Author Topic: Indiana Supreme Court Ruling  (Read 4980 times)

0 Members and 2 Guests are viewing this topic.

Offline radioman

  • A Regular
  • ***
  • Posts: 622
Indiana Supreme Court Ruling
« on: May 14, 2011, 10:24:35 AM »
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.

http://www.nwitimes.com/news/local/govt-and-politics/article_ec169697-a19e-525f-a532-81b3df229697.html

IOW, Indiana citizens don't have 4th amendment protection anymore.

I think we are deep doo-doo in this country. That is, if you ask me.

TGIF - "Thank God I'm Forgiven"

Offline BigAlSouth

  • Established Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 1581
  • Who won't 'co-exist?'
Re: Indiana Supreme Court Ruling
« Reply #1 on: May 14, 2011, 10:38:24 AM »
A conflict between State Law and the U.S. Constitution will end up at the Supreme Court.  The "reasonableness" of this intrusion is a matter for constitutional interpretation. (Note that I did not say "Federal" interpretation.)
The problems we face today are there because the people who work for a living
are outnumbered by those who vote for a living.
--------------
The enemy of my enemy is my friend; the friend of my enemy is, well, he is just a dumbass.

Offline rickl

  • Established Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 1493
Re: Indiana Supreme Court Ruling
« Reply #2 on: May 14, 2011, 10:38:51 AM »
Uh huh.

See Ace of Spades last night and Market Ticker this morning.

Incidentally, Denninger has been running a veritable series of Tickers slagging one candidate after another in the last couple of days.

Ron Paul Deletes Own Candidacy

Ok, Scratch Another One (Gingrich)

Scratch Romney Too

Mitch Daniels Disqualifies Himself

I agree wholeheartedly with his assessments.  I don't want any of those f**ktards within a million light years of the White House.
We are so far past and beyond the “long train of abuses and usurpations” that the Colonists and Founders experienced and which necessitated the Revolutionary War that they aren’t even visible in the rear-view mirror.
~ Ann Barnhardt

Offline radioman

  • A Regular
  • ***
  • Posts: 622
Re: Indiana Supreme Court Ruling
« Reply #3 on: May 14, 2011, 10:47:04 AM »
Here is an opinion:

05-13-2011

Larken Rose
More About: Police State

 
Indiana: Full Frontal Fascism

Something huge--huge and not good--just happened in Indiana, which will be little more than a blip in the propaganda that passes for national news. The   Supreme Court of Indiana just ruled that in Indiana, if a police officer decides to illegally come into your house, you're not allowed to do anything to stop him. According to "Justice" Steven David, resisting an admittedly "unlawful police entry into a home" is against "public policy." Got that? If you live in Indiana, and a cop decides to invade your home without a shred of legal justification, it is considered a crime for you to do anything to stop him.

Bizarrely, "Justice" David also said that resisting law-breaking cops goes against "modern Fourth Amendment jurisprudence." You see, only judges are wise enough to know that when the Fourth Amendment says you have a right to be free from "unreasonable searches and seizures," it actually means that the cops have the right to commit "unreasonable searches and seizures," and you have no right to do anything to stop it.

Please allow me to toot my own horn here, by pointing out that in my novel, "The Iron Web" (page 231), I predicted this step occurring. It is an essential, major step towards totalitarianism, for the control freaks to decide that even when they break their own laws, their victims have no right to resist. There is a huge principle at stake here, and what these three Indiana jackass "judges" have just done is guarantee either complete totalitarianism, or a bloody revolution (or both, in that order). Because this ruling means, quite literally, that residence of Indiana have no rights at all. What would it possibly mean to say you have a "right" to not have your home illegally invaded by a jackbooted thug, while also saying that you cannot do anything to defend that right? To say that you are legally required to allow your rights to be violated means that they aren't rights. (Duh.)

But never fear, because, according to the Supreme Jackass Court of Indiana, you can always come crawling to your masters, after you've been illegally victimized by one of their jackboots, to beg for some restitution. (Good luck with that.) "Justice" David says that, after you let the cop illegally invade your home, you can always "protest the illegal entry through the court system." That's almost straight out of my novel, where a new (fictional) law would "mak[e] it a crime to forcibly resist any arrest, while also providing legal remedies to those who have been subjected to improper arrest.” (This isn't the first thing in my novel that later became either proposed legislation or a new court ruling.)

If anyone considers this reasonable, keep in mind that by the exact same "reasoning" (and I use that term extremely loosely), they might as well also rule that if a cop decides to shoot your dog, or steal your car, or rape your wife, you have to quietly stand by and let him do it, and then later file a complaint, or a lawsuit. In other words, the jackboots can do absolutely anything they damn well please, "legal" or not, and your only recourse is to later whine to the very control freaks that the jackboots work for.

What was the rationale for this? In case all of the above wasn't Orwellian enough, check this out. "Justice" David argued that "allowing resistance [to law-breaking cops] unnecessarily escalates the level of violence and therefore the risk of injuries to all parties involved." Holy smokes! Why wouldn't this psychotic reasoning (a.k.a. "retroactive tyranny justification") also mean that if anyone breaks into your house, or assaults you, or steals your stuff, or otherwise attacks you, you'd better let him do it in order to avoid "escalat[ing] the level of violence"? Using defensive violence to combat aggressive violence is completely justified and righteous, notwithstanding the opinions of the tyranny apologists appointed by the parasite class. If a cop illegally barges into your home, you have every right to escalate the level of violence to any extent necessary to stop him, including blowing the fascist's damn head off.

I'm glad I don't live in Indiana, because if some cop decided to barge into my house without a shred of legal justification, I'd now know that if I tried to hold him back, or push him out, I'd be arrested and prosecuted. So I'd just have to shoot the bastard instead. And since it's tough to do that sort of thing without anyone noticing, I would then be a fugitive, for having defended my home and family against an invading criminal. And if that much happened, and I was forced to become a fugitive, I might feel obliged to go pay a visit to the three stupid, tyrant-loving fascist jackasses on the Indiana Supreme Court who just decided to declare it a crime for someone to defend himself against illegal trespassing, breaking and entering, and assault, if the scumbag attacker happens to have a badge.

Hmmm, I have an idea. If there are any Indiana cops who still respect the Constitution, please do your state a huge favor, and go barge into the home of "Justice" Steven David--during supper would probably be a good time. Barge in, without a warrant, and without any legal justification, guns drawn, and start ordering people around. See if "Justice" David does anything to resist. If he does, lock his fascist ass up for violating his own idiotic legal ruling. In fact, since he just declared it to be illegal for him to resist your illegal invasion of his home, if he lifts a finger to stop you, shoot the bastard, or at least give him a good tasering. (That's exactly what happened in the case where "Justice" David sided with the law-breaking cop.) After all, we can't just let people assault police officers, now can we? If some Indiana cop had the spine to do that, I know several thousand people who would be thrilled beyond words.



(P.S. Incidentally, in U.S. vs. John Bad Elk, the U.S. Supreme Court made it clear that resisting an unlawful arrest, even if doing so requires killing the cop, can be legal. Whether this conflict between the Supreme Court and the Indiana Nazi Brigade will be resolved in court remains to be seen. But whatever any black-dress-wearing, wooden-hammer-wielding narcissist says, if someone decides to barge into your home, you have the right to evict him, with a harsh word, a fist, or a 12-gauge--whichever you deem necessary.)
 
http://www.freedomsphoenix.com:80/Opinion/089796-2011-05-13-indiana-full-frontal-fascism.htm
 
TGIF - "Thank God I'm Forgiven"

Online Pandora

  • Administrator
  • Conservative Superhero
  • *****
  • Posts: 19529
  • I iz also makin a list. U on it pal.
Re: Indiana Supreme Court Ruling
« Reply #4 on: May 14, 2011, 10:52:40 AM »
That's a hell of an opinion and I concur 100%.

It was inevitable we'd find ourselves here, just a matter of how fast.

Kevin Baker keeps saying the courts will not save us and he's right.  We're going to have to save ourselves and if that requires revolution of any type, then so be it.
"Under certain circumstances, profanity provides a relief denied even to prayer." - Mark Twain

"Let us assume for the moment everything you say about me is true. That just makes your problem bigger, doesn't it?"

Online Pandora

  • Administrator
  • Conservative Superhero
  • *****
  • Posts: 19529
  • I iz also makin a list. U on it pal.
Re: Indiana Supreme Court Ruling
« Reply #5 on: May 14, 2011, 11:15:06 AM »
Speaking of Baker, here's his opinion:

Quote
That's the decision making all the rounds of the gun- and libertarian-blogs right now, in which a 3-2 majority of the Indiana Supreme Court held:

    ...that there is no right to reasonably resist unlawful entry by police officers.

What part of "unlawful" don't they get?  OK, I'll unreasonably resist.

This is a classic example of what a "living Constitution" philosophy eventually leads to.  Also from the decision:

    The English common-law right to resist unlawful police action existed for over three hundred years, and some scholars trace its origin to the Magna Carta in 1215. The United States Supreme Court recognized this right in Bad Elk v. United States, 177 U.S. 529, 535 (1900): "If the officer had no right to arrest, the other party might resist the illegal attempt to arrest him, using no more force than was absolutely necessary to repel the assault constituting the attempt to arrest." The Supreme Court has affirmed this right as recently as 1948. United States v. Di Re, 332 U.S. 581, 594 (1948) ("One has an undoubted right to resist an unlawful arrest, and courts will uphold the right of resistance in proper cases.")

So it's established Supreme Court caselaw, right? And inferior courts may not tell the Supreme Court it was out to lunch, right?

Nazzofast, Guido. Here's that "living Constitution" philosophy:

    In the 1920s, legal scholarship began criticizing the right as valuing individual liberty over physical security of the officers. One scholar noted that the common-law right came from a time where "resistance to an arrest by a peace officer did not involve the serious dangers it does today." The Model Penal Code eliminated the right on two grounds: ?(1) the development of alternate remedies for an aggrieved arrestee, and (2) the use of force by the arrestee was likely to result in greater injury to the person without preventing the arrest. In response to this criticism, a majority of states have abolished the right via statutes in the 1940s and judicial opinions in the 1960s.

Really? They did? Under color of what authority? I'm unaware of any Supreme Court decisions post 1948 that established this new interpretation. I'm unaware of any amendments to the Constitution prior to or after 1920 that did so.

To quote Alan Gura from the oral arguments before the Supreme Court in McDonald v. Chicago:

    States may have grown accustomed to violating the rights of American citizens, but that does not bootstrap those violations into something that is constitutional.

As 9th Circuit chief judge Alex Kozinski wrote in his August 2010 dissent to that court's U.S. v Pidena-Moreno decision, another case involving Fourth Amendment protections:

    Having previously decimated the protections the Fourth Amendment accords to the home itself, our court now proceeds to dismantle the zone of privacy we enjoy in the home's curtilage and in public. The needs of law enforcement, to which my colleagues seem inclined to refuse nothing, are quickly making personal privacy a distant memory. 1984 may have come a bit later than predicted, but it’s here at last.

And I am reminded once again of our complete disconnect from the difference between the citizenry and the police as expressed by Sir Robert Peel's Nine Principles of Modern Policing, most especially Principle #7:

    Police, at all times, should maintain a relationship with the public that gives reality to the historic tradition that the police are the public and the public are the police; the police being only members of the public who are paid to give full-time attention to duties which are incumbent on every citizen in the interests of community welfare and existence.

That stopped when the public became "them" to the police.

One more quote, this one from a TV show, Battlestar Galactica the recent version. Admiral Adama, when asked to place his space Marines in the position of policemen to the refugee fleet demurred with some writer's very cogent observation:

    The police protect the People. The military defends the State. When the military becomes the police, the People become the Enemy of the State.

Our police forces are becoming more and more militarized defenders of the State every day, and rulings like this one are helping that happen.
"Under certain circumstances, profanity provides a relief denied even to prayer." - Mark Twain

"Let us assume for the moment everything you say about me is true. That just makes your problem bigger, doesn't it?"

Offline rickl

  • Established Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 1493
Re: Indiana Supreme Court Ruling
« Reply #6 on: May 14, 2011, 11:19:09 AM »
Quote
Hmmm, I have an idea. If there are any Indiana cops who still respect the Constitution, please do your state a huge favor, and go barge into the home of "Justice" Steven David--during supper would probably be a good time. Barge in, without a warrant, and without any legal justification, guns drawn, and start ordering people around. See if "Justice" David does anything to resist. If he does, lock his fascist ass up for violating his own idiotic legal ruling. In fact, since he just declared it to be illegal for him to resist your illegal invasion of his home, if he lifts a finger to stop you, shoot the bastard, or at least give him a good tasering. (That's exactly what happened in the case where "Justice" David sided with the law-breaking cop.) After all, we can't just let people assault police officers, now can we? If some Indiana cop had the spine to do that, I know several thousand people who would be thrilled beyond words.

Word.
We are so far past and beyond the “long train of abuses and usurpations” that the Colonists and Founders experienced and which necessitated the Revolutionary War that they aren’t even visible in the rear-view mirror.
~ Ann Barnhardt

Offline John Florida

  • Conservative Superhero
  • *****
  • Posts: 10059
  • IT'S MY FONT AND I'LL USE IT IF I WANT TO!!
Re: Indiana Supreme Court Ruling
« Reply #7 on: May 14, 2011, 12:50:56 PM »
The ACLU should be popping up any second now!
All men are created equal"
 Filippo Mazzie

charlesoakwood

  • Guest
Re: Indiana Supreme Court Ruling
« Reply #8 on: May 14, 2011, 12:56:24 PM »
The ACLU should be popping up any second now!

1,000,000,000...999,999...999,998...


charlesoakwood

  • Guest
Re: Indiana Supreme Court Ruling
« Reply #9 on: May 14, 2011, 01:01:04 PM »


[blockquote]
Quote
It is an essential, major step towards totalitarianism, for the control freaks to decide that even when they break their own laws, their victims have no right to resist.
[blockquote]

This goes hand in glove with the strategy of creating so many laws we cannot be legal.

 

Offline John Florida

  • Conservative Superhero
  • *****
  • Posts: 10059
  • IT'S MY FONT AND I'LL USE IT IF I WANT TO!!
Re: Indiana Supreme Court Ruling
« Reply #10 on: May 14, 2011, 01:54:28 PM »
We all know damned well that the law suits are gonna fly on this one.
All men are created equal"
 Filippo Mazzie

Offline warpmine

  • Conservative Hero
  • ****
  • Posts: 3248
Re: Indiana Supreme Court Ruling
« Reply #11 on: May 14, 2011, 02:08:25 PM »
Doesn't revolution mean violence? We must not resort to that kind of talk. Who's going to start the shooting? What will the military do. We already understand that the cops and their unions will side against "them". Either thay can't read the constitution or just to corrupt to care. Take your choice, I'm certain it's both. ::thinking::
Remember, four boxes keep us free:
The soap box, the ballot box, the jury box, and the cartridge box.

Offline BigAlSouth

  • Established Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 1581
  • Who won't 'co-exist?'
Re: Indiana Supreme Court Ruling
« Reply #12 on: May 14, 2011, 03:34:31 PM »
From Bruce McQuain at HotAir:
Quote
The given reason by the  Justice is resistance is “against public policy?” What policy is that?  For whatever reason, most believe our public policy as regards our homes is set by the 4th amendment to the US Constitution. Since when does Indiana’s “public policy” abrogate the Constitutional right to be “secure in our persons, houses, papers and effects”?

Will. Not. Stand. Constitutional. Muster. (IMHO)

http://hotair.com/archives/2011/05/14/indiana-supreme-court-rules-hoosiers-have-no-right-to-resist-unlawful-entry-of-their-homes-by-police/

Once again, IAF is all over this bout the same time as Hot Air. Good Catch, Radioman
The problems we face today are there because the people who work for a living
are outnumbered by those who vote for a living.
--------------
The enemy of my enemy is my friend; the friend of my enemy is, well, he is just a dumbass.

Offline Alphabet Soup

  • Conservative Superhero
  • *****
  • Posts: 5610
  • Hier standt ich. Ich kann nicht anders
Re: Indiana Supreme Court Ruling
« Reply #13 on: May 15, 2011, 02:08:13 PM »
Quote
"We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness. That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just Powers from the Consent of the Governed..."
Declaration of Independence, United States of America, 1776

Perhaps it is time to remind those who would enslave us that consent can be withdrawn...

Offline Sectionhand

  • Conservative Hero
  • ****
  • Posts: 2520
Re: Indiana Supreme Court Ruling
« Reply #14 on: May 15, 2011, 02:48:06 PM »
Justice David was an Army JAG Officer for the defense at Gitmo and protested the conviction in 2006 of Bin Laden's driver . Does that tell you anything ?

Offline John Florida

  • Conservative Superhero
  • *****
  • Posts: 10059
  • IT'S MY FONT AND I'LL USE IT IF I WANT TO!!
Re: Indiana Supreme Court Ruling
« Reply #15 on: May 15, 2011, 03:02:41 PM »
Justice David was an Army JAG Officer for the defense at Gitmo and protested the conviction in 2006 of Bin Laden's driver . Does that tell you anything ?

 Tells me that the idiots voted for him and had no idea who or what he is.
All men are created equal"
 Filippo Mazzie

Online Pandora

  • Administrator
  • Conservative Superhero
  • *****
  • Posts: 19529
  • I iz also makin a list. U on it pal.
Re: Indiana Supreme Court Ruling
« Reply #16 on: May 15, 2011, 06:16:10 PM »
Appointed.  By Mitch Daniels.
"Under certain circumstances, profanity provides a relief denied even to prayer." - Mark Twain

"Let us assume for the moment everything you say about me is true. That just makes your problem bigger, doesn't it?"

Offline John Florida

  • Conservative Superhero
  • *****
  • Posts: 10059
  • IT'S MY FONT AND I'LL USE IT IF I WANT TO!!
Re: Indiana Supreme Court Ruling
« Reply #17 on: May 15, 2011, 06:30:51 PM »
Appointed.  By Mitch Daniels.

 Another reason he won't run.
All men are created equal"
 Filippo Mazzie

charlesoakwood

  • Guest
Re: Indiana Supreme Court Ruling
« Reply #18 on: May 15, 2011, 09:27:52 PM »

This needs to go in the Mitch Daniels folder.


Offline Libertas

  • Conservative Superhero
  • *****
  • Posts: 63663
  • Alea iacta est! Libertatem aut mori!
Re: Indiana Supreme Court Ruling
« Reply #19 on: May 16, 2011, 07:11:59 AM »
I was wondering when Daniels would be broght up.

Talk about the mother of all boat-anchors!

He's toast.

Say goodnight Mitch!
We are now where The Founders were when they faced despotism.