DUMBFOUNDED: You have NO RIGHT to resist UNLAWFUL entry of Police to your HOME in IN

[Cowlesy]

http://www.nwitimes.com/news/local/govt-and-politics/article_ec169697-a19e-525f-a532-81b3df229697.html


Court: No right to resist illegal cop entry into home

INDIANAPOLIS | 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.

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.

"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."

Much more at the link here.... (http://www.nwitimes.com/news/local/govt-and-politics/article_ec169697-a19e-525f-a532-81b3df229697.html)

Seriously, I am pretty much in shock an American court could rule this way. Actually, no I am not.

[Philhelm]

My natural right as a living organism to defend myself from harm can never be taken away by law. I will defend myself no matter what the circumstances or consequences are, as will most living organisms.

[Carson]

How about if we show up where they are sleeping?


P.S. You know. In the name of safety and all.

[TIMB0B]

Oh, well, if that's what that state wants to do, the 10th amendment allows them.

[amy31416]

Oh, well, if that's what that state wants to do, the 10th amendment allows them.

Don't know about that, it's in conflict with the 4th, no?

[Guitarzan]

Don't know about that, it's in conflict with the 4th, no?


Yeah..that's what I thought. Also figured that the State itself must have something in it's constitution in regards to the issue.

The 10th amendment doesn't give state govt's the right to do anything they see fit.

[HOLLYWOOD]

Your so-called elected officials that so-called, represent the people. :rolleyes:

Frankly, they're fuckin nuts to allow this. It's like the mafioso crime families entering your business and home, shakin you down at will with no limits if they wish, then the colluding conspirator judges and courts backing up their roving thugs.

Who is writing this legislation for these judges to stamp the seal of approval(rule over the masses)?

[aGameOfThrones]

Posted here: http://www.ronpaulforums.com/showthread.php?292746-Court-overturns-law-allowing-citizens-to-defend-against-illegal-police-entry

[TIMB0B]

Don't know about that, it's in conflict with the 4th, no?

Yep. I missed that.

[tasteless]

Remember, it's better to be judged by 12 than carried by 6. If you understand this, I don't think this law stops you.

[Southron]

How do you know they are police at 3am? You have a duty to protect your family.

Resist anyway-the judgocracy be damned.

[Anti Federalist]

Now, in Indiana, when your door gets kicked in at oh dark thirty in the morning, you now must assume they are cops and sit quietly and submit to whatever comes next.

Got that, Mundane?

Look for more of this as time goes by.

[Anti Federalist]

And that is why things like this are happening more and more often.

Off duty Marine gunned down by SWAT team.

http://www.ronpaulforums.com/showthread.php?292318-Ex-Marine-gunned-down-by-SWAT-team

[aGameOfThrones]

Now, in Indiana, when your door gets kicked in at oh dark thirty in the morning, you now must assume they are cops and sit quietly and submit to whatever comes next.

Got that, Mundane?

Look for more of this as time goes by.

It's been happening in Indiana for a while...

"At common law, a person was privileged to resist an unlawful arrest. See Gross v. State, 186 Ind. 581, 583, 117 N.E. 562, 564 (1917). Our courts, however, have uniformly accepted that this common law rule is outmoded in today‟s modern society. See Fields v. State, 178 Ind. App. 350, 355, 382 N.E.2d 972, 975 (1978) (holding that a private citizen may not use force or resist a peaceful arrest(If it exist in today's violence driving police force) by one he knows or has good reason to believe is an authorized officer perform-ing his duties, regardless of whether the arrest is legal or illegal)"

[pcosmar]

No way in hell, nor anyplace else.
And there is case law and history. This decision is unprecedented and contrary to established law.
http://constitution.org/uslaw/defunlaw.txt

Your Right of Defense Against Unlawful Arrest

“Citizens may resist unlawful arrest to the point of taking an arresting
officer's life if necessary.” Plummer v. State, 136 Ind. 306. This
premise was upheld by the Supreme Court of the United States in the
case: John Bad Elk v. U.S., 177 U.S. 529. The Court stated: “Where the
officer is killed in the course of the disorder which naturally
accompanies an attempted arrest that is resisted, the law looks with
very different eyes upon the transaction, when the officer had the right
to make the arrest, from what it does if the officer had no right. What
may be murder in the first case might be nothing more than manslaughter
in the other, or the facts might show that no offense had been
committed.”

“An arrest made with a defective warrant, or one issued without
affidavit, or one that fails to allege a crime is within jurisdiction,
and one who is being arrested, may resist arrest and break away. lf the
arresting officer is killed by one who is so resisting, the killing will
be no more than an involuntary manslaughter.” Housh v. People, 75 111.
491; reaffirmed and quoted in State v. Leach, 7 Conn. 452; State v.
Gleason, 32 Kan. 245; Ballard v. State, 43 Ohio 349; State v Rousseau,
241 P. 2d 447; State v. Spaulding, 34 Minn. 3621.

“When a person, being without fault, is in a place where he has a right
to be, is violently assaulted, he may, without retreating, repel by
force, and if, in the reasonable exercise of his right of self defense,
his assailant is killed, he is justified.” Runyan v. State, 57 Ind. 80;
Miller v. State, 74 Ind. 1.

“These principles apply as well to an officer attempting to make an
arrest, who abuses his authority and transcends the bounds thereof by
the use of unnecessary force and violence, as they do to a private
individual who unlawfully uses such force and violence.” Jones v. State,
26 Tex. App. I; Beaverts v. State, 4 Tex. App. 1 75; Skidmore v. State,
43 Tex. 93, 903.

“An illegal arrest is an assault and battery. The person so attempted to
be restrained of his liberty has the same right to use force in
defending himself as he would in repelling any other assault and
battery.” (State v. Robinson, 145 ME. 77, 72 ATL. 260).

“Each person has the right to resist an unlawful arrest. In such a case,
the person attempting the arrest stands in the position of a wrongdoer
and may be resisted by the use of force, as in self- defense.” (State v.
Mobley, 240 N.C. 476, 83 S.E. 2d 100).

“One may come to the aid of another being unlawfully arrested, just as
he may where one is being assaulted, molested, raped or kidnapped. Thus
it is not an offense to liberate one from the unlawful custody of an
officer, even though he may have submitted to such custody, without
resistance.” (Adams v. State, 121 Ga. 16, 48 S.E. 910).

“Story affirmed the right of self-defense by persons held illegally. In
his own writings, he had admitted that ‘a situation could arise in which
the checks-and-balances principle ceased to work and the various
branches of government concurred in a gross usurpation.’ There would be
no usual remedy by changing the law or passing an amendment to the
Constitution, should the oppressed party be a minority. Story concluded,
‘If there be any remedy at all ... it is a remedy never provided for by
human institutions.’ That was the ‘ultimate right of all human beings in
extreme cases to resist oppression, and to apply force against ruinous
injustice.’” (From Mutiny on the Amistad by Howard Jones, Oxford
University Press, 1987, an account of the reading of the decision in the
case by Justice Joseph Story of the Supreme Court.

As for grounds for arrest: “The carrying of arms in a quiet, peaceable,
and orderly manner, concealed on or about the person, is not a breach of
the peace. Nor does such an act of itself, lead to a breach of the
peace.” (Wharton’s Criminal and Civil Procedure, 12th Ed., Vol.2: Judy
v. Lashley, 5 W. Va. 628, 41 S.E. 197)

However it is expected, and I am unsurprised.
You now understand the rules of the game are changed.
:mad:

[acptulsa]

Now, in Indiana, when your door gets kicked in at oh dark thirty in the morning, you now must assume they are cops and sit quietly and submit to whatever comes next.

Got that, Mundane?

Look for more of this as time goes by.

Amazing, isn't it? Police are set up to fight crime. Police begin committing crimes. Then regulations are passed to make it easier for the police to commit crimes. Which, of course, just makes it much easier for criminals to commit crimes. Sort of like the 'entrapment special' unmarked patrol cars, which allow rapists to snag their victims with just a flashing red light.

Grab Constitution, wipe ass.

[Agorism]

You don't own your house.

You're just renting it from the government (property taxes) who will periodically break in and cause a ruckus.

[Dr.3D]

Remember, it's better to be judged by 12 than carried by 6. If you understand this, I don't think this law stops you.

Only that works some of the time. If it is a ""legal" or "non legal" bust and law enforcement breaks into your home, then you would be carried by 6 anyway. Only time this would work is if some non law enforcement were to break in and you shot them. Of course that would end the battle and you could be judged by 12. Law enforcement isn't usually going to let you live if you resist and shoot some of them, so it will usually be carried by 6 rather than judged by 12.

[anaconda]

"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."

Classic. Now resisting tyranny is bad because it could cause unnecessary violence.

[Pericles]

"The law is an ass." - Charles Dickens

[Kylie]

This is some fucked up bullshit.

And should not be followed.

[DamianTV]

People need to keep in mind that they have Rights, not because LAW EXISTS, because THEY as a Person Exist.

When Laws are created, passed, and upheld in the Courts that deprive people of their Most Basic Rights, then We The People need to start depriving the Government of its Rights that it usurped from us to begin with.

[Anti Federalist]

Here's the deal: the dynamics of how police, legally, deal with us Mundanes has been changed.

The force continuum has been altered, mostly by federal edict, (ETA - also civil suits, insurance companies and police unions have had a role in changing this dynamic) it is now circular rather than vertically oriented.

What does that mean to us common folk?

It means that government has fundamentally changed how it's front line enforcers react and deal with citizens.

Let me be absolutely clear here: if an officer feels that "officer safety" is in jeopardy, he is now legally and civilly authorized, as this poor fellow found out, to blow you away like lint. That will also be the excuse used to let you bleed out and die in front of your screaming wife and kids. And who knows? If they make a move, they'll get blown away as well.

Let me be as blunt and clear as I can be about this as well:

DO NOT CALL COPS FOR ANY REASON.

DO NOT TALK TO COPS FOR ANY REASON.

These people have now made it clear, by their actions over and over and over again over the last 20 years or so, that they are nothing more than members of a vicious occupying army.

Interaction with these people can prove fatal.

[Humanae Libertas]

Might be coming to CA soon, cuz it sure is something my state will like to have...

[DamianTV]

The Entire Government has a Financial Incentive for people to break the law. They dont pass any laws for anyones benefit, they pass laws so that people will break them, so that government will profit from your Loss of Liberties.

Using smellgood candles is not a Constitutional Right. How long until a law is passed where you can be fined for offending an officers nose when they break and enter into your home unlawfully. This is insult on top of injury and it is only going to get worse from here.

[Carson]

Might be coming to CA soon, cuz it sure is something my state will like to have...

Ha Ha.

When have they needed a law in California to allow them to do something like this?

Well in a long time anyways. It felt like we used to have honest cops back when they upheld the law and did things like enforced the immigration laws. Now they seem to take their orders from outside of our country.

[TheeJoeGlass]

There's always that pesky, second amendment that keeps "them" from total control...

[acptulsa]

Good job, Pericles. But believe it or not, it's actually, '...the law is a ass.'

[ssantoro]

Here's the deal: the dynamics of how police, legally, deal with us Mundanes has been changed.

The force continuum has been altered, mostly by federal edict, it is now circular rather than vertically oriented.

What does that mean to us common folk?

It means that government has fundamentally changed how it's front line enforcers react and deal with citizens.

Let me be absolutely clear here: if an officer feels that "officer safety" is in jeopardy, he is now legally and civilly authorized, as this poor fellow found out, to blow you away like lint. That will also be the excuse used to let you bleed out and die in front of your screaming wife and kids. And who knows? If they make a move, they'll get blown away as well.

Let me be as blunt and clear as I can be about this as well:

DO NOT CALL COPS FOR ANY REASON.

DO NOT TALK TO COPS FOR ANY REASON.

These people have now made it clear, by their actions over and over and over again over the last 20 years or so, that they are nothing more than members of a vicious occupying army.

Interaction with these people can prove fatal.

Absolutely.
+Rep

[Matt Collins]

Just because a court says it doesn't make it so.

[Dr.3D]

Just because a court says it doesn't make it so.

Quite true.

[eproxy100]

"…the opinion which gives to the judges the right to decide what laws are constitutional and what not,
not only for themselves in their own sphere of action but for the Legislature and Executive
also in their spheres, would make the Judiciary a despotic branch." —Thomas Jefferson

[Anti Federalist]

From the court's decision:


"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."

That's the money quote right there.

No matter what you do, no matter how wrong the state's enforcement arm is, the arrest will happen, come hell or high water.

They will call in as many troops, sharpshooters, tanks, APCs, SWAT or whatever other weapons of mass destruction the feds have furnished your local cop shop with, as needed to light your ass up: they will kill everybody in sight if it comes down to it.

Somebody's going to jail, or the morgue, period, justice, keeping the peace, serving the public, following the law all be fucked and damned straight to hell.

This is nothing short of a declaration of total war against us, the American people.

[Warrior_of_Freedom]

They will call in as many troops, sharpshooters, tanks, APCs, SWAT or whatever other weapons of mass destruction the feds have furnished your local cop shop with, as needed to light your ass up: they will kill everybody in sight if it comes down to it.



Do they use a star system like Grand Theft Auto? :D

[Mach]

So, what it comes down to now is, the Judges sit around, see what the cops can get away with on a daily basis... THEN pass a law to help them do as they please.... "legally!"

I can't believe the Judge sat there and pretty much said that it was the best politically correct thing to do.

[thehungarian]

When I read this this morning I was so furious I started to sweat. Combine this with Dupnick's SWAT team killing a Marine down in AZ and I had to change my shirt.

The police-state makes me more angry than the economic conditions.

[Kilrain]

Not to play politics, but doesn't this simply gut any chance Mitch Daniels ever had in the presidential race? As governor, he appointed Steven David to the Indiana Supreme Court. He'll have to face the music on this one.


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.

"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."

[GuerrillaXXI]

It doesn't matter that much anyway, since rights aren't determined by what any court says. Except for the laws of physics, "laws" are just words on paper. In a practical rather than moral sense, citizens have only those rights they have the ability and willingness to defend with force. I harp on this a lot, but for good reason.

If I'm not willing to shoot at jackbooted thugs who are busting into my home, or if I don't have adequate weaponry and skills to pose a threat to them, then for all intents and purposes they have the right to bust into my home. But if they're afraid to bust into my home because I have a potent weapon and know how to use it -- or, even better, because they're worried that someone might retaliate against them in the future for terrorizing innocent citizens -- then they no longer have the right to invade my home.

Just to be clear, this isn't to argue that "might makes right" in a moral sense. But might does make right as far as the world actually operates. You have only those rights that you're willing to back up with sufficient force or the threat of force. No amount of philosophizing or legal argument will ever change this harsh reality. It's just something we all have to deal with.


Only that works some of the time. If it is a ""legal" or "non legal" bust and law enforcement breaks into your home, then you would be carried by 6 anyway. Only time this would work is if some non law enforcement were to break in and you shot them. Of course that would end the battle and you could be judged by 12. Law enforcement isn't usually going to let you live if you resist and shoot some of them, so it will usually be carried by 6 rather than judged by 12.This is true. Once a person is surrounded in his home, he's not getting out alive and free. But being carried by six is worth it in my opinion if at least one of the invaders ends up being carried by six as well. Those with children or others who depend on them may feel differently, which is understandable.

[DamianTV]

Stories like this terrify people.

People need to stop and think for one second that they can have this in their very own homes too, and all they have to do is sit by and do nothing to stop it from happening to others. When those people finally do stop to think about how many people out there that wont lift a finger, or even worse, support the Sheepdogs (Cops) being able to do this, they need to think how bad this could possibly get. Then stories like this wont be anywhere nearly as terrifying as the future toward which we are headed now.

[Anti Federalist]

///

[Lucille]

The judge is Mitch Daniels' boy.

Denninger (who I can barely stand to read at this point, what with his complete and utter hatred of RP, and all things shiny) blogged it today:

Mitch Daniels Disqualifies Himself (http://market-ticker.org/akcs-www?post=186124)


Then you no longer have a 4th Amendment in Indiana and Indiana is now both a police state and the United States as a federal government is now in violation of its Constitutional duty to guarantee that each state has a republican form of government.

Mitch Daniels, Governor of Indiana, by not directing his State Attorney General and Prosecutors to drop this case and moot the appeal, has demonstrated through his direct and proximate actions that he is Adolph Hitler personified and is thus disqualified to run for President of the United States.

It's up at HotAir also (McQuain's post was promoted from the Green Room).

I shudder to think what sort of totalitarian hell the USG has in store for us once the collapse ensues.

[aGameOfThrones]

"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."

That's what their reasoning is when giving opinions about resisting an Unlawful arrest. They approve of violence from the police, but disapprove that citizens use violence to repel violence from state employees who are acting outside the law, which is convenient.

[Lucille]

Vox sums it up:

So much for the Revolution (http://voxday.blogspot.com/2011/05/so-much-for-revolution.html)

[nocompromises]

Next they are probably going to say if a cop is raping a woman the victim has to show the cop an extra good time, or else she gets an extra five years in jail.

[Dr.3D]

That's what their reasoning is when giving opinions about resisting an Unlawful arrest. They approve of violence from the police, but disapprove that citizens use violence to repel violence from state employees who are acting outside the law, which is convenient.

They probably believe, us mundanes are not capable of knowing when police are acting outside the law.

It's much easier for them to decide that after the fact when you are behind bars or dead. Of course, if you are dead, you can't defend your position that the police were acting outside of the law and you will lose your case.

It's about trust and they don't trust us to know better than the police, when our rights are being violated.

[Anti Federalist]

Vox sums it up:

So much for the Revolution (http://voxday.blogspot.com/2011/05/so-much-for-revolution.html)

From the blog:


Translation: America is demonstrably less free than medieval England. I tend to doubt that this was what the Founding Fathers had in mind when they revolted against the King's rule.

It was Allen Keyes, years ago who said:

"Today, in America, you are worse off than a medieval serf; you have the fruits of your labor confiscated from you before you even see it. At least in medieval times, the local Lord or nobleman allowed you to put a roof over your head and feed your family before demanding his 'tribute'".

[Anti Federalist]

Next they are probably going to say if a cop is raping a woman the victim has to show the cop an extra good time, or else she gets an extra five years in jail.

Indiana Supreme Court Upholds the ‘Rapist Doctrine’: Don’t Resist — You’ll Just Make It Worse

http://www.lewrockwell.com/blog/lewrw/archives/88027.html

The Indiana State Supreme Court has just nullified the Fourth Amendment and the equivalent provision of that state’s constitution, in addition to “a common law dating back to the English Magna Carta of 1215,” notes a wire service report. In a 3–2 decision, the court has ruled that Indiana residents have no right to obstruct unlawful police incursions into their homes.

“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,” wrote Justice Steven David. “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.”

Actually, the “risks” to a government-licensed bully in such an encounter are vanishingly small. But we must remember that “officer safety” is the controlling priority in any conflict between a State-sanctified enforcer and a mere Mundane. This is why, as Professor Ivan Bodensteiner of Valparaiso University School of Law observes, “It’s not surprising that [the court] would say there’s no right to beat the hell out of the officer.” No, that “right” belongs to the costumed thug; the Mundane has no choice but to submit to whatever invasion or injury his tax-sustained assailant sees fit to inflict at the time.

A victim of criminal police aggression “still can be released on bail and has plenty of opportunities to protest the illegal entry through the court system” — that is, the same court system that has conferred its unconditional benediction on criminal violence by the police. This assumes, of course, that the Mundane survives the initial encounter.

Note how the court assumes — correctly, in my view — that an unlawful arrest is the all-but-inevitable product of an unlawful police incursion. This tacitly recognizes that the right to resist an unwarranted search is derivative of the common law right to resist unlawful arrest.

A similar case explicitly dealing with the right to resist unlawful arrest (People v. Moreno) is working its way through the bowels of the judicial system in neighboring Michigan, and will most likely result in another decision pulled from the emunctory aperture of a robe-wearing sophist on the state Supreme Court. A state appeals court in Michigan has observed that “we find no reference to the lawfulness of the arrest or detaining act” in the state’s statute dealing with resisting arrest, which “states only that an individual who resists a person the individual knows or has reason to know is performing his duties is guilty of a felony.”

In a 2004 ruling (People v. Ventura) dealing with a self-defense claim against an unlawful arrest, the same Michigan Court of Appeals, in prose laden with disingenuous mock humility, wrote that “it is not within our province to disturb our Legislature’s obvious affirmative choice to modify the traditional common-law rule that a person may resist an unlawful arrest.” Actually, that modification came about because the state judiciary begged the legislature to change the state code to eliminate statutory protection for the long-established individual right to resist unlawful arrest.

In a 1999 ruling (People v. Wess), the Michigan Court of Appeals, citing the state legal code, admitted that citizens had a right, explicitly protected by state statute, “to use such reasonable force as is necessary to prevent an illegal attachment and to resist an illegal arrest.” In the dicta of that ruling the court pleaded with the legislature to change the law:

“We share the concerns of other jurisdictions that the right to resist an illegal arrest is an outmoded and dangerous doctrine, and we urge our Supreme Court to reconsider this doctrine at the first available opportunity… we see no benefit to continuing the right to resist an otherwise peaceful arrest made by a law enforcement officer, merely because the arrestee believes the arrest is illegal. Given modern procedural safeguards for criminal defendants, the `right’ only preserves the possibility that harm will come to the arresting officer or the defendant.” Of course, the requirement that a police officer obtain a warrant is the only “procedural safeguard” that matters — and it’s the one effectively disposed of once the court authorizes police to invade a home on a whim.

In 2002, the Michigan state legislature complied by modifying the relevant section of the state code (MCL 705.81d) by removing the clause recognizing the common law right to “use such reasonable force as is necessary to prevent” an unlawful arrest (that is, an armed kidnapping) by a police officer.

In the interests of brevity, these rulings should be consolidated under the name “Rapist Doctrine,” in recognition of the fact that are pseudo-scholarly versions of the advice once urged upon women enduring sexual assault: Don’t resist — it will only make things worse.

[Dr.3D]

Resisting worked well for the people in the Waco fiasco. /s Would the outcome have been different if they had not resisted?



(Just acting as the devils advocate for a moment.)

[Anti Federalist]

Resisting worked well for the people in the Waco fiasco. /s Would the outcome have been different if they had not resisted?



(Just acting as the devils advocate for a moment.)

The survivors were acquitted of murder charges. They were found to be legally resisting an unlawful arrest.

Had they been truly intent on mayhem, after having repulsed the first attack, they could have wiped out every ATF agent there, but didn't.

Had Koresh and Wayne Martin been acting a little more rationally, they could have used the resistance to turn themselves over to Texas Rangers rather than the feds.

[AFPVet]

Resisting worked well for the people in the Waco fiasco. /s Would the outcome have been different if they had not resisted?


They probably would've been shot regardless. IIRC, they were firing on unarmed people who were surrendering.

[nocompromises]

Resisting an illegal activity is the principle of standing up for your rights. It does not matter if you could have had a better result if you did not resist. The fact is that every citizen has the DUTY to defend themselves from those who would illegally violate their rights. This includes burglars, thieves, and the government. If you do not defend your rights, you are just telling the enemy you co not care about freedom.

[Anti Federalist]

Resisting an illegal activity is the principle of standing up for your rights. It does not matter if you could have had a better result if you did not resist. The fact is that every citizen has the DUTY to defend themselves from those who would illegally violate their rights. This includes burglars, thieves, and the government. If you do not defend your rights, you are just telling the enemy you co not care about freedom.

Yup, that's the point.

It doesn't matter that your chance for "winning" is small or non existent, what matters is that you can resist.

But that is not what government wants.

They want docile, subservient, compliant Mundanes.

[aGameOfThrones]

Indiana Supreme Court Upholds the ‘Rapist Doctrine’: Don’t Resist — You’ll Just Make It Worse

http://www.lewrockwell.com/blog/lewrw/archives/88027.html

The Indiana State Supreme Court has just nullified the Fourth Amendment and the equivalent provision of that state’s constitution, in addition to “a common law dating back to the English Magna Carta of 1215,” notes a wire service report. In a 3–2 decision, the court has ruled that Indiana residents have no right to obstruct unlawful police incursions into their homes.

“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,” wrote Justice Steven David. “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.”

Actually, the “risks” to a government-licensed bully in such an encounter are vanishingly small. But we must remember that “officer safety” is the controlling priority in any conflict between a State-sanctified enforcer and a mere Mundane. This is why, as Professor Ivan Bodensteiner of Valparaiso University School of Law observes, “It’s not surprising that [the court] would say there’s no right to beat the hell out of the officer.” No, that “right” belongs to the costumed thug; the Mundane has no choice but to submit to whatever invasion or injury his tax-sustained assailant sees fit to inflict at the time.

A victim of criminal police aggression “still can be released on bail and has plenty of opportunities to protest the illegal entry through the court system” — that is, the same court system that has conferred its unconditional benediction on criminal violence by the police. This assumes, of course, that the Mundane survives the initial encounter.

Note how the court assumes — correctly, in my view — that an unlawful arrest is the all-but-inevitable product of an unlawful police incursion. This tacitly recognizes that the right to resist an unwarranted search is derivative of the common law right to resist unlawful arrest.

A similar case explicitly dealing with the right to resist unlawful arrest (People v. Moreno) is working its way through the bowels of the judicial system in neighboring Michigan, and will most likely result in another decision pulled from the emunctory aperture of a robe-wearing sophist on the state Supreme Court. A state appeals court in Michigan has observed that “we find no reference to the lawfulness of the arrest or detaining act” in the state’s statute dealing with resisting arrest, which “states only that an individual who resists a person the individual knows or has reason to know is performing his duties is guilty of a felony.”

In a 2004 ruling (People v. Ventura) dealing with a self-defense claim against an unlawful arrest, the same Michigan Court of Appeals, in prose laden with disingenuous mock humility, wrote that “it is not within our province to disturb our Legislature’s obvious affirmative choice to modify the traditional common-law rule that a person may resist an unlawful arrest.” Actually, that modification came about because the state judiciary begged the legislature to change the state code to eliminate statutory protection for the long-established individual right to resist unlawful arrest.

In a 1999 ruling (People v. Wess), the Michigan Court of Appeals, citing the state legal code, admitted that citizens had a right, explicitly protected by state statute, “to use such reasonable force as is necessary to prevent an illegal attachment and to resist an illegal arrest.” In the dicta of that ruling the court pleaded with the legislature to change the law:

“We share the concerns of other jurisdictions that the right to resist an illegal arrest is an outmoded and dangerous doctrine, and we urge our Supreme Court to reconsider this doctrine at the first available opportunity… we see no benefit to continuing the right to resist an otherwise peaceful arrest made by a law enforcement officer, merely because the arrestee believes the arrest is illegal. Given modern procedural safeguards for criminal defendants, the `right’ only preserves the possibility that harm will come to the arresting officer or the defendant.” Of course, the requirement that a police officer obtain a warrant is the only “procedural safeguard” that matters — and it’s the one effectively disposed of once the court authorizes police to invade a home on a whim.

In 2002, the Michigan state legislature complied by modifying the relevant section of the state code (MCL 705.81d) by removing the clause recognizing the common law right to “use such reasonable force as is necessary to prevent” an unlawful arrest (that is, an armed kidnapping) by a police officer.

In the interests of brevity, these rulings should be consolidated under the name “Rapist Doctrine,” in recognition of the fact that are pseudo-scholarly versions of the advice once urged upon women enduring sexual assault: Don’t resist — it will only make things worse.

Like I've said, they have been at this for a while...

At common law, a person was privileged to resist an unlawful arrest. See Gross v. State, 186 Ind. 581, 583, 117 N.E. 562, 564 (1917). Our courts, however, have uniformly accepted that this common law rule is outmoded in today‟s modern society. See Fields v. State, 178 Ind. App. 350, 355, 382 N.E.2d 972, 975 (1978) (holding that a private citizen may not use force or resist a peaceful arrest by one he knows or has good reason to believe is an authorized officer perform-ing his duties, regardless of whether the arrest is legal or illegal)


At least "Plummer v. State - Citizens may resist unlawful arrest to the point of taking an arresting officer's life if necessary” is still in effect.

[aGameOfThrones]

Let's look at the mindset in Indiana.

Wilson v. State:

Here, Shane initially proposed “Defendant’s Tendered Final Instruction 1,” which
stated:
4
The law does not allow a peace officer to use more force than necessary to
effect an arrest, and if he does use such unnecessary force, he thereby
becomes a trespasser, and an arrestee therefore may resist the arrester’s use
of excessive force by the use of reasonable force to protect himself against
great bodily harm or death. If you find that Officer’s (sic) Myer (sic) and
Wilson used more force than necessary to effectuate the arrest, then Shane
Wilson was permitted to resist the arrest to such an extent as necessary to
protect himself from great bodily harm or death, and you must find him not
guilty of resisting law enforcement. Plummer v. State, 135 Ind. 308, 34
N.E. 968 (1893); Casselman v. State, 472 N.E.2d 1310 (Ind.App. 1985);
Wise v. State, 401 N.E.2d 65 (Ind.App. 1980); Heichelbech v. State, 258
Ind. 334, 281 N.E.2d 102 (1972); Birtsas v. State, 156 Ind.App. 587, 297
N.E.2d 864 (1973).


The initial statement of the law in the instruction is based upon our supreme
court’s holding in Plummer. The trial court refused to give the proposed instruction and
also refused to allow trial counsel to edit the instruction to reflect the statement in Wise
that when officers use excessive force in making an arrest an arrestee may resist the law
enforcement to prevent great bodily harm or death. The trial court rejected the
instruction on the basis that the right to resist an unlawful arrest, as that right is expressed
in Plummer, “has all gone by the way side.” Transcript at 135. The trial court concluded
that “[i]f you’re going to be arrested, your complaint about an unlawful arrest is not to
resist it. Your right [is] to bring an action later, but that doesn’t give you the right to
resist the arrest.” Transcript at 135-36. Shane’s counsel responded to the court’s
reasoning by pointing out that a defendant who is killed by arresting officers’ excessive
force would be unable to pursue a civil court action. The trial court acknowledged
defense counsel’s statement but ultimately refused to give the instruction, both as initially
proposed and also in its redacted or edited version.



In his closing argument, the deputy prosecutor reminded the jury members that
they had “taken an oath to follow the instructions by the judge” and that they should
notice that the instructions given to them did not state “that if the officer is shooting your
tire, that gives you the license to take off. There is not going to be anything that even
resembles that in the instructions.” Transcript at 161. This argument emphasized the
trial court’s erroneous decision to not give the proposed instruction. Had the instruction
been given, the jury would have been properly informed of a defendant’s right to protect
himself against great bodily harm or death and could have made a well-informed decision
as to whether the right was available to Shane. The trial court’s failure to give the
instruction was not harmless error.



Note: " The trial court erred in refusing to give the proposed instruction. We reverse and
remand with instructions that the trial court vacate Shane’s conviction. Reversed and remanded."

[Anti Federalist]

///

[Anti Federalist]

They probably would've been shot regardless. IIRC, they were firing on unarmed people who were surrendering.

On the last day of siege, yes, that is exactly what they were doing.


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qLXhmPuBmd4

[aGameOfThrones]

I wonder how many non-state criminals will apply for a license by becoming police officers to continue their profession of entering illegally a house.

We got professional molesters i.e. the TSA.

Now we got professional trespassers, USA USA USA.

[Anti Federalist]

I wonder how many non-state criminals will apply for a license by becoming police officers to continue their profession of entering illegally a house.

We got professional molesters i.e. the TSA.

Now we got professional trespassers, USA USA USA.

'Merica!

[PreDeadMan]

Yes let these clowns in your house... if you want to protect your property and you don't know who will enter your home and you injure/kill these government goons then you go to jail for life because they are always right and you're wrong YOU SHOULD HAVE X RAY VISION AND KNOW WHO IS BEHIND THAT DOOR..... SORRY CHARLIE you're DONE FOR!

[aGameOfThrones]

Recap for everyone...

Police wish to unlawfully arrest you...Allowed.

Police wish to unlawfully enter your house...Allowed.

Soon... Police wish to steal your shit...Allowed.

If you dare resist - the courts will say "(We) have uniformly accepted that this common law rule is outmoded in today‟s modern society".

Tuff luck mundane.

[Anti Federalist]

Recap for everyone...

Police wish to unlawfully arrest you...Allowed.

Police wish to unlawfully enter your house...Allowed.

Soon... Police wish to steal your shit...Allowed.

If you dare resist - the courts will say "(We) have uniformly accepted that this common law rule is outmoded in today‟s modern society".

Tuff luck mundane.

They hate us for our freedom.

[aGameOfThrones]

They hate us for our freedom.

The terrorist, I know.

[GuerrillaXXI]

Resisting worked well for the people in the Waco fiasco. /s Would the outcome have been different if they had not resisted?

(Just acting as the devils advocate for a moment.)Obviously the Branch Davidians had no chance, being surrounded from the beginning by a larger force with essentially endless reinforcements and supplies. But was their resistance futile? Not in my book. Several jackbooted thugs are dead because the Branch Davidians resisted. The BDs struck a blow for freedom and rid the earth of some scum before they were killed. They also sent a message that armed warfare against the Bill of Rights can be risky.

Still, I would never want to be in a situation in which I was resisting an essentially unlimited force from inside a fixed position. That requires hit-and-run offense -- pick someone off, then escape and repeat -- not attempts at defense. If the government thugs had really wanted to, they could have just dropped a bomb on the building the BDs were in.

As an aside, I have no regard for the religious beliefs of the BDs; but in an era where there's so much empty talk about "fighting for freedom," I have to admire the rare individuals who have really done that. If I had my way, there'd be a monument to the BDs at Waco, just as there are monuments to those who fought for freedom in the Revolutionary War.

[Anti Federalist]

Obviously the Branch Davidians had no chance, being surrounded from the beginning by a larger force with essentially endless reinforcements and supplies. But was their resistance futile? Not in my book. Several jackbooted thugs are dead because the Branch Davidians resisted. The BDs struck a blow for freedom and rid the earth of some scum before they were killed. They also sent a message that armed warfare against the Bill of Rights can be risky.

Still, I would never want to be in a situation in which I was resisting an essentially unlimited force from inside a fixed position. That requires hit-and-run offense -- pick someone off, then escape and repeat -- not attempts at defense. If the government thugs had really wanted to, they could have just dropped a bomb on the building the BDs were in.

As an aside, I have no regard for the religious beliefs of the BDs; but in an era where there's so much empty talk about "fighting for freedom," I have to admire the rare individuals who have really done that. If I had my way, there'd be a monument to the BDs at Waco, just as there are monuments to those who fought for freedom in the Revolutionary War.

Stop reading my mind...LoL

[aGameOfThrones]

///

[amy31416]

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=w2cYKIPMg1k

[AFPVet]

Interestingly, my state (Indiana) is traditionally conservative. It is amazing how we are transitioning from states—to simply a national government with mere districts.

[RideTheDirt]

Some idiot in a costume can say whatever he wants. I will defend myself and my family.

[RideTheDirt]

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=w2cYKIPMg1k
+rep

[pcosmar]

Great vid. Amy
and one in response.


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=F7JY-pn-OkM

[aGameOfThrones]

Any cop who disagrees with the 3 judges who voted in favor of this violation, can you please visit them at night, without a warrant or any justifiable actions and scare the shit out of them? We will see how much they like to reap what they sow.

[aGameOfThrones]

Hahaha, I just watch the video Amy posted, it had the same idea I posted above.

[Pericles]

It doesn't matter that much anyway, since rights aren't determined by what any court says. Except for the laws of physics, "laws" are just words on paper. In a practical rather than moral sense, citizens have only those rights they have the ability and willingness to defend with force. I harp on this a lot, but for good reason.

If I'm not willing to shoot at jackbooted thugs who are busting into my home, or if I don't have adequate weaponry and skills to pose a threat to them, then for all intents and purposes they have the right to bust into my home. But if they're afraid to bust into my home because I have a potent weapon and know how to use it -- or, even better, because they're worried that someone might retaliate against them in the future for terrorizing innocent citizens -- then they no longer have the right to invade my home.

Just to be clear, this isn't to argue that "might makes right" in a moral sense. But might does make right as far as the world actually operates. You have only those rights that you're willing to back up with sufficient force or the threat of force. No amount of philosophizing or legal argument will ever change this harsh reality. It's just something we all have to deal with.

This is true. Once a person is surrounded in his home, he's not getting out alive and free. But being carried by six is worth it in my opinion if at least one of the invaders ends up being carried by six as well. Those with children or others who depend on them may feel differently, which is understandable.

Contrast this and the SWAT killing of the Marine with my experience from this weekend:

Some of my associates and my self were out on a friend's property dressed in "tree suits" and awaiting the arrival of more from our group, when we get the the consequence of a problem my friend has with a recent liberal infestation due to population growth in the area. A sheriff's deputy rolls up (one guy with two AR carbines in the rack), and checks out our equipage -

Deputy: "You guys going to do any shooting tiday?"

A: "No, sir."

Deputy" "OK, thanks."

NO law enforcement seen for the rest of the weekend. We resisted the temptation to change the plan, and drag out dome .50 cal just to make the point.

Note how polite the encounter is when you are on the side with superior numbers and firepower. I urge all RPFers to consider this approach.

To paraphrase Napoleon - God is on the side with the heavy artillery.

[Kylie]

Let's look at the mindset in Indiana.

Wilson v. State:

Here, Shane initially proposed “Defendant’s Tendered Final Instruction 1,” which
stated:
4
The law does not allow a peace officer to use more force than necessary to
effect an arrest, and if he does use such unnecessary force, he thereby
becomes a trespasser, and an arrestee therefore may resist the arrester’s use
of excessive force by the use of reasonable force to protect himself against
great bodily harm or death. If you find that Officer’s (sic) Myer (sic) and
Wilson used more force than necessary to effectuate the arrest, then Shane
Wilson was permitted to resist the arrest to such an extent as necessary to
protect himself from great bodily harm or death, and you must find him not
guilty of resisting law enforcement. Plummer v. State, 135 Ind. 308, 34
N.E. 968 (1893); Casselman v. State, 472 N.E.2d 1310 (Ind.App. 1985);
Wise v. State, 401 N.E.2d 65 (Ind.App. 1980); Heichelbech v. State, 258
Ind. 334, 281 N.E.2d 102 (1972); Birtsas v. State, 156 Ind.App. 587, 297
N.E.2d 864 (1973).


The initial statement of the law in the instruction is based upon our supreme
court’s holding in Plummer. The trial court refused to give the proposed instruction and
also refused to allow trial counsel to edit the instruction to reflect the statement in Wise
that when officers use excessive force in making an arrest an arrestee may resist the law
enforcement to prevent great bodily harm or death. The trial court rejected the
instruction on the basis that the right to resist an unlawful arrest, as that right is expressed
in Plummer, “has all gone by the way side.” Transcript at 135. The trial court concluded
that “[i]f you’re going to be arrested, your complaint about an unlawful arrest is not to
resist it. Your right [is] to bring an action later, but that doesn’t give you the right to
resist the arrest.” Transcript at 135-36. Shane’s counsel responded to the court’s
reasoning by pointing out that a defendant who is killed by arresting officers’ excessive
force would be unable to pursue a civil court action. The trial court acknowledged
defense counsel’s statement but ultimately refused to give the instruction, both as initially
proposed and also in its redacted or edited version.






Note: " The trial court erred in refusing to give the proposed instruction. We reverse and
remand with instructions that the trial court vacate Shane’s conviction. Reversed and remanded."




Is this part of the case that is in the OP?

If so, would you please link what you've written? I have a very heated debate going on in another forum(I am kicking ass in the debate, btw) and if this is what happened in this case, I want to use it to the fullest extent.

Thanks in advance!!!

[aGameOfThrones]

Is this part of the case that is in the OP?

If so, would you please link what you've written? I have a very heated debate going on in another forum(I am kicking ass in the debate, btw) and if this is what happened in this case, I want to use it to the fullest extent.

Thanks in advance!!!

No it is not. I was showing the idiocy of prosecutors And the willingness of juries to not question said idiocy. The case is about the Right to resist excessive force from police officers. Also, in Indiana you have no Right to resist unlawful but peaceful arrest.

[Anti Federalist]

Is this part of the case that is in the OP?

If so, would you please link what you've written? I have a very heated debate going on in another forum(I am kicking ass in the debate, btw) and if this is what happened in this case, I want to use it to the fullest extent.

Thanks in advance!!!

link plz?

[heavenlyboy34]

Contrast this and the SWAT killing of the Marine with my experience from this weekend:

Some of my associates and my self were out on a friend's property dressed in "tree suits" and awaiting the arrival of more from our group, when we get the the consequence of a problem my friend has with a recent liberal infestation due to population growth in the area. A sheriff's deputy rolls up (one guy with two AR carbines in the rack), and checks out our equipage -

Deputy: "You guys going to do any shooting tiday?"

A: "No, sir."

Deputy" "OK, thanks."

NO law enforcement seen for the rest of the weekend. We resisted the temptation to change the plan, and drag out dome .50 cal just to make the point.

Note how polite the encounter is when you are on the side with superior numbers and firepower. I urge all RPFers to consider this approach.

To paraphrase Napoleon - God is on the side with the heavy artillery.

Did he say that before or after his army lost miserably in his campaign against the vastly out-gunned (at the time) Russians? ;)

[aGameOfThrones]

Scenario:

Knock knock...

Citizen(mundane): who is it?

Cop: it's you friendly neighborhood cop.

Citizen: what do you want?

Cop: hey, do you mind opening the door? I just want to check if you're ok.

Citizen(mundane): I'm ok, why do you ask?

Cop: 'cause I'm your friendly neighborhood cop, I want to make sure you're ok.

Citizen: well, like I said - I'm ok.

Cop: why won't you open the door to someone who wants to make sure you're ok?

Citizen: 'cause I have a Right to privacy and I already told you I'm ok.

Cop: but I just want to make sure.

Citizen: no you may not enter.

Cop: well, guess what?

Citizen: what?

Cop: you live in Indiana, so I'll huff and I'll puff and blow your motherfucking door down, mundane, and you take it! You take it good!

[jmdrake]

What? You mean will still had a 4th amendment right to lose? I'm just surprised that the court wasn't more subtle and didn't simply declare the arrest lawful in the first place. It just shows how little respect for the law there really is by the government that writes it.

[Pericles]

Did he say that before or after his army lost miserably in his campaign against the vastly out-gunned (at the time) Russians? ;)
It wasn't the Russian Army that defeated Napoleon.;)

It was General Winter that once again saved Russia's ass.

[Kylie]

link plz?


PM sent.

:)

[AFPVet]

Now I wonder how long it will take for this to end up in U.S. Supreme Court....

[DamianTV]

And I wonder how the Supreme Court will decide on this...

/bump

[Bern]

Indiana is not unique or even trailblazing with this decision. As I posted in one of the other threads on this same topic (http://www.ronpaulforums.com/showthread.php?292646-Indiana-Supreme-Court-No-right-to-resist-illegal-cop-entry-into-home&p=3276527&viewfull=1#post3276527):
As of 1965 only California, Delaware, New Hampshire, New Jersey, and Rhode
Island prohibited resistance of an illegal arrest.119 Four of these states did so by statute,120
New Jersey did so by court decree.121 By 1976 there were ten states that had eliminated
the common law right to resist an unlawful arrest: six by statute,122 and four by case law. 123
By 1983 there were thirty states that had eliminated the common law rule: nineteen by
statute,124 and eleven by case law. 125 By 1998 at least thirty-eight states had abrogated the
right to resist an unlawful arrest: twenty by statute,126 and eighteen by case law.127

¶41 Of the twelve states that retain the common law right to resist unlawful arrest, only
three, Michigan, Wyoming, and Oklahoma, are not located in the South. Of these,
Oklahoma is on the border of the region, and the status of the right in Wyoming is
perhaps best described as unclear.128

¶42 The other states retaining the common law right are Alabama, Georgia, Louisiana,
Maryland, North Carolina, South Carolina, Tennessee, West Virginia, and Mississippi.
Two of these states, Alabama 129 and Louisiana,130 endorse the right by statute; the
remaining states endorse the right by judicial decree.131 Several of these states have
considered the issue within the past decade and reaffirmed the common law rule.132

¶43 The geographical distribution of states retaining the common law rule strongly
suggests that regional cultural forces are at work . How can one explain why courts and
legislatures of states in one region of the country have resisted the clear trend towards
abrogation of the right to resist unlawful arrest? In the next section I make the argument
that a possible explanation for the retention of the common law rule by Southern states is
that Southern culture looks upon violence, especially defensive violence, in a manner
different from other regions. The Southern region’s general endorsement of violence as a
means of settling interpersonal disputes is known, in criminological research, as the
“Southern subculture of violence hypothesis.” This hypothesis, combined with the
traditional Southern belief in the importance of personal honor, may help explain why
Southern states in general, and Mississippi courts in particular, continue to endorse the
right to resist an unlawful arrest.

http://www.boalt.org/bjcl/v2/v2hemmens.pdf

Supposedly the Indiana decision relied in part on this paper (cited by the court).

[Austrian Econ Disciple]

Can we still resist quartering of soldiers *ahem* police?

[aGameOfThrones]

Indiana is not unique or even trailblazing with this decision. As I posted in one of the other threads on this same topic (http://www.ronpaulforums.com/showthread.php?292646-Indiana-Supreme-Court-No-right-to-resist-illegal-cop-entry-into-home&p=3276527&viewfull=1#post3276527):

http://www.boalt.org/bjcl/v2/v2hemmens.pdf

Supposedly the Indiana decision relied in part on this paper (cited by the court).

In Indiana you can still resist an excessive force arrest. I'm assuming in those states as well.

[Anti Federalist]

///

[Lucille]

Simon Black (The Sovereign Man): Indiana Supreme Court Dispenses With Magna Carta, Constitution (http://www.zerohedge.com/article/guest-post-indiana-supreme-court-dispenses-magna-carta-constitution)
Justice Steven David writes, “We hold that there is -no right- to reasonably resist unlawful entry by police officers.”

Wait. Full stop. A citizen has no right to resist unlawful entry by police officers on his private property? Apparently we’re all supposed to lay down like two-toed tree sloths while these jackbooted monkeys turn private property into yet another ‘rights free’ zone.

Americans already have to put up with dispensation of the Constitution at airports, border checkpoints, political events, many train station, and soon to be bus terminals and shopping malls. We’d better add ‘private residence’ to that list as well.

The right to protect oneself and one’s property against unlawful entry is the hallmark of any free civilization. Conversely, it is the hallmark of a totalitarian police state when government goons have the authority to go stomping around on private property without oversight of a judicious, impartial court.

There is no middle ground here… and a government that is on the way to denying this right is not far down the road from denying other basic, seemingly no-brainer rights– like assembly, criticizing the government, and possession of firearms.

One of the reasons I travel so much is so I don’t have to deal with this kind of nonsense. I enjoy spending time in countries where I have no fear of some government agent forcing his way into my home.

There are a number of such places in the world– Chile is definitely one of them.

[nolvorite]

Give us some privacy damn it!

[AFPVet]

This paves the way for the old Nazi house checks....

[samforpaul]

I think Rush mentioned this today.

[JacobG18]

I think Rush mentioned this today.

he did

it's at the end of the video in the link


http://www.mediaite.com/online/rush-limbaugh-slams-newt-gingrich-on-meet-the-press-appearance-its-mind-boggling/?utm_source=feedburner&utm_medium=feed&utm_campaign=Feed%3A+mediaite%2FClHj+(Mediaite)

[Anti Federalist]

This paves the way for the old Nazi house checks....

As if we aren't there already:

http://4.bp.blogspot.com/_wDdNiYA4zwY/TOP0Q51_zHI/AAAAAAAAFwo/Hc3OErIqqbk/s1600/nazi%2Bchecking%2Bunderwear.jpg

Nazis checking underwear

http://imamook.files.wordpress.com/2010/11/nun-muslim-frisk-300x261.jpg

[AFPVet]

As if we aren't there already:

http://4.bp.blogspot.com/_wDdNiYA4zwY/TOP0Q51_zHI/AAAAAAAAFwo/Hc3OErIqqbk/s1600/nazi%2Bchecking%2Bunderwear.jpg

Nazis checking underwear

http://imamook.files.wordpress.com/2010/11/nun-muslim-frisk-300x261.jpg


If we forget history, we are doomed to repeat it!

[GunnyFreedom]

The destruction of America and of the US Constitution is in full swing ladies and Gentlemen. :mad:

[GunnyFreedom]

The Indiana Supreme Court has declared the 4th and 5th Amendments to the US Constitution are null and void, and has declared that police have the authority to enter any house at will without a warrant, without probable cause, and without knocking or announcing themselves. Per the Indiana State Supreme Court, Indiana police may now burst into any home at random in the State of Indiana, kill anybody they wish, and if the people resist they go up on murder charges.

If this is left to stand, America (for Indianans, anyway) is pretty much DOA.

[Dr.3D]

Errrmmm... When Arizona made some laws pertaining to illegal immigration, the White House was all over it. Has the White House said anything about this? Are they going to challenge what the ISC declared?

I guess the answer is probably no, since they both work for the same people and those people are not us.

[aGameOfThrones]

The Indiana Supreme Court has declared the 4th and 5th Amendments to the US Constitution are null and void, and has declared that police have the authority to enter any house at will without a warrant, without probable cause, and without knocking or announcing themselves. Per the Indiana State Supreme Court, Indiana police may now burst into any home at random in the State of Indiana, kill anybody they wish, and if the people resist they go up on murder charges.

If this is left to stand, America (for Indianans, anyway) is pretty much DOA.


Indiana? Amateurs. SCOTUS... http://www.ronpaulforums.com/showthread.php?293383-SCOTUS-Hates-on-the-Fourth-Some-More

[Napoleon's Shadow]

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Dnam3SR_POQ

[MelissaCato]

Why isn't this making the MSM ? This is tragic !!!

Iraq-Veteran-Gunned-Down-At-Home (http://hubpages.com/hub/Iraq-Veteran-Gunned-Down-At-Home-Coverup)

Additional info and video (http://www.kgun9.com/story/14643812/this-case-involves-a-narcotics-conspiracy-case-which-means-that-we-are-looking-for-a-lot-of-different-narcotics-related-material-that-can-be-drug)

[aGameOfThrones]

Why isn't this making the MSM ? This is tragic !!!

Iraq-Veteran-Gunned-Down-At-Home (http://hubpages.com/hub/Iraq-Veteran-Gunned-Down-At-Home-Coverup)

Additional info and video (http://www.kgun9.com/story/14643812/this-case-involves-a-narcotics-conspiracy-case-which-means-that-we-are-looking-for-a-lot-of-different-narcotics-related-material-that-can-be-drug)

Maybe because it would paint the police as murderers and we can't have that?

[DamianTV]

Maybe because it would paint the police as murderers and we can't have that?

What? Cops arent murderers? Even though people call the police frequently for HELP, and they come and shoot the Family Chihuahua because it was a threat? Tazed? Shot for widdling? I cant simply believe that our own Police are Murderers!

Rights that are taken away are not Rights, they are Priviledges. It is time that we no longer allow our government to grant us Priviledges and fight to the death to defend our Rights. If they say we have no Right to defend ourselves, then that is a direct threat to the Pursuit of LIFE, Liberty, and Happiness.

[MelissaCato]

I don't understand why they took what they did from the house. Listen to this video with the wife. She says they took his military medals off his uniform, all her jewelry and other stuff. Crazy.
Wife (http://www.kgun9.com/story/14644188/this-case-involves-a-narcotics-conspiracy-case-which-means-that-we-are-looking-for-a-lot-of-different-narcotics-related-material-that-can-be-drug?redirected=true)

[aGameOfThrones]

I don't understand why they took what they did from the house. Listen to this video with the wife. She says they took his military medals off his uniform, all her jewelry and other stuff. Crazy.
Wife (http://www.kgun9.com/story/14644188/this-case-involves-a-narcotics-conspiracy-case-which-means-that-we-are-looking-for-a-lot-of-different-narcotics-related-material-that-can-be-drug?redirected=true)


Pillaging and plundering. After that, kill his reputation. After that, award bravery medals to the heroes. The end.

[aGameOfThrones]

http://video.foxbusiness.com/v/947912476001/resisting-the-state/

Judge Napolitano discusses the recent Indiana Supreme Court, and Supreme Court decisions that are effectively shredding the Fourth Amendment.

[Soca Taliban]

People need to keep in mind that they have Rights, not because LAW EXISTS, because THEY as a Person Exist.

When Laws are created, passed, and upheld in the Courts that deprive people of their Most Basic Rights, then We The People need to start depriving the Government of its privileges that it usurped from us to begin with.
Fixed

[GunnyFreedom]

http://video.foxbusiness.com/v/947912476001/resisting-the-state/

Judge Napolitano discusses the recent Indiana Supreme Court, and Supreme Court decisions that are effectively shredding the Fourth Amendment.

THANK YOU! You know, I have to be very selective about what I share to my Facebook wall nowadays, and whenever some new horrible injustice happens, I am often waiting in a kind of agony for a link I can share to Facebook about the subject without driving away more interest than I am attracting. I never have a problem sharing Judge Nap, and his take on things are pretty much always right. This folds right in to updating my constituents as to why I vote in the peculiar way I do.

On a different but related point, I am still getting calls from people demanding "WHY DID YOU VOTE FOR THAT DNA BILL??!!??"

Um. Not only have I voted against it 3 times, I've tried to amend it to kill it, and I stood on the floor and argued against it 4 times. In fact, LOL, by opposing the DNA bill, I have apparently earned an enemy in that bill's sponsor where he will now vote against me just because it's me.

Makes me realize why so many people get elected and then proceed to become a status quo establishment shill -- even if you correctly vote "NO" on some controversial issue, people will still scream at you for having voted "YES." The only people who REALLY pay any attention to your voting record are your fellow members of the House, so I can kinda understand why some people play to the rest of the House as though it was their constituency.

I mean, I'M not going to take that road, obviously, but having been here I can understand a lot more why it happens, and yes, the electorate has a lot to do with it.

Seriously...let's say I vote YES on Medical Cannabis - I'll end up with more people screaming at me for voting "NO" than I will people screaming at me for my actual vote of "YES," and if I vote "NO" I won't have anybody screaming at me at all. Won't stop me from voting correctly BUT I can see why it makes other people give up on doing the right thing.

[aGameOfThrones]

, I've tried to amend it to kill it, and I stood on the floor and argued against it 4 times. In fact, LOL, by opposing the DNA bill, I have apparently earned an enemy in that bill's sponsor where he will now vote against me just because it's me.





Congratulations! Now you know your enemy.

[S.Shorland]

Just after 20:00 A student at Indiana university is planning a rally to protest this.Stephen Skolnick.If you are there,you should certainly attend.


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jy4ru-7mDLM

[aGameOfThrones]

Update:


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HhUhrlcSlQg

[Lucille]

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HhUhrlcSlQg

The guy with the tie dye. It's the dude from Survivor (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rupert_Boneham)! Someone should update his wiki page and add this vid.

Thanks for the update aGameOfThrones!

So they're going to try to recall David. Excellent.

Now what about SCOTUS (http://www.ronpaulforums.com/showthread.php?293590-SCOTUS-officially-kills-the-4th-Amendment-today.)? WTH are we going to do about that?!