Site Announcements

  • Account registration restricted. Email lord.ixzion AT gmail.com and I will get you set up. Thanks.
  • RPGMM Discord Channel - https://discord.gg/YJnAfVr

  • New to the site? Let us know!! - Check here.
  • RPGM Magazine Mission Statement. - Check here.
  • We now have a forum up specifically for the races, check it out. - Check here.


[Continue]

It is currently December 2nd, 2024, 2:23 pm
View unanswered posts | View active topics


All times are UTC - 5 hours [ DST ]




Post new topic Reply to topic  [ 7 posts ] 
Author Message
PostPosted: May 21st, 2011, 12:30 am 
Site Admin Site Admin
Rainbow Crash
Offline
User avatar

  Level 89
 

Joined: May 4th, 2005, 7:57 pm

Posts: 10447

Location: VA, mofo
http://www.nwitimes.com/news/local/govt ... 29697.html

Quote:
Court: No right to resist illegal cop entry into home

INDIANAPOLIS | Overturning a common law dating back to the English Magna Carta of 1215, the Indiana Supreme Court ruled Thursday that Hoosiers have no right to resist unlawful police entry into their homes.

In a 3-2 decision, Justice Steven David writing for the court said if a police officer wants to enter a home for any reason or no reason at all, a homeowner cannot do anything to block the officer's entry.

"We believe ... a right to resist an unlawful police entry into a home is against public policy and is incompatible with modern Fourth Amendment jurisprudence," David said. "We also find that allowing resistance unnecessarily escalates the level of violence and therefore the risk of injuries to all parties involved without preventing the arrest."

David said a person arrested following an unlawful entry by police still can be released on bail and has plenty of opportunities to protest the illegal entry through the court system.

The court's decision stems from a Vanderburgh County case in which police were called to investigate a husband and wife arguing outside their apartment.

When the couple went back inside their apartment, the husband told police they were not needed and blocked the doorway so they could not enter. When an officer entered anyway, the husband shoved the officer against a wall. A second officer then used a stun gun on the husband and arrested him.

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."

Justice Robert Rucker, a Gary native, and Justice Brent Dickson, a Hobart native, dissented from the ruling, saying the court's decision runs afoul of the Fourth Amendment of the U.S. Constitution.

"In my view the majority sweeps with far too broad a brush by essentially telling Indiana citizens that government agents may now enter their homes illegally -- that is, without the necessity of a warrant, consent or exigent circumstances," Rucker said. "I disagree."

Rucker and Dickson suggested if the court had limited its permission for police entry to domestic violence situations they would have supported the ruling.

But Dickson said, "The wholesale abrogation of the historic right of a person to reasonably resist unlawful police entry into his dwelling is unwarranted and unnecessarily broad."

This is the second major Indiana Supreme Court ruling this week involving police entry into a home.

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


Guys, this is a f*cking atrocity. I don't use that word much, but there is no stronger word to describe it.

This decision pisses all over the 4th Amendment, which was created to ensure that the government could not conduct unreasonable searches and seizures. Now, the government can do it "if they decide that the circumstances justify it." What precarious slope!

David said a person arrested following an unlawful entry by police still can be released on bail and has plenty of opportunities to protest the illegal entry through the court system.

This is the dumbest f*cking thing I've ever read. This sentence doesn't even make any kind of f*cking sense. "A person arrested following an unlawful entry"? How can you be arrested if the government isn't being lawful in their actions?

I suggest everything start reading about what's going on in this country. I think the previous generation of Americans didn't do as well as they could have when it comes to liberty and following the Constitution, but that means we gotta step up ourselves.

_________________
ImageImageImageImage


Top
Profile  
 
PostPosted: May 21st, 2011, 5:22 am 
Rank 9: Mischievous Thief Rank 9: Mischievous Thief
Call me Bon
Offline
User avatar

  Level 22
 

Joined: May 18th, 2005, 11:48 am

Posts: 4922

Location: Petersburg
Who were the idiots who passed this thing?

_________________
Image
http://www.twitter.com/MrPenrage


Top
Profile  
 
PostPosted: May 21st, 2011, 10:12 am 
Rank 7: Learned Black Mage Rank 7: Learned Black Mage
Mongolian Chop Squad
Offline
User avatar

  Level 63
 

Joined: February 27th, 2007, 8:54 pm

Posts: 3449

Location: EXPEL
That should have been an oxymoron not precedence for future ass raping

_________________
ImageImageImageImageImageImageImage


Top
Profile  
 
PostPosted: May 21st, 2011, 11:41 am 
Rank 4: Fighter in Training Rank 4: Fighter in Training
Offline
User avatar

  Level 0
 

Joined: April 20th, 2007, 6:19 pm

Posts: 1370
im going to side with the law on this one, which is a surprise to my normal views on this kind of thing. look closer at the words written and especially the context. they are not saying a police officer can enter a home at his own will without consequence. there is plenty of legal avenues to take for breaking protocol or the actions taken during this decision (nonuniform entry, assaulting, breaking other laws in the process ect.) what this judgement is saying is that the police have a right to enter if they deem it necessary and the uniformed entry of a police officer should not be blocked entry as it creates unnecessary violence.

the key here is written in this statement: "David said a person arrested following an unlawful entry by police still can be released on bail and has plenty of opportunities to protest the illegal entry through the court system."

in todays society the rules have changed. look in the last 100 years alone, the very nature of our culture has turned into something different so why shouldnt the laws be interpretation to reflect todays reality? this ruling doesnt mean the amendment is trash, nor does it mean the overturning of every other amendment in the constitution. a constitution is the corner stone for which all laws originate, the codex of a society, the reference point of the law of order. if this amendment doesnt reflect the reality of todays situation for this situation and similar then it should adapt to reflect that.

i will say that the scope of this ruling needs to shrink down to reflect certain criteria (domestic abuse, risk of serious bodily harm to someone, life saving measure ect) and of course afterwards be examined closely to prevent abuse. im surprised to not see a more narrowed scope from the supreme court.


the protection of life always supersedes all other values. this is a fundamental human right and no law should hamper to this end.

_________________
Image
Artistry made by JPS
Card Three is released! Download it here!


Top
Profile  
 
PostPosted: May 23rd, 2011, 9:52 am 
Site Admin Site Admin
"The worst pokemon."
Offline
User avatar

  Level 97
 

Joined: January 16th, 2006, 1:09 pm

Posts: 15377

Location: 33.2076° N, 92.6663° W
I think Indiana is out of it's damn mind. And at what point does it stop? Now, they can come into your home at their leisure. Who's to say that one day they can't come in and just start taking sh*t because "they deem it necessary."

"I'm going to have to come in..."

*walks in*

"Sir, I think you may have something illegal on your computer, I think it's necessary that I take it."

_________________
Image
"Belief extremely stately towards great accomplishment."
-eruperade


Top
Profile  
 
PostPosted: May 23rd, 2011, 2:46 pm 
Rank 9: Mischievous Thief Rank 9: Mischievous Thief
King of Heroes
Offline
User avatar

  Level 53
 

Joined: May 8th, 2005, 1:16 pm

Posts: 4894
"protest the illegal entry through the court system."

Money wasted and time wasted. Police should not be able to just walk into your home illegally and do whatever they please, and then you have to protest it later in court. That's completely stupid. And people whined about the Patriot Act? There's a process law enforcement must follow in order to be able to come into and search one's home. What if it is some posing to be a cop? They could just walk up into your home and kill you right there if they wanted. This is wrong and stupid.

_________________
Image
Image


Top
Profile  
 
PostPosted: May 23rd, 2011, 2:53 pm 
Site Admin Site Admin
"The worst pokemon."
Offline
User avatar

  Level 97
 

Joined: January 16th, 2006, 1:09 pm

Posts: 15377

Location: 33.2076° N, 92.6663° W
Just a though: It's supposedly illegal to pray during graduation, but it's okay for a police officer to enter your house without a warrant.



I'm moving.

_________________
Image
"Belief extremely stately towards great accomplishment."
-eruperade


Top
Profile  
 
Display posts from previous:  Sort by  
Post new topic Reply to topic  [ 7 posts ] 

All times are UTC - 5 hours [ DST ]


Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 9 guests


You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot post attachments in this forum

Search for:
Jump to:  
Powered by phpBB © 2000, 2002, 2005, 2007 phpBB Group