Indiana Supreme Court rules Hoosiers have no right to resist unlawful entry of their homes by police

posted at 10:03 am on May 14, 2011 by Bruce McQuain

No, you read it right. That’s what the Indiana Supreme Court decided in what would be a laughable finding if it wasn’t so serious:

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.

The author of the story reporting this is right – somehow the ISC managed, in one fell swoop, to overturn almost 900 years of precedent, going back to the Magna Carta.

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. [emphasis mine]

Or said another way, your home is no longer your castle.

Remember the 4th Amendment to the US Constitution?

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.”

Bzzzzzt.

Wrong – in Indiana

“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.

One has to wonder what part of “unlawful” Justice David doesn’t get. What part of the right of the people to “be secure… shall not be violated” wasn’t taught to him in law school.

How secure is anyone in their “persons, houses, papers and effects” if, per David, a police officer can waltz into any home he wants to “for any reason or no reason at all?”

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”?

Additionally, most would assume it is the job of the police not to “escalate the level of violence”, not the homeowner. Like maybe a polite knock on a door to attempt an arrest instead of a battering ram and the violent entry of a full SWAT team to arrest a suspected perpetrator of a non-violent crime. Maybe a little pre-raid intelligence gathering, or snagging the alleged perp when he leaves the house to go to work, or walk the dog, or go to the store.

Now citizens in Indiana are to give up their 4th Amendment rights because it might “elevate the violence” if  they attempt to protect themselves from unlawful activity?  Sounds like the “don’t resist rape” nonsense that was once so popular.

And check out this “analysis”:

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.”

So we’ll just throw out your 4th amendment right to satisfy the court’s desire to “prevent violence,” is that it?

One hopes the decision is destroyed on appeal and if the Justices are in an elected office they become very “insecure” in their probability of staying there.

The two dissenting Justices got it mostly right:

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.”

I say mostly right because they indicated that in the case of domestic violence, they too were willing to throw the 4th amendment under the bus.

How does one say “it runs afoul of the Fourth Amendment” and then later agree to a partial abrogation of the 4th under certain circumstances?  What part of “shall not be violated” don’t they understand?  It doesn’t say “shall not be violated except in case of domestic violence” does it?

Oh, and just to point out that this likely isn’t an outlier for this crew:

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.

Because, you know, it would be just asking too much to have the police actually justify a no-knock entrance to a judge, wouldn’t it?

Amazing.

And you wonder why you have to constantly protect your rights daily from attacks within?

This is why.

Bruce McQuain blogs at Questions and Observations (QandO), Blackfive, the Washington Examiner and the Green Room.  Follow him on Twitter: @McQandO

This post was promoted from GreenRoom to HotAir.com.
To see the comments on the original post, look here.

Breaking on Hot Air

Blowback

Note from Hot Air management: This section is for comments from Hot Air's community of registered readers. Please don't assume that Hot Air management agrees with or otherwise endorses any particular comment just because we let it stand. A reminder: Anyone who fails to comply with our terms of use may lose their posting privilege.

Trackbacks/Pings

Trackback URL

Comments

Comment pages: 1 10 11 12 13 14

These are the people who think histroy cannot ever repeat itself.

Badger40 on May 16, 2011 at 2:42 PM

They believe communism never succeeded because we never gave it a fair chance.

Roy Rogers on May 16, 2011 at 2:44 PM

A free state means that I am able to exercise my God given rights. That mean to defend my self against a police state. The 4th amendment limits S&S by the government. So when the government violates the 4th, the 2nd gives me the right to defend myself against the government employees.

csdeven on May 16, 2011 at 2:39 PM

Unless the public at large agrees with you, you’ll not enjoy the consequences of this decision-making. Lots of people have tried claiming revolutionary status while shooting it out with the police. Mumia Abu Jamal, still on death row.

G M on May 16, 2011 at 2:44 PM

These are the people who think histroy cannot ever repeat itself.

Badger40 on May 16, 2011 at 2:42 PM

They believe communism never succeeded because we never gave it a fair chance.

Roy Rogers on May 16, 2011 at 2:44 PM

We are the people who can rationally determine the difference between America in 2011 and a totalitarian police state. Sorry you can’t. So when are you leaving?

G M on May 16, 2011 at 2:46 PM

Better to stand like a free man, than serve on one’s knees like a liberal.

Roy Rogers on May 16, 2011 at 2:40 PM

Epic comparison fail.

Uncle Sams Nephew on May 16, 2011 at 2:47 PM

These are the people who think histroy cannot ever repeat itself.

Badger40 on May 16, 2011 at 2:42 PM

I try to figure out their motivation. Are they jack booted thugs, cowards, or just plain stupid? We probably will never know.

csdeven on May 16, 2011 at 2:47 PM

Saul Alinsky RULE 4: “Make the enemy live up to its own book of rules.” If the rule is that every letter gets a reply, send 30,000 letters. You can kill them with this because no one can possibly obey all of their own rules. (This is a serious rule. The besieged entity’s very credibility and reputation is at stake, because if activists catch it lying or not living up to its commitments, they can continue to chip away at the damage.)

Is the ACLU supportive of Indiana’s ruling?

Roy Rogers on May 16, 2011 at 2:47 PM

So when are you leaving?

G M on May 16, 2011 at 2:46 PM

The same time as all the whiners who said they’d leave if “King Bush” got a 2nd term: NEVER.

(sidenote: I knew exactly one person who kept his promise, and he has my respect for it.)

Uncle Sams Nephew on May 16, 2011 at 2:48 PM

G M on May 16, 2011 at 2:44 PM

Stop stalling….answer the constitutional question.

csdeven on May 16, 2011 at 2:48 PM

Unless the public at large agrees with you, you’ll not enjoy the consequences of this decision-making.

G M on May 16, 2011 at 2:44 PM

Therefore, we have transitioned over from the rule of law to the rule of men, is that what you are saying?

Chip on May 16, 2011 at 2:48 PM

G M on May 16, 2011 at 2:46 PM

Stop stalling….answer the constitutional question.

csdeven on May 16, 2011 at 2:49 PM

Epic comparison fail.

Uncle Sams Nephew on May 16, 2011 at 2:47 PM

Stop stalling…..answer the constitutional question.

csdeven on May 16, 2011 at 2:50 PM

G M on May 16, 2011 at 2:20 PM

That doesn’t answer the question, does it?

Should the police have a set of keys for everyone’s house so they can search it at any time?

Or would not allowing them this access be obstructing them?

Chip on May 16, 2011 at 2:50 PM

It’s lost on them.
These are the people who do not want to be free.
These are the people who participate in the downfall of freedom.
These are the people who think a ‘civilized’ society could never break down to the point of becoming a police state.
These are the people who think histroy cannot ever repeat itself.

Badger40 on May 16, 2011 at 2:42 PM

Now this I agree with.

It amazes me how arrogant people can be, believing their view or opinion is “right” – irrespective the lessons of history.

KMC1 on May 16, 2011 at 2:50 PM

Epic comparison fail.

Uncle Sams Nephew on May 16, 2011 at 2:47 PM

Keyboard commando…

ROFLMAO!

Roy Rogers on May 16, 2011 at 2:52 PM

Therefore, we have transitioned over from the rule of law to the rule of men, is that what you are saying?

Chip on May 16, 2011 at 2:48 PM

He is saying that the only thing of value is surviving in any condition. Values, honor, commitment, patriotism, and rule of law mean nothing.

I am sure he is a LEO that wants to have unlimited power over the people as opposed to a sniveling coward that is scared to die for his God given rights. And more than likely is an atheist, and therefor has no value for others God given rights.

csdeven on May 16, 2011 at 2:54 PM

Keyboard commando…

ROFLMAO!

Roy Rogers on May 16, 2011 at 2:52 PM

Yes you are. And if the topic weren’t so damn serious, something (besides you) would actually be worth laughing at.

Uncle Sams Nephew on May 16, 2011 at 2:55 PM

Unless the public at large agrees with you, you’ll not enjoy the consequences of this decision-making.

G M on May 16, 2011 at 2:44 PM

Therefore, we have transitioned over from the rule of law to the rule of men, is that what you are saying?

Chip on May 16, 2011 at 2:48 PM

Who sits on a jury? Men (well, women too). If they find that what you did was justified, you’ll be aquitted, if they don’t….

G M on May 16, 2011 at 2:57 PM

Uncle Sams Nephew on May 16, 2011 at 2:55 PM

I guarantee you that every single person resisting this unconstitutional abridgment of our rights are well aware that it may require them dying to resist people like you. We seek no reward or recognition. we do it because we believe in God and know that if our rights were not very, very, important, he would not have endowed us with them.

csdeven on May 16, 2011 at 2:57 PM

Yes you are. And if the topic weren’t so damn serious, something (besides you) would actually be worth laughing at.

Uncle Sams Nephew on May 16, 2011 at 2:55 PM

Lighten up Francis!

Roy Rogers on May 16, 2011 at 2:58 PM

G M on May 16, 2011 at 2:57 PM

Stop stalling…..answer the constitutional question.

csdeven on May 16, 2011 at 2:58 PM

We are the people who can rationally determine the difference between America in 2011 and a totalitarian police state. Sorry you can’t. So when are you leaving?

G M on May 16, 2011 at 2:46 PM

Aren’t your arguing for the right of the police to:

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. [emphasis mine]

Perhaps you don’t see the danger in a government that can

enter a home for any reason or no reason at all.

What’s to stop the government from harassing you simply because you have the wrong kind of political sign out on your lawn.

What’s to stop the government from searching your entire house to find something, anything in order to charge you with a crime?

What’s to stop the government from planting evidence in your residence to preclude you from taking civil action against them for an illegal search?

Chip on May 16, 2011 at 2:58 PM

If they find that what you did was justified, you’ll be aquitted, if they don’t….

G M on May 16, 2011 at 2:57 PM

It helps if you are a Black Panther and Eric Holder is the AG.

Roy Rogers on May 16, 2011 at 2:59 PM

G M on May 16, 2011 at 2:20 PM

That doesn’t answer the question, does it?

Should the police have a set of keys for everyone’s house so they can search it at any time?

Or would not allowing them this access be obstructing them?

Chip on May 16, 2011 at 2:50 PM

No, the police shouldn’t have keys to everyone’s house and I doubt very much that there is an obstruction/resisting arrest statute that including not opening a door.

G M on May 16, 2011 at 3:01 PM

Who sits on a jury? Men (well, women too). If they find that what you did was justified, you’ll be aquitted, if they don’t….

G M on May 16, 2011 at 2:57 PM

You’re such a troll.

STOP with the violence fantasies.

It’s NOT. About. Violence.

KMC1 on May 16, 2011 at 3:03 PM

No, the police shouldn’t have keys to everyone’s house and I doubt very much that there is an obstruction/resisting arrest statute that including not opening a door.

G M on May 16, 2011 at 3:01 PM

Under this ruling, not opening the door IS resisting.

KMC1 on May 16, 2011 at 3:05 PM

What’s to stop the government from planting evidence in your residence to preclude you from taking civil action against them for an illegal search?

Chip on May 16, 2011 at 2:58 PM

What if they are the scary blue skull-faced aliens from “They Live”?

G M on May 16, 2011 at 3:05 PM

What’s to stop the government from harassing you simply because you have the wrong kind of political sign out on your lawn.

What’s to stop the government from searching your entire house to find something, anything in order to charge you with a crime?

What’s to stop the government from planting evidence in your residence to preclude you from taking civil action against them for an illegal search?

Chip on May 16, 2011 at 2:58 PM

The Fourth Amendment was written directly in response to British general warrants (called Writs of Assistance), in which the Crown would grant general search powers to British law enforcement official. These officials could search virtually any home they liked, at any time they liked, for any reason they liked or for no reason at all. Since many of the founding fathers were smugglers, this was an especially unpopular concept in the colonies.

Look how well it worked out for the British.

Roy Rogers on May 16, 2011 at 3:05 PM

G M on May 16, 2011 at 3:01 PM

Stop stalling…..answer the constitutional question.

csdeven on May 16, 2011 at 3:06 PM

What if they are the scary blue skull-faced aliens from “They Live”?

G M on May 16, 2011 at 3:05 PM

High school must be out.

Roy Rogers on May 16, 2011 at 3:06 PM

G M on May 16, 2011 at 3:05 PM

Stop stalling…..answer the constitutional question.

csdeven on May 16, 2011 at 3:07 PM

Time for another sock puppet drive by…

Roy Rogers on May 16, 2011 at 3:07 PM

Unless the public at large agrees with you, you’ll not enjoy the consequences of this decision-making.

G M on May 16, 2011 at 2:44 PM

Therefore, we have transitioned over from the rule of law to the rule of men, is that what you are saying?

Chip on May 16, 2011 at 2:48 PM

Who sits on a jury? Men (well, women too). If they find that what you did was justified, you’ll be aquitted, if they don’t….

G M on May 16, 2011 at 2:57 PM

And if you’re shot dead defending your home from intruders…

Or if they plant evidence in your home during an illegal search.

Let’s try it this way:

Rule of Law – the bill of rights, specifically the 4th amendment.

Rule of Men (and women) – decisions made after the fact on whether you or the government was guilty of a crime.

Decisions that would be made on a case by case basis.

Which sounds efficient, logical and fair and which sounds like a system the would be rife with abuse?

Which system was advocated by the founding fathers?

Finally, Which system do you advocate?

Chip on May 16, 2011 at 3:08 PM

Decisions that would be made on a case by case basis.

Which sounds efficient, logical and fair and which sounds like a system the would be rife with abuse?

Which system was advocated by the founding fathers?

Finally, Which system do you advocate?

Chip on May 16, 2011 at 3:08 PM

Did the founding fathers intend for there to be trials by jury or not?

G M on May 16, 2011 at 3:12 PM

What’s to stop the government from harassing you simply because you have the wrong kind of political sign out on your lawn.

What’s to stop the government from searching your entire house to find something, anything in order to charge you with a crime?

What’s to stop the government from planting evidence in your residence to preclude you from taking civil action against them for an illegal search?

Chip on May 16, 2011 at 2:58 PM

These traitorous douche bags think because those things do not happen on a regular basis, that we do not need protection from it. History educates us to the fact that governments will engage in behavior that it is not restrained from doing. In Indiana it is now easier for the government employees to enter into a home, with or without reason, with no fear of reprisal, because in order to seek redress, the citizen has to seek it from the government courts who made the ruling to begin with. And as the one moron admitted, the police all know hoe to break and enter without getting caught. They will certainly figure out how to make every resistance to their illegal entry appear to be an over reaction by the citizen.

What the constitution limits the government from doing is stopping us from defending out rights. by violence if the situation calls for it. I do not need to meet an illegal entry by the government with equal force. I am born with the God given right to be secure in my home and if anyone is forcing their way in, I can use lethal force.

csdeven on May 16, 2011 at 3:15 PM

What’s to stop the government from harassing you simply because you have the wrong kind of political sign out on your lawn.

What’s to stop the government from searching your entire house to find something, anything in order to charge you with a crime?

What’s to stop the government from planting evidence in your residence to preclude you from taking civil action against them for an illegal search?

Chip on May 16, 2011 at 2:58 PM

The Fourth Amendment was written directly in response to British general warrants (called Writs of Assistance), in which the Crown would grant general search powers to British law enforcement official. These officials could search virtually any home they liked, at any time they liked, for any reason they liked or for no reason at all. Since many of the founding fathers were smugglers, this was an especially unpopular concept in the colonies.

Look how well it worked out for the British.

Roy Rogers on May 16, 2011 at 3:05 PM

You will notice that G M on May 16, 2011 at 3:05 PM was not forthcoming with a serious answer because she had none.

Typical troll behavior, when they know that answering the question consistent with their position on the matter will demolish their argument, they simply ignore it and try to distract on some sort of side issue.

Chip on May 16, 2011 at 3:15 PM

G M on May 16, 2011 at 3:12 PM

Stop stalling…..answer the constitutional question.

csdeven on May 16, 2011 at 3:16 PM

Did the founding fathers intend for there to be trials by jury or not?

G M on May 16, 2011 at 3:12 PM

And more importantly, when you’re directly challenged, and forced to think – you bow out without a word to defend your indefendable position.

So, how are you not a troll again??

KMC1 on May 16, 2011 at 3:17 PM

You will notice that G M on May 16, 2011 at 3:05 PM was not forthcoming with a serious answer because she had none.

Typical troll behavior, when they know that answering the question consistent with their position on the matter will demolish their argument, they simply ignore it and try to distract on some sort of side issue.

Chip on May 16, 2011 at 3:15 PM

Saul Alinsky did not prepare them for life outside the cell.

Roy Rogers on May 16, 2011 at 3:18 PM

Wondering which troll Ed “ban hammered” some time back this reincarnation is….

It came back with it’s posse of sock puppets…

Roy Rogers on May 16, 2011 at 3:20 PM

Who sits on a jury? Men (well, women too). If they find that what you did was justified, you’ll be aquitted, if they don’t….

G M on May 16, 2011 at 2:57 PM

You’re such a troll.

STOP with the violence fantasies.

It’s NOT. About. Violence.

KMC1 on May 16, 2011 at 3:03 PM

Let’s again look at the ruling:

We believe however that a right to resist an unlawful police entry into a home is against public policy and is incompatible with modern Fourth Amendment jurisprudence. Nowadays, an aggrieved arrestee has means unavailable at common law for redress against unlawful police action. E.g., Warner, supra, at 330 (citing the dangers of arrest at common law—indefinite detention, lack of bail, disease-infested prisons, physical torture—as reasons for recognizing the
5
right to resist); State v. Hobson, 577 N.W.2d 825, 835–36 (Wis. 1998) (citing the following modern developments: (1) bail, (2) prompt arraignment and determination of probable cause, (3) the exclusionary rule, (4) police department internal review and disciplinary procedure, and (5) civil remedies). 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—as evident by the facts of this instant case. E.g., Hobson, 577 N.W.2d at 836 (―But in arrest situations that are often ripe for rapid escalation, one‘s ‗measured‘ response may fast become excessive.‖). Further, we note that a warrant is not necessary for every entry into a home. For example, officers may enter the home if they are in ―hot pursuit‖ of the arrestee or if exigent circumstances justified the entry. E.g., United States v. Santana, 427 U.S. 38, 42–43 (1976) (holding that retreat into a defendant‘s house could not thwart an otherwise proper arrest made in the course of a ―hot pursuit‖); Holder v. State, 847 N.E.2d 930, 938 (Ind. 2006) (―Possible imminent destruction of evidence is one exigent circumstance that may justify a warrantless entry into a home if the fear on the part of the police that the evidence was immediately about to be destroyed is objectively reasonable.‖). Even with a warrant, officers may have acted in good faith in entering a home, only to find later that their entry was in error. E.g., Arizona v. Evans, 514 U.S. 1, 11 (1994); United States v. Leon, 468 U.S. 897, 922–25 (1984). In these situations, we find it unwise to allow a homeowner to adjudge the legality of police conduct in the heat of the moment. As we decline to recognize a right to resist unlawful police entry into a home, we decline to recognize a right to batter a police officer as a part of that resistance

G M on May 16, 2011 at 3:20 PM

If they find that what you did was justified, you’ll be aquitted, if they don’t….

G M on May 16, 2011 at 2:57 PM

Then you suffer the consequences.
See?
Was that so hard?
Under this ruling, you will notice that resisting the state is automatically criminal.
You have no right to do it, according to this ruling.
So even if a jury were to have found it justifiable & no punishment was warranted, it wouldn’t matter bcs the state considers you a criminal.
That was the whole point we were all making here.
Glad to see you finally get it.

Badger40 on May 16, 2011 at 3:21 PM

These traitorous douche bags think because those things do not happen on a regular basis, that we do not need protection from it. csdeven on May 16, 2011 at 3:15 PM

That is who they are in a nutshell.

Badger40 on May 16, 2011 at 3:23 PM

In these situations, we find it unwise to allow a homeowner to adjudge the legality of police conduct in the heat of the moment. As we decline to recognize a right to resist unlawful police entry into a home, we decline to recognize a right to batter a police officer as a part of that resistance

Just in case you missed it.

G M on May 16, 2011 at 3:23 PM

Roy Rogers on May 16, 2011 at 3:20 PM

Oh please. For the past 2-3 pages it’s almost exclusively been you and a few others against GM, plus csdeven posting like a cuckoo clock.

Uncle Sams Nephew on May 16, 2011 at 3:24 PM

Uncle Sams Nephew on May 16, 2011 at 3:24 PM

I KNEW we could count on you sock!

Roy Rogers on May 16, 2011 at 3:26 PM

So, those of you who assert you have the right to batter a police officer because in the heat of the moment you judge he/she is there wrongly, you don’t.

G M on May 16, 2011 at 3:26 PM

Saul Alinsky RULE 8: “Keep the pressure on. Never let up.” Keep trying new things to keep the opposition off balance. As the opposition masters one approach, hit them from the flank with something new. (Attack, attack, attack from all sides, never giving the reeling organization a chance to rest, regroup, recover and re-strategize.)

Yawn…

Roy Rogers on May 16, 2011 at 3:27 PM

Make your choices and live with the consequences.

G M on May 16, 2011 at 3:27 PM

I KNEW we could count on you sock!

Roy Rogers on May 16, 2011 at 3:26 PM

To call you and your band of merry morons on your BS? Certainly.

Uncle Sams Nephew on May 16, 2011 at 3:28 PM

Make your choices and live or die with the consequences.

G M on May 16, 2011 at 3:27 PM

Fixed.

Uncle Sams Nephew on May 16, 2011 at 3:28 PM

Unless the public at large agrees with you, you’ll not enjoy the consequences of this decision-making. Lots of people have tried claiming revolutionary status while shooting it out with the police. Mumia Abu Jamal, still on death row.

G M on May 16, 2011 at 2:44 PM

These are the people who think histroy cannot ever repeat itself.

Badger40 on May 16, 2011 at 2:42 PM

They believe communism never succeeded because we never gave it a fair chance.

Roy Rogers on May 16, 2011 at 2:44 PM
We are the people who can rationally determine the difference between America in 2011 and a totalitarian police state. Sorry you can’t. So when are you leaving?

G M on May 16, 2011 at 2:46 PM

First of all, it doesn’t matter if the public at large believes in unConstitutional rulings or not.
It doesn’t matter if the majority of the public thinks it’s OK for the state to commit illegal acts against you or not.
It doesn’t matter if the majority of the public believes it’s OK to deny the 2nd Ammendment right to bear arms or not.
The Constitution prevents the majority from usurping the rights of the minority.
That is also why we are a representative democratic Republic, & not just a Democracy.
You rationalize the usurpation of the freedom to self defense, by stating that the courts are there to make up for it, etc. ad nauseum.
You are for the restriction of Constitutional rights for some measure of what you think is safety, when in reality, it makes self defense itself a criminal act.

Badger40 on May 16, 2011 at 3:29 PM

Make your choices and live or die with the consequences.

G M on May 16, 2011 at 3:27 PM
Fixed.

Uncle Sams Nephew on May 16, 2011 at 3:28 PM

You do realize that according to your logic here, this recent ruling is not necessary.
Bcs that’s the way things have been all along.
Let the individual decide if they want to act or not.
This ruling doesn’t make anyone safer.
Bcs citizens were not just willy nilly shooting it out with the state before this came down from on high.
This just criminalizes honest citizens from making a decision to engage in self defense, if it were to ever happen.

Badger40 on May 16, 2011 at 3:32 PM

So when are you leaving?

G M on May 16, 2011 at 2:46 PM

I don’t think we live in a police state. I never said we did.
So why is it that you think I should be leaving my beloved country?
What is wrong with you?
I never asked you to leave America.
You’re sick.

Badger40 on May 16, 2011 at 3:33 PM

Long and short of it: you don’t ‘win’ jack $hit by refighting the Alamo in your own house.

Uncle Sams Nephew on May 16, 2011 at 2:33 PM

The issue is my right to do it. If everyone knows that I am legally allowed to shoot anyone who enters my house illegally, then it is likely those who value their own lives will shy away. Removing the right (whether it’s a good idea for the citizens to resist or not) removes the risk for the police to abuse their power.

Your Alamo analogy is interesting. Are you saying the Texans at the Alamo didn’t need to protect themselves or are you implying that their stand was meaningless? After all, it didn’t help any of them to make that stand. Of course the other Texans sure appreciated it.

The point is the government SHOULD BE AFRAID OF THE PEOPLE, not the other way around. The police should be extremely careful to have all there i’s and t’s dotted when entering a house with a warrant. I want them to walk on egg shells when entering the house, knowing that they are violating the sanctity of another person’s God-given rights (even if it is legal). I also want them to be very cautious when entering under “exigent circumstances.” As a matter of fact, these types of entry should be very rare and very clear. Personally, I’m against the “prevent destruction of evidence” clause and hope it someday gets repealed. Most cases it deals with drugs, be more careful and get a warrant and you won’t have to worry about it. Murder, rape, and serious crimes are already covered. The “evidence” clause is far too fudge-able.

Police = government. They should fear and respect the people, not the other way around.

Pattosensei on May 16, 2011 at 3:34 PM

You are for the restriction of Constitutional rights for some measure of what you think is safety, when in reality, it makes self defense itself a criminal act.

Badger40 on May 16, 2011 at 3:29 PM

As much as you might not agree with it, your opinion of what is or is not contitutional carries little to no weight. You can express your opinion and vote, but it’s a judge and jury that decides the merits of a case, not you.

Pick a better country and move there if you think you are oppressed here.

G M on May 16, 2011 at 3:36 PM

What the constitution limits the government from doing is stopping us from defending out rights. by violence if the situation calls for it. I do not need to meet an illegal entry by the government with equal force. I am born with the God given right to be secure in my home and if anyone is forcing their way in, I can use lethal force.

csdeven on May 16, 2011 at 3:15 PM

As I said before, GM doesn’t dare answer those questions because they demolish her argument.

It would be exceedingly difficult to seek civil action in court if you are shot attempting to stop someone from breaking into your house.

Bu she doesn’t dare answer these questions because it puts her argument in a precarious position.

That should be enough to convince anyone here that her argument is full of holes.

But let’s see if she dares answer something for once.

Chip on May 16, 2011 at 3:40 PM

The issue is my right to do it. If everyone knows that I am legally allowed to shoot anyone who enters my house illegally, then it is likely those who value their own lives will shy away. Removing the right (whether it’s a good idea for the citizens to resist or not) removes the risk for the police to abuse their power.

Tactical teams make entry into fortified drug houses filled with weapons and violent felons willing to use them, yet the vast majority of the time, no shots are fired and all the bad guys are secured on the floor with zip ties before they can figure out what happened.

But it would be different with you, right?

G M on May 16, 2011 at 3:40 PM

As much as you might not agree with it, your opinion of what is or is not contitutional carries little to no weight.

G M on May 16, 2011 at 3:36 PM

We spell Constitutional with a capital C around here.

And your opinion reminds me of the comparison of excuses and azzholes.

Roy Rogers on May 16, 2011 at 3:41 PM

As I said before, GM doesn’t dare answer those questions because they demolish her argument.

It would be exceedingly difficult to seek civil action in court if you are shot attempting to stop someone from breaking into your house.

Bu she doesn’t dare answer these questions because it puts her argument in a precarious position.

That should be enough to convince anyone here that her argument is full of holes.

But let’s see if she dares answer something for once.

Chip on May 16, 2011 at 3:40 PM

The court already answered it.

In these situations, we find it unwise to allow a homeowner to adjudge the legality of police conduct in the heat of the moment. As we decline to recognize a right to resist unlawful police entry into a home, we decline to recognize a right to batter a police officer as a part of that resistance.

G M on May 16, 2011 at 3:41 PM

G M on May 16, 2011 at 3:20 PM

Stop stalling…..answer the constitutional question.

csdeven on May 16, 2011 at 3:42 PM

As much as you might not agree with it, your opinion of what is or is not contitutional carries little to no weight.

G M on May 16, 2011 at 3:36 PM

We spell Constitutional with a capital C around here.

And your opinion reminds me of the comparison of excuses and azzholes.

Roy Rogers on May 16, 2011 at 3:41 PM

Everyone is born with a Roy Rogers?

G M on May 16, 2011 at 3:43 PM

G M on May 16, 2011 at 3:23 PM

Stop stalling…..answer the constitutional question.

csdeven on May 16, 2011 at 3:43 PM

G M on May 16, 2011 at 3:26 PM

Stop stalling…..answer the constitutional question.

csdeven on May 16, 2011 at 3:44 PM

G M on May 16, 2011 at 3:23 PM

Stop stalling…..answer the constitutional question.

csdeven on May 16, 2011 at 3:43 PM

In these situations, we find it unwise to allow a homeowner to adjudge the legality of police conduct in the heat of the moment. As we decline to recognize a right to resist unlawful police entry into a home, we decline to recognize a right to batter a police officer as a part of that resistance.

G M on May 16, 2011 at 3:44 PM

G M on May 16, 2011 at 3:36 PM

Stop stalling…..answer the constitutional question.

csdeven on May 16, 2011 at 3:45 PM

G M on May 16, 2011 at 3:40 PM

Stop stalling…..answer the constitutional question.

csdeven on May 16, 2011 at 3:45 PM

In these situations, we find it unwise to allow a homeowner to adjudge the legality of police conduct in the heat of the moment. As we decline to recognize a right to resist unlawful police entry into a home, we decline to recognize a right to batter a police officer as a part of that resistance.

G M on May 16, 2011 at 3:45 PM

G M on May 16, 2011 at 3:41 PM

Stop stalling…..answer the constitutional question.

csdeven on May 16, 2011 at 3:46 PM

Every real American is born with a Roy Rogers love of freedom, pride in our country, and confidence in our strength.

G M on May 16, 2011 at 3:43 PM

Fixed it for you, not that you’d understand.

Maybe next year when you are forced to take high school history.

Roy Rogers on May 16, 2011 at 3:46 PM

In these situations, we find it unwise to allow a homeowner to adjudge the legality of police conduct in the heat of the moment. As we decline to recognize a right to resist unlawful police entry into a home, we decline to recognize a right to batter a police officer as a part of that resistance.

G M on May 16, 2011 at 3:46 PM

G M on May 16, 2011 at 3:43 PM

Stop stalling…..answer the constitutional question.

csdeven on May 16, 2011 at 3:47 PM

The court already answered it.

In these situations, we find it unwise to allow a homeowner to adjudge the legality of police conduct in the heat of the moment. As we decline to recognize a right to resist unlawful police entry into a home, we decline to recognize a right to batter a police officer as a part of that resistance.

G M on May 16, 2011 at 3:41 PM

How does that answer the questions:

What’s to stop the government from harassing you simply because you have the wrong kind of political sign out on your lawn.

What’s to stop the government from searching your entire house to find something, anything in order to charge you with a crime?

What’s to stop the government from planting evidence in your residence to preclude you from taking civil action against them for an illegal search?

Try those on for size.

Chip on May 16, 2011 at 3:47 PM

G M on May 16, 2011 at 3:44 PM

Stop stalling…..answer the constitutional question.

csdeven on May 16, 2011 at 3:47 PM

G M on May 16, 2011 at 3:45 PM

Stop stalling…..answer the constitutional question.

csdeven on May 16, 2011 at 3:47 PM

Fixed it for you, not that you’d understand.

Maybe next year when you are forced to take high school history.

Roy Rogers on May 16, 2011 at 3:46 PM

Gee mister, are you the real Captain America?

G M on May 16, 2011 at 3:48 PM

G M on May 16, 2011 at 3:46 PM

Stop stalling…..answer the constitutional question.

csdeven on May 16, 2011 at 3:48 PM

G M on May 16, 2011 at 3:48 PM

Stop stalling…..answer the constitutional question.

csdeven on May 16, 2011 at 3:48 PM

In these situations, we find it unwise to allow a homeowner to adjudge the legality of police conduct in the heat of the moment. As we decline to recognize a right to resist unlawful police entry into a home, we decline to recognize a right to batter a police officer as a part of that resistance.

G M on May 16, 2011 at 3:49 PM

we decline to recognize a right to batter a police officer as a part of that resistance.

Chip on May 16, 2011 at 3:47 PM

They declined to recognize the constitutional right we have to protect ourselves against the police state.

Yep, that is the best argument these traitors have.

csdeven on May 16, 2011 at 3:51 PM

G M on May 16, 2011 at 3:49 PM

Stop stalling…..answer the constitutional question.

csdeven on May 16, 2011 at 3:51 PM

In what sort of scenario? If you had a real “Warsaw Ghetto” scenario, where the SS was going to put you and your family on a cattle car to a death camp, then yes. You have nothing to lose anyway under those circumstances. If you are Kulak in under Stalin, fight against the KGB.

American law enforcement in 2011 is not the SS or the KGB. Hysterical police state chicken-littleism isn’t rational or productive.

G M on May 16, 2011 at 12:19 PM

In other words, no, you don’t believe that Americans have the right to resist illegal home entries. Got it.

That’s all you had to say, dude.

holygoat on May 16, 2011 at 3:51 PM

You are for the restriction of Constitutional rights for some measure of what you think is safety, when in reality, it makes self defense itself a criminal act.

Badger40 on May 16, 2011 at 3:29 PM
As much as you might not agree with it, your opinion of what is or is not contitutional carries little to no weight. You can express your opinion and vote, but it’s a judge and jury that decides the merits of a case, not you.

Pick a better country and move there if you think you are oppressed here.

G M on May 16, 2011 at 3:36 PM

I never said I thought I was being oppressed.
I have every right to decide whether I want to use violence to resist any violence that is being directed at me, whether it’s by the state, agents of the state, etc.
This is what is at issue.
Your insults for me to pick up & run from America if I don’t agree with YOUR opinion just shows you for what you really are: a progressive liberal.

Badger40 on May 16, 2011 at 3:53 PM

What’s to stop the government from harassing you simply because you have the wrong kind of political sign out on your lawn.

What’s to stop the government from searching your entire house to find something, anything in order to charge you with a crime?

What’s to stop the government from planting evidence in your residence to preclude you from taking civil action against them for an illegal search?

Try those on for size.

Chip on May 16, 2011 at 3:47 PM

If a government is so oppressive and corrupt as to plant evidence on you, how exactly do you think you’ll win by violent resistance? Do you live in a place where this happens? Do you have proof of that?

G M on May 16, 2011 at 3:53 PM

Gee mister, are you the real Captain America?

G M on May 16, 2011 at 3:48 PM

Not doing a very good job teaching American history at the madrassa, eh?

Still sore about those Mohamed cartoons?

Roy Rogers on May 16, 2011 at 3:53 PM

In these situations, we find it unwise to allow a homeowner to adjudge the legality of police conduct in the heat of the moment. As we decline to recognize a right to resist unlawful police entry into a home,

GM – you’re exposing yourself as a nitwit. Just thought you’d like to know.
And this quote from the decision is all you need to post, as this specifically states it has NOTHING to do with violence.

It’s a clear violation of the 4th Amendment, and a terrible freedom to endanger as well.

KMC1 on May 16, 2011 at 3:55 PM

I have every right to decide whether I want to use violence to resist any violence that is being directed at me, whether it’s by the state, agents of the state, etc.
This is what is at issue.
Your insults for me to pick up & run from America if I don’t agree with YOUR opinion just shows you for what you really are: a progressive liberal.

Badger40 on May 16, 2011 at 3:53 PM

Decide anything you want and then face the consequences for those decisions. It won’t turn out like your imagination tells you.

G M on May 16, 2011 at 3:55 PM

What’s to stop the government from harassing you simply because you have the wrong kind of political sign out on your lawn.
What’s to stop the government from searching your entire house to find something, anything in order to charge you with a crime?
What’s to stop the government from planting evidence in your residence to preclude you from taking civil action against them for an illegal search?
Try those on for size.

Chip on May 16, 2011 at 3:47 PM

Evidently that can never happen in America.
And if it does, well just go to court.
Bcs we all know that every court case metes out true justice.
Personally, I’m sure it happens a lot more than people like GM thinks it does.
But he/she would just say you’re paranoid & that you should just leave if you don’t like them apples.

Badger40 on May 16, 2011 at 3:56 PM

Uncle Sams Nephew on May 16, 2011 at 3:24 PM

Stop stalling…..answer the constitutional question.

csdeven on May 16, 2011 at 3:56 PM

As we decline to recognize a right to resist unlawful police entry into a home, we decline to recognize a right to batter a police officer as a part of that resistance.

G M on May 16, 2011 at 3:41 PM

Okay, let’s cut to the chase, since you can’t resist unlawful police entry into a home then there is nothing to stop:

The government from harassing you simply because you have the wrong kind of political sign out on your lawn.

And stop the government from searching your entire house to find something, anything in order to charge you with a crime?

And stop the government from planting evidence in your residence to preclude you from taking civil action against them for an illegal search?

Correct ? GM (Yes or No)

Chip on May 16, 2011 at 3:56 PM

Gee mister, are you the real Captain America?

G M on May 16, 2011 at 3:48 PM

Not doing a very good job teaching American history at the madrassa, eh?

Still sore about those Mohamed cartoons?

Roy Rogers on May 16, 2011 at 3:53 PM

I liked the one with the bomb-turban.

G M on May 16, 2011 at 3:56 PM

G M on May 16, 2011 at 3:53 PM

Stop stalling…..answer the constitutional question.

csdeven on May 16, 2011 at 3:57 PM

csdeven on May 16, 2011 at 3:56 PM

Yep

Roy Rogers on May 16, 2011 at 3:57 PM

G M on May 16, 2011 at 3:55 PM

Stop stalling…..answer the constitutional question.

csdeven on May 16, 2011 at 3:58 PM

G M on May 16, 2011 at 3:56 PM

Stop stalling…..answer the constitutional question.

csdeven on May 16, 2011 at 3:58 PM

I liked the one with the bomb-turban.

G M on May 16, 2011 at 3:56 PM

I liked the one where Obama was giving him a bow job.

Seemed so “progressive”.

Roy Rogers on May 16, 2011 at 3:58 PM

And stop the government from planting evidence in your residence to preclude you from taking civil action against them for an illegal search?

Again, if the gov’t is that corrupt and oppressive, exactly what do you think you’ll do about it? Are you an action hero?

G M on May 16, 2011 at 3:58 PM

G M on May 16, 2011 at 3:58 PM

Stop stalling…..answer the constitutional question.

csdeven on May 16, 2011 at 3:59 PM

Decide anything you want and then face the consequences for those decisions. It won’t turn out like your imagination tells you.

G M on May 16, 2011 at 3:55 PM

Certainly.
I want the right to be able to decide for myself what means I need to use to protect myself.
Again, the ruling makes self defense against the state criminal.
You just evidently cannot wrap your mind around the implications of such a thing.
When the state can do anything it wants to you & provides only it’s own courts for you to address any wrongdoing done by the state, you have effectively monopolized & locked up whatever justice a citizen can ever hope to get, if such a situation were to arise.
Everyone has a right to self defense.
No matter if it against the state, or another citizen.
And it is then up to the courts to decide, perhaps via a jury of our peers, if the actions were warranted.
This ruling is not necessary at all.

Badger40 on May 16, 2011 at 3:59 PM

I liked the one where Obama was giving him a bow job.

Seemed so “progressive”.

Roy Rogers on May 16, 2011 at 3:58 PM

I missed that one.

G M on May 16, 2011 at 4:00 PM

Again, if the gov’t is that corrupt and oppressive, exactly what do you think you’ll do about it? Are you an action hero?

G M on May 16, 2011 at 3:58 PM

No one said it necessarily was all of the time.
Are you insinuating it never is, has been, or ever will be?

Badger40 on May 16, 2011 at 4:00 PM

Comment pages: 1 10 11 12 13 14