Court: No right to resist illegal cop entry into home

[Planter]

All you have accomplished is to validate everything I said.

My guess is most of your knowledge related to LE work was learned from the back seat of a patrol car. :loser:

:rollseyes never been in the back of a patrol car. have many family members and friends who have been officers and detectives for 20+ years. Ridden with them several times on drug busts, house raids (and i've seen them get the wrong house....for all the reasons I stated before). So unless you'd like to enlighten us as to the "real reason" it happens, shut up, and fill your piehole with another bear claw.

So what he posted doesn't happen? Like him or not, all of the things he posted seem like things that could happen.

interesting thing is I took that statement out of my criminal justice notes from a class i took last semester to see if I wanted to pursue a degree in criminal justice. But I guess a 58 year old Crim. Justice professor, who has over 30 years experience in Narcotics, and a Law Degree doesn't know what he's talking about. :shrug: and some doughnut inhaling patrol rookie fresh out of the academy somehow knows more? :bored:

 

[mswaim]

Wow, you took a CJ class.........how unique. :loser:

And of course, the ever popular, "have many family members and friends who have been officers and detectives for 20+ years. Ridden with them several times on drug busts, house raids".

And, on one of your ride-a-longs your family members raided the wrong house. Super........... Guess the apple did not fall far from that tree.


Time to close it down Adam, there is nothing else left to discuss.

 

[00streetfighter]

Wow, you took a CJ class.........how unique. :loser:

And of course, the ever popular, "have many family members and friends who have been officers and detectives for 20+ years. Ridden with them several times on drug busts, house raids".

And, on one of your ride-a-longs your family members raided the wrong house. Super........... Guess the apple did not fall far from that tree.


Time to close it down Adam, there is nothing else left to discuss.

+1.. And one more donut comment and you he should at least receive an infraction.

 

[rubicon04]

That is kind of the point of the decision. If you dont fight the police, even if they are wrong, it is likely you wont end up dead.

And myself along with most reasonable people would not think the police are raiding our home. So what is your first instinct ??...protect the castle and family. Your average person is not going to think "oh hey it must be the jump out boys" they are going to think "my home is being robbed". This is in blatant violation of the 4th anyway you cut it. I dont see this legislation sticking around for long.

 

[NyteByte]

But I guess a 58 year old Crim. Justice professor, who has over 30 years experience in Narcotics, and a Law Degree doesn't know what he's talking about. :shrug: and some doughnut inhaling patrol rookie fresh out of the academy somehow knows more? :bored:

Planter, give it up.

Some cops are never wrong, so trying to make argument or prove a point is a totally pointless exercise. Save yourself the frustration my friend. Consider the source.

 

[00streetfighter]

Planter, give it up.

Some cops are never wrong, so trying to make argument or prove a point is a totally pointless exercise. Save yourself the frustration my friend. Consider the source.

yawn.. :bored:

 

[Planter]

Planter, give it up.

Some cops are never wrong, so trying to make argument or prove a point is a totally pointless exercise. Save yourself the frustration my friend. Consider the source.

yep, and another reason why I have no respect for the general population of LEO's. they're mostly classless "I have a badge and I can do whatever I want and get away with it" attitudes, or "well i'm a LEO and we dont make mistakes and we're perfect and never do wrong or screwup mentalities, that play the "you don't know how dangerous my job is" card.

this has gotten off topic anyhow, so back on topic...Indiana is totally in the wrong on this law, and sadly it will take a few dead cops and a trip to SCOTUS, but eventually this communistic ruling will be overturned and Indiana put back in their respective places.

 

[FordSVTFan]

Warrant-less searches are not Constitutional. Any ruling to the contrary is a travesty. Having courts rule that nearly anything is "reasonable" with or without a warrant is just side-stepping the Constitution with fancy legalisms.

Once again you can google the Constitution all you want, but you arent quoting the case law than defines the 4th Amendment.

Whether you like it or not there are warrant exceptions.

Why is it a crime for a "civilian" to lie to law enforcement officials / agencies while it is OK for LEOs to lie to civilians? And you say the courts are not biased against civilians and for LEOs.....

The general idea is that the police lie to get to the truth and investigate the matter where they have no dog in the fight, while the civilian being investigated has a reason to lie and obstruct justice.

Again. my concern is that this increasing tendency toward side-stepping the Constitution will lead to a breakdown of civil order and a lack of respect for LEOs who enforce these laws.

People have been spewing that same argument since the Constitution was first amended and case law defined it. Guess what there is no breakdown of civil order. If you do not have respect for a LEO doing his job the way the Supreme Court says he is allowed to then that is on you.

Not being a lawyer, I have no idea at all how to write such a law and make it Constitutional. I just run a lawn service.

But you proposed that it could and should be done just the same.

 

[FordSVTFan]

And myself along with most reasonable people would not think the police are raiding our home. So what is your first instinct ??...protect the castle and family. Your average person is not going to think "oh hey it must be the jump out boys" they are going to think "my home is being robbed". This is in blatant violation of the 4th anyway you cut it. I dont see this legislation sticking around for long.

Please read the case law that defines the 4th Amendment before posting what is clearly your opinion not based on any legal foundation. It is not a blatant violation of the Fourth Amendment, especially since the situation we are talking about involves a validly issued warrant.

People coming in to your home wearing black with big white letters that say police and yelling "Police Search Warrant" is a really big clue they are not invaders. The vast majority of people, who arent criminals, dont think that way.

 

[olefafl]

People coming in to your home wearing black with big white letters that say police and yelling "Police Search Warrant" is a really big clue they are not invaders. The vast majority of people, who arent criminals, dont think that way.

I have done nothing wrong, so I would think anyone doing this was not the police.

[ame=http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&biw=1345&bih=551&q=fake+cops+home+invasion+indiana+&aq=f&aqi=&aql=&oq=]fake cops home invasion indiana - Google Search[/ame]

This was 1-2 days after the court made the news.
"From today's South Bend Tribune... "2nd Home Invasion in Three Days"--
Armed gangbangers kick in the door to a home shouting "Police, police" several times with guns drawn.

http://www.southbendtribune.com/news/sbt-2nd-home-invasion-in-three-days-20110514,0,2665087.story (Sorry link doesn't work.)

 

[DefCon3]

..
But you proposed that it could and should be done just the same.

The thread contains comments that the law was poorly written. So it is entirely legitimate to suggest that it either be set aside or written more clearly. Which does not require that I know how to do this.

If I hear a car backfiring and missing, I might suggest that it be serviced by a competent mechanic. That doesn't require that I know how to fix it myself.

 

[FordSVTFan]

I have done nothing wrong, so I would think anyone doing this was not the police.

fake cops home invasion indiana - Google Search

This was 1-2 days after the court made the news.
"From today's South Bend Tribune... "2nd Home Invasion in Three Days"--
Armed gangbangers kick in the door to a home shouting "Police, police" several times with guns drawn.

http://www.southbendtribune.com/news/sbt-2nd-home-invasion-in-three-days-20110514,0,2665087.story (Sorry link doesn't work.)

I guess in that situation you will have to do what you think is best and live/die with the consequences. I am not advocating that you not use common sense.

 

[FordSVTFan]

The thread contains comments that the law was poorly written. So it is entirely legitimate to suggest that it either be set aside or written more clearly. Which does not require that I know how to do this.

The thread contains comments by some people that actually understand court orders and rulings and others that do not. The ones that do understand them simply stated that the judge's choice of wording in his opinion was unfortunate, not that it was vague or broad. You were specific in suggesting it be narrowed and focused and that simply is not the problem with his opinion. Did you bother to read it?

 

[rubicon04]

Please read the case law that defines the 4th Amendment before posting what is clearly your opinion not based on any legal foundation. It is not a blatant violation of the Fourth Amendment, especially since the situation we are talking about involves a validly issued warrant.

People coming in to your home wearing black with big white letters that say police and yelling "Police Search Warrant" is a really big clue they are not invaders. The vast majority of people, who arent criminals, dont think that way.

My opinion is based completely on the legal foundation that defines the
4th. The two supreme court justices that voted against seem to agree with me,but hey they must be criminals oke: If the ruling was 2-3 you wouldnt have a leg to stand on.

The ISC managed to overturn 1000 years worth of precedent..for lack of better words this is a crock of shit

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"


The 4th states ....The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized

seems pretty blatant to me

 

[FordSVTFan]

My opinion is based completely on the legal foundation that defines the
4th. The two supreme court justices that voted against seem to agree with me,but hey they must be criminals oke: If the ruling was 2-3 you wouldnt have a leg to stand on.

The ISC managed to overturn 1000 years worth of precedent..for lack of better words this is a crock of shit

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"


The 4th states ....The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized

seems pretty blatant to me

You are quoting a State Justice. The US Constitution and its amendments are defined by federal case law, specifically that rules on by the US Supreme Court. You arent even quoting SCOTUS or a USSC justice.

Please do not pretend to understand the 4th Amendment or the case law that defines it.

It seems blatant to you because you have no legal training and are not reviewing the correct cases. You are applying a laypersons definition to specific legal terms.

Like I have said over and over again the written opinion was unfortunate but the purpose behind the opinion was solid, as it was meant to prevent dangerous situations and injuries/death.

BTW, 3-2 decisions make law! That is the way our system works.

 

[DefCon3]

The thread contains comments by some people that actually understand court orders and rulings and others that do not. The ones that do understand them simply stated that the judge's choice of wording in his opinion was unfortunate, not that it was vague or broad. You were specific in suggesting it be narrowed and focused and that simply is not the problem with his opinion. Did you bother to read it?

And that's one of the comments I keyed on. "Unfortunate". Which suggests that it should be improved -- rewritten. Since I am not a lawyer, it makes no sense for me to read it and try to perform any analysis. After all, Michigan Congressman John Conyers remarked about legislation in general and Obama's Health Care Bill in particular that only a bevy of lawyers could read and understand it. That's my impression of a lot of legalese - poorly written and nearly incomprehensible. But brings a good living to lawyers who can charge hefty fees to debate what it means and how it was intended. And judges who can rule on the debates all the way up a chain of different courts - sometimes for years.

 

[BleedBlueOval]

Police officers put on notice in Indiana: If they illegally raid the wrong home, private citizens can shoot back

Police officers put on notice in Indiana: If they illegally raid the wrong home, private citizens can shoot back

 

[FordSVTFan]

Police officers put on notice in Indiana: If they illegally raid the wrong home, private citizens can shoot back

Did you really need to bump a year old thread to direct no one to the up to date thread?

Please dont revive dead threads.