Indiana High Court Says No Right to Resist Illegal Police Entry

» Site Navigation
Home Page The Villages Maps The Villages Activities The Villages Clubs The Villages Book Healthcare Rentals Real Estate Section Classified Section The Villages Directory Home Improvement Site Guidelines Advertising Info Register Now Video Tutorials Frequently Asked Questions
» Newsletter Signup
» Premium Tower
» Advertisements
» Trending News
» Tower Sponsors




















» Premium Sponsors
» Banner Sponsors
» Advertisements
 
Thread Tools
  #1  
Old 05-14-2011, 02:01 PM
Guest
n/a
 
Posts: n/a
Default Indiana High Court Says No Right to Resist Illegal Police Entry

Reversing a rule of law dating back to the Magna Carta, the Indiana Supreme Court says you cannot physically prevent a law enforsement officer from illegally entering your home.

They reason state by the court is that you now have legal recourse to address the invasion after the fact. What if the police officer plants "evidence"? What then? Where is your recourse?

In a previous ruling, this same court ruled an officer serving a warrant need not knock when entering a home "if the officer thought the circumstances justified it".

The U.S. Supreme Court needs to examine these rulings forthwith.

http://www.newsroomamerica.com/story/129056.html

http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/2719318/posts

http://www.nwitimes.com/news/local/g...3df229697.html
  #2  
Old 05-14-2011, 04:48 PM
Guest
n/a
 
Posts: n/a
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by RichieLion View Post
Reversing a rule of law dating back to the Magna Carta, the Indiana Supreme Court says you cannot physically prevent a law enforsement officer from illegally entering your home.

They reason state by the court is that you now have legal recourse to address the invasion after the fact. What if the police officer plants "evidence"? What then? Where is your recourse?

In a previous ruling, this same court ruled an officer serving a warrant need not knock when entering a home "if the officer thought the circumstances justified it".

The U.S. Supreme Court needs to examine these rulings forthwith.

http://www.newsroomamerica.com/story/129056.html

http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/2719318/posts

http://www.nwitimes.com/news/local/g...3df229697.html
You know...I am 71 years old and I have a big family and a lot of friends who all stay within the law. I certainly am not going to worry about this for me, my family, and the people who I call friends. It just doesn't seem to be an issue if you aren't doing anything wrong.

So far in my quite long life, the police have been protectors and helpers. I certainly would not consider them an enemy force...because I am not doing anything illegal and they are not interested in entering my home and probably as long as I am nice, they aren't going to want to plant illegal evidence either.

Deep breaths Richie.

I am sure it doesn't affect you, me or most of us....just the bad guys.
  #3  
Old 05-14-2011, 04:52 PM
Guest
n/a
 
Posts: n/a
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by graciegirl View Post
You know...I am 71 years old and I have a big family and a lot of friends who all stay within the law. I certainly am not going to worry about this for me, my family, and the people who I call friends. It just doesn't seem to be an issue if you aren't doing anything wrong.

So far in my quite long life, the police have been protectors and helpers. I certainly would not consider them an enemy force...because I am not doing anything illegal and they are not interested in entering my home and probably as long as I am nice, they aren't going to want to plant illegal evidence either.

Deep breaths Richie.

I am sure it doesn't affect you, me or most of us....just the bad guys.
Gracie, I understand where you are coming from and could say the same thing for me and my family. However, I have to go with Richie on this one. The law is there to protect everyone, not just the 'good guys'.
  #4  
Old 05-15-2011, 03:12 PM
Guest
n/a
 
Posts: n/a
Default

Law abiding people also have little to fear because law enforcement has to follow rules of law. If they have the right to enter you home without just cause..............they will. It's that simple.

Gracie, would you be okay with having a policeman stop you in the street and tell you to empty your pockets and hand over your purse without just cause? Do you have any doubt that there are plenty of cops who would abuse such a power if they had it?
  #5  
Old 05-15-2011, 05:44 PM
Guest
n/a
 
Posts: n/a
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by RichieLion View Post
Law abiding people also have little to fear because law enforcement has to follow rules of law. If they have the right to enter you home without just cause..............they will. It's that simple.

Gracie, would you be okay with having a policeman stop you in the street and tell you to empty your pockets and hand over your purse without just cause? Do you have any doubt that there are plenty of cops who would abuse such a power if they had it?
You were born and raised in a different area of the country than I was. I know that in Ohio we have some bad apples in law enforcement, but not many. I can't even imagine a policeman doing such a thing. They are just like the rest of us. It is like saying that YOU would abuse the power if you had it. Why would I think that?

I just don't think we look at things in the same way. I kind of think you read these things on sites and get all mad and I think...well that won't affect me in an adverse way. I just don't go looking for trouble. If you want to worry about something....there is plenty of stuff just right around you. Why waste this wonderful day on something that if you tried your VERY hardest, you can't change anyway???
  #6  
Old 05-15-2011, 07:04 PM
Guest
n/a
 
Posts: n/a
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by graciegirl View Post
You were born and raised in a different area of the country than I was. I know that in Ohio we have some bad apples in law enforcement, but not many. I can't even imagine a policeman doing such a thing. They are just like the rest of us. It is like saying that YOU would abuse the power if you had it. Why would I think that?

I just don't think we look at things in the same way. I kind of think you read these things on sites and get all mad and I think...well that won't affect me in an adverse way. I just don't go looking for trouble. If you want to worry about something....there is plenty of stuff just right around you. Why waste this wonderful day on something that if you tried your VERY hardest, you can't change anyway???
That's a difference between us, I guess. I believe that laws can be changed, and I believe laws that have been grossly misinterpreted by a wrong-headed judge with a flawed ruling can be reexamined if the people demand it. There are higher courts, thank God, than the one from which this ruling came down.

I really think you should reconsider whether a rule of law recognized by every court since 1812 should be overturned.

I don't waste my day. Today I played. I went to Market of Marion with my lovely wife and bought some used books to read, and some fresh fruits and vegetables, and I just enjoyed a lovely supper she prepared.

I also have the time to debate with you whether we should live in a police state. This is the crux of what we talking about for your information, in all due respect.
  #7  
Old 05-16-2011, 06:42 AM
Guest
n/a
 
Posts: n/a
Default

Gracie,

People - INNOCENT people - have been KILLED in New York and Boston during illegal entries into homes. In Boston, it was getting the address of a drug dealer wrong.

The Indiana Supreme Court says that there is a process to fix things 'after the fact'? That's atrocious. Let me tell you about another government, right here in the United States that thought fixing things 'after the fact' was ok.

Set the Way-Back Machine to the 1950s, Boston Massachusetts. Plans are drawn up for a glorious Skyway through Boston that will eventually be known as the Central Artery, then later as I-93.

Lots of homes and businesses were to be taken for the new right-of-way. Of course, the Constitution says that owners would be fairly compensated, yes? Here's what the government did if you owned a building 'in the way'.

- They condemned your property.

- They paid you $1. Yes, that's right - $1.

- They forced you out of your property - physically.

- They told you to sue in court for the 'fair value' of your property.

The owners still had mortgages on the properties. In fact, the banks called the mortgages in when the state took over. So the owner ends up having to pay for moving expenses, a new place to live AND the balance of his old mortgage on a place the state has already bulldozed. Now, to sue, he has to hire a lawyer - yet ANOTHER expense. The state then give the owner a lowball offer and has him sign a release that allowed the state to get the property for a fraction of it's value.

Does this sound familiar?

But that's what happened. You can't imagine something like that happening in this country - but it does.
 

Thread Tools

You are viewing a new design of the TOTV site. Click here to revert to the old version.

All times are GMT -5. The time now is 09:19 PM.