America's #1 Online Cigar Auction
first, best, biggest!

Last post 12 years ago by leonardo. 79 replies replies.
2 Pages12>
hey Indiana WTF is wrong with you??
Jump to Bottom | Previous Topic | Next Topic
ZRX1200 Offline
#1 Posted: Sat, May 14 2011, 7:25 PM EST
Joined: 07-08-2007
Posts: 60,635
ram27bat

http://m.nwitimes.com/mobile/news/local/govt-and-politics/article_ec169697-a19e-525f-a532-81b3df229697.html

Seriously??
FuzzNJ Offline
#2 Posted: Sat, May 14 2011, 7:52 PM EST
Joined: 06-28-2006
Posts: 13,000
Yay fascism!
ZRX1200 Offline
#3 Posted: Sat, May 14 2011, 8:47 PM EST
Joined: 07-08-2007
Posts: 60,635
No doubt.

Now we are agreeing ......

This is TOTAL bs!
FuzzNJ Offline
#4 Posted: Sat, May 14 2011, 8:52 PM EST
Joined: 06-28-2006
Posts: 13,000
ZRX1200 wrote:
No doubt.

Now we are agreeing ......

This is TOTAL bs!


Yes. You shocked? I have always said I'm a small 'l' libertarian.
ZRX1200 Offline
#5 Posted: Sat, May 14 2011, 9:04 PM EST
Joined: 07-08-2007
Posts: 60,635
No I'm not shocked actually.

Just pointing out the agreement as we didn't see totally eye to eye on single payer.
dpnewell Offline
#6 Posted: Sat, May 14 2011, 10:12 PM EST
Joined: 03-16-2009
Posts: 7,491
Fuzz and I actually agreeing on something? Dang, I think I'm going to be sick. This is total bull chit. What’s next, yearly unannounced police inspections of all homes and businesses? I mean, if you aren’t doing anything wrong, you have nothing to fear, right?
leonardo Offline
#7 Posted: Sun, May 15 2011, 1:21 AM EST
Joined: 06-26-2007
Posts: 911


That's not Indiana, that's 3 Indiana state supreme court justices.

So, you think if an on-duty police officer enters your home without knocking or a warrant, you have the right to beat the hell out of him/her? How far should you be allowed to take this resistance? Just curious.
rfenst Offline
#8 Posted: Sun, May 15 2011, 7:03 AM EST
Joined: 06-23-2007
Posts: 39,383
Not so sure about this one. Will need to think about it: Officer safety v. exigent circumstances created by potential domestic violence. Problem here is there needs to be clear-cut rules that both citizens and law enforcement are fully aware of to minimize this. A lawsuit for damages after the fact doesn't resolve the potential violation of the 4th Amendment...
rfenst Offline
#9 Posted: Sun, May 15 2011, 7:07 AM EST
Joined: 06-23-2007
Posts: 39,383
leonardo wrote:
That's not Indiana, that's 3 Indiana state supreme court justices.

So, you think if an on-duty police officer enters your home without knocking or a warrant, you have the right to beat the hell out of him/her? How far should you be allowed to take this resistance? Just curious.



Seriously: How far should law enforcement be allowed to stretch the 4th Amendment?
leonardo Offline
#10 Posted: Sun, May 15 2011, 8:15 AM EST
Joined: 06-26-2007
Posts: 911
rfenst wrote:
Seriously: How far should law enforcement be allowed to stretch the 4th Amendment?


So, if an on-duty police officer violates your 4th amendment rights, do you have the right to beat the hell out of him/her?
dpnewell Offline
#11 Posted: Sun, May 15 2011, 8:28 AM EST
Joined: 03-16-2009
Posts: 7,491
^Who the heck here is talking about beating up LEOs? This is about the right to be secure in your own home. No one here is advocating violence against law enforcement.
jackconrad Offline
#12 Posted: Sun, May 15 2011, 8:31 AM EST
Joined: 06-09-2003
Posts: 67,461
Indiana wants me, Lord I can't go back there
Indiana wants me, Lord I can't go back there
I wish I had you, to talk to

Indiana wants me, Lord I can't go back there
("This is the police, you are surrounded, give yourself up")
Indiana wants me, Lord I can't go back there
("This is the police, give yourself up, you are surrounded")
frankj1 Offline
#13 Posted: Sun, May 15 2011, 10:21 AM EST
Joined: 02-08-2007
Posts: 44,234
dpnewell wrote:
What’s next, yearly unannounced police inspections of all homes and businesses? I mean, if you aren’t doing anything wrong, you have nothing to fear, right?

So glad you wrote this. I find myself saying this to people several times a year. Those willing to sacrifice rights for what they perceive as security end up with less of both...yeah yeah I know I am paraphrasing a dead wise guy.

On the left, the Soviet Union offered this type of "peace of mind" for decades as have many far right totalitarian regimes. We are supposed to be enlightened but we continue to creep toward eroding our foundation. Short of a total government/military state there is no way to "prevent" crime, and good police work solves it. Violence is different, however, but still needs standards that protect citizens from overly aggressive tactics.

I would hate to be an officer in this situation, but there could be circumstances that would eventually clear his/her actions on case by case basis rather than routinely permitting such broad seemingly unAmerican activity.

Careful about cracking open that door...
leonardo Offline
#14 Posted: Sun, May 15 2011, 10:28 AM EST
Joined: 06-26-2007
Posts: 911
dpnewell wrote:
^Who the heck here is talking about beating up LEOs? This is about the right to be secure in your own home. No one here is advocating violence against law enforcement.


The article you linked states the husband pushed the LEO up against the wall when he followed the husband and wife into their apartment. That's what prompted the case and the supreme court decision, unless I misunderstood the article. Isn't that the whole point of the decision? The decision was about the citizen's "right to resist" unlawful entry of their home by police. It doesn't give police the right to violate the 4th amendment, it says that if the police do violate a homeowner's 4th amendment rights by unlawfully entering their home, that homeowner does not have the right the resist. They can file a lawsuit, but they're not allowed to physically resist the police entry.

Isn't that what the article says? rfenst?
FuzzNJ Offline
#15 Posted: Sun, May 15 2011, 10:28 AM EST
Joined: 06-28-2006
Posts: 13,000
frankj1 wrote:
Careful about cracking open that door...



That door has been cracked open years and years ago with our War on some drugs.
FuzzNJ Offline
#16 Posted: Sun, May 15 2011, 10:31 AM EST
Joined: 06-28-2006
Posts: 13,000
leonardo wrote:
The article you linked states the husband pushed the LEO up against the wall when he followed the husband and wife into their apartment. That's what prompted the case and the supreme court decision, unless I misunderstood the article. Isn't that the whole point of the decision?


That's the case that lead to the decision, but the decision ended up allowing law enforcement even more leeway to enter a person's house.
leonardo Offline
#17 Posted: Sun, May 15 2011, 10:34 AM EST
Joined: 06-26-2007
Posts: 911
FuzzNJ wrote:
That's the case that lead to the decision, but the decision ended up allowing law enforcement even more leeway to enter a person's house.


I think you're wrong, doesn't give the police any more rights at all. Just states the homeowner cannot physically resist police entry into their home. What additional rights do the police now have?
ZRX1200 Offline
#18 Posted: Sun, May 15 2011, 10:59 AM EST
Joined: 07-08-2007
Posts: 60,635
How about illegally entering a home?!

And pushing a trespasser against the wall isn't beating him up freaking get real. How bout citizen rights? PRIVATE PROPERTY......right and left can't seem to get this one right.

And this is Indiana. Unless people NOT elected by their citizens nominated and confirmed them.
leonardo Offline
#19 Posted: Sun, May 15 2011, 11:09 AM EST
Joined: 06-26-2007
Posts: 911
ZRX1200 wrote:
How about illegally entering a home?!

And pushing a trespasser against the wall isn't beating him up freaking get real. How bout citizen rights? PRIVATE PROPERTY......right and left can't seem to get this one right.

And this is Indiana. Unless people NOT elected by their citizens nominated and confirmed them.


Again, how far can this "resistance to unlawful entry" go? 3 members of the state supreme court said residents don't have the right to resist, their stated reasoning being that resistance would likely escalate the violence. The supreme court did not say that police have the right to unlawfully enter a home. Didn't give the police any more rights at all, i.e. they still do not have the right to enter a home without permission, warrant, etc. I guess it may have taken away the right of a homeowner to physically resist unlawful entry of their home by the police.

Maybe I'm missing some legal thing here but seems pretty simple, and really not that outrageous.

And, where I grew up, if you laid hands on a police officer, you were getting a beat down. I never tested that.
dpnewell Offline
#20 Posted: Sun, May 15 2011, 11:15 AM EST
Joined: 03-16-2009
Posts: 7,491
FuzzNJ wrote:
That door has been cracked open years and years ago with our War on some drugs.


You better stop this crap, Fuzz. Now we agree on two points in a single thread. Think I need a drink, and a strong smoke.
ZRX1200 Offline
#21 Posted: Sun, May 15 2011, 11:20 AM EST
Joined: 07-08-2007
Posts: 60,635
They did give the police more rights by eliminating the property owners right to resist and by allowing that entry without a warrant.

The resistance should go as far as it takes to remove the tresspasser. I respect police but they are not above the law.
leonardo Offline
#22 Posted: Sun, May 15 2011, 11:39 AM EST
Joined: 06-26-2007
Posts: 911
ZRX1200 wrote:
They did give the police more rights by eliminating the property owners right to resist and by allowing that entry without a warrant.

The resistance should go as far as it takes to remove the tresspasser. I respect police but they are not above the law.


Agree, they did formally remove property owner right to resist. They do not "allow entry without a warrant" though, it is still illegal entry, meaning the police would still be breaking the law and violating property owner civil rights.

Indiana folks who may agree with your statement about resisting "as far as it takes to remove the trespasser", I think, may be what prompted the state supreme court to make this decision. They apparently hope to eliminate, or at least minimize the violence that may be caused by this police illegal activity. dpnewell said no-one is advocating violence against LEO, but it appears you may be advocating that, if you believe it's needed to remove the trespassing LEO from your home.

Anyway, peace. I hope no police enter any of our properties, lawfully or otherwise.
leonardo Offline
#23 Posted: Sun, May 15 2011, 11:48 AM EST
Joined: 06-26-2007
Posts: 911
Oh, and to answer the question in the title, there is a LOT that is wrong with Indiana. But, one of the things that is right about Indiana is May in Indianapolis! Just hope the track dries out by Friday...
ZRX1200 Offline
#24 Posted: Sun, May 15 2011, 11:55 AM EST
Joined: 07-08-2007
Posts: 60,635
I actually have a friend from Indiana, good people.

And I don't want police hurt.

My major concern is preventing the illegal entry and forcing property oweners to get legal recourse after the fact is wrong to me.

Without private property rights all the others are void.
FuzzNJ Offline
#25 Posted: Sun, May 15 2011, 12:13 PM EST
Joined: 06-28-2006
Posts: 13,000
dpnewell wrote:
You better stop this crap, Fuzz. Now we agree on two points in a single thread. Think I need a drink, and a strong smoke.


You can handle it. You're a big boy. ;)
rfenst Offline
#26 Posted: Mon, May 16 2011, 1:44 AM EST
Joined: 06-23-2007
Posts: 39,383
leonardo wrote:
I think you're wrong, doesn't give the police any more rights at all. Just states the homeowner cannot physically resist police entry into their home. What additional rights do the police now have?


He didn't say "rights", he said "leeway", which is very different.
rfenst Offline
#27 Posted: Mon, May 16 2011, 1:49 AM EST
Joined: 06-23-2007
Posts: 39,383
leonardo wrote:
So, if an on-duty police officer violates your 4th amendment rights, do you have the right to beat the hell out of him/her?



Of course you have the right. In fact, you have the additional right to kill him/her slowly and tortuously, take their gun and then burn their body, before going out on a shooting spree- all without impunity!!!
HockeyDad Offline
#28 Posted: Mon, May 16 2011, 1:52 AM EST
Joined: 09-20-2000
Posts: 46,169
Flyover state fascism outrage.
Papachristou Offline
#29 Posted: Mon, May 16 2011, 9:41 AM EST
Joined: 10-20-2010
Posts: 845
this is no good. i dont believe you have the right to beat or assault an individual or office, however if they refuse to leave, then your rights should be broadened to remove an individual by any means.

forcing people to go through the court system isnt right because it can be very difficult to get yourself out of jail ($$$) and $$$ and or difficult to get an attorney to bring suit against the police department. This is a loss for lower income classes IMO.
ZRX1200 Offline
#30 Posted: Mon, May 16 2011, 9:58 AM EST
Joined: 07-08-2007
Posts: 60,635
Robert how does this jive with "due process"?
ZRX1200 Offline
#31 Posted: Mon, May 16 2011, 11:54 AM EST
Joined: 07-08-2007
Posts: 60,635
In fairness to Indiana......

SCOTUS is at it too!

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20110516/ap_on_re_us/us_supreme_court_warrantless_entry;_ylt=Ajxaozzar1yya3zq3RR52.Ks0NUE;_ylu=X3oDMTQ2bXFnbDZ2BGFzc2V0A2FwLzIwMTEwNTE2L3VzX3N1cHJlbWVfY291cnRfd2FycmFudGxlc3NfZW50cnkEY2NvZGUDbW9zdHBvcHVsYXIEY3BvcwM5BHBvcwM2BHB0A2hvbWVfY29rZQRzZWMDeW5faGVhZGxpbmVfbGlzdARzbGsDY291cnRzaWRlc3dp.

Way to go....
rfenst Offline
#32 Posted: Mon, May 16 2011, 12:41 PM EST
Joined: 06-23-2007
Posts: 39,383
^

You just stretched this thread, which will ruin it. perhaps you can amend your post?
rfenst Offline
#33 Posted: Mon, May 16 2011, 12:47 PM EST
Joined: 06-23-2007
Posts: 39,383
ZRX1200 wrote:
In fairness to Indiana......

SCOTUS is at it too!

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20110516/ap_on_re_us/us_supreme_court_warrantless_entry

Way to go....


What case are you trying to link to?
ZRX1200 Offline
#34 Posted: Mon, May 16 2011, 12:51 PM EST
Joined: 07-08-2007
Posts: 60,635
http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20110516/ap_on_re_us/us_supreme_court_warrantless_entry;_ylt=Ajxaozzar1yya3zq3RR52.Ks0NUE;_ylu=X3oDMTQ2bXFnbDZ2BGFzc2V0A2FwLzIwMTEwNTE2L3VzX3N1cHJlbWVfY291cnRfd2FycmFudGxlc3NfZW50cnkEY2NvZGUDbW9zdHBvcHVsYXIEY3BvcwM5BHBvcwM2BHB0A2hvbWVfY29rZQRzZWMDeW5faGVhZGxpbmVfbGlzdARzbGsDY291cnRzaWRlc3dp

That isn't going through??

Kentucky case......cocaine suspect chased through apartments, cops went into wrong appt and that guy had pot.
rfenst Offline
#35 Posted: Mon, May 16 2011, 12:51 PM EST
Joined: 06-23-2007
Posts: 39,383
Papachristou wrote:
this is no good. i dont believe you have the right to beat or assault an individual or office, however if they refuse to leave, then your rights should be broadened to remove an individual by any means.

forcing people to go through the court system isnt right because it can be very difficult to get yourself out of jail ($$$) and $$$ and or difficult to get an attorney to bring suit against the police department. This is a loss for lower income classes IMO.



Not just lower income classes. Who in their right mind will hire a lawyer competent to prosecute an unlawful intrusion damages claim arising out of unlawful entry? How much should compensation for the illegal entry be?
Papachristou Offline
#36 Posted: Mon, May 16 2011, 1:04 PM EST
Joined: 10-20-2010
Posts: 845
it shouldnt be about compensation unless damage is done to the property. the right to refuse entry to a person or LEO should be reserved.

I had it happen in college. a drunk guy was in my yard with a shovel threatening some girls who were coming over. we went outside and repeatedly asked him to leave to which he replied, make me. so we escorted him off the property. we didnt assult or hit him. He called the cops on us then and said we were pointing guns at him. All the girls were inside scared. Anyway the officers wanted to search the house. we declined to allow them to search the house. We had people hanging out and all the things that go along with that in college. the officers werent happy about it but they ended up leaving.
rfenst Offline
#37 Posted: Mon, May 16 2011, 1:17 PM EST
Joined: 06-23-2007
Posts: 39,383
Papachristou wrote:
it shouldnt be about compensation unless damage is done to the property. the right to refuse entry to a person or LEO should be reserved.


That just doesn't make sense to me. Freedom from unreasonable search is a personal, privacy and peace right, not a property right. What other redress is there in the civil justice system the case refers to?
Papachristou Offline
#38 Posted: Mon, May 16 2011, 1:23 PM EST
Joined: 10-20-2010
Posts: 845
rfenst wrote:
That just doesn't make sense to me. Freedom from unreasonable search is a personal, privacy and peace right, not a property right. What other redress is there in the civil justice system the case refers to?


im sorry, im not sure i understand your legaleze. you are saying you agree this right should be protected but there should be monetary compensation when it is violated?
tailgater Offline
#39 Posted: Mon, May 16 2011, 2:00 PM EST
Joined: 06-01-2000
Posts: 26,185
Guys, please.
This is Indiana.
The only real question left unanswered is:
"When the law enforcement officer forces entry illegally, does it consummate their relationship?"
rfenst Offline
#40 Posted: Mon, May 16 2011, 4:36 PM EST
Joined: 06-23-2007
Posts: 39,383
Papachristou wrote:
im sorry, im not sure i understand your legaleze. you are saying you agree this right should be protected but there should be monetary compensation when it is violated?


What legalize? You said "it shouldnt be about compensation unless damage is done to the property."

The Indiana case said officer safety was paramount and that physically trying to prevent police entry without a warrant is unjustified because people have redress later on. What redress is there in court for violation of a Fourth Amendment right to privacy in one's home (other than suppression of illegally seized evidence) except for money damages?

Maybe I am missing something...
rfenst Offline
#41 Posted: Mon, May 16 2011, 4:38 PM EST
Joined: 06-23-2007
Posts: 39,383
tailgater wrote:
Guys, please.
This is Indiana.
The only real question left unanswered is:
"When the law enforcement officer forces entry illegally, does it consummate their relationship?"





Never been there, except for driving through to get from Detroit to Chicago and beyond. is it really that backwards of a state?

Where's Jules (boileremt) to jump in on this one?
leonardo Offline
#42 Posted: Mon, May 16 2011, 5:48 PM EST
Joined: 06-26-2007
Posts: 911
rfenst wrote:
Never been there, except for driving through to get from Detroit to Chicago and beyond. is it really that backwards of a state?

Where's Jules (boileremt) to jump in on this one?


Well, there's quite a bit of corn, and basketball, and the Indianapolis Colts who regularly whip Patriots and many other azzezz. There are even some freeways, and a bit of coast along Lake Michigan, and a few good steak houses. Some highly regarded universities, and I'm sure some other things I'm missing. We don't have Detroit though.
leonardo Offline
#43 Posted: Mon, May 16 2011, 5:51 PM EST
Joined: 06-26-2007
Posts: 911
rfenst wrote:
Of course you have the right. In fact, you have the additional right to kill him/her slowly and tortuously, take their gun and then burn their body, before going out on a shooting spree- all without impunity!!!


Yea, I should have said what I meant, which was should we citizen homeowners have the right, for example, to beat the heck out of them. The point I was trying to make, or the question I was trying to ask was whether there should be some limit to resistance, and if so, what would that limit be. Apparently in Indiana, there is a limit and that limit is nothing, i.e. no resistance allowed.

I like the police and welcome them into my home. I prefer they not break down the door, or draw their weapons.
FuzzNJ Offline
#44 Posted: Mon, May 16 2011, 5:52 PM EST
Joined: 06-28-2006
Posts: 13,000
leonardo wrote:
Well, there's quite a bit of corn, and basketball, and the Indianapolis Colts who regularly whip Patriots and many other azzezz. There are even some freeways, and a bit of coast along Lake Michigan, and a few good steak houses. Some highly regarded universities, and I'm sure some other things I'm missing. We don't have Detroit though.


There's also Mentone, egg capital of the midwest!

I remember because I have a picture of this big egg with a couple teammates next to it when we played a basketball tourney near there. We won I think.
leonardo Offline
#45 Posted: Mon, May 16 2011, 5:56 PM EST
Joined: 06-26-2007
Posts: 911
FuzzNJ wrote:
There's also Mentone, egg capital of the midwest!

I remember because I have a picture of this big egg with a couple teammates next to it when we played a basketball tourney near there. We won I think.


Oh yeah, I forgot about Mentone. Some good eggs in Mentone (so I hear...)
ZRX1200 Offline
#46 Posted: Mon, May 16 2011, 6:14 PM EST
Joined: 07-08-2007
Posts: 60,635
I have as much right to tell them go away as I do to let them in for coffee.......

I don't live in Indiana.
rfenst Offline
#47 Posted: Mon, May 16 2011, 6:48 PM EST
Joined: 06-23-2007
Posts: 39,383
leonardo wrote:
I like the police and welcome them into my home. I prefer they not break down the door, or draw their weapons.


I like the police too. They do their best to try to keep us safe. However, I don't want them in my house unless I invite them. I don't think they should have the right to come in to my house without a warrant or a legitimate exception to the warrant requirement. Generally, that is what the privacy aspect of the Fourth Amendment is about. But, if they are coming in whether I like it or not, i would have to be an idiot to try to physically prevent them from entering...
leonardo Offline
#48 Posted: Mon, May 16 2011, 7:00 PM EST
Joined: 06-26-2007
Posts: 911
rfenst wrote:
I like the police too. They do their best to try to keep us safe. However, I don't want them in my house unless I invite them. I don't think they should have the right to come in to my house without a warrant or a legitimate exception to the warrant requirement. Generally, that is what the privacy aspect of the Fourth Amendment is about. But, if they are coming in whether I like it or not, i would have to be an idiot to try to physically prevent them from entering...


That is exactly what I was trying to say, but could not get it done. I agree with Robert 100%.
tailgater Offline
#49 Posted: Tue, May 17 2011, 12:16 PM EST
Joined: 06-01-2000
Posts: 26,185
leonardo wrote:
Well, there's quite a bit of corn, and basketball, and the Indianapolis Colts who regularly whip Patriots and many other azzezz. There are even some freeways, and a bit of coast along Lake Michigan, and a few good steak houses. Some highly regarded universities, and I'm sure some other things I'm missing. We don't have Detroit though.



That's cute.
Tell me, what does it mean to whip azz?
Because I THOUGHT it meant to win.
But as you probably know, since Peyton has taken the reigns the Pats have beat the colts more often then not.
Including 2-1 in the post season.

But fret not.
You do have a lot of corn.
I'll give you that.

Truth be told, Northern Indiana ain't so bad.
But I spent a week in southern Indiana one day...
FuzzNJ Offline
#50 Posted: Tue, May 17 2011, 12:22 PM EST
Joined: 06-28-2006
Posts: 13,000
tailgater wrote:
That's cute.
Tell me, what does it mean to whip azz?
Because I THOUGHT it meant to win.
But as you probably know, since Peyton has taken the reigns the Pats have beat the colts more often then not.
Including 2-1 in the post season.

But fret not.
You do have a lot of corn.
I'll give you that.

Truth be told, Northern Indiana ain't so bad.
But I spent a week in southern Indiana one day...


Bah, Patriots. Let's go JETS!

I haven't been to Indiana in 25 years of so, but I remember everywhere I went there was a basketball hoop, a church and nothing to do especially after 7 pm.
Users browsing this topic
Guest
2 Pages12>
Back to Top