Indiana Supreme Court Rules That Police Can Enter Anyone’s Home Without a Warrant

Wait. What?
US News • Views: 36,894

Our WTF story of the day:

INDIANAPOLIS— People have no right to resist if police officers illegally enter their home, the Indiana Supreme Court ruled in a decision that overturns centuries of common law.

The court issued its 3-2 ruling on Thursday, contending that allowing residents to resist officers who enter their homes without any right would increase the risk of violent confrontation. If police enter a home illegally, the courts are the proper place to protest it, Justice Steven David said.

“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.”

What the hell is going on in Indiana?

Jump to bottom

286 comments
1 HappyBenghazi  Fri, May 13, 2011 8:48:39pm

Isn't this a clear violation of the fourth amendment? What the fuck Indiana, what the fuck.

2 scienceisreal  Fri, May 13, 2011 8:51:16pm

Cool, I'm going to go get a police officer's costume and cause some havoc around Indiana.

3 Targetpractice  Fri, May 13, 2011 8:53:03pm

Okay, I must be high on something, because that ruling makes not an iota of sense to me. Cops in Indiana now have the authority to come snooping your house, without cause or permission, because of the potential for "violent confrontation" if the homeowner refuses to allow them entry? And that the courts are the place to lodge a complaint against such unlawful search and seizures?

Are we talking Indiana or Germany, circa 1938?

4 BongGhazi  Fri, May 13, 2011 8:53:14pm

Welcome to your brand new police state.

5 laZardo  Fri, May 13, 2011 8:53:56pm
What the hell is going on in Indiana?

Regression, that's what.

6 Obdicut  Fri, May 13, 2011 8:56:42pm

Are you allowed to resist people who say they're the police, but are lying?

And how can you know?

I mean, aside from this being a violation of the constitution.

Somewhere, out in the night, every lawyer on the ACLU just felt a call.

7 Charles Johnson  Fri, May 13, 2011 8:56:48pm

I'm reading this over and over, trying to find the part where they aren't really saying that citizens have no right to resist an illegal entry into their homes by police.

I'm just not finding it, because that's exactly what the Supreme Court ruled. It says, explicitly, that citizens cannot resist an illegal police entry.

Gobsmacked.

8 Dark_Falcon  Fri, May 13, 2011 8:57:26pm

re: #3 Targetpractice, Worst of Both Worlds

Okay, I must be high on something, because that ruling makes not an iota of sense to me. Cops in Indiana now have the authority to come snooping your house, without cause or permission, because of the potential for "violent confrontation" if the homeowner refuses to allow them entry? And that the courts are the place to lodge a complaint against such unlawful search and seizures?

Are we talking Indiana or Germany, circa 1938?

The logic is simple: It holds that civilians do not have any right to resist the police. It's not really a Tea Party slogan, though, given all the pretend revolutionaries who show up at TP rallies. That crowd is probably going to go nuts over this.

9 Slumbering Behemoth Stinks  Fri, May 13, 2011 8:58:25pm
“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.

Really?


The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.

English, mother fucker! Can you read it?!?

10 Fenris  Fri, May 13, 2011 8:58:33pm

Is SCOTUS able to overrule state Supreme Court rulings?

11 BongGhazi  Fri, May 13, 2011 8:58:43pm

"Badges? We don't need no stinking badges."

12 Dark_Falcon  Fri, May 13, 2011 8:58:54pm

re: #6 Obdicut

Are you allowed to resist people who say they're the police, but are lying?

And how can you know?

I mean, aside from this being a violation of the constitution.

Somewhere, out in the night, every lawyer on the ACLU just felt a call.

Every lawyer at the Federalist Society, too. The US Supreme Court is going to giving this ruling the beatdown it deserves. I see a 9-0 ruling coming up.

13 SanFranciscoZionist  Fri, May 13, 2011 8:58:55pm

Anglo-American law has generally frowned on this sort of thing:

“The poorest man may in his cottage bid defiance to all the forces of the Crown. It may be frail, its roof may shake; the wind may blow through it; the storm may enter, the rain may enter -- but the King of England cannot enter; all his force dares not cross the threshold of the ruined tenement!”

Pitt the Elder, y'all.

14 Dark_Falcon  Fri, May 13, 2011 8:59:16pm

re: #10 fenrisdesigns

Is SCOTUS able to overrule state Supreme Court rulings?

Yes, and in this case it likely will.

15 ProGunLiberal  Fri, May 13, 2011 8:59:20pm

re: #7 Charles

I still can't believe I'm reading this. What the hell happened. I really hope this gets overturned. This is an error of law.

16 FreedomMoon  Fri, May 13, 2011 9:00:03pm

This one would definitely have our forefathers spinning in their urn. And that's a cliche I hate, especially when it's used by right to hyperventilate over their right to bear a machine gun.

17 laZardo  Fri, May 13, 2011 9:00:14pm

re: #8 Dark_Falcon

The logic is simple: It holds that civilians do not have any right to resist the police. It's not really a Tea Party slogan, though, given all the pretend revolutionaries who show up at TP rallies. That crowd is probably going to go nuts over this.

Luap Nor and Luap Dnar, maybe. But the rest would probably find some racially-motivated excuse.

18 Targetpractice  Fri, May 13, 2011 9:00:14pm

re: #8 Dark_Falcon

The logic is simple: It holds that civilians do not have any right to resist the police. It's not really a Tea Party slogan, though, given all the pretend revolutionaries who show up at TP rallies. That crowd is probably going to go nuts over this.

This might be one of those in-a-blue-moon occasions, where folks on both sides of the aisle join as one to scream "What The Fuck?!"

19 Slumbering Behemoth Stinks  Fri, May 13, 2011 9:00:16pm

re: #8 Dark_Falcon

That crowd is probably going to go nuts over this.

The will point to this as proof that Obama is a tyrant.

20 Obdicut  Fri, May 13, 2011 9:00:56pm

This is the logical outgrowth of the no-knock warrants-- which themselves are terribly, most of the time-- that we've employed in the war on drugs.

21 HappyBenghazi  Fri, May 13, 2011 9:00:57pm

I am trying to understand this. I am not constitutional law scholar or even a law student but this seems blatantly unconstitutional. And others have brought up a good point, what's going to stop some nut from impersonating a cop with this.

22 laZardo  Fri, May 13, 2011 9:00:58pm

re: #13 SanFranciscoZionist

Anglo-American law has generally frowned on this sort of thing:

“The poorest man may in his cottage bid defiance to all the forces of the Crown. It may be frail, its roof may shake; the wind may blow through it; the storm may enter, the rain may enter -- but the King of England cannot enter; all his force dares not cross the threshold of the ruined tenement!”

Pitt the Elder, y'all.

Read in a haughty English accent (as was the norm in the day) for effect.

23 BongGhazi  Fri, May 13, 2011 9:01:11pm

re: #8 Dark_Falcon

The logic is simple: It holds that civilians do not have any right to resist the police. It's not really a Tea Party slogan, though, given all the pretend revolutionaries who show up at TP rallies. That crowd is probably going to go nuts over this.


It's the "if you're not guilty, you should have nothing to hide" argument.

24 theheat  Fri, May 13, 2011 9:01:24pm

This is some fucked up shit. It cannot stand the way it is. It's against the very fiber of everything about our country.

25 laZardo  Fri, May 13, 2011 9:01:28pm

re: #21 HappyWarrior

I am trying to understand this. I am not constitutional law scholar or even a law student but this seems blatantly unconstitutional. And others have brought up a good point, what's going to stop some nut from impersonating a cop with this.

Especially a cop whose name is on the roster.

26 HappyBenghazi  Fri, May 13, 2011 9:01:39pm

re: #19 Slumbering Behemoth

The will point to this as proof that Obama is a tyrant.

You know they will, they're like clockwork.

27 ProGunLiberal  Fri, May 13, 2011 9:01:49pm

re: #18 Targetpractice, Worst of Both Worlds

And maybe both sides can agree to can the three judges who allowed this miscarriage of jurisprudence.

28 Our Precious Bodily Fluids  Fri, May 13, 2011 9:02:47pm

re: #7 Charles

I'm reading this over and over, trying to find the part where they aren't really saying that citizens have no right to resist an illegal entry into their homes by police.

I'm just not finding it, because that's exactly what the Supreme Court ruled. It says, explicitly, that citizens cannot resist an illegal police entry.

Gobsmacked.

I've got eleventy-skillion dollars that says the current SCOTUS would agree. Scalia's opinion is that it's perfectly "constitutional" to execute a person known to be factually innocent of the crime for which they're being executed, so long as the trial was procedurally kosher.

You can split lawyerly hairs all you want, but I find it completely impossible to imagine that the people who wrote the Constitution - which Scalia in particular claims to read with "original intent" like a holy doctrine - originally intended to create a government under which that was not only possible, but also officially sanctioned.

29 Targetpractice  Fri, May 13, 2011 9:02:49pm

re: #23 BongCrodny

It's the "if you're not guilty, you should have nothing to hide" argument.

Which I'm gonna have fun rubbing that in several folks faces, especially those who've argued for warrantless wiretaps and the "Patriot Act" in the past.

30 scienceisreal  Fri, May 13, 2011 9:03:03pm

Imagine the new recruiting campaigns for police officers. "Want to REALLY stalk that woman? Join the police and enter her house whenever you feel like."

31 Dark_Falcon  Fri, May 13, 2011 9:03:07pm

re: #17 laZardo

Luap Nor and Luap Dnar, maybe. But the rest would probably find some racially-motivated excuse.

I don't know what race the man in question is. The article didn't say. Let's not go making judgements about that until we know more.

32 Slumbering Behemoth Stinks  Fri, May 13, 2011 9:03:27pm

re: #20 Obdicut

This is the logical outgrowth of the no-knock warrants-- which themselves are terribly, most of the time-- that we've employed in the war on drugs.

That bullshit has resulted in a lot of innocent people getting killed.

33 Dark_Falcon  Fri, May 13, 2011 9:04:48pm

re: #28 negativ

I've got eleventy-skillion dollars that says the current SCOTUS would agree. Scalia's opinion is that it's perfectly "constitutional" to execute a person known to be factually innocent of the crime for which they're being executed, so long as the trial was procedurally kosher.

You can split lawyerly hairs all you want, but I find it completely impossible to imagine that the people who wrote the Constitution - which Scalia in particular claims to read with "original intent" like a holy doctrine - originally intended to create a government under which that was not only possible, but also officially sanctioned.

I think you're wrong about how the SCOTUS will rule. This is a clear 4th Amendment violation.

34 Obdicut  Fri, May 13, 2011 9:06:06pm

No knock warrants should only, only be used to get violent felons who are going to resist.

And you better be absolutely sure you have the right address.

35 Our Precious Bodily Fluids  Fri, May 13, 2011 9:06:17pm

re: #21 HappyWarrior

I am trying to understand this. I am not constitutional law scholar or even a law student but this seems blatantly unconstitutional. And others have brought up a good point, what's going to stop some nut from impersonating a cop with this.

posse of crooked cops in the drug trade
cop with a restraining order against his ex
cops with roid rage

all of the above have been in the news, and the cops in question have gone to prison. Their actions now can no longer be legally resisted. I wonder if that means they can't be prosecuted, either?

36 Slumbering Behemoth Stinks  Fri, May 13, 2011 9:07:35pm

re: #34 Obdicut

No knock warrants should only, only be used to get violent felons who are going to resist.

And you better be absolutely sure you have the right address.

I'll upding, but I don't know that I would even allow that.

37 SanFranciscoZionist  Fri, May 13, 2011 9:07:48pm

re: #8 Dark_Falcon

The logic is simple: It holds that civilians do not have any right to resist the police. It's not really a Tea Party slogan, though, given all the pretend revolutionaries who show up at TP rallies. That crowd is probably going to go nuts over this.

They had better, because if they don't, they're going to demonstrate that they actually have no grip on even their own reality.

38 Dark_Falcon  Fri, May 13, 2011 9:08:20pm

re: #35 negativ

posse of crooked cops in the drug trade
cop with a restraining order against his ex
cops with roid rage

all of the above have been in the news, and the cops in question have gone to prison. Their actions now can no longer be legally resisted. I wonder if that means they can't be prosecuted, either?

No, it does not. The court did clearly say that court actions against police officers who break the law are OK. So this a bad ruling, but even it doesn't go to the extreme you ask about.

39 Digital Display  Fri, May 13, 2011 9:08:25pm

`I lived in Indiana for several years...I have posted several issues that bothered me greatly...
Look..there have been times I talked about racism at golf clubs..Hard core KKK issues around town.. Police that bothered me with certain issues about the poor...
Does anything that Charles has posted surprise anyone?
I'll be traveling back to Indiana in a few weeks for the race..But...They have issues there

40 BongGhazi  Fri, May 13, 2011 9:09:00pm

I find it amazing how certain people believe the police can do no wrong while at the same time believing that the government can do nothing right.

They're really two sides of the same coin, aren't they?

41 ProGunLiberal  Fri, May 13, 2011 9:09:18pm

re: #39 HoosierHoops

They are not like Ohio or Michigan, are they?

Have family in Wolverine State.

42 Dark_Falcon  Fri, May 13, 2011 9:09:47pm

re: #36 Slumbering Behemoth

I'll upding, but I don't know that I would even allow that.

For those cases, such warrants are needed. Because if you give any warning, some preps will grab a gun and start shooting. For a skell like that, a no-knock warrant has its place.

43 Slumbering Behemoth Stinks  Fri, May 13, 2011 9:10:24pm

re: #40 BongCrodny

Cognitive Dissonance. It's daily bread for some.

44 Our Precious Bodily Fluids  Fri, May 13, 2011 9:10:45pm

re: #40 BongCrodny

I find it amazing how certain people believe the police can do no wrong while at the same time believing that the government can do nothing right.

They're really two sides of the same coin, aren't they?

Authoritarians hate being told what they can and can't do.

45 Targetpractice  Fri, May 13, 2011 9:10:59pm

re: #35 negativ

posse of crooked cops in the drug trade
cop with a restraining order against his ex
cops with roid rage

all of the above have been in the news, and the cops in question have gone to prison. Their actions now can no longer be legally resisted. I wonder if that means they can't be prosecuted, either?

If I'm reading this ruling correctly, if the cops bust in your door and decide to root around your unmentionables without so much as a "How you doin'?," your only choices are to either to sit back and quietly take the violation of your 4th Amendment rights, or file a lawsuit against the city. As if folks aren't poor enough already, now they've gotta keep money in reserve just in case they need to hire a lawyer because the local PD decided to search their house at 4am for no other reason than because they could.

46 HappyBenghazi  Fri, May 13, 2011 9:11:05pm

re: #40 BongCrodny

I find it amazing how certain people believe the police can do no wrong while at the same time believing that the government can do nothing right.

They're really two sides of the same coin, aren't they?

I really don't think they do. It's like that for the military too I'd add.

47 SanFranciscoZionist  Fri, May 13, 2011 9:11:29pm

re: #20 Obdicut

This is the logical outgrowth of the no-knock warrants-- which themselves are terribly, most of the time-- that we've employed in the war on drugs.

Without me having to read the whole damn thing, what qualifies as 'resistance'? If the cops at the door say they want to come in, and don't have a warrant, and I say, 'come back with a warrant' and close the door, is that 'resistance'?

48 HappyBenghazi  Fri, May 13, 2011 9:12:14pm

re: #34 Obdicut

No knock warrants should only, only be used to get violent felons who are going to resist.

And you better be absolutely sure you have the right address.

Yep, they need to make damn sure. I've read too many cases of cops getting the wrong address and innocent people being killed.

49 SanFranciscoZionist  Fri, May 13, 2011 9:12:33pm

re: #23 BongCrodny

It's the "if you're not guilty, you should have nothing to hide" argument.

If my living room is messy enough, I wouldn't let the cops in WITH a warrant. Better to go to jail than be embarassed by the state of the house.

50 Targetpractice  Fri, May 13, 2011 9:12:57pm

re: #47 SanFranciscoZionist

Without me having to read the whole damn thing, what qualifies as 'resistance'? If the cops at the door say they want to come in, and don't have a warrant, and I say, 'come back with a warrant' and close the door, is that 'resistance'?

Ayep. Could lead to a "violent confrontation," so you're to step to the side, let them search to their heart's content, then go the next morning to file a lawsuit against them for the unlawful entry.

51 theheat  Fri, May 13, 2011 9:12:57pm

re: #47 SanFranciscoZionist

And what if you were kicking back smoking a joint when they came in? Could they then search your house, arrest you, and confiscate your shit - all because they happened to land at your address?

52 SanFranciscoZionist  Fri, May 13, 2011 9:13:05pm

re: #19 Slumbering Behemoth

The will point to this as proof that Obama is a tyrant.

He's not on the Indiana Supreme Court, last I checked.

53 Obdicut  Fri, May 13, 2011 9:13:37pm

re: #47 SanFranciscoZionist

Yep. That'd be resistance.

54 Slumbering Behemoth Stinks  Fri, May 13, 2011 9:14:18pm

re: #44 negativ

Authoritarians hate being told what they can and can't do.

Americans, hell everybody, hates being told what they can and can't do.

Authoritarians had being told that they can not do the telling.

55 Targetpractice  Fri, May 13, 2011 9:14:54pm

re: #51 theheat

And what if you were kicking back smoking a joint when they came in? Could they then search your house, arrest you, and confiscate your shit - all because they happened to land at your address?

I can see a lot of prosecutors in the weeks/months to come with massive headaches as they try to build cases without worrying that the bulk of their evidence will be tossed out due to bad searches. Or worrying that, when SCOTUS inevitably overturns this ruling, it means all the cases ruled upon between now and then will be overturned due to all the evidence being junked.

56 SanFranciscoZionist  Fri, May 13, 2011 9:15:44pm

re: #50 Targetpractice, Worst of Both Worlds

Ayep. Could lead to a "violent confrontation," so you're to step to the side, let them search to their heart's content, then go the next morning to file a lawsuit against them for the unlawful entry.

That's not going to stand. That's absolutely ridiculous.

57 Slumbering Behemoth Stinks  Fri, May 13, 2011 9:15:49pm

re: #48 HappyWarrior

Yep, they need to make damn sure. I've read too many cases of cops getting the wrong address and innocent people being killed.

One instance is one too many. There have been several too many.

58 HappyBenghazi  Fri, May 13, 2011 9:15:54pm

Okay I did some googling about the judges: The judge quoted in the article was appointed by Daniels.

59 HappyBenghazi  Fri, May 13, 2011 9:16:20pm

re: #57 Slumbering Behemoth

One instance is one too many. There have been several too many.

Absolutely, you'll get no argument from me on that.

60 Slumbering Behemoth Stinks  Fri, May 13, 2011 9:16:36pm

re: #52 SanFranciscoZionist

He's not on the Indiana Supreme Court, last I checked.

You and I both know that that little fact won't stop the wingnut meme machine.

61 SanFranciscoZionist  Fri, May 13, 2011 9:17:25pm

re: #53 Obdicut

Yep. That'd be resistance.

Hmm. Well, that is going to be a problem.

I mean, not with me, since my reaction to cops tends to be 'sure, come on in, set a spell', and California is not having any of this crap, but in terms of basically everything in Anglo-American law that touches on this, that's not OK.

62 HappyBenghazi  Fri, May 13, 2011 9:17:41pm

re: #58 HappyWarrior

Okay I did some googling about the judges: The judge quoted in the article was appointed by Daniels.

err the judge speaking for the majority. The two dissenters were appointed by a Republican and Democrat. Same thing with the others in the majority- one dem and one republican appointee. This isn't a partisan issue though. This is a constitutional one.

63 Slumbering Behemoth Stinks  Fri, May 13, 2011 9:17:46pm

re: #59 HappyWarrior

We're simpatico on this. No disagreement perceived.

64 theheat  Fri, May 13, 2011 9:17:47pm

re: #55 Targetpractice, Worst of Both Worlds

I can see a lot of prosecutors in the weeks/months to come with massive headaches as they try to build cases without worrying that the bulk of their evidence will be tossed out due to bad searches.

My concern is this may entirely change the definition of a bad search if they catch you "doing a crime," however trivial, simply because they had access to your home.

65 Obdicut  Fri, May 13, 2011 9:18:27pm

re: #51 theheat

The Supreme Court has already ruled that illegally obtained evidence can be used.

[Link: www.usatoday.com...]

As long as the error was just 'negligence'. The specific 'negligence' they were ruling on was that the warrant was for the wrong damn guy.

So, if the cops kicked in your door without a warrant but with some plausible story about how, gee, they thought they did or that they smelled pot or something, they can use anything they find.

The conservatives on the court voted for that, the liberals against it, by the way.

66 HappyBenghazi  Fri, May 13, 2011 9:18:31pm

re: #63 Slumbering Behemoth

We're simpatico on this. No disagreement perceived.

It's exactly why organizations like the ALCU are necessary in our democracy if you ask me.

67 SanFranciscoZionist  Fri, May 13, 2011 9:18:47pm

re: #55 Targetpractice, Worst of Both Worlds

I can see a lot of prosecutors in the weeks/months to come with massive headaches as they try to build cases without worrying that the bulk of their evidence will be tossed out due to bad searches. Or worrying that, when SCOTUS inevitably overturns this ruling, it means all the cases ruled upon between now and then will be overturned due to all the evidence being junked.

Smart police departments will go on doing everything by departmental procedure, and keep it clean.

68 BongGhazi  Fri, May 13, 2011 9:18:58pm

re: #49 SanFranciscoZionist

If my living room is messy enough, I wouldn't let the cops in WITH a warrant. Better to go to jail than be embarassed by the state of the house.


The "make sure you're wearing clean underwear, you never know when you'll get into an accident" theory taken to its extreme.

69 Dark_Falcon  Fri, May 13, 2011 9:19:17pm

re: #62 HappyWarrior

err the judge speaking for the majority. The two dissenters were appointed by a Republican and Democrat. Same thing with the others in the majority- one dem and one republican appointee. This isn't a partisan issue though. This is a constitutional one.

Agreed. It took both parties to screw up this one.

70 Obdicut  Fri, May 13, 2011 9:19:28pm

re: #33 Dark_Falcon

I think you're wrong about how the SCOTUS will rule. This is a clear 4th Amendment violation.

So was the last case that every conservative on the court voted in favor of-- see above.

71 SanFranciscoZionist  Fri, May 13, 2011 9:19:50pm

re: #62 HappyWarrior

err the judge speaking for the majority. The two dissenters were appointed by a Republican and Democrat. Same thing with the others in the majority- one dem and one republican appointee. This isn't a partisan issue though. This is a constitutional one.

Moonbats and wingnuts alike should hate this one...it speaks to the deep American paranoia.

72 Four More Tears  Fri, May 13, 2011 9:20:17pm

re: #65 Obdicut

The Supreme Court has already ruled that illegally obtained evidence can be used.

[Link: www.usatoday.com...]

As long as the error was just 'negligence'. The specific 'negligence' they were ruling on was that the warrant was for the wrong damn guy.

So, if the cops kicked in your door without a warrant but with some plausible story about how, gee, they thought they did or that they smelled pot or something, they can use anything they find.

The conservatives on the court voted for that, the liberals against it, by the way.

Friggin' insane.

73 laZardo  Fri, May 13, 2011 9:20:49pm

re: #67 SanFranciscoZionist

Smart police departments will go on doing everything by departmental procedure, and keep it clean.

There's no incentive for being "smart." Long as you get your beating quota filled.

74 HappyBenghazi  Fri, May 13, 2011 9:20:57pm

re: #71 SanFranciscoZionist

Moonbats and wingnuts alike should hate this one...it speaks to the deep American paranoia.

Despite what partisans on both sides claim, both sides come from the side tradition. American conservatives by and large differ from European ones in that American conservatives were never supporters of the monarchy. After all, our two parties are the descendants of Jeffesron's Democratic-Republicans.

75 Slumbering Behemoth Stinks  Fri, May 13, 2011 9:21:27pm

re: #65 Obdicut

I must have been asleep when that happened. WTF? That's not the kind of conservatism I stand for.

76 Obdicut  Fri, May 13, 2011 9:22:11pm

re: #72 JasonA

Friggin' insane.

Using a subjective measure for such an important issue is really crazy, I think.

77 Four More Tears  Fri, May 13, 2011 9:22:23pm

re: #75 Slumbering Behemoth

I must have been asleep when that happened. WTF? That's not the kind of conservatism I stand for.

Why are you so soft on crime?

78 Targetpractice  Fri, May 13, 2011 9:22:59pm

re: #64 theheat

My concern is this may entirely change the definition of a bad search if they catch you "doing a crime," however trivial, simply because they had access to your home.

Who Obdicut just posted. Now the cops don't even have to make up an excuse, they can just show up at your doorstep, declare that they're doing a search, and that's the end of it. According to this ruling, you can't refuse to let them in. Ruling doesn't say what happens if you do, but my guess is you'll be arrested for interfering in the search or obstructing justice.

79 Dark_Falcon  Fri, May 13, 2011 9:23:36pm

re: #72 JasonA

Friggin' insane.

I don't really think so. They were saying that the police had acted in good faith and the scumbag shouldn't get away with it because he wasn't the once being sought. That wouldn't cover a bad-faith search.

80 Obdicut  Fri, May 13, 2011 9:24:36pm

re: #75 Slumbering Behemoth

Their logic, such as it is, is that since there's no intention of depriving the person of their rights, the fact that they actually did deprive him of his rights is irrelevant.

It's a very weird ruling to me.

81 Slumbering Behemoth Stinks  Fri, May 13, 2011 9:25:18pm

re: #77 JasonA

Why are you so soft on crime?

I'm not soft on crime, I'm hard on fascism.

Wait, let me rephrase...

82 Decatur Deb  Fri, May 13, 2011 9:25:22pm

On the other hand, if you plan to seriously resist a legal, illegal, accidental or insane police incursion, you need to be ready to go out in a blaze of glory.

83 Obdicut  Fri, May 13, 2011 9:25:23pm

re: #79 Dark_Falcon

How can they claim to have acted in good faith when they know their database is unreliable?

And haven't the man's right still been violated? Scumbags have rights. Otherwise none of us do.

84 BongGhazi  Fri, May 13, 2011 9:26:16pm

re: #70 Obdicut

So was the last case that every conservative on the court voted in favor of-- see above.


It's probably because I just don't like the guy, but I'm going to go out on a limb here and guess that when it finally does get to SCOTUS that at least The Justice Who Never Asks Questions is going to find some way to twist through the hoops needed to uphold the Indiana ruling.

Not sure how many of the others will. I'd like to think it would be 9-0, but I'm not an optimist when it comes to SCOTUS.

85 HappyBenghazi  Fri, May 13, 2011 9:27:53pm

re: #84 BongCrodny

It's probably because I just don't like the guy, but I'm going to go out on a limb here and guess that when it finally does get to SCOTUS that at least The Justice Who Never Asks Questions is going to find some way to twist through the hoops needed to uphold the Indiana ruling.

Not sure how many of the others will. I'd like to think it would be 9-0, but I'm not an optimist when it comes to SCOTUS.

I am not either. Remember, many of these same guys had no problem upholding Lawrence Vs Texas even though as I recall the police had busted in to the residence illegally and without a warrant. And of course the fact that laws prohibiting gay sex are backwards as hell but I digress.

86 Four More Tears  Fri, May 13, 2011 9:28:06pm

re: #79 Dark_Falcon

I don't really think so. They were saying that the police had acted in good faith and the scumbag shouldn't get away with it because he wasn't the once being sought. That wouldn't cover a bad-faith search.

I do think so. They had no right to search that man.

87 barry123  Fri, May 13, 2011 9:28:16pm

If Mitch Daniels were President we would have balanced budgets and protection against such tyrany.

88 Dark_Falcon  Fri, May 13, 2011 9:28:23pm

re: #83 Obdicut

How can they claim to have acted in good faith when they know their database is unreliable?

And haven't the man's right still been violated? Scumbags have rights. Otherwise none of us do.

How would they know that?

89 Kragar  Fri, May 13, 2011 9:28:41pm

Because we all know that a police officer would never overstep his bounds under any circumstances.

BTW, San Diego just fired another cop for forcing a prostitute to have sex with him while he was on duty.

90 Obdicut  Fri, May 13, 2011 9:29:10pm

re: #88 Dark_Falcon

How would they know that?

If they don't know that it is, that itself is damn negligent.

And the way they'd know would be the number of times they'd served a warrant and found it was for the wrong person.

Which is a lot.

91 SanFranciscoZionist  Fri, May 13, 2011 9:29:18pm

re: #87 barry123

If Mitch Daniels were President we would have balanced budgets and protection against such tyrany.

???

92 Four More Tears  Fri, May 13, 2011 9:29:45pm

re: #89 Kragar (Proud to be Kafir)

Because we all know that a police officer would never overstep his bounds under any circumstances.

BTW, San Diego just fired another cop for forcing a prostitute to have sex with him while he was on duty.

Pfft. Everyone knows you're supposed to wait until your shift's over before raping a hooker.

93 Targetpractice  Fri, May 13, 2011 9:29:53pm

re: #80 Obdicut

Their logic, such as it is, is that since there's no intention of depriving the person of their rights, the fact that they actually did deprive him of his rights is irrelevant.

It's a very weird ruling to me.

I keep gravitating to the "violent confrontations" bit, which seems to me to read like the court is arguing in favor of ditching 4th Amendment protections as a means of prevent people from getting their asses kicked when they refuse to let a cop in their house to snoop around without cause or a warrant.

94 Slumbering Behemoth Stinks  Fri, May 13, 2011 9:30:05pm

re: #80 Obdicut

Their logic, such as it is, is that since there's no intention of depriving the person of their rights, the fact that they actually did deprive him of his rights is irrelevant.

It's a very weird ruling to me.

That's absurd. Motive and intent should only be considered in the courts during prosecution of a crime, not in the execution of an LEO's lawful duties.

"Your honor, I had no intention of smashing in the perp's face, but his head just kept flying at my baton. What was I to do"?

95 Kragar  Fri, May 13, 2011 9:30:47pm

re: #92 JasonA

Pfft. Everyone knows you're supposed to wait until your shift's over before raping a hooker.

Or at least be on your lunch hour.

96 Dark_Falcon  Fri, May 13, 2011 9:30:52pm

re: #90 Obdicut

If they don't know that it is, that itself is damn negligent.

And the way they'd know would be the number of times they'd served a warrant and found it was for the wrong person.

Which is a lot.

Where do you get that from?

97 Four More Tears  Fri, May 13, 2011 9:31:33pm

re: #95 Kragar (Proud to be Kafir)

Or at least be on your lunch hour.

"Here, baby. Hold my donut."

98 SanFranciscoZionist  Fri, May 13, 2011 9:31:51pm

re: #92 JasonA

Pfft. Everyone knows you're supposed to wait until your shift's over before raping a hooker.

Totally only very very vaguely connected to this awful event, but I recall a scene in a Joseph Wambaugh novel where one of the cops is undercover as a hooker, when a very handsome guy in an airline pilot's uniform, with a British accent to boot, tries to pick her up.

She says, "Are you kidding? You're gorgeous! I'd do it for nothing!"

He says "Excuse me?"

She says "Oh, never mind, get out of here before my partner comes over here."

He leaves, still looking baffled.

99 Obdicut  Fri, May 13, 2011 9:32:45pm

re: #93 Targetpractice, Worst of Both Worlds

Yep. That's their stated reason, and that's why I'm connecting it to no-knocks: There have been cases of people shooting cops who were executing no-knocks on the wrong house.

While I'm not in favor of shooting anyone, I think in a no-knock raid on the wrong residence, the cops have to accept that they may get shot, and that it's their damn fault if they do. Doesn't matter if you're screaming 'police', you're using a tactic designed to catch people off guard and shock them.

100 HappyBenghazi  Fri, May 13, 2011 9:33:30pm

re: #98 SanFranciscoZionist

Totally only very very vaguely connected to this awful event, but I recall a scene in a Joseph Wambaugh novel where one of the cops is undercover as a hooker, when a very handsome guy in an airline pilot's uniform, with a British accent to boot, tries to pick her up.

She says, "Are you kidding? You're gorgeous! I'd do it for nothing!"

He says "Excuse me?"

She says "Oh, never mind, get out of here before my partner comes over here."

He leaves, still looking baffled.

Heh, Wambaugh's good. I've only ever read The Onion Field but it's a story that has still stuck with me strongly after a decade of reading it.

101 Obdicut  Fri, May 13, 2011 9:33:58pm

re: #96 Dark_Falcon

Where do you get that from?

From the expert testimony in that case that stated that such databases are full of errors.

We can see it with things like the terror watch list very easily.

102 Four More Tears  Fri, May 13, 2011 9:34:45pm

We have warrants for a very good reason, and I really can't figure out why some people don't find them to be that important.

103 Kragar  Fri, May 13, 2011 9:36:30pm

2003 - Police Quietly Disbanded Anticorruption Unit

And hows that working out so far?

Police See 'Unprecedented' Spike in Misconduct Allegations

104 Slumbering Behemoth Stinks  Fri, May 13, 2011 9:36:54pm

I hate to use this word lightly because it has been absurdly diluted by wingnuts and moonbats alike for years, but I don't think I am in this case. This is fascism.

105 SanFranciscoZionist  Fri, May 13, 2011 9:37:03pm

re: #100 HappyWarrior

Heh, Wambaugh's good. I've only ever read The Onion Field but it's a story that has still stuck with me strongly after a decade of reading it.

My dad was a cop in the 70s. Wambaugh was like a minor prophet in our house.

106 Obdicut  Fri, May 13, 2011 9:37:03pm

I'm catching Z's.

107 What, me worry?  Fri, May 13, 2011 9:37:57pm

I used to attend my local village hall meetings and one of the hot issues in my neighborhood is coding violations. Namely doing work on your house when there's no code inspector around to approve it.

One of the councilmen suggested that the local police should be allowed to enter your home at any time to check for coding violations, whether you're home or not or whether you agree or not. Out of the 8 people on the city council, only one looked at the guy and said, "Um... I do believe that's against the U.S. Constitution." And that person wasn't even our mayor.

Checking for coding violations is an easy in, don't you think?

Aren't there a bunch of old laws still on the books that no one bothers to uphold? Like, say, sodomy? Would be scary to be gay and live in Indiana.

108 HappyBenghazi  Fri, May 13, 2011 9:38:00pm

re: #105 SanFranciscoZionist

My dad was a cop in the 70s. Wambaugh was like a minor prophet in our house.

He's a wonderful storyteller. The thing that's stuck with me regarding the Onion Field is the intense guilt Hettinger felt. That poor guy.

109 jaunte  Fri, May 13, 2011 9:39:24pm

Indiana knock-knock jokes now just start with 'you're under arrest.'

110 Slumbering Behemoth Stinks  Fri, May 13, 2011 9:39:46pm

re: #98 SanFranciscoZionist

Totally only very very vaguely connected to this awful event, but I recall a scene in a Joseph Wambaugh novel where one of the cops is undercover as a hooker, when a very handsome guy in an airline pilot's uniform, with a British accent to boot, tries to pick her up.

She says, "Are you kidding? You're gorgeous! I'd do it for nothing!"

He says "Excuse me?"

She says "Oh, never mind, get out of here before my partner comes over here."

He leaves, still looking baffled.

I wish the local prostitutes would say that to me once in a while.

Um, no wait, I mean, what a funny anecdote. Heh heh.

111 Dark_Falcon  Fri, May 13, 2011 9:40:23pm

re: #101 Obdicut

From the expert testimony in that case that stated that such databases are full of errors.

We can see it with things like the terror watch list very easily.

Did they say how to fix such errors? Because the police do need databases.

112 Targetpractice  Fri, May 13, 2011 9:40:35pm

re: #110 Slumbering Behemoth

I wish the local prostitutes would say that to me once in a while.

Um, no wait, I mean, what a funny anecdote. Heh heh.

Wink, wink. Nudge, nudge.

/

113 Our Precious Bodily Fluids  Fri, May 13, 2011 9:41:35pm

re: #65 Obdicut

So, if the cops kicked in your door without a warrant but with some plausible story about how, gee, they thought they did or that they smelled pot or something, they can use anything they find.

The conservatives on the court voted for that, the liberals against it, by the way.

One point three seven billion years ago, I worked at a mom-n-pop computer shop (back when those still existed) with a retired Arlington, TX SWAT officer. We had frequent opportunities to deal with irate and/or crazy customers, and he was absolutely masterful at diffusing them. Not exactly intimidating and certainly not hostile, but he was definitely the one in control of the situation at all times.

After a particularly heinous example of human incivility inflicted itself on us one day, I asked him how he managed to keep from beating the shit out of everyone who gave him that kind of attitude when he was in a position to get away with it.

He said (paraphrasing) that the laws are such that it is nearly impossible for the average citizen to go about their daily business without violating one law or another. It might be an obscure city ordinance, or a trivial traffic infraction like a lane change without a signal. As a police officer, he said, he always had the last word, and he could always find a legally legitimate reason to take you to jail. And as for probable cause, there are lots of things that can make you think you might smell marijuana.

I should point out that this particular guy was very much against that type of policing, and he was frequently very critical of the ever-increasing use of no-knock SWAT tactics while serving trivial warrants.

114 HappyBenghazi  Fri, May 13, 2011 9:41:50pm

re: #110 Slumbering Behemoth

I wish the local prostitutes would say that to me once in a while.

Um, no wait, I mean, what a funny anecdote. Heh heh.

There something oyu're not telling us hahaha.

115 Shiplord Kirel  Fri, May 13, 2011 9:42:14pm

What do you expect? For 40 years we've had Hollywood and various law-and-order politicians screaming that the "the rights of criminals" are the only thing standing between us and a peaceful, law-abiding utopia. Think of how many times you've heard this meme in cop shows or from tough-talking politicians. It's right up there with God being kicked out of the classroom in the catalog of modern American folklore.

On a related note, a chap named Johnny Pinchback was freed from a Texas prison after DNA evidence exonerated him in a sexual assault case. He had served 27 years.
This was the 22nd DNA exoneration in Dallas County alone since 2001.

116 HappyBenghazi  Fri, May 13, 2011 9:43:28pm

re: #115 Shiplord Kirel

What do you expect? For 40 years we've had Hollywood and various law-and-order politicians screaming that the "the rights of criminals" are the only thing standing between us and a peaceful, law-abiding utopia. Think of how many times you've heard this meme in cop shows or from tough-talking politicians. It's right up there with God being kicked out of the classroom in the catalog of modern American folklore.

On a related note, a chap named Johnny Pinchback was freed from a Texas prison after DNA evidence exonerated him in a sexual assault case. He had served 27 years.
This was the 22nd DNA exoneration in Dallas County alone since 2001.

27 years that really puts things in perspective considering my 24th birthday is in a couple months.

117 Slumbering Behemoth Stinks  Fri, May 13, 2011 9:43:45pm

re: #99 Obdicut

Yep. That's their stated reason, and that's why I'm connecting it to no-knocks: There have been cases of people shooting cops who were executing no-knocks on the wrong house.

While I'm not in favor of shooting anyone, I think in a no-knock raid on the wrong residence, the cops have to accept that they may get shot, and that it's their damn fault if they do. Doesn't matter if you're screaming 'police', you're using a tactic designed to catch people off guard and shock them.

Criminals know this, and I've personally known a few folks with shady pasts that have impersonated LEOs in order to rob dealers, and do other things that I'd rather not repeat and you'd likely rather not hear.

118 Targetpractice  Fri, May 13, 2011 9:47:31pm

re: #115 Shiplord Kirel

What do you expect? For 40 years we've had Hollywood and various law-and-order politicians screaming that the "the rights of criminals" are the only thing standing between us and a peaceful, law-abiding utopia. Think of how many times you've heard this meme in cop shows or from tough-talking politicians. It's right up there with God being kicked out of the classroom in the catalog of modern American folklore.

On a related note, a chap named Johnny Pinchback was freed from a Texas prison after DNA evidence exonerated him in a sexual assault case. He had served 27 years.
This was the 22nd DNA exoneration in Dallas County alone since 2001.

Turn on any cop show these days and, within the hour allotted, you'll hear at least one character bitching that they "know" a suspect is guilty, know they're hiding the vital evidence, but can't get to it because the "perp" is hiding behind some legal loophole or hasn't left enough evidence for a warrant.

Guess ones set in Indiana can now be chopped down to 30 minutes, because the cop now can just cut to the end by busting in the suspect's door on simply a hunch alone. After all, he had "good intentions."/

119 Charles Johnson  Fri, May 13, 2011 9:47:39pm

And now we have a stealth Paulian in the Ron Paul thread, desperately spinning Paul's racist past.

They think we're too stupid to see what they're doing.

120 Slumbering Behemoth Stinks  Fri, May 13, 2011 9:48:20pm

re: #109 jaunte

Indiana knock-knock jokes now just start with 'you're under arrest.'

Goddamnit Jaunte! I wish I had a wit like yours.

121 Decatur Deb  Fri, May 13, 2011 9:48:39pm

The 4th says "The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated,..." It doesn't really say you are encouraged to punch out a couple armed cops. Before this ruling, if you resisted in your own home, you were going to be killed or arrested and the lawyers would sort it out in the morning. Since the ruling, you will be killed or arrested, and the lawyers will sort it out in the morning.

122 jaunte  Fri, May 13, 2011 9:49:46pm

re: #120 Slumbering Behemoth

Mine is a half-wit.

123 Slumbering Behemoth Stinks  Fri, May 13, 2011 9:52:10pm

re: #114 HappyWarrior

There something oyu're not telling us hahaha.

Nah. I talk a big talk, but I've only ever patronized a single sex worker.

No, wait. I mean I've never patronized a single sex worker.

124 Tigger2  Fri, May 13, 2011 9:53:49pm

re: #12 Dark_Falcon

Every lawyer at the Federalist Society, too. The US Supreme Court is going to giving this ruling the beatdown it deserves. I see a 9-0 ruling coming up.


I hope your right I live in the police state of Indiana.

125 Dark_Falcon  Fri, May 13, 2011 9:56:49pm

re: #119 Charles

And now we have a stealth Paulian in the Ron Paul thread, desperately spinning Paul's racist past.

They think we're too stupid to see what they're doing.

I'll check it out. Meanwhile, slow-roasted Troll is served!

126 Slumbering Behemoth Stinks  Fri, May 13, 2011 9:56:56pm

re: #122 jaunte

Mine is a half-wit.

Smash the two of us together, and we just might come close to resembling something of a whole-wit.

127 Tigger2  Fri, May 13, 2011 9:57:59pm

re: #26 HappyWarrior

You know they will, they're like clockwork.

The only problem with that is Indiana has a republican majority in the legislature it's a republican sponsored law that was passed.

128 jaunte  Fri, May 13, 2011 9:59:08pm

The script must be getting hard to read:
Image: Bill_of_Rights_Pg1of1_AC.jpg

129 darthstar  Fri, May 13, 2011 10:01:52pm

That's why they're called flyover states.

130 HappyBenghazi  Fri, May 13, 2011 10:05:03pm

Yikes regarding the Paulian. As I said earlier today, maybe Ron Paul himself isn't a bigot but he is probably one of the most naive politicians I've ever seen on the issue.

131 Slumbering Behemoth Stinks  Fri, May 13, 2011 10:05:25pm

re: #127 Tigger2

The only problem with that is Indiana has a republican majority in the legislature it's a republican sponsored law that was passed.

That's what the handy, dandy RINO label is for. I suppose well have plenty of time to see how this plays out in the blogosphere.

132 Slumbering Behemoth Stinks  Fri, May 13, 2011 10:06:25pm

re: #129 darthstar

That's why they're called flyover states.

Aw, don't hate. Those poor fuckers are the ones who have to end up living with this bullshit.

133 Decatur Deb  Fri, May 13, 2011 10:14:51pm

re: #130 HappyWarrior

Yikes regarding the Paulian. As I said earlier today, maybe Ron Paul himself isn't a bigot but he is probably one of the most naive politicians I've ever seen on the issue.

It's possible that he's not a truly a bigot, but that he's cynically exploiting the bigotry of his flock. That's even worse.

134 HappyBenghazi  Fri, May 13, 2011 10:16:34pm

re: #133 Decatur Deb

It's possible that he's not a truly a bigot, but that he's cynically exploiting the bigotry of his flock. That's even worse.

Yep. Honestly, I don't know if he is or not but at the very least he's shown some poor judgment on the issue. Paling up with the Birchers, CSA apologists the Von Mises Institute (And his crazy son thinks universal health care is comparable to slavery heh), and the coup de grace, allowing nutcase Lew Rockwell to write racially bigted columns in his name which I believe even Reason Magazine called him out for.

135 Decatur Deb  Fri, May 13, 2011 10:18:06pm

Very late in CDT--'Nite, all.

136 Slumbering Behemoth Stinks  Fri, May 13, 2011 10:18:39pm

re: #133 Decatur Deb

It's possible that he's not a truly a bigot, but that he's cynically exploiting the bigotry of his flock. That's even worse.

Like a Pat Robertson of the political process. Ugly.

137 Slumbering Behemoth Stinks  Fri, May 13, 2011 10:19:14pm

re: #135 Decatur Deb

Very late in CDT--'Nite, all.

Pussy. It's Friday the 13th. Drink!

138 Our Precious Bodily Fluids  Fri, May 13, 2011 10:20:21pm

re: #115 Shiplord Kirel

This was the 22nd DNA exoneration in Dallas County alone since 2001.

Craig Watkins, Dallas County District Attorney.

The biggest controversy that his opponents could stir up was that his claim of a 99% conviction rate included guilty pleas! OH MY STARS!

And it drives the local armchair prosecutors berserk.

139 Decatur Deb  Fri, May 13, 2011 10:20:59pm

re: #137 Slumbering Behemoth

Pussy. It's Friday the 13th. Drink!

It's Sat the 14th, here, and I have Habitat in the morning.

140 Mark Winter  Fri, May 13, 2011 10:21:50pm

I can only advise the people of Indiana to fight this with everything they got.

Why?

It's what we have here in Germany. You are not allowed to resist police whatever they may do. Yes we have laws that say that your house may not be entered by police without a warrant signed by a judge (which is far too easy to get anyway).
But if police want to enter, they can always claim an emergency situation and will usually get away with it. You are not allowed to resist.

Yes you can go to court and challenge the search. In that case three things may happen:

1) The court finds that the search was legal, after all. Bummer.
2) The court finds that the search was not legal but that police acted in good faith (belief in non-existing danger, wrong number etc.). Bummer.
3) The court finds that the search was illegal, period. In that case you get a court ruling that the search was illegal. And that's it. Only in the most violent cases will there be any consequences for the illegally entering officers. Not even "fruit from poisonous tree" does usually apply. Bummer again.

So resist that. If police know that they may run into trouble when illegally entering a home they will think twice before doing so.

141 Slumbering Behemoth Stinks  Fri, May 13, 2011 10:22:16pm

re: #139 Decatur Deb

It's Sat the 14th, here, and I have Habitat in the morning.

I'm sorry, but the correct response is "You're a pussy, pussy"!

142 What, me worry?  Fri, May 13, 2011 10:24:49pm

re: #133 Decatur Deb

It's possible that he's not a truly a bigot, but that he's cynically exploiting the bigotry of his flock. That's even worse.

The person in the other thread, scienceisreal, linked to TNR here He also takes a few swipes at Jews.

I don't particularly care if it's ghostwritten. His name's on the publication so it reflects his views.

143 Slumbering Behemoth Stinks  Fri, May 13, 2011 10:25:18pm

re: #140 Mark Winter

If police know that they may run into trouble when illegally entering a home they will think twice before doing so.

And that's the crux of the biscuit. Well said.

144 Our Precious Bodily Fluids  Fri, May 13, 2011 10:25:41pm

re: #141 Slumbering Behemoth

I'm sorry, but the correct response is "You're a pussy, pussy"!

Tom Jones?

145 Our Precious Bodily Fluids  Fri, May 13, 2011 10:26:08pm

re: #143 Slumbering Behemoth

And that's the crux of the biscuit. Well said.

I always heard that the crux of the biscuit was the apostrophe.

146 Slumbering Behemoth Stinks  Fri, May 13, 2011 10:26:31pm

re: #144 negativ

Underpants Gnomes.

147 danhenry1  Fri, May 13, 2011 10:27:15pm

I thought Indiana Supreme Court justices were elected. Or is that an old..old wiki post?

148 goddamnedfrank  Fri, May 13, 2011 10:42:10pm

re: #79 Dark_Falcon

I don't really think so. They were saying that the police had acted in good faith and the scumbag shouldn't get away with it because he wasn't the once being sought. That wouldn't cover a bad-faith search.

You do realize that you've just put the wronged civilian in the position of needing to prove police bad faith before their rights matter, right? That's hardly a conservative position, statist, but not conservative.

re: #111 Dark_Falcon

Did they say how to fix such errors? Because the police do need databases.

Great, now we need to hold their hands and show them how to fix their errors before our rights matter. Unbelievable.

149 Mentis Fugit  Fri, May 13, 2011 10:58:16pm

re: #123 Slumbering Behemoth

Nah. I talk a big talk, but I've only ever patronized a single sex worker.

No, wait. I mean I've never patronized a single sex worker.

I patronized a sex worker once. She said, "Don't talk down to me, you condescending prick," and slapped me.

Ba-dump-tshhhh

150 Dark_Falcon  Fri, May 13, 2011 11:42:39pm

Goodnight all.

151 AK-47%  Sat, May 14, 2011 12:21:03am

We have a Second AMendment that allows people to won guns to reisist unwarranted government authority but the Indiana says its illegal to reisit unwarranted government authority because that could get too dangerous.

I was born in Indiana, left when I was 18, never to go back except to visit family.

But my head is still assploding.

152 boxhead  Sat, May 14, 2011 1:21:34am

I know I am late to this thread...... but what the FUCK?! I don't know what to say without spewing vile scenarios daring this unConstitutional behavior.

Is our Country getting to the point where all good people must make a stand? I had always believed and hoped that good people would prevail. I am starting to feel despair creep into my soul. My mind cannot compute the actions of others that claim they are acting in the behalf of USA. Hopefully the Supreme Court of the United Stated will slap this down. As they should.

what a buzz kill.....

153 Romantic Heretic  Sat, May 14, 2011 3:46:38am

re: #8 Dark_Falcon

The logic is simple: It holds that civilians do not have any right to resist the police. It's not really a Tea Party slogan, though, given all the pretend revolutionaries who show up at TP rallies. That crowd is probably going to go nuts over this.

No they're not. Because the TPers know good people like them will never suffer so. Only bad people will have their doors kicked down. They must be bad because otherwise the police wouldn't have broken in.

And they deserve it.

154 steve_davis  Sat, May 14, 2011 3:52:40am

re: #52 SanFranciscoZionist

He's not on the Indiana Supreme Court, last I checked.

He also isn't a member of OPEC, a driller of oil in the Gulf, or a health-care provider. When has that ever stopped them? :-)

155 RogueOne  Sat, May 14, 2011 4:58:08am

re: #45 Targetpractice, Worst of Both Worlds

If I'm reading this ruling correctly, if the cops bust in your door and decide to root around your unmentionables without so much as a "How you doin'?," your only choices are to either to sit back and quietly take the violation of your 4th Amendment rights, or file a lawsuit against the city. As if folks aren't poor enough already, now they've gotta keep money in reserve just in case they need to hire a lawyer because the local PD decided to search their house at 4am for no other reason than because they could.

That's exactly right. The court used basically the same reasoning found in a USSC case years ago

Nowadays, an aggrieved arrestee has means unavailable at common law for redress against unlawful police action. E.g., Warner, supra, at 330...........(citing the following modern developments: (1) bail, (2) prompt arraignment and determination of probable cause, (3) the exclusionary rule, (4) police department internal review and disciplinary procedure, and (5) civil remedies).

2 of the 5 are fantasies. If the Indiana case isn't bad enough, the Volokh thread on this subject points out that Indiana isn't the only state that operates under these rules (you might want to find out what the rules are in your state!) and that since this ruling was based on Indiana law, and not the 4th amendment, the USSC probably won't get involved.

Lastly, you're always better off refusing to cooperate but not interfering. "I'm not giving you permission to enter or search but I won't physically try to stop you".

156 RogueOne  Sat, May 14, 2011 5:20:26am

re: #147 danhenry1

I thought Indiana Supreme Court justices were elected. Or is that an old..old wiki post?

It's a combination. The governor appoints someone from a list that's compiled by a panel then the justices are subjected to statewide retention votes. Their term is 10 years.

[Link: www.in.gov...]

157 mikefromArlington  Sat, May 14, 2011 5:53:02am

"Fascism will come wrapped in a flag and carrying a Bible." ~ Sinclair Lewis, circa 1935

As true now as it was then.

158 TheAntichrist  Sat, May 14, 2011 5:54:56am

Errr, this is hardly unique to Indiana. You don't get to resist an officer in any state that I'm aware of. This ruling doesn't make it OK for cops to search your home without a warrant, it merely affirms that you don't get to resist them if they do. No evidence collected in such a search can be used in court.

This is not the radical ruling people are making it out to be.

159 RogueOne  Sat, May 14, 2011 6:02:48am

re: #158 TheAntichrist

Errr, this is hardly unique to Indiana. You don't get to resist an officer in any state that I'm aware of. This ruling doesn't make it OK for cops to search your home without a warrant, it merely affirms that you don't get to resist them if they do. No evidence collected in such a search can be used in court.

This is not the radical ruling people are making it out to be.

I think you're mistaken. Some do, TX & TN, and IN did until this ruling. Some don't (MA, and now IN). If you think it's a good idea to resist an unlawful entry by the police you might want to check the laws in your state.

160 TheAntichrist  Sat, May 14, 2011 6:08:30am

re: #159 RogueOne

I think you're mistaken. Some do, TX & TN, and IN did until this ruling. Some don't (MA, and now IN). If you think it's a good idea to resist an unlawful entry by the police you might want to check the laws in your state.


Really? In Texas you can resist a cop because you think he's actig unlawfully? I really doubt it. It is for the courts to determine whether or not the police acted unlawfully, not private citizens.

161 S.D.  Sat, May 14, 2011 6:09:05am

Just Wait: Way things are, The Supreme Court of the US may go along with this too...

162 tigger2005  Sat, May 14, 2011 6:14:47am

We should not defend the Constitution, because somebody might get hurt.

This ruling makes no sense whatsoever. What makes a cop entering your home without a warrant different from an armed robber? Why not just rule that you can't resist ANYONE entering your home illegally, because it might lead to a violent confrontation? Did these judges watch way too much Smurfs and Care Bears growing up?

163 TheAntichrist  Sat, May 14, 2011 6:20:45am

Nothing at all on the Indiana ACLU site about this, further confirming my belief that this isn't a radical or unexpected ruling.

I repeat: the ruling does not say police can enter your home without a warrant, only that you can't resist them if they do.

164 TheAntichrist  Sat, May 14, 2011 6:24:32am

re: #162 tigger2005

We should not defend the Constitution, because somebody might get hurt.

This ruling makes no sense whatsoever. What makes a cop entering your home without a warrant different from an armed robber? Why not just rule that you can't resist ANYONE entering your home illegally, because it might lead to a violent confrontation? Did these judges watch way too much Smurfs and Care Bears growing up?


Because it's safe to assume that someone who isn't a police officer breaking into your home is there for unlawful purposes. It's not so clear when it's the police, who may be responding to a 911 call. In fact, that's exactly what happened in this case. Couple had a domestic dispute, then ran inside the house when police showed up.

165 RogueOne  Sat, May 14, 2011 6:25:48am

re: #160 TheAntichrist

Really? In Texas you can resist a cop because you think he's actig unlawfully? I really doubt it. It is for the courts to determine whether or not the police acted unlawfully, not private citizens.

The law varies state to state, here's another:

CT: State v. Gallagher
[Link: ct.findacase.com...]

If you're resisting an unlawful entry/arrest then you can't be charged with resisting. That was the law in IN prior to this current case:

Indiana Appellate Case on the Right to Resist a Police Officer’s Unlawful Entry
[Link: volokh.com...]

166 TheAntichrist  Sat, May 14, 2011 6:27:08am

Professor Ivan Bodensteiner, of Valparaiso University School of Law, said the court's decision is consistent with the idea of preventing violence.

"It's not surprising that they would say there's no right to beat the hell out of the officer," Bodensteiner said. "(The court is saying) we would rather opt on the side of saying if the police act wrongfully in entering your house your remedy is under law, to bring a civil action against the officer."
[Link: www.nwitimes.com...]

167 Obdicut  Sat, May 14, 2011 6:31:57am

re: #158 TheAntichrist

No evidence collected in such a search can be used in court.

This is absolutely wrong. See my post above about the Supreme Court ruling.

168 KronoGhazi  Sat, May 14, 2011 6:36:27am

re: #80 Obdicut

Their logic, such as it is, is that since there's no intention of depriving the person of their rights, the fact that they actually did deprive him of his rights is irrelevant.

It's a very weird ruling to me.

I'd hate to apply that law to citizens on trial for crimes of negligence, or seemingly petty crimes that turned out a lot worse.

".... and the gun just went off."

169 TheAntichrist  Sat, May 14, 2011 6:37:18am

re: #167 Obdicut

This is absolutely wrong. See my post above about the Supreme Court ruling.

That only applies if the officer was acting in good faith, which isn't the issue here.

I repeat: this isn't a radical ruling. The Indiana ACLU doesn't seem at all concerned about it either. The 4th Amendment still applies, even in Indiana.

170 Obdicut  Sat, May 14, 2011 6:39:28am

re: #169 TheAntichrist

That only applies if the officer was acting in good faith, which isn't the issue here.

What are you talking about? Of course it can be the issue here. The original court case was about a warrant issued for the wrong man.

So, obviously, if the warrant is issued for the wrong house, and the police enter and search, the same ruling would allow them to use evidence collected in that search.

What makes you think otherwise, please?

171 KronoGhazi  Sat, May 14, 2011 6:42:25am

I'm trying clarify what 'resisting' means in this case.

The court's decision stemmed from a Vanderburgh County case in which a man yelled at police and blocked them from entering his apartment to investigate a domestic disturbance. The man shoved a police officer who entered anyway and was shocked with a stun gun and arrested.

It sounds like you can't even disagree and refuse them permission to enter. But wait, they now don't need permission to enter. This is really weird.

I guess any time you want to do a home invasion just bust in yelling 'POLICE! FREEZE!'

172 RogueOne  Sat, May 14, 2011 6:42:33am

re: #167 Obdicut

This is absolutely wrong. See my post above about the Supreme Court ruling.

The IN case was about resisting illegal entry. The court decided it doesn't matter if the entry is legal or not, you aren't allowed to physically resist. If they would have conducted a search and found evidence of something illegal the court said that evidence would have been tossed.

173 Obdicut  Sat, May 14, 2011 6:44:19am

re: #172 RogueOne

If they would have conducted a search and found evidence of something illegal the court said that evidence would have been tossed.

Nope. Look, again:

[Link: littlegreenfootballs.com...]

The Supreme Court has ruled that evidence obtained from serving a warrant on the wrong person is perfectly admissible.

So why wouldn't evidence obtained from serving a warrant on the wrong address be admissible?

174 Dark_Falcon  Sat, May 14, 2011 6:52:37am

re: #171 BigPapa

I'm trying clarify what 'resisting' means in this case.

The court's decision stemmed from a Vanderburgh County case in which a man yelled at police and blocked them from entering his apartment to investigate a domestic disturbance. The man shoved a police officer who entered anyway and was shocked with a stun gun and arrested.

It sounds like you can't even disagree and refuse them permission to enter. But wait, they now don't need permission to enter. This is really weird.

I guess any time you want to do a home invasion just bust in yelling 'POLICE! FREEZE!'

Well, upon overnight reflection, my opinion on this case has changed. The court should have been so broad, but the defendant seemed clearly in the wrong. You don't shove a cop, period. Doesn't matter where they're going. And if you you can expect to get pounded on.

175 RogueOne  Sat, May 14, 2011 6:54:47am

re: #173 Obdicut

I read that and isn't applicable to this case. In the IN case the question was does a person have the right to physically resist an illegal entry. The question wasn't about the entry itself, which had already been ruled illegal, but the resistance charge.

From the Ruling:


We believe . . . that a right to resist an unlawful police entry into a home is against public policy and is incompatible with modern Fourth Amendment jurisprudence. Nowadays, an aggrieved arrestee has means unavailable at common law for redress against unlawful police action. E.g., Warner, supra, at 330 (citing the dangers of arrest at common law—indefinite detention, lack of bail, disease-infested prisons, physical torture—as reasons for recognizing the right to resist); State v. Hobson, 577 N.W.2d 825, 835–36 (Wis. 1998) (citing the following modern developments: (1) bail, (2) prompt arraignment and determination of probable cause, (3) the exclusionary rule, (4) police department internal review and disciplinary procedure, and (5) civil remedies).

If the police had a warrant with the wrong address it would still be considered legal according to your link but that wasn't the issue here.

176 RogueOne  Sat, May 14, 2011 6:56:36am

re: #174 Dark_Falcon

Well, upon overnight reflection, my opinion on this case has changed. The court should have been so broad, but the defendant seemed clearly in the wrong. You don't shove a cop, period. Doesn't matter where they're going. And if you you can expect to get pounded on.

The court could have easily ruled against this guy without tossing out decades of Indiana precedence. For one, they could have ruled that the spouse gave permission for the police to enter which would have made it a legal entry.

177 TheAntichrist  Sat, May 14, 2011 6:58:32am

re: #170 Obdicut

What are you talking about? Of course it can be the issue here. The original court case was about a warrant issued for the wrong man.

So, obviously, if the warrant is issued for the wrong house, and the police enter and search, the same ruling would allow them to use evidence collected in that search.

What makes you think otherwise, please?

That's not at all what the case the Indiana SC ruled on is about.

178 Obdicut  Sat, May 14, 2011 6:59:26am

re: #175 RogueOne

Put two and two together.

One says that you don't have the right to resist cops entry to your home.

The other says that cops can use evidence they obtained illegally if it was just due to 'negligence'.

So, if the cops come to your house and decide to search it, you are not allowed to resist them in any way, and they can then use any evidence they find in court as long as they can convince a judge that they were just 'negligent' in entry, rather than intentionally ignoring your rights. Which, you know, would happen all the time.

I am not advocating confrontations with the police. But I firmly believe that you have the right to resist an illegal search of your property, and that the onus is on the cops to make sure that the search is legal and prove it to the citizen.

179 Obdicut  Sat, May 14, 2011 7:01:16am

re: #177 TheAntichrist

That's not at all what the case the Indiana SC ruled on is about.

And I'm not saying that it is. Did you just not bother to read my post or something?

I'm saying that you're totally wrong when you say:

No evidence collected in such a search can be used in court.

The evidence can be used in court, as long as the police can claim their mistake was 'negligent' as opposed to purposeful.

180 jaunte  Sat, May 14, 2011 7:01:28am

re: #176 RogueOne

It seems that the police actions in this case could have been covered by 'hot pursuit' precedents, without such a broad change in the law.

181 RogueOne  Sat, May 14, 2011 7:01:51am

re: #178 Obdicut

We're in agreement but looking at it two different ways.

182 Obdicut  Sat, May 14, 2011 7:02:44am

re: #180 jaunte

I really think the real purpose of this law is to strip the self-defense claim from those who injure police officers serving no-knock warrants.

183 RogueOne  Sat, May 14, 2011 7:04:06am

re: #180 jaunte

It seems that the police actions in this case could have been covered by 'hot pursuit' precedents, without such a broad change in the law.

I agree. There were a few different ways they could have worked around this but they chose to toss out our right to physically defend ourselves from illegal state entry. I agree with the SC that it's a bad idea to physically resist police but removing that right to protect the state is wrong.

184 Dark_Falcon  Sat, May 14, 2011 7:04:18am

re: #176 RogueOne

The court could have easily ruled against this guy without tossing out decades of Indiana precedence. For one, they could have ruled that the spouse gave permission for the police to enter which would have made it a legal entry.

Agreed.

185 TheAntichrist  Sat, May 14, 2011 7:07:50am

re: #178 Obdicut

Put two and two together.

No, you don;t put the 2 together. One has nothing at all to do with the other. The Indiana case changed nothing at all about the 4th Amendment or rules of evidence, it was solely about whether or not you had the right to "resist" police entering your home illegally. It does not in any way, shape, or form sanction illegal entry into homes by police, which is what those expressing outrageous outrage here are claiming.

186 Dark_Falcon  Sat, May 14, 2011 7:07:53am

re: #182 Obdicut

I really think the real purpose of this law is to strip the self-defense claim from those who injure police officers serving no-knock warrants.

There might be something to that. This would prevent the people whose cases RogueOne often showcases from claiming they fired in fear on f their lives when the police broke down their door. Under this decision, they'd be admitting to manslaughter (murder requires proof of intent to kill and snapshots are sometimes ruled to have lacked this) and would have no defense.

187 Obdicut  Sat, May 14, 2011 7:10:59am

re: #185 TheAntichrist

I am not saying that the cases have anything to do with each other. What the hell aren't you grasping about this?

The Supreme Court ruling I cited says that police can use evidence obtained in an illegal search as long as the mistake was just 'negligent'.

Do you understand this?

188 TheAntichrist  Sat, May 14, 2011 7:11:45am

re: #179 Obdicut

And I'm not saying that it is. Did you just not bother to read my post or something?

I'm saying that you're totally wrong when you say:

The evidence can be used in court, as long as the police can claim their mistake was 'negligent' as opposed to purposeful.

You really should stop acting like the 2 cases you cite are related, they're not. One has nothing to do with the other, you are engaging in conspiracy theory "connect the dots" thinking.

189 TheAntichrist  Sat, May 14, 2011 7:12:47am

re: #187 Obdicut

I am not saying that the cases have anything to do with each other. What the hell aren't you grasping about this?

The Supreme Court ruling I cited says that police can use evidence obtained in an illegal search as long as the mistake was just 'negligent'.

Do you understand this?

Why do you keep bringing this up in a case about whether or not you have the right to "resist" an illegal entry by police?

190 Obdicut  Sat, May 14, 2011 7:12:50am

re: #188 TheAntichrist

I'm not acting as though the cases are related. What the hell is wrong with you?

The Supreme Court ruling I cited says that police can use evidence obtained in an illegal search as long as the mistake was just 'negligent'.

Do you understand this?

191 ElCapitanAmerica  Sat, May 14, 2011 7:13:30am

Post title is totally misleading, this ruling doesn't seem to say at all that "Police Can Enter Anyone's Home Without a Warrant".

It it very obviously saying that you don't have a right to blow the cops away with your gun collection if there just because the warrant is not legal. You can file a complaint, sue the city/police department, but it seems to be a sane ruling preventing people from using possible technicalities to fulfill their "militia" fantasies.

I'm a bit surprised how most people interpreted it here, I seriously would have expected this reaction more from a Tea Party/NRA site.

192 Obdicut  Sat, May 14, 2011 7:16:18am

re: #191 ElCapitanAmerica

Seriously? You understand this ruling overturns all precedent in common law, right?

Were all those previous judges secretly crazy militamen?

193 Obdicut  Sat, May 14, 2011 7:18:01am

Heh. Just saw this tidbit at the end of the article:


On Tuesday, the court said police serving a warrant may enter a home without knocking if officers decide circumstances justify it. Previously, police serving a warrant had to obtain a judge's permission to enter without knocking.

Wow. Now you don't even need a judge to get a no-knock warrant. Just get a regular warrant, and decide when you're there that circumstances justify not bothering to knock.

194 RogueOne  Sat, May 14, 2011 7:18:57am

re: #191 ElCapitanAmerica

Post title is totally misleading, this ruling doesn't seem to say at all that "Police Can Enter Anyone's Home Without a Warrant".

It it very obviously saying that you don't have a right to blow the cops away with your gun collection if there just because the warrant is not legal. You can file a complaint, sue the city/police department, but it seems to be a sane ruling preventing people from using possible technicalities to fulfill their "militia" fantasies.

I'm a bit surprised how most people interpreted it here, I seriously would have expected this reaction more from a Tea Party/NRA site.

No one, not even the state, has the right to illegally enter your home. It's been that way for hundreds of years. This is a bad ruling regardless if your left, right, or middle.
re: #186 Dark_Falcon

195 kirkspencer  Sat, May 14, 2011 7:22:52am

I didn't see it on my first read through this thread, so I'll add it. Here's the link to the court's opinion so you can read source instead of second-hand. [Link: www.in.gov...]

196 Dark_Falcon  Sat, May 14, 2011 7:24:16am

re: #194 RogueOne

No one, not even the state, has the right to illegally enter your home. It's been that way for hundreds of years. This is a bad ruling regardless if your left, right, or middle.
re: #186 Dark_Falcon

You part to me got cut off.

197 kirkspencer  Sat, May 14, 2011 7:26:13am

re: #191 ElCapitanAmerica

Post title is totally misleading, this ruling doesn't seem to say at all that "Police Can Enter Anyone's Home Without a Warrant".

It it very obviously saying that you don't have a right to blow the cops away with your gun collection if there just because the warrant is not legal. You can file a complaint, sue the city/police department, but it seems to be a sane ruling preventing people from using possible technicalities to fulfill their "militia" fantasies.

I'm a bit surprised how most people interpreted it here, I seriously would have expected this reaction more from a Tea Party/NRA site.

Really? From the court opinion (I linked it earlier):


In sum, we hold that Indiana the right to reasonably resist an unlawful police entry into a
home is no longer recognized under Indiana law.
198 darthstar  Sat, May 14, 2011 7:32:25am

re: #132 Slumbering Behemoth

Aw, don't hate. Those poor fuckers are the ones who have to end up living with this bullshit.

I wasn't hatin'...but I do find myself singing NWA's "Fuck the Police" half way through my trips to New York for some strange reason.
//

199 KronoGhazi  Sat, May 14, 2011 7:32:55am

Essentially you have no right to resist illegal entry by law enforcement. What's left is to define what 'resistance' is.

200 ElCapitanAmerica  Sat, May 14, 2011 7:34:42am

re: #194 RogueOne

No one, not even the state, has the right to illegally enter your home. It's been that way for hundreds of years. This is a bad ruling regardless if your left, right, or middle.
re: #186 Dark_Falcon

This ruling is not saying they have that right, that is it doesn't legitimize or validate illegal searches, it's saying you can't resist (and by resist I'm assuming it means physically resist since it states they're doing this so things don't escalate).

201 jaunte  Sat, May 14, 2011 7:38:24am

re: #199 BigPapa

If you don't open the door immediately, you're resisting.

202 RogueOne  Sat, May 14, 2011 7:39:44am

re: #196 Dark_Falcon

You part to me got cut off.

Yeah, just noticed. I meant to point you in the direction of the SWAT killing in Tucson. I put it in the next thread instead.

203 RogueOne  Sat, May 14, 2011 7:41:51am

re: #199 BigPapa

Essentially you have no right to resist illegal entry by law enforcement. What's left is to define what 'resistance' is.

Which is a problem since Indiana has a very liberal "castle doctrine". According to the state I don't have to retreat from a threat. If I believe that I, or my home, is under a physical threat I'm allowed to shoot and ask questions later. I don't even have to wait until they're in my home before shooting.

204 dragonfire1981  Sat, May 14, 2011 8:20:29am

Indiana is a GOP state, how long before someone proposes using this law to check for bibles and crosses in every home?

205 ihateronpaul  Sat, May 14, 2011 8:21:01am

this is what happens when you give cops everything they want
which is what republicans do, btw...

206 ElCapitanAmerica  Sat, May 14, 2011 8:39:09am

Wait, so if you guys think you have no right to resist to something (say with a weapon) then that makes the thing you are resisting against legal???

207 Obdicut  Sat, May 14, 2011 9:07:42am

re: #206 ElCapitanAmerica

No.

208 Teh Flowah  Sat, May 14, 2011 9:31:18am

Law student who just took Criminal Procedure at a top10 law school weighing in here based on my limited experience.

Before everyone goes blowing this out of proportion, the court here isn't saying anything all that new. There are MANY police exceptions to the warrant requirement. A lot of them will be judged after the fact. Did the police have RAPS?(reasonable articulable particularized specifics) Did they have PC? (probable cause) Did exigent circumstances exist? The entry will have been deemed "illegal" if an after the fact determination shows that the police had no RAPS or PC or that exigent circumstances did not exist. That's almost surely what the court is thinking here.

And trust me, you want these warrant exceptions. You don't want the police to have to go to a judge, possibly on the weekend? to ask for a warrant for a violent situation in someone's home. You want police to be able to use their good judgment and years of experience and justify it after the fact. And you are still protected. It's not like the police can do this willy nilly without any consequences. Fruits of an illegal search are often excluded. The 4th Amendment exclusionary rule also applies. If the police want evidence they've found to stay in, they better play by the rules.

THE WARRANT EXCEPTIONS ARE IMPOSSIBLE FOR A JUDGE TO DECIDE ON BEFORE HAND. That's kind of the point, is that the situation calls for the police to act now, for fear of destruction of evidence, or the suspect getting away. Anything not on the level will be challenged by any attorney worth his law degree. You can also SUE the police department, that is a right you still have under 42 USC 1983.

Let's be clear. The courts are NOT saying you do not have a right to contest. They are saying that you don't have the right to resist at the house. It's clear what the court was after was something that would prevent violent outbreaks between police and citizens. Shoving matches or a gunowner brandishing his weapon to police to resist is not something anyone wants to see, the potential for violent confrontations where a citizen or a policeman loses their lives is too great. And if you have actually been wronged, take the police to the courts. 42 USC 1983 their ass. You have that right.

TL;DR: the court is really just saying "we want you to solve any disputes you have with the police system in the courts and not with something that could lead to loss of life and violence"

TL;DR part2: as always, I think the calls of "NAZI POLICE STATE" are vastly overdone, especially when you consider that the underlying foundations of todays ruling have been in place for a long while now and no one seemed to create a big fuss back then. It's strange that the court saying "No, you can't physically resist the police" is the breaking point, when the danger for death is so evident. IMO, it's a good thing right? Especially when you have nonviolent means of disciplining the police available?

209 Obdicut  Sat, May 14, 2011 9:37:59am

re: #208 Teh Flowah

And trust me, you want these warrant exceptions. You don't want the police to have to go to a judge, possibly on the weekend? to ask for a warrant for a violent situation in someone's home. You want police to be able to use their good judgment and years of experience and justify it after the fact

No, I really don't. There have been far too many cases of no-knock warrants served on the wrong houses, including people getting shot because of it.

Shoving matches or a gunowner brandishing his weapon to police to resist is not something anyone wants to see

It's weird how nobody thinks that the police could be the one to back down.

especially when you consider that the underlying foundations of todays ruling have been in place for a long while now and no one seemed to create a big fuss back then.

Didja just skip the part about how this overturns precedent?

210 Teh Flowah  Sat, May 14, 2011 9:55:31am

re: #209 Obdicut

No, I really don't. There have been far too many cases of no-knock warrants served on the wrong houses, including people getting shot because of it.

It's weird how nobody thinks that the police could be the one to back down.

Didja just skip the part about how this overturns precedent?

1. You don't want the police to be able to chase a guy who they think just shot someone into a house? Okay....

2. Well, someone needs the back down. And in the case of police action, it's generally to protect someone or chase down a criminal so we give them the benefit of the doubt. And again, there are ex post facto measures to see if they abused the trust we gave them and not only can they be punished by not being able to use the evidence, but private citizens can also bring a private claim against the police for money.

3. Uh, what precedent? Can you be specific? I saw some vague mentions of "common law" without any cases. I didn't read the 200+ comments too carefully though. If you could point them out I'll look them over.

211 Teh Flowah  Sat, May 14, 2011 10:03:35am

re: #65 Obdicut


As long as the error was just 'negligence'. The specific 'negligence' they were ruling on was that the warrant was for the wrong damn guy.

So, if the cops kicked in your door without a warrant but with some plausible story about how, gee, they thought they did or that they smelled pot or something, they can use anything they find.

You should try reading the whole article, or better yet, the actual case ruling like I did.

"A warrant clerk in Coffee County, Ala., mistakenly told a police investigator that a warrant from a nearby county was out for Bennie Dean Herring, who had driven to the Coffee County Sheriff's Department to get something from his impounded truck. The Dale County computer error was quickly discovered. But by the time the warrant clerk alerted the police investigator, Herring had been arrested and found with an illegal pistol and with methamphetamine in his pocket."

This is absolutely reasonable, especially if you are from the "deterrence" crowd. It does not deter police from acting badly by excluding the evidence in this case. The police acted in good faith. It was a WARRANT CLERK that made a mistake in telling the police about a warrant for someone. The police did everything right. They followed procedure. Someone NOT a police officer made a mistake.

In such a situation, how does punishing the police make any sense? It serves no deterrence purpose. This case is bad for your argument. All attempts were made to correct it. There was absolutely no bad faith or malice at work here. The warrant clerk even attempted to correct the mistake ASAP, but by then it was too late.

So no, the "plausible story" hypo you put forward simply wouldn't fall under this exception.

Please stop overreacting to things you don't have a full grasp of.

212 Obdicut  Sat, May 14, 2011 10:06:52am

re: #210 Teh Flowah

1. You don't want the police to be able to chase a guy who they think just shot someone into a house? Okay...

Are you sure you're in law school? That's covered by hot pursuit.

213 Obdicut  Sat, May 14, 2011 10:07:38am

re: #211 Teh Flowah

It was a WARRANT CLERK that made a mistake in telling the police about a warrant for someone. The police did everything right. They followed procedure. Someone NOT a police officer made a mistake.

And someone's rights were violated.

Do you simply not care about that?

214 Obdicut  Sat, May 14, 2011 10:13:08am

re: #211 Teh Flowah

In such a situation, how does punishing the police make any sense? It serves no deterrence purpose.

Also, please point out where I said police should be punished in that circumstance.

215 Teh Flowah  Sat, May 14, 2011 10:25:19am

re: #212 Obdicut

Are you sure you're in law school? That's covered by hot pursuit.

Which is a warrant exception. Which warrant exceptions are you okay with and why should you be the arbiter?
re: #213 Obdicut

And someone's rights were violated.

Do you simply not care about that?


I care. I just don't see how punishing the police for a mistake they didn't make protects anyone's rights. It certainly doesn't deter them from the bad conduct they didn't commit. And any protection of someone's rights must be weighed against the societal cost of letting a criminal go free.

We have three factors that must be balanced. Deterrence of bad police conduct, protection of rights, and catching criminals. You would protect the rights of the criminal, letting him loose, even when the police have not acted improperly. I wouldn't, and neither would the SCOTUS. And as I've said before, there are avenues available for people who have been wronged to be made whole. And there are protections in place from the fruits doctrine to the exclusionary rule to 14th DP claims that prevent police from abusing their discretion. Although I won't go so far as to say it never happens.

re: #214 Obdicut

Also, please point out where I said police should be punished in that circumstance.


I assumed that your extremely disapproving stance on all these issues meant that the police shouldn't be allowed to use the evidence or maintain the arrest in that situation, thus punishing them for doing their job and following procedure. If this wasn't your intent, I apologize.

Still waiting for that case name so I can read it to see where the Indiana Supreme Court overturned precedent. (which honestly, wouldn't be all that amazing. Precedents are overturned all the time and often celebrated for it. Think Plessey and Brown)

216 _RememberTonyC  Sat, May 14, 2011 10:29:25am

This law makes it sound as if no police officer has ever used his position to do anything but 100% positive and benign work. Plenty of rogue cops can now think about settling personal scores using the uniform as their accessory.

217 Teh Flowah  Sat, May 14, 2011 10:37:43am

re: #212 Obdicut

Are you sure you're in law school? That's covered by hot pursuit.

I feel I should elaborate and am sad that there's no edit button I can find.

Hot pursuit. That's good. At least you agree with that.

(if you really want I'll dig up my CrimPro outline and find you the names of these cases so you can read them.)

Do you also think there should be an exception where the police see someone in danger inside a house? That was actually a short notes case I had to read where someone was in physical danger inside the house which the police were made aware of. I wouldn't want to force them to leave, go get a warrant (which they may not be able to depending on what time/day it is) and come back.

What about situations where the evidence is evanescent? There was another case in which there was a drunk driver being pursued by police. He ran into his house. Now, depending on how quickly a warrant can be obtained, it's quite possible the guy's BAC is gone by the time the police get back.

There are any number of exceptions, carved out usually for protection of the citizens. And I'm wondering why you're okay with hot pursuit, specifically, and calling out the vague "no knock warrants" in general. Hot pursuit isn't even specifically about protection, it's about catching the criminal. Which does protect society, but generally, and differently from forcing one's way into a house to protect someone who's being beaten.

If you don't mind, I'd love some specifics about your complaints, and that case that was precedence that was overturned. I'd love to read it.

218 Obdicut  Sat, May 14, 2011 10:38:06am

re: #215 Teh Flowah

Which is a warrant exception. Which warrant exceptions are you okay with and why should you be the arbiter?

What an idiotic strawman. I'm not saying i should be the arbiter. I'm offering my opinion. I"m saying that this case was much better decided under the aegis of hot pursuit, rather than this much larger interpretation.

You would protect the rights of the criminal, letting him loose, even when the police have not acted improperly.

Yes. I would protect the rights of the criminal, because, even though they may be criminals, they still have rights.

And saying the police have not acted improperly is a red herring-- someone in the string of law enforcement acted improperly. That it wasn't the police is immaterial; the search was illegal.

I assumed that your extremely disapproving stance on all these issues meant that the police shouldn't be allowed to use the evidence or maintain the arrest in that situation, thus punishing them for doing their job and following procedure.

What the fuck? That's your definition of 'punishment'? That they don't get to use the illegally obtained evidence?

Please show how that's a punishment in any way, shape, or form, please.

Still waiting for that case name so I can read it to see where the Indiana Supreme Court overturned precedent.

I'm really doubting that you're actually a law student at this point.

[Link: media.ibj.com...]

There's the decision, including the dissenting opinions below, showing the precedent's being overturned.

219 Obdicut  Sat, May 14, 2011 10:39:02am

re: #217 Teh Flowah

You seriously are a law student and you didn't think to simply look at the dissenting judges in this ruling for the precedents being overturned?

Seriously?

220 AntonSirius  Sat, May 14, 2011 10:50:01am

re: #211 Teh Flowah


In such a situation, how does punishing the police make any sense?

How is it "punishing the police" to rule the search illegal?

You have a seriously screwed up attitude towards people's rights.

221 Teh Flowah  Sat, May 14, 2011 10:52:54am

re: #218 Obdicut

What an idiotic strawman. I'm not saying i should be the arbiter. I'm offering my opinion. I"m saying that this case was much better decided under the aegis of hot pursuit, rather than this much larger interpretation.

Yes. I would protect the rights of the criminal, because, even though they may be criminals, they still have rights.

And saying the police have not acted improperly is a red herring-- someone in the string of law enforcement acted improperly. That it wasn't the police is immaterial; the search was illegal.

What the fuck? That's your definition of 'punishment'? That they don't get to use the illegally obtained evidence?

Please show how that's a punishment in any way, shape, or form, please.

I'm really doubting that you're actually a law student at this point.

[Link: media.ibj.com...]

There's the decision, including the dissenting opinions below, showing the precedent's being overturned.


1. Well, then you can see how reasonable people can easily disagree on what exceptions should exist. Hot pursuit doesn't cover every reasonable exception.

2. We must agree to disagree. Especially when my main purpose is to deter police conduct that violates the rights of citizens, I'm not overly concerned when a good faith mistake leads to the arrest of a criminal, who still has all his rights to an attorney, to silence, to not be a witness against himself, appeal, and on down the line.

3. It's not a red herring. We are talking about police. I'm not sure why they should be held accountable for the mistake a policeman didn't make, a mistake that was not done maliciously, and a mistake that they attempted to remedy ASAP. If you want to lump the entirety of the justice system together, without realizing that they act separately, then be my guest. You'll have to convince me though, and you'll also have to go back and reword some of your arguments from "police" to "entire criminal justice system"

4. It's holding the police accountable for something out of their control. Yes, releasing a criminal based on that punishes the police. The police like it when they catch criminals, they like it when the good, properly conducted work that they've done isn't overturned for a mistake they didn't make. To do away with that IS a punishment. Ask any police officer how he'd feel if this happened to him. He'd feel wronged.

5. Ah thank you. And in the dissent we have several things. A two paragraph dissent from Dickson, with no mention of any cases whatsoever.

The second, by Justice Rucker, starts with this

"The majority has made a respectable case supporting the proposition that the common law rule entitling a person to resist an unlawful arrest is outmoded in our modern society. But this proposition is not new. The Court of Appeals reached the same conclusion over three decades ago. ―[A] private citizen may not use force in resisting a peaceful arrest by an individual who he knows, or has reason to know, is a police officer performing his duties regardless of whether the arrest in question is lawful or unlawful.‖ Williams v. State, 311 N.E.2d 619, 621 (Ind. Ct. App. 1974) (emphasis added)."

That seems more in line with the idea that this isn't a new idea at all. Hardly overturning precedent. He goes further. The old English common law allowing for resisting arrest was actually due to the fact that previously, most arrests were carried out by private citizens, not uniformed state sanctioned police officers. The distinction is key.

And as I said before, the court is looking to prevent violence and death. It's even spelled out in the dissent.


Continued next post.

222 Obdicut  Sat, May 14, 2011 10:58:04am

re: #221 Teh Flowah

1. Well, then you can see how reasonable people can easily disagree on what exceptions should exist. Hot pursuit doesn't cover every reasonable exception.

Where do you see me disagreeing with that?

We must agree to disagree.

That is a meaningless phrase.

Especially when my main purpose is to deter police conduct that violates the rights of citizens, I'm not overly concerned when a good faith mistake leads to the arrest of a criminal,

You're contradicting yourself, then. A criminal is still a citizen. You're fine with his rights being violated. So, please don't claim that your main purpose is to deter police conduct that violates the rights of citizens. You're lying.


Yes, releasing a criminal based on that punishes the police.

Situation before the arrest and situation after, for the police, is exactly the same. So how is it a punishment? Just because they'd rather arrest him? Then it's 'punishing' the police to not allow them to simply search anyone they want, too. your argument is rapidly becoming fatuous. Your definition of 'punishment' is now 'the police are upset'.

Idiotic.


5. Ah thank you. And in the dissent we have several things. A two paragraph dissent from Dickson, with no mention of any cases whatsoever.

Why didn't you just look it up yourself? Isn't that simply step one for any law student examining a ruling, to actually read the ruling?

The old English common law allowing for resisting arrest was actually due to the fact that previously, most arrests were carried out by private citizens, not uniformed state sanctioned police officers. The distinction is key.

The distinction might have been key had that precedent not continued for the hundreds of years where that was not the case.

223 Teh Flowah  Sat, May 14, 2011 11:00:05am

"In Miller v. United States, 357 U.S. 301, 313-14 (1958) the United States Supreme Court held that it was unlawful to arrest the defendant on criminal charges when a warrantless arrest was conducted by police officers breaking and entering the defendant‘s apartment without expressly announcing the purpose of their presence or demanding admission."

And that's great! Unfortunately, this hardly counts as precedence. There ARE exceptions to the warrant requirement, and there are certainly exceptions to the knock and announce rules. The Miller opinion is saying that generally, warrants are required, and knock/announce is required. It cannot be speaking to all situations because we already know exceptions exist. (Plus it's over 50 years old.... Things have happened in the court system since then believe it or not.)

"―the physical entry of the home is the chief evil against which the wording of the Fourth Amendment is directed.‖ Payton v. New York"

Right, and again, that fourth amendment which is supremely concerned with the home does not prevent police from entering. It just prevents them from entering in most situations without the proper procedure.

This is hardly the overturning of precedence.

224 Teh Flowah  Sat, May 14, 2011 11:01:48am

re: #220 AntonSirius

How is it "punishing the police" to rule the search illegal?

You have a seriously screwed up attitude towards people's rights.

I find the rights of innocent citizens in the rest of society to be just as important, if not moreso. Don't you? Would you risk the danger that a criminal poses to society because of a mistake the police didn't make?

I think that makes /you/ seriously screwed up, but these are just our opinions. Man.

225 Obdicut  Sat, May 14, 2011 11:04:38am

re: #224 Teh Flowah

Would you risk the danger that a criminal poses to society because of a mistake the police didn't make?

Or one they did make, since the ruling on this case certainly does extend to the mistake being the police; that it wasn't in this case is actually incidental.

And yes, I'd much rather risk the danger that a criminal poses to society than endorse fruit from the poison tree.

Again: Since you're a law student, why didn't you go read the ruling on this case as your first act? Why begin spouting about it?

And why are you simultaneously trying to say that overturning precedent isn't a big deal and that this isn't overturning precedent? Choose an argument and stick with it, otherwise you look mendacious as all hell.

226 AntonSirius  Sat, May 14, 2011 11:05:13am

re: #221 Teh Flowah


4. It's holding the police accountable for something out of their control. Yes, releasing a criminal based on that punishes the police. The police like it when they catch criminals, they like it when the good, properly conducted work that they've done isn't overturned for a mistake they didn't make. To do away with that IS a punishment. Ask any police officer how he'd feel if this happened to him. He'd feel wronged.

So in your warped view, hurting the feelings of a police officer constitutes a "punishment".

I hope you are not actually a law student, or that if you are you are never allowed to practice.

Actually, no. What I hope is that you serve jail time for something due to evidence acquired in what should have been ruled an illegal search but wasn't, so that maybe your clueless ass will learn what the word punishment actually means.

227 Teh Flowah  Sat, May 14, 2011 11:14:20am

re: #222 Obdicut


You're contradicting yourself, then. A criminal is still a citizen. You're fine with his rights being violated. So, please don't claim that your main purpose is to deter police conduct that violates the rights of citizens. You're lying.

Situation before the arrest and situation after, for the police, is exactly the same. So how is it a punishment? Just because they'd rather arrest him? Then it's 'punishing' the police to not allow them to simply search anyone they want, too. your argument is rapidly becoming fatuous. Your definition of 'punishment' is now 'the police are upset'.

Why didn't you just look it up yourself? Isn't that simply step one for any law student examining a ruling, to actually read the ruling?

The distinction might have been key had that precedent not continued for the hundreds of years where that was not the case.

1. I should have been more specific. Innocent citizens. If you're asking me which rights I'm more interested in protecting, when the two sets of rights between criminal and innocent citizens in society are in conflict, and the police have committed NO wrong acts. Well, I'm afraid I must go with society.

2. Other than the hard work they put in, the possible dangers they opened themselves up to in pursuing a possible criminal, and the time they took to do their job that ultimately ends up being a waste? Sure, the situation is the same.

3. As soon as you linked it, I read it. Sorry.

4. Even the dissent admits this is a key and important distinction, one that he agrees with. Unless you're saying both the dissent and majority opinion are wrong in this case...

re: #225 Obdicut

And why are you simultaneously trying to say that overturning precedent isn't a big deal and that this isn't overturning precedent? Choose an argument and stick with it, otherwise you look mendacious as all hell.


I'm not sure if you're aware of what lawyers are trained to do, but it's to attack from every possible angle. You're supposed to argue "in the alternatives." They even have a latin phrase they are fond of using "arguendo". Assuming, arguendo, that you're right and this is overturning of precedence, that in itself is not a bad thing. Some past rulings were wrongly decided. But upon further review, you were wrong and this wasn't the overturning of precedent.

You can say it's mendacious, it's simply what we're taught, and its' what every good attorney does and every judge expects. Sorry if it offends your sensibilities.

re: #226 AntonSirius

Actually, no. What I hope is that you serve jail time for something due to evidence acquired in what should have been ruled an illegal search but wasn't, so that maybe your clueless ass will learn what the word punishment actually means.


Hm. So if I'm reading you right, you want me to serve jail time for a crime I committed, for which evidence was found illegally. Wouldn't I first have to commit a crime? And let's be more specific. In this situation you're advocating, the police have committed NO wrongful actions? They are just following standard and approved police procedure and some warrant clerk made a mistake? Gotcha.

So, I commit a crime, the police do nothing wrong, and I get punished for it. I really hope no one comes into this thread advocating that I go free. Absent the police purposefully or recklessly violating my rights, I hope I do get jail time for the hypothetical crime I commit.

228 AntonSirius  Sat, May 14, 2011 11:14:53am

re: #224 Teh Flowah

I find the rights of innocent citizens in the rest of society to be just as important, if not moreso. Don't you?

No, I find that everyone rights are equally important. Which is kind of what the word "right" indicates. There's a little quote in the Declaration of Independence which says it better than I could.

"If not moreso". Jesus H Motherfucking Christ on a pogo stick, what a nonchalantly obscene thing to say. If Orwell were writing today, he'd name a horse after you.

229 AntonSirius  Sat, May 14, 2011 11:19:42am

re: #227 Teh Flowah


Hm. So if I'm reading you right, you want me to serve jail time for a crime I committed

I said nothing about you committing a crime, so no, you didn't read it right.

I said you should receive actual punishment due to an illegal search, so you'd learn the difference between punishment and hurt feelings.

230 Teh Flowah  Sat, May 14, 2011 11:20:30am

re: #228 AntonSirius

No, I find that everyone rights are equally important. Which is kind of what the word "right" indicates. There's a little quote in the Declaration of Independence which says it better than I could.

"If not moreso". Jesus H Motherfucking Christ on a pogo stick, what a nonchalantly obscene thing to say. If Orwell were writing today, he'd name a horse after you.

This is going to knock you for a loop, but sometimes, people's rights are in conflict and not all rights are absolute!

That's why the right to property is subject to "due process" and you can be taxed by the government, even without you consenting to every little thing they spend it on. That's why people can be locked up!

And sometimes, the rights of one person come into conflict with another. For example, free speech. You are NOT allowed to say absolutely anything you want. Slander, Libel, your rights are restricted to protect the rights of others.

In this case, yes, letting a criminal go free DOES harm society. He may strike again, stealing, or killing, or raping, or attacking, or whatever. It doesn't really matter, society at large pays the price. And unless there is a broader societal goal of deterring the police from violating our rights with reckless disregard, it's hard for me to side with the rights of the criminal.

What you're saying is great. And it works as a generality and on a bumper sticker. But once you get down into the nitty gritty, it doesn't really work anymore, because there are always exceptions and you have to actually navigate them and use your brain instead of issuing slogans and soundbites about "THE DECLARATION OF INDEPENDENCE..." "WELL OUR FOUNDING FATHERS..." "BUT THE CONSTITUTION...."

Which personally, sounds a lot like the Tea Party talking when they are criticizing Obama's health care, or the bailout, or whatever else.

231 Obdicut  Sat, May 14, 2011 11:21:04am

re: #227 Teh Flowah

should have been more specific. Innocent citizens. If you're asking me which rights I'm more interested in protecting, when the two sets of rights between criminal and innocent citizens in society are in conflict, and the police have committed NO wrong acts. Well, I'm afraid I must go with society.

Except there's no conflict between the rights of the criminal and the rights of society. You're assuming that the criminal is going to go on to violate someone else's rights, which is in no way assumable. Especially in this case, where the charges were a weapons charge and a drug charge, neither of which actually harm the rights of anyone else.

You're really good at demolishing your own arguments.


Other than the hard work they put in, the possible dangers they opened themselves up to in pursuing a possible criminal, and the time they took to do their job that ultimately ends up being a waste? Sure, the situation is the same.

So, simply doing their job is a punishment, according to you.

What an insane, stupid definition of 'punishment'. Good luck convincing anyone that a cop not getting to use illegal evidence is 'punishing' them.


3. As soon as you linked it, I read it. Sorry.

Why didn't you seek it out first? That's my question. You're a law student, you're examining a ruling. Why on earth wouldn't you go look up the ruling before you started talking about it?

Even the dissent admits this is a key and important distinction, one that he agrees with.

Did you just ignore the second paragraph of that dissent since it didn't fit with your argument, or what?

I'm not sure if you're aware of what lawyers are trained to do, but it's to attack from every possible angle.

Not when it traps you into being self-contradictory and mendacious, as you have been. It really makes you look like, well, you just want to win the argument at all costs and have no interest in the truth or justice of your argument.

You can say it's mendacious, it's simply what we're taught, and its' what every good attorney does and every judge expects. Sorry if it offends your sensibilities.

We're not in court, jackass.

232 AntonSirius  Sat, May 14, 2011 11:22:34am

re: #230 Teh Flowah

This is going to knock you for a loop, but sometimes, people's rights are in conflict and not all rights are absolute!

Sorry, I tuned out when you led with a really, really feeble straw man.

If there's anything in the rest of the post worth reading, someone let me know.

233 Obdicut  Sat, May 14, 2011 11:22:39am

re: #230 Teh Flowah

This is going to knock you for a loop, but sometimes, people's rights are in conflict and not all rights are absolute!

Why are you under the impression that being a patronizing asshole is a good way to make an argument?


In this case, yes, letting a criminal go free DOES harm society. He may strike again, stealing, or killing, or raping, or attacking, or whatever.

Key word there. Especially since this particular example was non-violent crime.

Again, good job disproving your own argument. That is the danger of attempting to argue every angle at once.

234 Obdicut  Sat, May 14, 2011 11:23:09am

re: #232 AntonSirius

Well, he claimed that since something might happen, it does happen. That was good.

235 Achilles Tang  Sat, May 14, 2011 11:25:00am

I have only read the OP, but it seems to me that the ruling simply says that you cannot assault the police even if you believe they have made a mistake.

I don't disagree with that.

236 Obdicut  Sat, May 14, 2011 11:25:49am

re: #235 Naso Tang

Read more than the OP.

237 SidewaysQuark  Sat, May 14, 2011 11:26:42am

Am I one of the few here that thinks that maybe it's NOT a good idea for it to be legal to assault or shoot a police officer who makes a questionable judgment call about entering a home, based on one's skill as an armchair lawyer?

I don't see where this law prohibits you from verbally refusing entry to cops without a warrant, or where it would keep cops out of hot water, pressed charges and/or lawsuits for illegally trespassing. Assuming I'm right about that, I don't get where this is a problem, nor how it's really a significant change in existing policy in most places.

If I'm wrong, someone please fill me in on details....

238 Obdicut  Sat, May 14, 2011 11:27:23am

re: #237 SidewaysQuark

Did you bother to read the thread?

239 Achilles Tang  Sat, May 14, 2011 11:29:41am

I don't have time now. Just was given a short break from the yard work, but on the basis of the OP, it is clear. Police don't have the right to enter anyone's home without cause or warrant, but if they do you still can't attack them.

Let the court sort it out afterwards.

Seems trivially simple to me.

BBL

240 Obdicut  Sat, May 14, 2011 11:30:48am

re: #239 Naso Tang

Things are often trivially simple when you don't bother to think about them at all.

Read the damn ruling and the dissent.

241 AntonSirius  Sat, May 14, 2011 11:33:57am

re: #239 Naso Tang

I don't have time now. Just was given a short break from the yard work, but on the basis of the OP, it is clear. Police don't have the right to enter anyone's home without cause or warrant, but if they do you still can't attack them.

Let the court sort it out afterwards.

Seems trivially simple to me.

BBL

The word is resist, not attack. There's a world of difference between them.

242 Teh Flowah  Sat, May 14, 2011 11:37:57am

re: #229 AntonSirius

I said nothing about you committing a crime, so no, you didn't read it right.

I said you should receive actual punishment due to an illegal search, so you'd learn the difference between punishment and hurt feelings.

Then I'm afraid I don't understand what you mean. How could there be "evidence" without a crime? Are the police going to find a popsicle stick and say it's evidence that I ate a popsicle and throw me in jail?

re: #231 Obdicut

Except there's no conflict between the rights of the criminal and the rights of society. You're assuming that the criminal is going to go on to violate someone else's rights, which is in no way assumable.

So, simply doing their job is a punishment, according to you.

Did you just ignore the second paragraph of that dissent since it didn't fit with your argument, or what?

Not when it traps you into being self-contradictory and mendacious, as you have been. It really makes you look like, well, you just want to win the argument at all costs and have no interest in the truth or justice of your argument.

We're not in court, jackass.


1. There are. And the recidivism rates in this country show that if there's one thing you can count on, it's that a criminal will go on to commit another crime. Perhaps it's a failing of our rehabilitation methods, but that's simply a fact. The vast majority of criminals are repeat offenders.

2. Well, doing their job and having their labor thrown out is a punishment. Especially when very often, the police are putting their lives on the line. It's not a good feeling you know? Putting yourself in harm's way and getting results and having the results thrown out for something you didn't do. Police would normally say, it's worth it because they're putting away bad guys. There are safer professions that pay more you know. Once you take away that principle component that a policeman has of putting bad guys away, what's left?

3. I didn't ignore it, I ran out of characters and addressed it in a second post.

4. Well that wasn't my intent.re: #232 AntonSirius

Sorry, I tuned out when you led with a really, really feeble straw man.

If there's anything in the rest of the post worth reading, someone let me know.


That's fine. re: #233 Obdicut

Why are you under the impression that being a patronizing asshole is a good way to make an argument?

Key word there. Especially since this particular example was non-violent crime.


1. Probably about the same time you started calling me an idiot, an asshole, doubting I go to law school, generally being uncivil towards me. Why do you ask?

2. Already addressed.
[Link: bjs.ojp.usdoj.gov...]
re: #241 AntonSirius

The word is resist, not attack. There's a world of difference between them.


If that's the problem then you should back down. The majority opinion as well as the dissent have recognized that in this context, resist is meant almost identically to attack. That is, to physically resist in such a way that would lead to violence. It doesn't mean you have to open the door to someone without a warrant, it doesn't meant you have to comply with everything they say when they have no basis. It just means you can't put your hands on them. This is hardly objectionable imo. The last thing I want to see is someone getting shot or tazed over this.

243 Obdicut  Sat, May 14, 2011 11:42:06am

re: #242 Teh Flowah

And the recidivism rates in this country show that if there's one thing you can count on, it's that a criminal will go on to commit another crime.

No. It's that some of them will. That you're willing to ignore this is amazing.

Seriously, you're a joke at this point. Between assuming that A) a victimless crime deprives the rights of others B) Cops not getting to use illegally-obtained evidence is 'punishment' and C) all criminals will commit crimes again (which, well, if we believe that, why let them out of jail at all, ever? Jesus.) you've done a slap-up job of making a mockery of your own arguments.

I'm done with you.

244 Teh Flowah  Sat, May 14, 2011 11:46:37am

re: #243 Obdicut

No. It's that some of them will. That you're willing to ignore this is amazing.

Seriously, you're a joke at this point. Between assuming that A) a victimless crime deprives the rights of others B) Cops not getting to use illegally-obtained evidence is 'punishment' and C) all criminals will commit crimes again (which, well, if we believe that, why let them out of jail at all, ever? Jesus.) you've done a slap-up job of making a mockery of your own arguments.

I'm done with you.

You're right, I should have been more specific. What I meant was is that most criminals do commit another crime. So when I said you can count on it, it wasn't that every criminal will do it, it's just that it's so likely, if you were a betting man, you should make that bet and count on it. My bad.

A: I didn't say anything about a victimless crime. And in this specific instance, it was a case of domestic disturbance where the husband was throwing things around and generally being violent. That hardly seems victimless to me.

B: Yes. If I spent all day at a dangerous underpaid job, and one of the reasons I was in that job was the satisfaction of a job well done, and I saw my hard and dangerous work disappeared into thin air, I would call that a punishment.

C: Again, my mistake. I clear this up above. And like I said, it may have a lot to do with the problems with our rehabilitation. Other countries do not have the same kind of recidivism rates that we do. Clearly, we can do something better so that criminals don't more often than not, (not always!) return to that lifestyle.

Cheers!

245 AntonSirius  Sat, May 14, 2011 11:47:52am

re: #242 Teh Flowah

How could there be "evidence" without a crime?

There is no way in hell you're a law student.

246 Obdicut  Sat, May 14, 2011 11:50:23am

re: #245 AntonSirius

There is no way in hell you're a law student.

Hell, Orly Taitz passed the bar. There's plenty of short-sighted and blinkered law students.

Especially the ones who believe winning the argument is the only important thing.

247 AntonSirius  Sat, May 14, 2011 11:50:31am

Incidentally, I think Teh Flowah is answering the question "What the hell is going on in Indiana?" depressingly well.

248 Teh Flowah  Sat, May 14, 2011 11:51:00am

re: #245 AntonSirius

There is no way in hell you're a law student.

Okay. Well if you would enlighten me, I'd appreciate it. If there's no crime, there is no evidence. A glove is just a glove until there's a crime. A gun is just a gun until there's a crime.

At least. I used to think so! Maybe I'm wrong. Show me why.

249 AntonSirius  Sat, May 14, 2011 11:51:47am

re: #246 Obdicut

Hell, Orly Taitz passed the bar. There's plenty of short-sighted and blinkered law students.

Especially the ones who believe winning the argument is the only important thing.

Good point. I should have said, "There is no way in hell you should be a law student."

250 Teh Flowah  Sat, May 14, 2011 11:53:02am

Ahh, the 'ol "how dare you be condescending" moving into "being condescending while talking past someone in an echo chamber" routine.

Glad to see it still works for some folks.

Cheers!

251 AntonSirius  Sat, May 14, 2011 11:54:58am

re: #248 Teh Flowah

Okay. Well if you would enlighten me, I'd appreciate it. If there's no crime, there is no evidence. A glove is just a glove until there's a crime. A gun is just a gun until there's a crime.

At least. I used to think so! Maybe I'm wrong. Show me why.

You have to be trolling at this point. Have to be.

252 Teh Flowah  Sat, May 14, 2011 11:56:53am

re: #251 AntonSirius

You have to be trolling at this point. Have to be.

Well, let's see, you think I'm really dumb. So chances are I'm genuinely curious as to the answer. Try answering it so we can move forward? Or you can sit there continuing to make snide comments while Obdicut approves and we can just sit here and watch while you two pat each other on the back.

It's possible I'm just misunderstanding you. Either way, I would love it if you could clear it up.

253 AntonSirius  Sat, May 14, 2011 12:04:46pm

re: #252 Teh Flowah

Well, let's see, you think I'm really dumb.

No, I think you're trolling. It's spelled out pretty clearly in the post you just quoted.

254 Teh Flowah  Sat, May 14, 2011 12:06:15pm

re: #253 AntonSirius

No, I think you're trolling. It's spelled out pretty clearly in the post you just quoted.

My mistake. I thought all the quips about how I couldn't possibly be a law student, or that I shouldn't be, were gibs on my intelligence.

But is this your way of saying you're not going to answer my question? I can assure you I'm not trolling. Although I suppose any troll would say that. So. Conspiracy!

255 AntonSirius  Sat, May 14, 2011 12:10:38pm

If you are really, really, truly confused as to how there can be evidence if you aren't guilty of a crime though, which would be an absolutely inexcusable display of ignorance for someone who "just took Criminal Procedure at a top10 law school", I suggest you scroll up to post #115 of this thread.

256 AntonSirius  Sat, May 14, 2011 12:12:27pm

re: #254 Teh Flowah

My mistake. I thought all the quips about how I couldn't possibly be a law student, or that I shouldn't be, were gibs on my intelligence.

They were, until you made it clear to my satisfaction that you were a troll with that evidence bullshit. I don't down-ding the merely stupid.

257 AntonSirius  Sat, May 14, 2011 12:14:46pm

re: #254 Teh Flowah

I can assure you I'm not trolling. Although I suppose any troll would say that. So. Conspiracy!

Although based on this flagrant misuse of the word conspiracy, I'm beginning to think you're both a troll and stupid.

Either way we're done. Guess I'm slower on the uptake than Obdi, or just more of a softie, since I gave you so much more of the attention you were so desperately looking for.

258 Teh Flowah  Sat, May 14, 2011 12:35:11pm

re: #255 AntonSirius

If you are really, really, truly confused as to how there can be evidence if you aren't guilty of a crime though, which would be an absolutely inexcusable display of ignorance for someone who "just took Criminal Procedure at a top10 law school", I suggest you scroll up to post #115 of this thread.


Thanks for that.

Hm. It seems pretty clear that there's a crime in that case. The sexual assault? It might be that the person who accused him lied, but either way... I think we can assume there was a crime committed by someone. But perhaps you meant that the crime was not committed by ME, and so that there was "no crime." Which I think is an odd way of phrasing it, but so be it, I'll give you the benefit of the doubt.

In the case you linked, it's a misID by the actual victims. This has nothing to do with police misconduct and is a sad and unfortunate byproduct of a system that relies on humans.

I can think of a million situations where someone is wrongfully accused. Few of them rely on an improper search absent police misconduct.

I guess what I'm saying is, in the very very TINY likelihood that I am accused of X crime, and the police find Y "evidence" as a result of an improper search without any police misconduct that is deemed permissible, and I am actually found guilty, it is the result of a system that can never be 100% right.

You know what kind of system never puts innocent people in prison? Having no system at all. In the above situation, any defense attorney could put on a great argument. It's likely that since I actually committed no crime, there would be very little evidence to connect me. And since you're saying it was an improper search, it's probably not going to be an identification issue. So we'd have to count on the prosecution to go ahead with a weak case, the jury to go ahead with a weak case.

Let's just say your situation is very far flung at best.

259 AntonSirius  Sat, May 14, 2011 12:51:09pm

re: #258 Teh Flowah

It seems pretty clear that there's a crime in that case. The sexual assault? It might be that the person who accused him lied, but either way... I think we can assume there was a crime committed by someone. But perhaps you meant that the crime was not committed by ME, and so that there was "no crime." Which I think is an odd way of phrasing it, but so be it, I'll give you the benefit of the doubt.

What a considerate troll, giving me the benefit of the doubt for his own mis-characterization of my statement.

260 Achilles Tang  Sat, May 14, 2011 2:19:10pm

re: #241 AntonSirius

The word is resist, not attack. There's a world of difference between them.

There isn't a world of difference. One says I pushed the other says different. Happens all the time, even without police involvement, but police do have a special standing, even when wrong.

261 Girl with a Pearl Earring  Sat, May 14, 2011 2:24:21pm

In other words, screw hundreds of years of common law, because this ruling has overturned the Magna Carta of 1215:

[Link: www.nwitimes.com...]

262 Achilles Tang  Sat, May 14, 2011 2:25:37pm

re: #240 Obdicut

Things are often trivially simple when you don't bother to think about them at all.

Read the damn ruling and the dissent.

I read the link. I can think of many circumstances where police have reasonable cause to enter a house without warrant in cases of possible domestic abuse. To require a warrant when they think someone may have been assaulted inside is just plain stupid.

In this case an asshole was taunting the police according to the article. You may think that is a (damned) constitutional right.

I don't.

263 AntonSirius  Sat, May 14, 2011 2:59:16pm

re: #260 Naso Tang

There isn't a world of difference. One says I pushed the other says different. Happens all the time, even without police involvement, but police do have a special standing, even when wrong.

You're confusing the specifics of the case with the language of the ruling, which is what will be used in the future to establish new law.

264 Achilles Tang  Sat, May 14, 2011 3:15:44pm

re: #263 AntonSirius

You're confusing the specifics of the case with the language of the ruling, which is what will be used in the future to establish new law.

Perhaps. I read the article, not the legal brief, but it sounds pretty clear to me that what is meant is not that police have the right to enter without cause, but that if they do so you don't have the right to physically oppose them.

The court will sort out who was right or wrong after the fact, and nobody needs to have been injured.

If the language was poor, it will no doubt be challenged, as the system is designed to allow.

265 AntonSirius  Sat, May 14, 2011 6:09:27pm

re: #264 Naso Tang

Perhaps. I read the article, not the legal brief, but it sounds pretty clear to me that what is meant is not that police have the right to enter without cause, but that if they do so you don't have the right to physically oppose them.

The court will sort out who was right or wrong after the fact, and nobody needs to have been injured.

If the language was poor, it will no doubt be challenged, as the system is designed to allow.

People will still get injured and killed. When a gang of people break down your door with no warning you're probably going to resist them just out of instinct.

In Indiana though, you've now got one less legal defense for your actions if the gang turn out to have badges.

266 Obdicut  Sun, May 15, 2011 4:19:30am

Easy ways for their to be evidence without a crime:

Small kitchen scales.
Bank records and transactions.
Phone records.
A cell phone.
Cash.
Legally prescribed drugs.
Legally owned firearms.
Anything that the police suspect might have DNA evidence on it.

All of the above might be collected by police as evidence, and turn out not to be related to any crime whatsoever, and no crime needs to be committed-- just one thought to have been committed.

This is really not hard to figure out.

267 Achilles Tang  Sun, May 15, 2011 5:54:09am

re: #265 AntonSirius

People will still get injured and killed. When a gang of people break down your door with no warning you're probably going to resist them just out of instinct.

In Indiana though, you've now got one less legal defense for your actions if the gang turn out to have badges.

If they look like a gang and not police, yes. I get uncomfortable when I see the police in general referred to as "a gang", or jackbooted thugs also.

It makes me wonder why the other person has such a gut instinct fear of the police.

268 Achilles Tang  Sun, May 15, 2011 5:56:02am

re: #266 Obdicut

Easy ways for their to be evidence without a crime:

Small kitchen scales.
Bank records and transactions.
Phone records.
A cell phone.
Cash.
Legally prescribed drugs.
Legally owned firearms.
Anything that the police suspect might have DNA evidence on it.

All of the above might be collected by police as evidence, and turn out not to be related to any crime whatsoever, and no crime needs to be committed-- just one thought to have been committed.

This is really not hard to figure out.

No this is not hard to figure out, because I didn't see where the ruling in question voided the principle that evidence presented must have been collected legally.

269 RogueOne  Sun, May 15, 2011 5:59:35am

re: #267 Naso Tang

If they look like a gang and not police, yes. I get uncomfortable when I see the police in general referred to as "a gang", or jackbooted thugs also.

Here's one dead guy from last week that didn't know the difference between the gang outside and police:
[Link: www.kgun9.com...]

It makes me wonder why the other person has such a gut instinct fear of the police.

That's dangerously close to "if you don't have anything to hide you shouldn't mind the police going through your stuff"....what's a little illegal search between friends, right?

270 RogueOne  Sun, May 15, 2011 6:03:40am

re: #269 RogueOne

Note the last paragraphs in the story about the neighbors:

[Link: www.kgun9.com...]


Today, KGUN9 also learned SWAT Guerena's neighbor's house. "When I came home, the whole house was searched. All the doors were open. And, (our house) was searched through; it was like an invasion of privacy," said Carissa Franco.

SWAT says it was concerned about a hole in the Franco's home, worried someone else could've been wounded. So, it said it did what they needed to get inside.

Pima County released a statement about that breach, saying in part, "The Regional SWAT Team made entry into two additional residences very soon after the deadly force encounter. This was done in order to ensure that there were no injured persons in those residences as a result of the shooting. These entries were made without warrants due to the exigency of the circumstances. No one was home at either residence when entry was made.

Shooting one guy who didn't know they were cops must not have been good enough for them since they felt the need to illegally enter the neighbors houses putting more people at risk.

271 Obdicut  Sun, May 15, 2011 6:11:09am

re: #268 Naso Tang

No this is not hard to figure out, because I didn't see where the ruling in question voided the principle that evidence presented must have been collected legally.

It didn't. However, you didn't bother to read the thread, because you didn't see that such evidence is already allowed, by Supreme Court ruling.

In addition, the particular question I was answering was whether there could be evidence without a crime. It's patently obvious there can; there can be evidence because of the allegation or belief of a crime, without an actual crime.

272 celticdragon  Sun, May 15, 2011 7:59:42am

re: #237 SidewaysQuark

Am I one of the few here that thinks that maybe it's NOT a good idea for it to be legal to assault or shoot a police officer who makes a questionable judgment call about entering a home, based on one's skill as an armchair lawyer?

I don't see where this law prohibits you from verbally refusing entry to cops without a warrant, or where it would keep cops out of hot water, pressed charges and/or lawsuits for illegally trespassing. Assuming I'm right about that, I don't get where this is a problem, nor how it's really a significant change in existing policy in most places.

If I'm wrong, someone please fill me in on details...

If a cop breaks down the door to your house on a mistake (go read Radly Balko's blog The Agitator, this happens a lot more than you may realize), you can be pretty sure that your life and the lives of your family are in immediate danger.

In that situation, I have no problem shooting first. The police officer(s) can deal with their screw up. I will defend my self and my loved ones.

273 TheAntichrist  Sun, May 15, 2011 7:59:45am

re: #191 ElCapitanAmerica

I'm a bit surprised how most people interpreted it here, I seriously would have expected this reaction more from a Tea Party/NRA site.


I am as shocked as you are ElCapitan, this more resembles a Free Republic thread than the ones I'm used to here. And yes, Charles' title is completely incorrect. The Indiana SC did not rule that police can enter anyone's home without a warrant, just that you can't assault them if they do.

274 Obdicut  Sun, May 15, 2011 8:05:16am

re: #273 TheAntichrist

Do you feel the two dissenting judges on this case were also Free Republic whackjobs?

By the way, have you figured out yet that you were completely fucking wrong when you said:

No evidence collected in such a search can be used in court.

Or do you need to dodge that for awhile longer?

275 TheAntichrist  Sun, May 15, 2011 8:25:04am

re: #274 Obdicut

Do you feel the two dissenting judges on this case were also Free Republic whackjobs?

By the way, have you figured out yet that you were completely fucking wrong when you said:

Or do you need to dodge that for awhile longer?

I was 100% correct. No evidence can be used if the police acted in bad faith. It is a very narrow exception the SCOTUS carved out, which Teh Flower showed, in a case which the cops acted in good faith.

And yes, you are acting liker a freeper. And you don't appear to understand the dissenting opinions at all, it seems that anything with more words than a bumper sticker can hold is beyond your reading comprehension ability. Did you see how both dissenting justices actualloy do think the guy was properly charged with and convicted of assaulting the police officers? Their dissent was that they thought the majority opinion was too broad.

276 Obdicut  Sun, May 15, 2011 8:46:21am

re: #275 TheAntichrist

I was 100% correct. No evidence can be used if the police acted in bad faith.

That's not what you claimed, though. You know that, right? You said they couldn't use evidence if it was obtained illegally. Which is exactly wrong. They can, as long as the illegality was due to 'negligence'.

So, if the police served a warrant on your property (that was actually for another property), and found evidence of a crime, that illegally obtained evidence would be usable against you.

This is not a 'narrow' exception in the least, especially since negligence is a subjective word.

And yes, you are acting liker a freeper.

You don't actually read Freep, then. I'm saying that the age-old right to physically resist an illegal entry into your home, which has been sanctioned by the courts for centuries, should still exist.

That's not wild-eyed, crazed Freeper thinking, and I have no idea why you need to portray it as such.


Did you see how both dissenting justices actualloy do think the guy was properly charged with and convicted of assaulting the police officers?

And I think he was too, since the officers were in hot pursuit of him. I, also, think the ruling was overbroad. Which is what i have been goddamn saying.

Yet apparently I'm the one with reading comprehension difficulties.

277 Achilles Tang  Sun, May 15, 2011 1:09:30pm

re: #271 Obdicut

It didn't. However, you didn't bother to read the thread, because you didn't see that such evidence is already allowed, by Supreme Court ruling.

In addition, the particular question I was answering was whether there could be evidence without a crime. It's patently obvious there can; there can be evidence because of the allegation or belief of a crime, without an actual crime.

I have no problem with the police finding evidence of a crime that they weren't expecting to find, and acting on it.

I am surprised at the people who seem to instinctively fear the police. I don't.

Different lifestyles I suppose; however that is not to say that I don't believe policemen can ever be wrong, or bad; but to those (here) who say shoot first and ask questions later even if you know it is the police, I say move to Afghanistan.

278 Obdicut  Sun, May 15, 2011 1:34:55pm

re: #277 Naso Tang

I have no problem with the police finding evidence of a crime that they weren't expecting to find, and acting on it.

Even if they illegally obtained it?

Different lifestyles I suppose

Why would you suppose that?

but to those (here) who say shoot first and ask questions later even if you know it is the police, I say move to Afghanistan.

Please point out anyone who said that.
You can't, because you made it up.

279 Achilles Tang  Sun, May 15, 2011 4:04:17pm

re: #278 Obdicut

Even if they illegally obtained it?

Depends. That is what we have courts for, to determine what is acceptable and what is not. Would you advocate throwing out evidence of any sort, say a murder, if it could be argued a warrant and prior suspicion was needed?

Why would you suppose that?

Could fear of police be genetic?

Please point out anyone who said that.

#272


You can't, because you made it up.

Don't make childish accusations, my friend.

280 Obdicut  Sun, May 15, 2011 4:53:59pm

re: #279 Naso Tang

Depends. That is what we have courts for, to determine what is acceptable and what is not. Would you advocate throwing out evidence of any sort, say a murder, if it could be argued a warrant and prior suspicion was needed?

Oh god. You're not even bothering to read the thread. I would indeed advocate throwing out all evidence illegally obtained, no matter what. It's fruit of the poison tree.


Could fear of police be genetic?

Are the only choices 'lifestyle' or 'genetic'? Jesus, dude, you're in pretty dangerous territory.


#272

Indeed, I was wrong. There was one person, one, who said that. I was absolutely wrong to say no one had said it. One person did. I missed that comment-- since it was only one person, at the very end of the thread.

Now, since you said 'those', can you find me someone else in the thread? Or can you admit that you were wrong, too?


Don't make childish accusations, my friend.

Don't call me your friend, please. One person in the thread advocated firing on the police even if you knew it was them. I don't think that's wise, or a good tactic. Yet somehow you're lumping everyone who's talking about this subject in with that one other person.

Acting as though the overturning of hundreds of years of precedent being greeted with shock is somehow crazy-- now that's childish.

281 Achilles Tang  Sun, May 15, 2011 5:09:45pm

re: #280 Obdicut

Oh god. You're not even bothering to read the thread. I would indeed advocate throwing out all evidence illegally obtained, no matter what. It's fruit of the poison tree.

Why do I need everyone's opinion in order to debate yours? Stand on your own.

You are too scared of the fruit of common sense and responsibility. What you advocate could be coded and adjudicated by a computer. Who needs people and common sense?/

Are the only choices 'lifestyle' or 'genetic'? Jesus, dude, you're in pretty dangerous territory.

I think "dude" is dated. Even I stopped using it years ago. Haven't you been around long enough to deduce sarcs by now?

Indeed, I was wrong. There was one person, one, who said that. I was absolutely wrong to say no one had said it. One person did. I missed that comment-- since it was only one person, at the very end of the thread.

What you don't read the whole thread? Even the most current comments? (insert sarc here)

That person said it, but the court decision seems to have anticipated it. That #272 said it just happened to be a convenient illustration for me; hardly a basis of argument.

Now, since you said 'those', can you find me someone else in the thread? Or can you admit that you were wrong, too?

Childish.

Don't call me your friend, please. One person in the thread advocated firing on the police even if you knew it was them. I don't think that's wise, or a good tactic. Yet somehow you're lumping everyone who's talking about this subject in with that one other person.

No I wasn't doing that, child.

Acting as though the overturning of hundreds of years of precedent being greeted with shock is somehow crazy-- now that's childish.

I don't quite see that overturning that you do, but it will work itself through the system and you will no doubt respect the final judgement of the system you protect, grasshopper.

282 Dancing along the light of day  Sun, May 15, 2011 5:33:37pm

re: #279 Naso Tang

Don't make childish accusations, my friend.

Pot, meet kettle!

283 Obdicut  Sun, May 15, 2011 5:35:13pm

re: #281 Naso Tang

Why do I need everyone's opinion in order to debate yours? Stand on your own.

You don't. You can read it where I've written it in the thread already.

You are too scared of the fruit of common sense and responsibility.

What on earth are you talking about? Common sense says that allowing illegally obtained evidence is a dangerous road to go down, just as much as it says that evidence might sometimes be useful.

I think "dude" is dated. Even I stopped using it years ago. Haven't you been around long enough to deduce sarcs by now?

Haven't you been around long enough to realize that sarcasm over the web is generally missed?

What you don't read the whole thread? Even the most current comments? (insert sarc here)

That person said it, but the court decision seems to have anticipated it. That #272 said it just happened to be a convenient illustration for me; hardly a basis of argument.

Nope. You were addressing 'those'. There are no those. there was one person, at the end of the thread. The judgement doesn't say a damn thing about shooting first, even if it's the police; the actual law, by the way, currently is that that is manslaughter, which is still a crime. Nobody, except for one person, is advocating shooting the police when you know that it's the police.

Childish.

That you can't admit you were wrong, even after I acknowledge my error? I agree.

No I wasn't doing that, child.

You seriously think that calling me 'child' is either going to upset me or make your argument stronger?

Weird.

I don't quite see that overturning that you do, but it will work itself through the system and you will no doubt respect the final judgement of the system you protect, grasshopper.

I have no clue what you're talking about. I respect that this is now the law of the land in Indiana. Given that I would never violently resist the police anyway, this doesn't really personally affect me. I don't think it's a good judgement and I hope that it gets overturned at a higher court. Until then, or if it doesn't, then it's the law of the land. It doesn't mean I ever have to think it was a good judgement. That's not really how it works.

284 Achilles Tang  Sun, May 15, 2011 7:15:25pm

re: #282 Floral Giraffe

Pot, meet kettle!

Not your game here, unless you can say something better than that.

285 Achilles Tang  Sun, May 15, 2011 7:17:01pm

re: #283 Obdicut


You seriously think that calling me 'child' is either going to upset me or make your argument stronger?

Weird.

No. It was a gentle dig at your rejection of "friend". You are a pedant, grasshopper.

286 Obdicut  Sun, May 15, 2011 7:30:37pm

re: #285 Naso Tang

I get called pedant by people when I point out their mistakes, yeah.


This article has been archived.
Comments are closed.

Jump to top

Create a PageThis is the LGF Pages posting bookmarklet. To use it, drag this button to your browser's bookmark bar, and title it 'LGF Pages' (or whatever you like). Then browse to a site you want to post, select some text on the page to use for a quote, click the bookmarklet, and the Pages posting window will appear with the title, text, and any embedded video or audio files already filled in, ready to go.
Or... you can just click this button to open the Pages posting window right away.
Last updated: 2023-04-04 11:11 am PDT LGF User's Guide RSS Feeds

Help support Little Green Footballs!

Subscribe now for ad-free access!Register and sign in to a free LGF account before subscribing, and your ad-free access will be automatically enabled.

Donate with
PayPal Cash.app
Recent PagesClick to refresh
The Pandemic Cost 7 Million Lives, but Talks to Prevent a Repeat Stall In late 2021, as the world reeled from the arrival of the highly contagious omicron variant of the coronavirus, representatives of almost 200 countries met - some online, some in-person in Geneva - hoping to forestall a future worldwide ...
Cheechako
3 days ago
Views: 115 • Comments: 0 • Rating: 1
Texas County at Center of Border Fight Is Overwhelmed by Migrant Deaths EAGLE PASS, Tex. - The undertaker lighted a cigarette and held it between his latex-gloved fingers as he stood over the bloated body bag lying in the bed of his battered pickup truck. The woman had been fished out ...
Cheechako
2 weeks ago
Views: 274 • Comments: 0 • Rating: 1