Posted: 5/27/2011 4:49:49 AM EDT
|
After the unconstitutional Indiana Supreme Court ruling removing the protections of the 4th Amendment, the people of Indiana spontaneously organized in a trans-partisan alliance uniting for the Constitution at their state capitol.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HhUhrlcSlQg&feature=player_embedded#at=70 . |
| Not to be crass, but who gives a shit? Do you think this will really inspire lawmakers to unfuck that situation? Just like tea party rallies, sure everybody goes and feels empowered and reaffirmed in their pseudo-libertarian little thought bubbles, but when it's time to take out the trash....crickets. |
| It will (should) get overturned by the USSC. While it was the wrong decision by the state (never heard of any real issues except a domestic issue that caused them to make this ruling) the police still have to have PC or a warrent to enter your home. If they do not they are subject to a civil suit and if the police have no PC or warrent then it would be pretty brazen of the prosecutor to try to charge you or a jury to convict you when they are that far out of the law. |
|
We're optimistic about reversing the decisison. Governor, state attorney general, and several congressmen/senators are all asking "WTF?" Indiana attorney general is noting that Indiana has a castle doctrine law passed several years ago which basically provides prima facie defense if an intruder enters your home uninvited and you injure/kill him. No one brought up the castle doctrine in the argument before the state supreme court on this case, so the attorney general has asked for a reconsideration so that issue may be addressed. He feels the castle doctrine law should trump the court's current decision. ––Gene |
|
Quoted:
Quoted:
40 other states have the same rules What's your point? I think he's pointing out that it's not the crazy infringement of the 4th that people seem to think it is. You can't shoot cops that enter your home without a warrant. That means exactly jack and squat in relation to the 4th amendment. Nothing about the 4th amendment has changed. |
|
It leaves the citizen in an ugly position when we're increasingly seeing bad guys yell "Police" as they barge into homes in an effort to confuse and/or intimidate the homeowner into not resisiting. And now you have the state Supreme Court saying you have no right to resist a warrantless police invasion, so you're basically paralyzed if bad guys are willing to impersonate police. ––Gene |
|
Quoted:
Do you think this will really inspire lawmakers to unfuck that situation? You clearly know nothing about the Indiana General Assembly. It has fixed mistakes by the courts in the past ( this year, in fact) and has been friendly to the rights of citizens recently. |
|
Quoted:
It will (should) get overturned by the USSC. While it was the wrong decision by the state (never heard of any real issues except a domestic issue that caused them to make this ruling) the police still have to have PC or a warrent to enter your home. If they do not they are subject to a civil suit and if the police have no PC or warrent then it would be pretty brazen of the prosecutor to try to charge you or a jury to convict you when they are that far out of the law. PC is an incredibly low standard to enter ones home, any officer can make up PC and get away with it. |
|
Quoted:
We're optimistic about reversing the decisison. Governor, state attorney general, and several congressmen/senators are all asking "WTF?"
Indiana attorney general is noting that Indiana has a castle doctrine law passed several years ago which basically provides prima facie defense if an intruder enters your home uninvited and you injure/kill him. No one brought up the castle doctrine in the argument before the state supreme court on this case, so the attorney general has asked for a reconsideration so that issue may be addressed. He feels the castle doctrine law should trump the court's current decision. ––Gene That would certainly make for an interesting situation...... |
|
Quoted:
Quoted:
It will (should) get overturned by the USSC. While it was the wrong decision by the state (never heard of any real issues except a domestic issue that caused them to make this ruling) the police still have to have PC or a warrent to enter your home. If they do not they are subject to a civil suit and if the police have no PC or warrent then it would be pretty brazen of the prosecutor to try to charge you or a jury to convict you when they are that far out of the law. PC is an incredibly low standard to enter ones home, any officer can make up PC and get away with it. PC Not really, Resonable Suspicion maybe. To legally enter your dwelling the police need to have a reason (that they can justify) such as a life or death/serious bodily injury is occuring which would be more towards the resonable suspicion side (police are called there and hear a violent argument etc etc etc) If they enter your home illigally well thats up to you on how to react however, right or wrong it probablly won't turn out well if you escalate it which is what the Indiana supreme court commented on. With the Governor and State AG involved against this ruling I feel confident it will get resended. |
|
Quoted: Quoted: This is a good sign, I was afraid that the people of Indiana would just bend over and take it. Sorta like the people of Illinois do?  Unless you live here, you cannot possibly fathom how hard we fight against the evil from Chicago. I am really tired of being somehow stereotyped because of my state of residence. You have to understand, that the corruption in Chicago is UNFATHOMABLE, and it controls the entire state. |
|
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
This is a good sign, I was afraid that the people of Indiana would just bend over and take it. Sorta like the people of Illinois do? Unless you live here, you cannot possibly fathom how hard we fight against the evil from Chicago. I am really tired of being somehow stereotyped because of my state of residence. You have to understand, that the corruption in Chicago is UNFATHOMABLE, and it controls the entire state. For 1.5 years I experienced living in Illinois. I then got laid off because of the wonderful Carter administration. I moved back into my parents home to look for a job somewhere other than Illinois. Living back home in Indiana (sound familiar?) was far better than Illinois ever was. |
|
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
This is a good sign, I was afraid that the people of Indiana would just bend over and take it. Sorta like the people of Illinois do? Unless you live here, you cannot possibly fathom how hard we fight against the evil from Chicago. I am really tired of being somehow stereotyped because of my state of residence. You have to understand, that the corruption in Chicago is UNFATHOMABLE, and it controls the entire state. For 1.5 years I experienced living in Illinois. I then got laid off because of the wonderful Carter administration. I moved back into my parents home to look for a job somewhere other than Illinois. Living back home in Indiana (sound familiar?) was far better than Illinois ever was. Minus my time active duty, I've lived in Southern IL my whole life and wouldn't live anywhere else... the only thing that makes me entertain any thought of moving is the bullshit from Chicago. Fuck that noise. |
|
Quoted: After the unconstitutional Indiana Supreme Court ruling removing the protections of the 4th Amendment, the people of Indiana spontaneously organized in a trans-partisan alliance uniting for the Constitution at their state capitol. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HhUhrlcSlQg&feature=player_embedded#at=70 . The real ssue is that the Indiana STATE Supreme Court ignored the INDIANA state Constitution and then made a ruling which was based on an Federal court decisions. Entering in response to a 911 call may meet Federal Constitutional scrutiny. But this was an agent of an Indiana government and was his action constitutional under the Indiana constitution?
|
|
Good, I'm glad to see that theres some organized protests about this, because the court's ruling was obvious BS. I'm not even sure how they came to it in the first place.
Quoted:
Unless you live here, you cannot possibly fathom how hard we fight against the evil from Chicago. Yup, theres a reason why I stay the hell out of Chicago and avoid entering Illinois whenever possible. Not only is it a true "gangsters paradise" but the law forbids me from protecting myself. Quoted:
Unless you live here, you cannot possibly fathom how hard we fight against the evil from Chicago. You have to understand, that the corruption in Chicago is UNFATHOMABLE, and it controls the entire state. Hey don't look now, but Chicago politics reaches higher up than state level... |
|
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
This is a good sign, I was afraid that the people of Indiana would just bend over and take it. Sorta like the people of Illinois do? Unless you live here, you cannot possibly fathom how hard we fight against the evil from Chicago. I am really tired of being somehow stereotyped because of my state of residence. You have to understand, that the corruption in Chicago is UNFATHOMABLE, and it controls the entire state. Chicago is pretty much like Mordor. |
|
Quoted: Quoted: Quoted: Quoted: This is a good sign, I was afraid that the people of Indiana would just bend over and take it. Sorta like the people of Illinois do? Unless you live here, you cannot possibly fathom how hard we fight against the evil from Chicago. I am really tired of being somehow stereotyped because of my state of residence. You have to understand, that the corruption in Chicago is UNFATHOMABLE, and it controls the entire state. Chicago is pretty much like Mordor. Seriously. |
|
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
40 other states have the same rules What's your point? I think he's pointing out that it's not the crazy infringement of the 4th that people seem to think it is. You can't shoot cops that enter your home without a warrant. That means exactly jack and squat in relation to the 4th amendment. Nothing about the 4th amendment has changed. It is a revocation of our inherited rights, which makes such laws and rulings questionable on a good day. And this is hardly the only area where this has been done. For example, my state removed the right of jurors to judge both the law and facts of a case; now they can only judge the facts. The right to forcefully resist entry, search, seizure, etc. by agents of the state who are doing so in an unlawful manner is a very old one that became a part of the Common Law, and saying that the state's ability to make policy trumps rights is simply outrageous. Even more outrageous is the notion that a court can knowingly revoke everyone's rights by fiat; note that in this ruling, as in others that are on the same topic, the judges plainly stated that this was a right, and that it is hereby revoked. How can anyone really support such behaviour? If I were a legislator or chief magistrate of the state I would be caling for the impeachment of those judges. Such behaviour on the part of our judiciary, legislators, or others is simply intolerable. That it does not directly involve 4th Amendment rights is immaterial, although there is a connection to those rights, since they both relate to the same sorts of abuses by the state. |