See other Dead Constitution Articles
Title: Court: No right to resist illegal cop entry into home
Source:
http://www.nwitimes.com
URL Source: http://www.nwitimes.com/news/local/ ... 9e-525f-a532-81b3df229697.html
Published: May 13, 2011
Author: Dam Carden
Post Date: 2011-05-13 17:29:26 by freepatriot32
Ping List: *Jack-Booted Thugs* Subscribe to *Jack-Booted Thugs*
Keywords: INDIANAPOLIS, indiana, supreme court, jackbooted thugs
Views: 253
Comments: 17
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.
Post Comment Private Reply Ignore Thread
Top • Page Up • Full Thread • Page Down • Bottom/Latest
#1. To: All, *libertarians*, *Humor-Weird News* (#0)
ping
free and legal online poker site click here
The only thing that matters is what a jury says.
“I do not love the bright sword for its sharpness, nor the arrow for its swiftness, nor the warrior for his glory. I love only that which they defend” - J.R.R. Tolkien
That's effed up worse than a soup sandwich and a football bat. Is there anyone who posts here who wouldn't send someone breaking into their home to their reward given the opportunity?
Liberty is not a means to a higher political end. It is itself the highest political end. Lord Acton He (Gordon Duff) also implies that forcibly removing Obama, a Constitution-hating, on-the-down-low, crackhead Communist, is an attack on America, Mom, and apple pie. I swear these military people are worse than useless. Just look around at the condition of the country and tell me if they have fulfilled their oaths to protect the nation from all enemies foreign and domestic. The only difference between genius and stupidity is that genius has it's limits. Albert Einstein
Got CONsti-stupid ???
“But when you want money for people with minds that hate, All I can tell you brother is that you have to wait.” The Beatles, Revolution, 1968
They are in effect saying police have the right to use violence in furtherance of their illegal acts, rather than respect the homeowners Constitutional rights under the Fourth Amendment. This will not stand.
"I am not one of those weak-spirited, sappy Americans who want to be liked by all the people around them. I don’t care if people hate my guts; I assume most of them do. The important question is whether they are in a position to do anything about it." - William S Burroughs
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. "public policy" is lie-yer lingo for "CORPUSA policy" "....INTRODUCTION I was asked to testify in a tax case as an expert witness. After many days of preparation, I felt confident of my research. I spent over 30 minutes presenting many Supreme Court decisions that supported the defendant's position. The prosecution concluded his statements, and to my amazement, the judge told the jury that they could only consider certain facts, none of which were the facts I had given. As soon as the trial was over I went around to the judge's office and he was just coming in through his back door. I said, "Judge, by what authority do you overturn the standing decisions of the United States Supreme Court. You sat on the bench while I read that case law. Now how do you, a District Judge, have authority to overturn decisions of the Supreme Court?" He says. "Oh, those were old decisions." I said, "Those are standing decisions. They have never been overturned. I don't care how old they are; you have no right to overturn a standing decision of the United States Supreme Court in a District Court." PUBLIC LAW V. PUBLIC POLICY He said, "Name any decision of the Supreme Court after 1938 and I'll honor it, but all the decision you read were prior to 1938, and I don't honor those decisions." I asked what happened in 1938. He said, "Prior to 1938, the Supreme Court was dealing with Public Law; since 1938, the Supreme Court has dealt with Public Policy. The charge that Mr. S. was being tried for is a Public Policy Statute, not Public Law, and those Supreme Court cases do not apply to Public Policy." I asked him what happened in 1938? He said that he had already told me too much - he wasn't going to tell me any more. 1938 AND THE ERIE RAILROAD Well, I began to investigate. I found that 1938 was the year of the Erie Railroad v. Tompkins case of the Supreme Court. It was also the year the courts claim they blended Law with Equity. I read the Erie Railroad case. A man had sued the Erie Railroad for damages when he was struck by a board sticking out of a boxcar as he walked along beside the tracks. The district court had decided on the basis of Commercial (Negotiable Instruments) Law: that this man was not under any contract with the Erie Railroad, and therefore he had no standing to sue the company. Under the Common Law, he was damaged and he would have had the right to sue. This overturned a standing decision of over one hundred years. Swift v. Tyson in 1840 was a similar case, and the decision of the Supreme Court was that in any case of this type, the court would judge the case on the Common Law of the state where the incident occurred - in this case Pennsylvania. But in the Erie Railroad case, the Supreme Court ruled that all federal cases will be judged under the Negotiable Instruments Law. There would be no more decisions based on the Common Law at the federal level. So here we find the blending of Law with Equity. This was a puzzle to me. As I put these new pieces together, I determined that all our courts since 1938 were Merchant Law courts and not Common Law courts. There were still some pieces of the puzzle missing. A FRIEND IN THE COURT Fortunately, I made a friend of a judge. Now you won't make friends with a judge if you go into court like a "wolf in black sheep country." You must approach him as though you are the sheep and he is the wolf. If you go into court as a wolf, you make demands and tell the judge what the law is - how he had better uphold the law or else. Remember the verse: I send you out as sheep in wolf country; be wise as a serpent and harmless as a dove. We have to go into court and be wise and harmless, and not make demands. We must play a little dumb and ask a lot of questions. Well, I asked a lot of questions and boxed the judges into a corner where they had to give me a victory or admit what they didn't want to admit. I won the case, and on the way out I had to stop by the clerk's office to get some papers. One of the judges stopped and said, "You're an interesting man, Mr. Freeman. If you're ever in town, stop by, and if I'm not sitting on a case we will visit. AMERICA IS BANKRUPT Later, when I went to visit the judge, I told him of my problem with the Supreme Court cases dealing with Public Policy rather than the Public Law. He said, "In 1938, all the higher judges, the top attorneys and the U.S. attorneys were called into a secret meeting and this is what we were told: America is a bankrupt nation - it is owned completely by its creditors. The creditors own the Congress, they own the Executive, they own the Judiciary and they own all the state governments. Take silent judicial notice of this fact, but never reveal it openly. Your court is operating in an Admiralty Jurisdiction - call it anything you want, but do not call it Admiralty. ...." http://freedom-school.com/the-ucc-connection.html http://nesaranews.blogspot.com/2...oration-registration.html http://nesaranews.blogspot.com/2...-registration-sequel.html Supreme Court Administration Business Information "...About Supreme Court Administration Supreme Court Administration in Indianapolis, IN is a private company categorized under Courts. Register for free to see additional information such as annual revenue and employment figures......." Supreme Court Administration also does business as Supreme Court Of Indiana, Judiciary Courts Of The State Of Indiana . The United States Isn't a Country — It's a Corporation! www.serendipity.li/jsmill/us_corporation.htm Repelling thugs that invade your home whether they be from the local crack house, or the Corporate police [ http://romans13.embassyofheaven.com/arepolicesentbygod.htm ] frat house down the street, is a God-given right [ bible.cc/matthew/24-43.htm ], "public policy" be damned.
"...as long as there..remain active enemies of the Christian church, we may hope to become Master of the World...the future Jewish King will never reign in the world before Christianity is overthrown - B'nai B'rith speech http://www.biblebelievers.org.au/luther.htm / http://bible.cc/psalms/83-4.htm
I guess that IN has no Castle Doctrine law in place. What a colossal CF for the Hoosiers.
Somewhere in Kenya, a village is still missing its idiot.
HOUSE ENROLLED ACT No. 1028 (2) does not have a duty to retreat; only if that force is justified under subsection (a). (3) on the ground in Indiana: (3) the person has entered into combat with another person or is the initial aggressor unless the person withdraws from the encounter and communicates to the other person the intent to do so and the other person nevertheless continues or threatens to continue unlawful action. "I am not one of those weak-spirited, sappy Americans who want to be liked by all the people around them. I don’t care if people hate my guts; I assume most of them do. The important question is whether they are in a position to do anything about it." - William S Burroughs
So their SC has in effect overturned this law? At least for cops? Insanity. I tell'ya.
Somewhere in Kenya, a village is still missing its idiot.
Tyranny!
"I am not one of those weak-spirited, sappy Americans who want to be liked by all the people around them. I don’t care if people hate my guts; I assume most of them do. The important question is whether they are in a position to do anything about it." - William S Burroughs
What kind of crack is the SCOI smoking? Steven David (Judge), formerly a Chief Defense Counsel at Guantanamo, currently a Justice of the Indiana Supreme Court
"I am not one of those weak-spirited, sappy Americans who want to be liked by all the people around them. I don’t care if people hate my guts; I assume most of them do. The important question is whether they are in a position to do anything about it." - William S Burroughs
Aren't they all? Their goal is to further the police state not protect your rights.
Do not argue with an idiot. He will drag you down to his level and beat you with experience.
Just a thought...do I even still have a right to deny free entry to those claiming to be police? I mean, even asking to see a badge, wouldn't that be resisting? Gang-bangers gonna have a field day with this ruling.
"I am not one of those weak-spirited, sappy Americans who want to be liked by all the people around them. I don’t care if people hate my guts; I assume most of them do. The important question is whether they are in a position to do anything about it." - William S Burroughs
Looks to me like Indiana has seceded from the Union of States. Is it possible that 5 State Supreme Court Justices can obliterate the Constitution in one fell swoop ? Just who the fuck do these mere mortals think they are ? Of course, the truth is that the FED RESERVE had co-opted what was known as the Union of the several States through a financial coup d' etat a long time ago, they just didn't tell us. The courts have been giving us subtle little hints along the way always trying to let us down easy. Inch by inch these parasites have now invaded every room in the house with permission to come unannounced using machine guns and battering rams. The CON-men in Con-gress, both STATE and FEDERAL (they're actually one and the same) acting on orders from their puppet masters at the banks and corporate headquarters around the world pass bogus laws later backed up by Kangaroo Courts that are filled with compromised lawyers (scumbags) in an attempt to legitimize this institutional FRAUD. If I've said it once I've said it a "trillion" times - participation in their system not only condones their fraud it makes you an accomplice to their mass murders ... and now they're making it all too clear ... you cannot avoid noticing that they're compromising everyone ... and that means "you" ! Whatever we have, whatever you want to call it ... tyranny by any other name remains TYRANNY ! And, if you're one of their mercenary thugs and happen upon my home unannounced I'll send your ass to hell where you and the Supreme Court Jesters of Indiana belong.
“But when you want money for people with minds that hate, All I can tell you brother is that you have to wait.” The Beatles, Revolution, 1968
Now this Court is faced for the first time with the question of whether Indiana should recognize the common-law right to reasonably resist unlawful entry by police officers. We conclude that public policy disfavors any such right. Accordingly, the trial court‘s refusal to give Barnes‘s tendered instruction was not error. Public policy rules ! Another of my favorite comments is: You have as many "rights" as you're able to enforce.
“But when you want money for people with minds that hate, All I can tell you brother is that you have to wait.” The Beatles, Revolution, 1968
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. So, here's the new Indiana playbook scenerio.. Any cop or an army of cops, for any reason or no reason at all can knock on your door. You ask him the reason he's asking to come in, You don't unlock the screen door, you're resisting the cop's order to enter your home, and you're arrested for resisting arrest. Any cop or an army of cops can just stroll into your home for any reason or no reason at all, what happens after that?
#2. To: freepatriot32 (#0)
#3. To: freepatriot32 (#0)
Court: No right to resist illegal cop entry into home
OsamaBinGoldstein
#4. To: freepatriot32 (#0)
#5. To: James Deffenbach (#3)
#6. To: freepatriot32 (#0)
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.
http://www.manta.com/c/mmdyst3/supreme-court-administration
#7. To: freepatriot32 (#0)
#8. To: Lod (#7)
Indiana: Gov. Daniels signs "Castle Doctrine" into law
AN ACT to amend the Indiana Code concerning firearms and self-defense.
Be it enacted by the General Assembly of the State of Indiana:
SECTION 1. IC 35-41-3-2 IS AMENDED TO READ AS FOLLOWS [EFFECTIVE JULY 1, 2006]: Sec. 2. (a) A person is justified in using reasonable force against another person to protect the person or a third person from what the person reasonably believes to be the imminent use of unlawful force. However, a person:
(1) is justified in using deadly force; only and
(2) does not have a duty to retreat;
if the person reasonably believes that that force is necessary to prevent serious bodily injury to the person or a third person or the commission of a forcible felony. No person in this state shall be placed in legal jeopardy of any kind whatsoever for protecting the person or a third person by reasonable means necessary.
(b) A person:
(1) is justified in using reasonable force, including deadly force, against another person; and
if the person reasonably believes that the force is necessary to prevent or terminate the other person's unlawful entry of or attack on the person's dwelling, or curtilage, or occupied motor vehicle.
(c) With respect to property other than a dwelling, or curtilage, or an occupied motor vehicle, a person is justified in using reasonable force against another person if the person reasonably believes that the
force is necessary to immediately prevent or terminate the other person's trespass on or criminal interference with property lawfully in the person's possession, lawfully in possession of a member of the person's immediate family, or belonging to a person whose property the person has authority to protect. However, a person:
(1) is not justified in using deadly force; unless and
(2) does not have a duty to retreat;
(d) A person is justified in using reasonable force, including deadly force, against another person and does not have a duty to retreat if the person reasonably believes that the force is necessary to prevent or stop the other person from hijacking, attempting to hijack, or otherwise seizing or attempting to seize unlawful control of an aircraft in flight. For purposes of this subsection, an aircraft is considered to be in flight while the aircraft is:
(1) on the ground in Indiana:
(A) after the doors of the aircraft are closed for takeoff; and
(B) until the aircraft takes off;
(2) in the airspace above Indiana; or
(A) after the aircraft lands; and
(B) before the doors of the aircraft are opened after landing.
(e) Notwithstanding subsections (a), (b), and (c), a person is not justified in using force if:
(1) the person is committing or is escaping after the commission of a crime;
(2) the person provokes unlawful action by another person with intent to cause bodily injury to the other person; or
(f) Notwithstanding subsection (d), a person is not justified in using force if the person:
(1) is committing, or is escaping after the commission of, a crime;
(2) provokes unlawful action by another person, with intent to cause bodily injury to the other person; or
(3) continues to combat another person after the other person withdraws from the encounter and communicates the other person's intent to stop hijacking, attempting to hijack, or otherwise seizing or attempting to seize unlawful control of an aircraft in flight.
PLEASE NOTE: The above law does not become effective until 1 July 06.
#9. To: Dakmar (#8)
#10. To: Lod (#9)
Insanity.
#11. To: freepatriot32 (#0)
This ruling is blatantly unconstituitional.
#12. To: Armadillo, lod, all (#11)
From wikipedia (this explains a lot):
#13. To: Armadillo (#11)
This ruling is blatantly unconstituitional.
#14. To: freepatriot32, Lod, James Deffenbach, christine, Jethro Tull, Esso (#0)
Copied my post from Edgar Steele thread to here:
#15. To: freepatriot32 (#0)
(Edited)
Overturning a common law dating back to the English Magna Carta of 1215,
#16. To: All (#15)
FROM THE RULING:
#17. To: freepatriot32 (#0)
No right to resist
Top • Page Up • Full Thread • Page Down • Bottom/Latest