Who cares about the 4th Amendment?

[DrunkenBuddha]

Lawyers got a saying, "You might beat the charge, but you're not gonna beat the ride." Meaning that the case might go away, but you still ended up in the pokey for a bit.

So I get that. Should he have even touched the officer? No. It just causes unnecessary drama. The cops understandably throw around officer safety and then you end up wiggling around on the ground cause its taser-time.

This is also an officer training issue. The officers should have known they couldn't go in the house.

And this is not a knock on the cops. They got a difficult job. They get a call alleging domestic violence. They arrive on scene and the couple is yelling and screaming. Neither appears to really be responding to the officers other that one to tell them to beat it and the other acting more submissive to their authority (but not really explicitly cooperating either).

So what do the cops do? They do what they think is right to protect the public. I get it. They were trying to make sure that the woman was actually okay. On a very real level, I actually agree with them. But that doesn't make what they did right or permissible either.

Should we, as a country, allow the cops to enter our residences without our permission and without cause? On that macro level I have to always say no. Just no.

I guess the question is what should we be able to do to protect ourselves from such an unlawful intrusion. My concern is where Indiana says that you can do nothing to protect yourself from unlawful action by the state as it occurs. Shoot, one can argue that the whole purpose of the 2nd amendment is to give teeth to the citizen as a form of checks and balances from the imposition of oppression from the state (not to derail the discussion). I just find the ruling troubling but it appears to suggest that in the face of unlawful state action, your only choice is to do nothing. That just seems...too passive and places the citizenry in a position of submission to the state - and that just fundamentally riles me. The state exists to serve us. The only time we should be forced to obey/comply with the state is when there is a justifiable reason. This ruling says you must always obey no matter what (fight it later). I don't like that.

[baddax]

The illusion of freedom is fading.....bit by bit....

The key word is illusion.

Move to China, or Iran, or North Korea and tell me about illusions of freedom. We have it good here...we just like to b*t*h about it.

I agree we have more freedom than they do. We just have less than we did 100 or 200 years ago and unless we fight to keep what we have we will continue to have less in the future, as evidenced by this ruling.

I just find the ruling troubling but it appears to suggest that in the face of unlawful state action, your only choice is to do nothing. That just seems...too passive and places the citizenry in a position of submission to the state - and that just fundamentally riles me. The state exists to serve us. The only time we should be forced to obey/comply with the state is when there is a justifiable reason. This ruling says you must always obey no matter what (fight it later). I don't like that.

I think we tend to forget the founding fathers did a little more than nothing in regards to expressing there mistrust and opinion on many governmental issues, especially taxation. I am sure they (the ones who wrote the constitution) would not take such a passive approach to having their rights (the ones they died for) trampled upon.

[nucphyschem]

Is there any wonder why the left wing party toads want to get rid of the second amendment at this point its so their stooges on the police force can break into your house and not have to wonder if they are going to wind up with a face full of buck shot.

And on a tangent how is it even ethically right for anyone ever diagnosed with a mental condition from ADD to bi-polar from 2months old to 80 years old not legally allowed to own a weapon. Now albiet there are some people that shouldnt own weapons but the thats what back ground checks are for!

[Kakow]

So let me get this straight....you're a kid watching your mom get beat to **** by your father...you call for help, loudly enough that the neighbors hear and call 911 because they're afraid of getting mixed up in the drama. The police respond, but since it's the father's apartment, some of you folks think it's completely fine for him to lock the door and not respond to the knock on the door?

Give me the country that allows its peace officers the common sense judgment call to trample on rights any day to protect the greater good. That same country penalizes those same officers more often than Hollywood or the tabloid news outlets would have you believe. Most cops do a solid day's work. Most of them aren't on television shows. Many times they have to respond to idiotic domestic violence scenes that are routinely more dangerous to them then the actual participants. I'm not sure what happened in this case, but if they heard a woman and man screaming at each other, who can blame them that they took positive, assertive action in controlling the situation?

How about some pats on the back for them not causing bodily harm or killing the man when he attacked them, as is their right to do? Armchair Constitutional Lawyers always disgust me....not being there means none of us are really qualified to say what exactly was needed to help that situation. Second guessing the men and women who routinely put their lives on the line every single day to ensure our general societal tranquility isn't helpful. Instead, how about you shake a police officer's hand and say, "thank you for protecting my family as best you know how."

Leave the Constitutional law discussions to those who do it for a living, not those of us whose only education in it is from Hollywood crime dramas.

[Odin_Redbeard]

So let me get this straight....you're a kid watching your mom get beat to **** by your father...you call for help, loudly enough that the neighbors hear and call 911 because they're afraid of getting mixed up in the drama. The police respond, but since it's the father's apartment, some of you folks think it's completely fine for him to lock the door and not respond to the knock on the door?

This would give them probable cause

Give me the country that allows its peace officers the common sense judgment call to trample on rights any day to protect the greater good. That same country penalizes those same officers more often than Hollywood or the tabloid news outlets would have you believe. Most cops do a solid day's work. Most of them aren't on television shows. Many times they have to respond to idiotic domestic violence scenes that are routinely more dangerous to them then the actual participants. I'm not sure what happened in this case, but if they heard a woman and man screaming at each other, who can blame them that they took positive, assertive action in controlling the situation?

How about some pats on the back for them not causing bodily harm or killing the man when he attacked them, as is their right to do? Armchair Constitutional Lawyers always disgust me....not being there means none of us are really qualified to say what exactly was needed to help that situation. Second guessing the men and women who routinely put their lives on the line every single day to ensure our general societal tranquility isn't helpful. Instead, how about you shake a police officer's hand and say, "thank you for protecting my family as best you know how."

It's illegal, so I do have the right to defend myself/property

Leave the Constitutional law discussions to those who do it for a living, not those of us whose only education in it is from Hollywood crime dramas.

Well if your from the Philippians then you don't seem to understand our laws, if your an American, well you don't seem to understand our laws. I don't need a Constitutional law degree to know what aint right. I don't allow allow thugs with badges to control me. I am so very tired of the "junk" the average citizen will tolerate now a day. I do want my country back and i'm just about to the point where I don't care how I do so.

[TheDjinnFor]

Sure, his feelings were hurt because the 50 pushed their way into his house, but he would have been much better off to deal with it through civil court. Cities, counties and states have deep pockets. Sue away.

So lets review here: You have a grievance with the conduct of particular people who provide a particular service for you. The simplest response would be to sever ties with these 'service providers' and refuse to support them financially, but in the worst case scenario they will send armed men to your house to kidnap you if you continually refuse to pay them for shoddy service you do not want, and everybody seems to agree that this is fair. Your only hope for recourse is to spend a lengthy amount of time and money fighting to convince a third party that these service providers owe you money for their failings. Of course, whether you win or not is not important to the service providers since they get all of their revenue from the business model described above (i.e. they have "deep pockets'). If you lose, the service providers still suck and you waste your time and money. If you win, the service providers still suck, but now they need to extort even more money than before to hand out what essentially amounts to a bribe on you.

Sounds about right?

[AndyD47]

Give me the country that allows its peace officers the common sense judgment call to trample on rights any day to protect the greater good.

A police officer has literally no obligation to protect you short of a court order to do so.

http://www.firearmsandliberty.com/ka...rotection.html

It is vital that we as citizens retain every right to defend ourselves,for the simple fact that push comes to shove we might be the only ones to be in a position to.

At the very least there's the simple fact that there are hardly enough LEOs to cover the entire population.



I quoted that part of your post because it kinda bothered me.
Simply put,any nation that allows its officials to "trample on rights" has failed its citizens.

[LolWutRoflstomped]

Miranda and the 4th amendment are dead to the courts. The police enter when and where they want. They used my dog barking in response to them banging on the door as "probable cause" to enter my house before. I was then told I could call my lawyer later as they proceeded to question me. My lawyer, who is far from incompetent or inexperienced, was not surprised by this and said it is the norm now. He used the words Miranda is dead.

[herzkos]

I'm thinking not.

So let's say the person wasn't a police officer, but maybe a friend, neighbor or family member of the female involved. Let's say that person wanted to come into the home and the male didn't want to let them, but the wife/girlfriend was saying "just let them in". Then let's say the male pushed them against a wall, assaulted them, ect...

Do you think that a court would say, "Sorry. But that homeowner had a right to assault you because he was peeved with his wife and didn't want you in his house." I don't think so.

There are remedies when somebody does something that violates your rights as a citizen. Whether it's the police, or somebody else. Sometimes it's criminal action, and sometimes it's civil action.

The bottom line is that there are VERY few instances when the law allows you to use physical force on anybody else. The police may have been wrong for entering, but the guy who put his hands on the cop was more wrong. He could have called for the supervisor, sued the department, ect... Assaulting the cop? Bad idea.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_jm-chVaSCw

I concur that the person did not have a right to "assault" the officer (or anyone else). However, the officer(s)
had no right nor reasonable cause to enter the apartment. There was no sign of violence. the other person in there
did not ask the police to enter (though she did tell the guy to let them in, there is a difference).
Two wrongs do not make a right but the officers were dead wrong to try to barge in and the individual does
have rights under the constitution that Indiana has no authority to diminish.

as to the first part of your response, this is a concrete situation. I'm not going to debate what ifs and other
theories.

[herzkos]

Grr - not so sure anymore what with the USSC's recent ruling:

http://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/10pdf/09-1272.pdf

You better not be in the bathroom with diarrhea, cause the law's gonna use that to come on.

Again, not arguing against whether or not to use violence on the law. You shouldn't. Period.

Previous post is correct in that we are a nation of laws. Laws/precedent which were recently overturned with this ruling. 1948 Supreme Court ruling cited in the ruling specifically notes this precedent - namely that "if the officer had no right to arrest, the other party might resist the illegal attempt to arrest him, using no more force than is absolutely necessary to repel the assault constituting the attempt to arrest."

Yes, yes, yes, you can sue to bejesus out of the agency doing the unlawful arrest, etc, etc afterthefact. You can try to press charges against the officer for battery, etc (good luck with that by the way). But again, that's not even the point.

The point is that that was his home. The officer had no reason to enter the home. No crime was being committed. You have the right NOT to talk to the officer. He does not have the right to enter your home without either your permission or a warrant. I don't see any exigent circumstances here. She's kicking him out. No allegations that she's battered or anything of that nature. They were simply investigating. They had nothing to support coming into that house but they did, against the home owner's permission.

That's the point. And that Indiana says its ok.

Think you might have picked a bad example with that case mate.
having read the "opinion", it was clear that the police smelled marijuana giving probable cause and the actions
of those inside after knocking made it clear that there was illegal activity going on. There may be more applicable
precedents to the situation described in the op but I don't see how what you cited qualifies.

[dingal]

The court ruling acknowledges that this entry was unlawful. They're just saying that there's nothing you can do about it.

.

No they are saying that it's illegal to hit cops even if the cops in question are making a mistake.
Police officers interpret an enforce the law, not citizens. If you open a pandora's box that says citizens can suddenly decide for themselves if a police officer is or is not correctly following procedure and therefore resist arrest accordingly then you're asking for serious trouble.

Police officers can and are often held accountable for the mistakes that they make but you are obligated to at a very minimum not hit them. If they choose to arrest you then you need to go peacefully, get out and deal with it through the legal system.

[DMCain]

Blah, blah, blah.

Barnes did something stupid and got hooked up for it. Plain and simple.

Throwing stuff around the house is not too bad (I've done it myself a few times), but when it elicits a 911 call, then we have a problem. Add to that some git getting agitated and belligerent with officers, in public with witnesses, and you have a highly volatile situation. Those 2 facts alone give the officers probable cause to enter the apartment to ensure the safety and well-being of the 'victim'. Now, when Barnes returned to the apartment, if he had gathered his things and left, like he planned and stated, there would likely have been no arrest and the only charge may have been a citation for disorderly conduct. But the twit decided to accost an officer instead of getting his junk and leaving peacefully.

[PwnHammer40K]

What about all the homes of kobolds and hobgoblins we've been forcing our way into all over Stormreach for all these years now? Where's our warrant?