrelated story lines,  for your education and continued edification —

CHICAGOLAND: Daley can keep $1M in campaign cash, thanks to Obama-sponsored bill...
Teacher refuses to hang student's drawing of American flag...

23 comments:

Anonymous said...

Dupnick's SWAT team just shot a Marine 71 times during an illegal forced entry. Cop's stories are changing.

pdwalker said...

Well, it's a good thing that police only ever go after the guilty people.

I feel safer already!

After all, it works for China!

Anonymous said...

No, no, no, no, no, no!!!

Tomorrow I'm going to the range and practice head shots with my friends, Mr. Heckler and mr. Koch. Go ahead, kill me but I'll be surrounded by empty magazines and an honor guard for the next world.

Brigadier Major Mike

Anonymous said...

If you read deeper into the article you understand the ruling stems from a situation where a couple was fighting loudly outside of an apartment complex, and the police were cold. In the time it took the police to arrive, the couple had stopped fighting. The officers, wanting inside to speak with the woman, were blocked by the man. This creates a situation for officers where there is no telling if the man is hiding the fact that his wife is beaten, stabbed, dead, etc. They entered (and given the circumstances in which they were called, probably under probable cause) to speak with the woman. An officer was thrown into a wall and beaten, before a second officer tased and subdued the man.

It's easy to say this is a bad, bad law. But what if every jackass decides in his own mind, without any idea on what he's getting into, to resist an officers entry into his home. The answer is to sue, file a suit against the officers in the department. Not attack the men and women putting their lives on the line and having to make judgment calls based on the situation

CDR J said...

Anonymous, I agree. In my mind it is ALWAYS a bad idea to assault a police officer. A) He is probably armed. B) He has back up on the scene or on the way C)In doing so, you have committed an offense, for which you can and will be arrested,regardless of what else happened.

I agree that the police seemed to have probable cause to enter the house to check on the status of the wife - in one version of the story, she had pleaded with the officers to come in.

Anonymous said...

They can kick your fracking door in , but they can't ask an illegal to see his ID ! Keep your powder dry Ladies , and Gentlemen . SMIBSID

Anonymous said...

re: Anon, here's the link, http://tinyurl.com/3u3pklk
"I saw this guy pointing me at the window. So, I got scared. And, I got like, ‘Please don't shoot, I have a baby.' I put my baby (down). (And I) put bag in window. And, I yell ‘Jose! Jose! Wake up!'" she explained.
Col. Whiskey

I-RIGHT-I said...

"It's easy to say this is a bad, bad law."

Too easy for some evidently.

"But what if every jackass decides in his own mind, without any idea on what he's getting into, to resist an officers entry into his home."

That's an easy one. A bunch of people die whom we will count among all those American heroes who have died on the battlefield defending our freedom. I can't think of a better way to go. I wonder who will be the first?

pdwalker said...

Anon: perhaps the cops would learn to knock and say "please and thank you"

bad cases make for bad law, but giving up the freedom for all in the rare case that someone might be saved is not acceptable, nor is it the answer.

power like this is *always* eventually abused and or used for abusive purposes.

Anonymous said...

"Nother subject: The head of IMF arrested in NYC the day before a multiple pronged invasion of Israel?
Pretty dang convenient for the orks.
RAK

Anonymous said...

Oh, dang, differnt IMF...
RAk & Emily Latillia signing off

Anonymous said...

I hope two things:
1. the cop could do that because of exigent circumstances; i.e. he reasonably believed that the wife's life might be in danger if he did not find her and speak to her.
2. the judges ruling was narrowly construed to the exigent circumstances in this one case and this one cop. If his ruling was carte blanche for all cops to invade any house under any circumstances without a warrant, then we are in deep doodoo.
Lt. Col. Gen. Tailgunner dick

Kristophr said...

Anonymous: The way the decision reads, a cop can bust in your door while shouting "I am going to murder your dumbass!", and if the homeowner resists in any way, he can be charged ( if he survives ).

If that is the kind of country you want to live in, do me a favor and emigrate immediately.

Anonymous said...

Please prove that it's how it reads. It doesn't even sound like you read the fucking article Rodge linked to. You seem to have virtually no idea of how the law works, or you'd know how asinine it is to make the leap from what happened in this case and what was ruled on, and the doomsday bullshit you just spouted.

I-RIGHT-I said...

"It doesn't even sound like you read the fucking article Rodge linked to."

Temper, temper! Here's how it works. The cops already know they're going to kill you so they shove it in your face by announcing it as they bust in, blow you away then drop the throw down. It's a done deal, you are dead and the cops drop another Obama voter who isn't around to testify. Hey, wait....I think this new law could work.

Anonymous said...

Hope your not implying I'm an Obama voter, and were just making a joke in general.

I-RIGHT-I said...

Not at all Sir. I'm implying that the ONLY people this law will come back and bite are Obama voters. White trash, ghetto blacks and ganged up Mexicans are really the only people that ever get themselves into a situation where the cops come knocking down your door. But I'm also implying that naive civilized people like you will be next once they run out of core Democrats. They're going to want your guns, they're going to want your coin collection and they may even want your wife. What you've so liberally suggested is that there can be some kind of good come out of trashing the existing legal custom and the US Constitution.

I don't give a damn if some guy croaks his wife while the cops sit in the street waiting for a warrant and neither should you because that's none of your business. You're business and my business is to defend the moral order and Constitution of this country and not play games to undermine those institutions with what if's and hypothetical situations.

Kristophr said...

Anonymous: Read the decision yourself.

The majority greenlighted prosecution for resisting unlawful entry by police. That includes the scenario I outlined.

You assume that a prosecutor will never use a bad decision against you in an outrageous fashion.

That is foolish.

Kristophr said...

I-RIGHT-I:

When cops attempt an extrajudicial execution ( or a even a simple snowflaking ), and fail ( victim survives, there are witnesses, or evidence is in hand ), prosecutors will almost always try to protect the local government from lawsuits by trumping up some bullshit charge on the victim.

The Indiana courts have just made this process easy.

Anonymous said...

That's horse shit. It doesn't make it legal to check a house without a warrant. It makes it illegal to beat the shit out of, or kill, a cop. Why don't you quote the part of the decision that says what you wrote can come to fruition. I think it's your responsibility as the one making the claim to prove it true.

I-RIGHT-I said...

Don't flush the toilet Annon.

http://www.latimes.com/news/nationworld/nation/la-na-court-search-20110517,0,6746878.story

Kristophr said...

And don't get yourself shot 60 times, anon:

http://booksbikesboomsticks.blogspot.com/2011/05/is-message-too-subtle-for-you-sheriff.html

Rodger the Real King of France said...

Well done

Post a Comment

Just type your name and post as anonymous if you don't have a Blogger profile.