no right to resist unlawful police entry into their homes

Status
Not open for further replies.
Getting back to Indiana, I believe what the court was trying to do was say you fight it in court, not on the street.

You may believe the police are wrong, or the warrant is incorrect, and you may be correct. But if you are wrong, and someone (cops or otherwise) gets hurt, you can't take that back and say "Woops, sorry I shot you, I thought you had the wrong house." Fight it in court, not on the street.
 
Honestly, resisting law enforcement, whether you believe their entry is legal or not, seems like a rather foolhardy exercise to me anyway
Click to expand...

The same could have been said about the Minutemen who assembled at Lexington and Concord. Some issues are so important that personal safety becomes a secondary concern.
 
Actually, we are,,,

Well not "we" as I don't live there.

We aren't facing widespread abridgment of our rights without redress of our grievances as we were in Concord.
Click to expand...

This is like the Cardinal who said,,,
"Kill them all, let God sort out the sinners."

Whether we have redress to sue in court makes no difference to the fact that their state supreme court has just granted a Carte Blanche to any officer or agency who wants to abuse the system.

In the vein of thinking that they wanted to make it easier for officers to catch bad guys,,,
They have created an environment that simply begs for abuse to happen.

Aarond
 
The Court in Indiana was making bad precedent that runs contrary to the Fourth Amendment when he stated that the Police needed no reason to search a home.

Even the Sheriff in Indiana said he was going to ask people to search places. I bet most of the police departments are going to follow the old policies for searches. Once this gets out of the state of Indiana in a case I can not see it standing.
 
We aren't facing widespread abridgment of our rights without redress of our grievances as we were in Concord.
Click to expand...

I'll have to disagree. Armed men entered someone's home illegally, by force and a court of law said that "public policy" preempts the guarantees made by the Constitution. To me, that's abridgment and no redress.

I won't comment further, as it is a difference of opinion of whether a line has been crossed, and one cannot successfully argue opinions.
 
There is redress of grievances in criminal and civil court, any assertations to the contrary are erroneous.

I don't neccessarily agree with the Indiana decision, still digesting it. My guess is that the SCOTUS will overturn as too over reaching. There is already case law that supports Coppers going into houses against the wishes of occupants with good reason.
 
There is redress of grievances in criminal and civil court, any assertations to the contrary are erroneous.
Click to expand...

Jose Guerena will get no redress of grievances in criminal or civil court, and that assertation is NOT in error.

In the end this matter will be taken up and sorted out by a much higher authority than any crafted here on this earth, so I will leave the matter up to Him.
 
Now you are splitting hairs. If he had complied with Police commands he would have said redress. you present yourself as a threat to a Police Officer......no matter how "right" you are, you have yourself to blame for bad consequences.
 
And there is no repairing the loss of respect one would rightfully have after their rights were trampled on. If it occurred to me and no gun play was involved... I promise that I would have no reason to give the slightest respect to the legal sytem nor would my wife or children. And they would have to trample my first amendment rights to keep me from voicing my feelings to all i can. I also promise that the other 3 would do the same.

Can law enforcement afford to lose ALL semblance of respect from the folks who had their rights raped?

If they think they might have smelled weed here... they may have smelled something but my legally purchased incense isn't anything they need to kick my door in for. And when the 5 dogs attack as they dang well better... they better keep their guns in the holsters.

The issue is that accidental or intentional abuse is likely. And I would think that a FELONY would be the minimum they can kick a door in over... Not a simple .33 gram misdemeanor pot possession SUSPICION!

Brent
 
Actually, it's the truth. Sorry you don't see it that way. He was a threat to officers, he made that choice. He may be in the right, he may be in the wrong. He's still dead. If he didn't present a threat to officers, he would be around today to sue, file complaints, whatever he felt was best to address the issue.

Let me say that again, HE chose his actions. The officers responded to the actions he took.
 
And there is no repairing the loss of respect one would rightfully have after their rights were trampled on. If it occurred to me and no gun play was involved... I promise that I would have no reason to give the slightest respect to the legal sytem nor would my wife or children. And they would have to trample my first amendment rights to keep me from voicing my feelings to all i can. I also promise that the other 3 would do the same.

Can law enforcement afford to lose ALL semblance of respect from the folks who had their rights raped?

If they think they might have smelled weed here... they may have smelled something but my legally purchased incense isn't anything they need to kick my door in for. And when the 5 dogs attack as they dang well better... they better keep their guns in the holsters.

The issue is that accidental or intentional abuse is likely. And I would think that a FELONY would be the minimum they can kick a door in over... Not a simple .33 gram misdemeanor pot possession SUSPICION!

Brent __________________


Am I the only one that has no clue what you are trying to say here?
 
The officers responded to the actions he took.
Click to expand...

And killed a man in the process,,,
How can any sane citizen abide by that?

They were in the wrong house,,,
He was defending against an invasion,,,
How can anyone defend that action by saying he got what his actions deserved?

When I am at my home,,,
And I am not breaking (or have broken) any laws,,,
And someone breaks into my home just what am I supposed to think?

Am I supposed to stop any defensive action and say to myself,,,
Self, this might be a bunch of cops with the wrong address,,,
I better wait and see because I don't want to get shot.

No way in heck (I really wanted to use a stronger word) is that what a law abiding citizen is going to think.

The legal system really desires to turn the citizenry into sheeple,,,
All under the premise that officer safety is more important than constitutional rights.

No one is going to like this,,,
But this is exactly how Nazi Germany got started.

Aarond
 
Looking at old films of Nazi Stormtroopers or SS and compare them to a typical episode of COPS and I see that our cops are much more rough on citizenry than the SS was. Everybody gets handcuffed? Whats with that? Very rude. :mad:
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top