Random Thoughts (Political Edition)

A recourse we already had. What this ruling says, at its core, is that the 4th amendment does not apply in Indiana.

That's just blatantly wrong. Officers are still responsible for their actions. This does not make officers immune from the law. This does not say officers can search whatever they want whenever they want. It just means that when you punch an officer because you think they are entering illegally, but are actually following probable cause, you'll get a bit of a talking to.
 
Last edited:
It does when they already think they are. It doesn't do much good to have to fight the charges later, they can bust in your door and lie about why they did it. Of course, they already do that anyway.
 
So how does this ruling change any of that? Punch the officer in the face, he lies and claims you assaulted him out of the blue. What's your point?
 
A recourse we already had. What this ruling says, at its core, is that the 4th amendment does not apply in Indiana.

That's being a bit drastic. Most people have not been "strict constructionist" to that extent -- the 2nd amendment being the prime example wherein laws have been upheld that prohibit criminals from owning firearms, prevent the average person from owning machine guns and anti-tank rockets, etc. We allow the 6th amendment to be abridged as well by typically not forcing children to testify in front of those accused of molesting them.

Yet I completely agree that any abridgement is serious and should never be taken lightly.

Steve
 
I assume he means the Northern Ireland of which the majority of its citizens want to remain part of the UK.

Or, as one could argue:

I assume he means the Northern Ireland of which the majority of its citizens -- descended from the invaders that conquered and displaced the native inhabitants of the region -- want to remain part of the UK.

Steve
 
That's being a bit drastic. Most people have not been "strict constructionist" to that extent -- the 2nd amendment being the prime example wherein laws have been upheld that prohibit criminals from owning firearms, prevent the average person from owning machine guns and anti-tank rockets, etc. We allow the 6th amendment to be abridged as well by typically not forcing children to testify in front of those accused of molesting them.

Yet I completely agree that any abridgement is serious and should never be taken lightly.

Steve

One of the problems with your second amendment argument is that criminals have been tried and found guilty by due process, this ruling allows cops to conduct warrantless searches based on the sou d of evidence being destroyed. What exactly does that sound like anyway?
 
So how does this ruling change any of that? Punch the officer in the face, he lies and claims you assaulted him out of the blue. What's your point?

That some LEO would push this to the max. Oops, some have already made plans to do just that.


http://www.mikechurch.com/Today-s-L...t-random-house-to-house-searches-we-will.html

IN Sheriff: If We Need to Conduct RANDOM HOUSE to HOUSE Searches We Will

CROWN POINT, Ind. ? According to Newton County Sheriff, Don Hartman Sr., random house to house searches are now possible and could be helpful following the Barnes v. STATE of INDIANA Supreme Court ruling issued on May 12th, 2011. When asked three separate times due to the astounding callousness as it relates to trampling the inherent natural rights of Americans, he emphatically indicated that he would use random house to house checks, adding he felt people will welcome random searches if it means capturing a criminal.


Speaking under the condition of anonymity, a local city Police Chief with 30 years experience in law enforcement directly contradicted the Newton County Sheriff?s blatant disregard for privacy & liberty, stating that as an American first, such an action is unconscionable and that his allegiance is to the Indiana and federal Constitutions respectively. However, he also concurred that the ruling does now allow for police to randomly search homes should a department be under order by state or federal officials or under a department?s own accord.

At this time we are still awaiting comments from several state offices.

However, the spokesperson for the INDIANA ATTORNEY GENERAL took umbrage at what he referred to as ?large? assumptions regarding police power and at this time has no comment. He did however indicate that should the INDIANA Attorney General, Greg Zoeller feel it necessary to make a statement, that this reporter would be included in the distribution of the release.

But he is wrong, there are also threats to the Indiana Supreme court over this.


EDIT:

This is not the only threat to the Fourth Amendment. Read here for more.
 
Last edited:
This does not say officers can search whatever they want whenever they want.
According to the article GRtak posted, there's at least one Indiana Sheriff who thinks it does just that. Sounds like the state AG might make a statement on the matter tomorrow in-order to try and clear this up.

It just means that when you punch an officer because you think they are entering illegally, but are actually following probable cause, you'll get a bit of a talking to.
In the ruling, they "decline to recognize the right to reasonably resist an unlawful police entry." Forget punching; any intentional touching of a cop in a manner they deem rude or insolent is battery. And probable cause is irrelevant since we're talking about unlawful entry in the first place. So to rephrase your statement, it just means that when you push an officer because they have unlawfully entered your residence, you're going to get arrested and charged with battery.

That's precisely what the original case was about. The defendant (Barnes) was even hospitalized by the cops response to him pushing one of them into a door. I can't find anything about either of the cops being reprimanded for the unlawful entry either.

Instead of posting a few blocks of quotes, you can read the ruling here. In the dissenting opinions, the justices make the case that the legal system and police forces in this country are still too far flawed for us to simply dismiss this bit of common law. The second dissenter states that the ruling basically permits illegal entry into homes, because in the US resistance to unlawful entry is enshrined in the 4th amendment.

Yet I completely agree that any abridgement is serious and should never be taken lightly.
Agreed. Heh, it's finals week and I get more fired up than usual when I'm not getting sleep.

This is not the only threat to the Fourth Amendment. Read here for more.
Funny, I don't see that one all over RedState or any of the other right-wing blogs going nuts over the Indiana rulings. Oh, nevermind, it's about that evil marijuana. :rolleyes:
 
What the hell is it with previously free countries taking away (piecemeal) individual's freedoms and rights?

We have the stop, fine and have three points on your licence just because I say so law being promulgated. We are turning into continentals, next will be 4 Police forces. ... (NB it is well known that the more Police Forces a country has the more open to bribery and incompetence each are).
 
Oh, nevermind, it's about that evil marijuana. :rolleyes:


The Drug War is the slippery slope that will remove all of our rights.
 
The Drug War/War on Terror is the slippery slope that will remove all of our rights.

FTFY.

The US started linking the Drug War and the War on Terror several years ago - because we all know that some guy who smokes a bit of dope once in a while is the same as Osama Bin Laden.
 
That some LEO would push this to the max. Oops, some have already made plans to do just that.


http://www.mikechurch.com/Today-s-L...t-random-house-to-house-searches-we-will.html



But he is wrong, there are also threats to the Indiana Supreme court over this.


EDIT:

This is not the only threat to the Fourth Amendment. Read here for more.

I would like to thank this police officer. I am glad that he is trying to abuse this ruling. Now it will get even more attention. I understand the reasoning behind the ruling. They want to protect police officers. But just like so many other things, the real world doesn't operate like that.

To be clear, I liked the two threads for random thoughts and TSA because I thought it made for better discussion of both. Not that I don't like any arguments against the TSA.
 
FTFY.

The US started linking the Drug War and the War on Terror several years ago - because we all know that some guy who smokes a bit of dope once in a while is the same as Osama Bin Laden.

Ahhh, right, the other never ending War.
 
Or, as one could argue:



Steve

European settlers conquered, displaced and annihilated the native inhabitants of the Americas, if there were enough left maybe they could use the same argument to demand the US, Mexico, ect back.
 
One small point - the Native Americans that the whites displaced had themselves moved on the original inhabitants of course.
 
Ah yes, the evil Satan of migration rears its head again... ;-)
 
Funny, I don't see that one all over RedState or any of the other right-wing blogs going nuts over the Indiana rulings. Oh, nevermind, it's about that evil marijuana. :rolleyes:

I wouldn't say that; I saw it on that "PR firm for the Republican Party" Fox News. :)

In one sense, I hope some of these police idiots go ahead and go over the boundaries on this. That's how we're going to get a more definitive ruling. On the other hand, it sucks that someone ends up being a wrongful victim.

Where is the magic wand when you need it?

Steve
 
But a wand would be resisting police entry under this ruling.
 
Now Obama has killed Osama and the president (now a requirement for all presidents I should imagine or people will think it was racist) has supplied his full birth certificate what are the right going to bring up?

There are many things that should be challenged by the right, the above two just show how stupid some of them are - do you think Fox News is actually an agent provocateur for the left with complete morons employed to write and present the views of the station?

When I first saw Fox News I had a bit of trouble believing it was serious broadcasting. ... :lol: was my reaction.
 
Top