Harpo Posted May 23, 2011 Share Posted May 23, 2011 Don't be surprised is the U.S. Supreme Court upholds Indiana's law. Afterall, there are still the the same 5 justices on the court who determined that corporations have the same rights so far as money donations during elections as the individual citizen does. Corporations are made up of People just like Unions are people. People have free speech (at least for now) rights in America. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
rct Posted May 23, 2011 Share Posted May 23, 2011 Corporations are made up of People just like Unions are people. People have free speech (at least for now) rights in America. Free Speech has nothing to do with it. rct Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
fl00dsm0k3 Posted May 23, 2011 Share Posted May 23, 2011 nothing surprises me anymore Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Californiaman Posted May 23, 2011 Share Posted May 23, 2011 Haven't you heard? Our rights as citizens of this once great country have all but deteriorated. The Constitution is not the once great document it once was. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Andy R Posted May 24, 2011 Author Share Posted May 24, 2011 I'm all for protecting police officers. They have very dangerous Jobs and I would say the majority are on the up and up. Even if a cop tries to enter your home "illegally" I think the situation should not come to physical resistance but whatever happened to "comeback with a legal warrant" and Knock...? I usually stay out of the political arena but wrong is wrong... Sorry but my door will remain bolted shut until they a least prove they are real police. And police will be called before or if I voluntarily let them enter. Since I know I have nothing to be arrested for if they break my door down they will paying for property damage, trespassing, false imprisonment and anything else I can come up with.... If they still don't prove they are police they have a good chance of being shot in the Arse... Andy Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
milod Posted May 24, 2011 Share Posted May 24, 2011 I'm also from a law enforcement family. The worst case scenario would be, as has happened, a warranted hard raid at the wrong address with victims. That would have been illegal. This ruling would seem to make incompetent police work legal. Incompetent and/or illegal activity by police really bothers me because most competent cops proud of their professionalism feel it reflects poorly on them and makes their job a lot harder. Andy... the current justification appears true - places with drugs can delay police enough to dump the stuff. At least in theory. The problem is that if there is a good investigation and probable cause, a warrant should be easy. BTW, police are civilians as compared to military, at least they are in the U.S. Technically they're bound by the same laws as anyone else. The separation of them into a separate class - as in warrantless entry without probable cause - is no more legal for a "cop" in the U.S. than for any of us. In practice the incompetent officer seems often to get away with terror/error regardless and the competent ones are the ones hurt by it. On something of the opposite side of the coin, there has been at least one court ruling that the police have no duty to protect the public, even if they hear or see what appears to be a violent crime going down. What most folks don't realize, though, is that my understanding is that game wardens long have had the right to raid anywhere without a warrant on assumption that game laws may have been broken. I'm surprised some other warrantless home/business entrees haven't been made with a friendly state game department as "lead agency" in such fishing games. (Yeah, have a pun or two.) It's my observation that increasing population densities tend to give rise to increasing governmental "police state" operations. Yeah, it tends to be led sometimes by one "political party" or another in a given country at various times, but the bottom line to me is that the graph seems to indicate increasing populations add up to decreasing individual freedom. Heck, I can remember walking up to a commercial airplane on the taxiway with my checkbook and suitcase in hand, writing a check and getting on board. Wanna try that today in any "developed" country in the world? m Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
retrosurfer1959 Posted May 24, 2011 Share Posted May 24, 2011 They make sense if yer a cop. rct Nope - laws that protect criminals don't make sense to cops either, I did 12 years in law enforcement including 9+ years on SWAT teams and I still don't believe in limiting peoples rights. Gun controls dont work I never met a felon that was worried about adding gun charges to the mix when they were on a crime spree. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jnastynebr Posted May 24, 2011 Share Posted May 24, 2011 Sounds a lot like Georgia v Randolph Meant to impower officers to help in cases of domestic violence, but misused by law enforcement to initiate illegal entry and searches. The only real loosers here are victims of domestic violence. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
rct Posted May 24, 2011 Share Posted May 24, 2011 Nope - laws that protect criminals don't make sense to cops either, I did 12 years in law enforcement including 9+ years on SWAT teams and I still don't believe in limiting peoples rights. Gun controls dont work I never met a felon that was worried about adding gun charges to the mix when they were on a crime spree. I'm just an observant civilian. Law Enforcement is, like all things in this country, a machine that generates money. No disrespect intended to anyone in any of the related businesses, but there it is. rct Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TommyK Posted May 31, 2011 Share Posted May 31, 2011 The way I read the article, the issue is not about illegal entry. Which in and of itself is.. well... illegal. The case cited as starting this legal circus was of a domestic battery case. They went to the door, the man of the house answered and was not about to let anyone in. We the readers can only assume he is the alleged perpetrator of the domestic battery and the victim was inside. The report of the battery could have been sufficient reasonable cause to enter, whether the occupants consented or not. The door answerer then proceeds to try to beat down the police. THIS is what the case is about. Whether you can resist police in what the occupant believed was an illegal search/entry. The court said "No, you do not have the right to resist, even if you believe you are in the right." If this were an illegal entry, the perp should have stood aside, because he just hit the jackpot. Any evidence, of any crime, acquired via an illegal entry by police is tainted and inadmissible in a court of law. This however is a domestic battery issue. Law enforcement is given much more latitude in investigating, as many, if not most, victims will not or are incapable, of making a complaint in their own defense. A complaint can be entered without the victim's consent. An order of protection can be granted without the victim's consent. The perpetrator can be summarily removed from the home/workplace before going to trial..... all to protect the victim. What it boils down to, is if you are approached by people wearing badges and guns, don't fight them. If you have reason to believe the person with the badge is not who he says he is, tell him you are calling 9-1-1, then dial 9-1-1. They can verify the identity of the badge wearer. Those who are not legit, will likely flee. A legitimate cop will wait for verification, unless of course he believes someone is in immanent danger of harm or death. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
milod Posted May 31, 2011 Share Posted May 31, 2011 I guess I end up returning to the "thing" that there are too many rules that increasingly conflict; and too many concepts of "what's right" that definitely do conflict. I really think that things started to go down hill most quickly after the "gun control act of 1968." Whether one likes the constitutional issues in the U.S. or not - if not, the constitution has been changed before - the bottom line is that "public safety" was the excuse for a flock of follow-up laws later found unconstitutional. It's bad logic to say, "If it saves just one life," then to add up a batch of laws. Firearms, btw, are just a "hot button issue." There's much worse. It cost our local swimming pool a bundle to put drain guards on forced by a new federal law. Why? A child or two jumped into a pool or two that were being drained, and drowned. They were in the pool technically "illegally." Oddly more children drown in toilets and buckets annually (don't believe me, check the stats), but the swimming pool thing became federal law because the right people used that "if it saves just one life" argument. How does one argue against saving a child's life? So there you go. It's not the parents' fault, it's the swimming pool's fault. With that logic went our freedom. m Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TommyK Posted May 31, 2011 Share Posted May 31, 2011 ... Oddly more children drown in toilets and buckets annually (don't believe me, check the stats), but the swimming pool thing became federal law because the right people used that "if it saves just one life" argument. How does one argue against saving a child's life? So there you go. It's not the parents' fault, it's the swimming pool's fault. With that logic went our freedom. m Ergo, the warning sign and pictogram on the side of all 5 gallon buckets. Interesting you should mention toilets. Whilest taking 'care of business' at the local WalMutts, I spied a new fixture in the men's room, a chair, complete with seat belt, bolted to the wall, suitable for placing a todler whilest the parent was taking care of his own business. Not having the usual limericks to read, I read the use label on the chair. The last line of the words of instruction and caution was that the device should only be used so long as the parent was WITH the child. Ostensibly, the way the foregoing text read, one might deduce that one could strap the young'n into the chair whilest Dad went about his shopping, unfettered with child in tow. Sadly, the pool safety concerns which begat the new covers is valid. The way many pools are plumbed, many home and some shallow watered kiddie pools are dangerous. The several hundred gallon per minute pumps can, in the right circumstances, create enough suction to hold a person to the pool floor. Drowning being the worst case scenario. But, ALL the drains have to be covered simultaneously to create this circumstance. In a big kid pool this is highly unlikely given the multiple number of drains. In a kiddie pool, usually plumbed separately, there are but one or two drains. Drowning is unlikely as to water is shallow. At a minimum the youngster could get a ginormous hickey from the event. Worst case as has happened, a child's insides got sucked outside through his backside causing permanent damage and/or death. There are numerous ways to prevent this type of accident, which include replumbing the pump to prevent the enormous suction from building up when the drain is plugged. One is to install a vent which opens to the atmosphere on the suction side. The covers... are the cheapest way to prevent this type of accident from happening .... as long as the covers remain in place and in tact. Personally, I would not take any child to a kiddie pool. I know what kids do in that pool. I know how well some parents don't check diapers. If you must, get a plastic kiddie pool and put it in the backyard. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
duane v Posted May 31, 2011 Share Posted May 31, 2011 They make sense if yer a cop. rct Yeppers Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
brundaddy Posted May 31, 2011 Share Posted May 31, 2011 Nope - laws that protect criminals don't make sense to cops either, I did 12 years in law enforcement including 9+ years on SWAT teams and I still don't believe in limiting peoples rights. Gun controls dont work I never met a felon that was worried about adding gun charges to the mix when they were on a crime spree. I couldn't agree more, the Bill of Rights is a sacred, sacred thing. At least the 2nd. Am. has the NRA as an advocate. The 4th Am. (Freedom from UNREASONABLE search and seizure) is a babe in the woods. ACLU doesn't have the NRA's bankroll/lobbying power. This Indiana matter reminds me of that song, "When they kick in your front door, How you gonna come? With your hands up on your head, or on the trigger of your gun?" Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ne14t? Posted May 31, 2011 Share Posted May 31, 2011 100% Garbage, no offense to you Andy, but I would pack up and move the heck out of Dodge. In NO way does a Police office have a right to enter your home without reason or just cause, hell nobody should be allowed to enter your home unless you allow them to. I see this as being no different as a home invasion, except now its cops and they can legally shoot you if they want. Isn't there some law about being allowed to shoot trespassers? Sounds like a good time to invest in a 12 gauge and some slugs, pump a couple into the first cop that walks through the door and be like "Whoa! Holy crap I thought you guys were robbers" Power corrupts. Absolute power corrupts, absolutely! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
milod Posted May 31, 2011 Share Posted May 31, 2011 Actually my background and experience goes in several different directions. Around here police tend to have more courtesy because... yeah, they don't wanna walk into a bullet. So I don't know any who won't make certain there's a warrant, all the "I" letters with dots, etc. As the old saying goes, an armed society is a polite society - at least when there's an assumption everyone is armed. Bullies of all sorts take advantage when it appears otherwise. And if, on being shown a warrant, somebody resists... Sorry, now the police own them. But back to the swimming pool thing... If parents kept control of their kids in the first place, there'd have been no need for the federal law. And how about kids drowning in toilets that still exceeds the swimming pool thing? Not even a warning poster on potties? Sheesh. I doubt many one-year-old kids read much of warning signs on five-gallon pails anyway. How about a grate just beneath the seat. Cleaning them is no problem, and if it saves just one life...??? My point simply is that there are tens of thousands of potentially dangerous things in this world even in the apparently most safe places one might imagine. It's ludicrous to have millions spent to save people from themselves. Taken to the extreme, I think there's little "safe" in this world. So... Guitar content: It just struck me to add an edit... should there be a law against not clipping guitar strings given that someone might poke out an eye if they're not? Whatta yah figure, a one-year federal penitentiary minimum maybe? m Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.