User Panel
User Panel
User Panel
|
Posted: 3/30/2015 9:47:55 AM EDT
[#1]
I think Indiana passed a law that would make it legal for us to defend or homes against such a thing.
|
|
|
|
Posted: 3/30/2015 9:49:55 AM EDT
[#2]
Should have listed them as "Do'h" instead of "Doe..".
|
|
|
|
Posted: 3/30/2015 9:50:44 AM EDT
[#3]
I think an actual jury would have come to a different conclusion.
|
|
|
|
Posted: 3/30/2015 9:51:06 AM EDT
[#4]
Not a fledgling police state, nope.
The fact that officers even believed they COULD do that without a prior ruling tells you that LEAs use the Constitution for a doormat. |
|
|
|
Posted: 3/30/2015 9:51:07 AM EDT
[#5]
Well, if you have nothing to hide...
|
|
|
|
Posted: 3/30/2015 9:52:03 AM EDT
[#6]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
I think Indiana passed a law that would make it legal for us to defend or homes against such a thing. I'm pretty fucking sure its already covered in the Constitution. Regardless, when it comes to my domicile, I am 100% in the 'shoot first, ask questions later (if at all)' camp when it comes to anyone kicking in my door. |
|
|
|
Posted: 3/30/2015 9:52:04 AM EDT
[#7]
This is just common sense folks. Come on!
|
|
|
|
Posted: 3/30/2015 9:52:58 AM EDT
[#8]
Such a decision needs to be overturned. Of course, we're spiraling into a fascist state as witnessed by the Pat-Ryet Act and the NDAA '12 (passed Dec. 30, 2011).
|
|
|
|
Posted: 3/30/2015 9:53:19 AM EDT
[#9]
I hope they're prepared to take it by force.
|
|
|
|
Posted: 3/30/2015 9:55:33 AM EDT
[#10]
I'm going to put in a placeholder just to see how many folks don't actually read the ruling. Be back around page 40 or so.
|
|
|
|
Posted: 3/30/2015 9:55:48 AM EDT
[#11]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
Well, if you have nothing to hide... Your kidding right? |
|
|
|
Posted: 3/30/2015 9:55:57 AM EDT
[#12]
I weep for my children's future.
This is not going to go well. |
|
|
|
Posted: 3/30/2015 9:56:20 AM EDT
[#13]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
I hope they're prepared to take it by force. Actually, they are. It's a SWAT TEAM. 
|
|
|
|
Posted: 3/30/2015 9:56:53 AM EDT
[#14]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
I hope they're prepared to take it by force. be assured, they are |
|
|
|
Posted: 3/30/2015 9:57:07 AM EDT
[#15]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
I'm going to put in a placeholder just to see how many floks don't actually read the ruling. Be back around page 40 or so. Link us to the ruling before you go. So far, based on the description, it sounds like they saw someone pointing a thing at them through the window and believed it was a firearm. |
|
|
|
Posted: 3/30/2015 9:57:53 AM EDT
[#16]
|
|
|
|
Posted: 3/30/2015 9:58:25 AM EDT
[#17]
Police can do anything they want......I thought I lived in a free country, just make some thing illegal legal so officers can do whatever they want whenever they want...I'm sorry if someone kicks my door in at anytime I'm responding as if it's a home invasion
|
|
|
|
Posted: 3/30/2015 9:58:39 AM EDT
[#18]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
I think Indiana passed a law that would make it legal for us to defend or homes against such a thing. No. Indiana passed a law that protects homeowners in the tragic scenario where a no knock warrant is served at the wrong address and the homeowner accidentally shoots and or kills a police officer because they had no reason to suspect the police would be raiding their house and thought it was intruders. If the homeowner sees and acknowledges that is indeed police entering their home they will fave murder charges. Posted Via AR15.Com Mobile |
|
|
|
Posted: 3/30/2015 9:58:49 AM EDT
[#19]
FROM MY CHEETO DUST STAINED HANDS!!1!!1!!!
|
|
|
|
Posted: 3/30/2015 9:58:55 AM EDT
[#20]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
I'm pretty fucking sure its already covered in the Constitution. Regardless, when it comes to my domicile, I am 100% in the 'shoot first, ask questions later (if at all)' camp when it comes to anyone kicking in my door. Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
I think Indiana passed a law that would make it legal for us to defend or homes against such a thing. I'm pretty fucking sure its already covered in the Constitution. Regardless, when it comes to my domicile, I am 100% in the 'shoot first, ask questions later (if at all)' camp when it comes to anyone kicking in my door. You're absolutely right. Unfortunately you'd end up dreaded if swat decided they wanted your house one day. |
|
|
|
Posted: 3/30/2015 9:58:59 AM EDT
[#21]
Quoted: link The only pretext a SWAT team needs to temporarily seize your property is to use it as an observation post in an emergency situation, a federal judge in Nevada has ruled. Police even have the right to smash down your door with a battering ram without a warrant and shoot you with pepper balls in order to take over your property, US District Court Judge Andrew Gordon concluded in a case called Anthony Mitchell v. City of Henderson. Mitchell and his parents sued the city of Henderson, a Las Vegas suburb, because of events on July 10, 2013. "Doe Officers 1-10 pointed firearms at the Plaintiffs through their windows and at the homes of several neighbors,” Gordon wrote. "When Michael photographed Doe Officer 1 — a member of the NLVPD SWAT team — through a window of Michael’s home, that officer pointed his firearm at Michael.” The officers are called Doe because they are not identified in the complaint. NLVPD refers to the North Las Vegas Police Department. "Doe Officers 1-10 … then shot Anthony with ‘pepperball’ rounds at close range,” Gordon wrote. A pepperball is a non-lethal projectile made from chili pepper that some law enforcement agencies use. "The officers also shot Anthony’s dog Sam, who had been cowering in the corner of the room, with at least one ‘pepperball’ round. Sam panicked, howled in pain, and fled from the house. He ended up trapped in a fenced alcove in the backyard without food or water for nearly the entire day in 100-degree heat.” Approximately 30 minutes later, Doe Officers 21-30 entered the Parents’ backyard, again without a warrant or permission,” Gordon wrote. "The officers knocked on the back door and demanded that Linda open the door. Linda complied, but told them that they could not enter without a warrant. The officers ignored her, entered through the back door, and began searching the home. Doe Officer 21 (a female) forcibly grabbed Linda, began to pull her out of the house, seized her purse and ‘began rummaging through it’ without consent.” Anthony and Michael Mitchell were arrested on charges of obstructing an officer and held in jail for the night. The charges against them were later dropped. What in the world is going on? Most city police are out of control? That's what's going on. |
|
|
|
Posted: 3/30/2015 9:59:11 AM EDT
[#22]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
I'm going to put in a placeholder just to see how many folks don't actually read the ruling. Be back around page 40 or so. Do SWAT teams receive federal money and training? I read the ruling and disagree with it. |
|
|
|
Posted: 3/30/2015 9:59:49 AM EDT
[#23]
To think that the Third Amendment does not prohibit this is the same as thinking that the Second Amendment means that the only National Guard should be armed.
|
|
|
|
Posted: 3/30/2015 10:00:25 AM EDT
[#24]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
Police can do anything they want......I thought I lived in a free country, just make some thing illegal legal so officers can do whatever they want whenever they want...I'm sorry if someone kicks my door in at anytime I'm responding as if it's a home invasion Notice how nobody ever says "It's a free country" anymore? |
|
|
|
Posted: 3/30/2015 10:00:45 AM EDT
[#25]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
To think that the Third Amendment does not prohibit this is the same as thinking that the Second Amendment means that the only National Guard should be armed. Police aren't soldiers. Edit: By the way, the 3rd allows for soldiers to be quartered in people's homes. Read it all the way through.
|
|
|
|
Posted: 3/30/2015 10:01:50 AM EDT
[#26]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
Police aren't soldiers. Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
To think that the Third Amendment does not prohibit this is the same as thinking that the Second Amendment means that the only National Guard should be armed. Police aren't soldiers. That's quickly becoming a distinction without a difference. |
|
|
|
Posted: 3/30/2015 10:03:30 AM EDT
[#27]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
Actually, they are. It's a SWAT TEAM. Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
I hope they're prepared to take it by force. Actually, they are. It's a SWAT TEAM. Prepared would also mean mentally. Unless you also mean that a SWAT team is mentally prepared to use force to take an innocent man's house as an observation post. Although I think we all know the answer to that. |
|
|
|
Posted: 3/30/2015 10:03:53 AM EDT
[#28]
Quote HistoryQuoted: Actually, they are. It's a SWAT TEAM. Quote HistoryQuoted: Quoted: I hope they're prepared to take it by force. Actually, they are. It's a SWAT TEAM. I bet i have more ammo  |
|
|
|
Posted: 3/30/2015 10:03:58 AM EDT
[#29]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
That's quickly becoming a distinction without a difference. Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
To think that the Third Amendment does not prohibit this is the same as thinking that the Second Amendment means that the only National Guard should be armed. Police aren't soldiers. That's quickly becoming a distinction without a difference. Not really. |
|
|
|
Posted: 3/30/2015 10:04:15 AM EDT
[#30]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
Police aren't soldiers. Edit: By the way, the 3rd allows for soldiers to be quartered in people's homes. Read it all the way through. Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
To think that the Third Amendment does not prohibit this is the same as thinking that the Second Amendment means that the only National Guard should be armed. Police aren't soldiers. Edit: By the way, the 3rd allows for soldiers to be quartered in people's homes. Read it all the way through. Police aren't soldiers. |
|
|
|
Posted: 3/30/2015 10:04:33 AM EDT
[#31]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
I'm going to put in a placeholder just to see how many folks don't actually read the ruling. Be back around page 40 or so. Care to share with the class? seems like they clearly violated the 4th amendment when they searched the houses they where supposedly only using as an observation post in an emergency situation (a legitimate reason to enter a home). |
|
|
|
Posted: 3/30/2015 10:06:24 AM EDT
[#32]
Quote HistoryQuoted: Care to share with the class? seems like they clearly violated the 4th amendment when they searched the houses they where supposedly only using as an observation post in an emergency situation (a legitimate reason to enter a home). Quote HistoryQuoted: Quoted: I'm going to put in a placeholder just to see how many folks don't actually read the ruling. Be back around page 40 or so. Care to share with the class? seems like they clearly violated the 4th amendment when they searched the houses they where supposedly only using as an observation post in an emergency situation (a legitimate reason to enter a home). The judge dismissed the case, I have no idea what ruling he's talking about. He loves his police state, however. |
|
|
|
Posted: 3/30/2015 10:06:38 AM EDT
[#33]
|
|
|
|
Posted: 3/30/2015 10:07:30 AM EDT
[#34]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
I'm going to put in a placeholder just to see how many folks don't actually read the ruling. Be back around page 40 or so. Link it when you find it. 
|
|
|
|
Posted: 3/30/2015 10:07:32 AM EDT
[#35]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
That's quickly becoming a distinction without a difference. Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
To think that the Third Amendment does not prohibit this is the same as thinking that the Second Amendment means that the only National Guard should be armed. Police aren't soldiers. That's quickly becoming a distinction without a difference. You are correct that it is a mild distinction. Looking at it from the FF's POV, at the time the British Soldiers were actually the king's LEOs. |
|
|
|
Posted: 3/30/2015 10:08:49 AM EDT
[#36]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
Not really. Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
To think that the Third Amendment does not prohibit this is the same as thinking that the Second Amendment means that the only National Guard should be armed. Police aren't soldiers. That's quickly becoming a distinction without a difference. Not really. Do you believe the founding fathers meant that all manner of government agents could be quartered in citizens' homes but only if they reported to the Department of Defense they are prohibited? |
|
|
|
Posted: 3/30/2015 10:09:14 AM EDT
[#37]
3rd amendment does not apply to police, dumb legal theory is that all they sued for?
|
|
|
|
Posted: 3/30/2015 10:09:14 AM EDT
[#38]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
Your kidding right? Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
Well, if you have nothing to hide... Your kidding right? "If you have nothing to hide, you have nothing to fear." is a quote attributed to Joseph Goebbles in 1933 but with no reference. While I'm certain that the phrase has been used many times prior to this, we have another attribution with context that cites Upton Sinclair. Not merely was my own mail opened, but the mail of all my relatives and friends—people residing in places as far apart as California and Florida. I recall the bland smile of a government official to whom I complained about this matter: ‘If you have nothing to hide you have nothing to fear.’ I'm relatively certain that it's meant sarcastically every time I see it here in GD. |
|
|
|
Posted: 3/30/2015 10:09:15 AM EDT
[#39]
|
|
|
|
Posted: 3/30/2015 10:09:45 AM EDT
[#40]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
Your kidding right? Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
Well, if you have nothing to hide... Your kidding right? Duh 
|
|
|
|
Posted: 3/30/2015 10:10:44 AM EDT
[#41]
No, they really can't, at least not the first few.
I doubt you will have too many teams willing after the first dozen or so are killed. |
|
|
|
Posted: 3/30/2015 10:11:13 AM EDT
[#42]
Quote HistoryQuoted: 3rd amendment does not apply to police, dumb legal theory is that all they sued for? Try actually reading the article. |
|
|
|
Posted: 3/30/2015 10:11:18 AM EDT
[#43]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
I'm going to put in a placeholder just to see how many folks don't actually read the ruling. Be back around page 40 or so. No one will, just like no one did back when the ruling first came out. |
|
|
|
Posted: 3/30/2015 10:12:14 AM EDT
[#44]
Says the police have their own version of events
|
|
|
|
Posted: 3/30/2015 10:12:32 AM EDT
[#45]
well.... since my new in ground house i will be building will be made of poured 10" thick concrete...( seriously).... i guess i will have to get a nice door to match.
knock knock knock me.......who is it?!?! swat......sherriffs dept swat ! we need your house to use as a op. open up, or we will bust the door down. 
|
|
|
|
Posted: 3/30/2015 10:13:08 AM EDT
[#46]
This was the case in which the complaint filed the case on violation of the 3rd Amendment.
No Soldier shall, in time of peace be quartered in any house, without the consent of the Owner, nor in time of war, but in a manner to be prescribed by law. Yeah... hence why it was ruled against the complaint. |
|
|
|
Posted: 3/30/2015 10:13:14 AM EDT
[#47]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
3rd amendment does not apply to police, dumb legal theory is that all they sued for? No, they also sued for a quite a few other things, many of which are still proceeding, like 1st and 4th amendment violation claims. |
|
|
|
Posted: 3/30/2015 10:14:29 AM EDT
[#48]
That guy got the "when keepin' it real goes wrong" lesson...twice.
Idiot. |
|
|
|
Posted: 3/30/2015 10:14:36 AM EDT
[#49]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
Link it when you find it.
Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
I'm going to put in a placeholder just to see how many folks don't actually read the ruling. Be back around page 40 or so. Link it when you find it.
Clink on the little PDF symbol next to the number 48 to download it. http://www.plainsite.org/dockets/trquaiui/nevada-district-court/mitchell-et-al-v-city-of-henderson-nevada-et-al/ |
|
|
|
Posted: 3/30/2015 10:17:19 AM EDT
[#50]
I really don't mean to sound cynical, but police are going to get shot over this, and then what? Americans are already very grumpy thanks to Obama The Great Divider. I know if someone broke into my home without issuing a warrant I will immediately go into defensive mode. I have a family to think about. I'm pretty sure our Founding Fathers would not support this garbage.
|
|
|
Win a FREE Membership!
Sign up for the ARFCOM weekly newsletter and be entered to win a free ARFCOM membership. One new winner* is announced every week!
You will receive an email every Friday morning featuring the latest chatter from the hottest topics, breaking news surrounding legislation, as well as exclusive deals only available to ARFCOM email subscribers.
AR15.COM is the world's largest firearm community and is a gathering place for firearm enthusiasts of all types.
From hunters and military members, to competition shooters and general firearm enthusiasts, we welcome anyone who values and respects the way of the firearm.
Subscribe to our monthly Newsletter to receive firearm news, product discounts from your favorite Industry Partners, and more.
Copyright © 1996-2024 AR15.COM LLC. All Rights Reserved.
Any use of this content without express written consent is prohibited.
AR15.Com reserves the right to overwrite or replace any affiliate, commercial, or monetizable links, posted by users, with our own.
