hey Indiana WTF is wrong with you?? · Page 2

Free Fall
Auctions

Specials
Auctions

QuickBuy
Auctions

Newly Added
Auctions

Ending Soon
Auctions

Welcome Guest

Forum Terms & Conditions | My Topics

ZRX1200
Herf-A-Holic Topic Starter

15 years ago

#21

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
Aficionado

15 years ago

#22

ZRX1200 wrote:

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
Aficionado

15 years ago

#23

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
Herf-A-Holic Topic Starter

15 years ago

#24

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
Herf-A-Holic

15 years ago

#25

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.

dpnewell wrote:

You can handle it. You're a big boy. 😉

rfenst
Herf-A-Holic

15 years ago

#26

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?

leonardo wrote:

He didn't say "rights", he said "leeway", which is very different.

rfenst
Herf-A-Holic

15 years ago

#27

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?

leonardo 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!!!

HockeyDad
Herf-A-Holic

15 years ago

#28

Flyover state fascism outrage.

Papachristou
Aficionado

15 years ago

#29

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.

Edited by user 15 years ago | Reason: Not specified

ZRX1200
Herf-A-Holic Topic Starter

15 years ago

#30

Robert how does this jive with "due process"?

ZRX1200
Herf-A-Holic Topic Starter

15 years ago

#31

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
Herf-A-Holic

15 years ago

#32

^

You just stretched this thread, which will ruin it. perhaps you can amend your post?

rfenst
Herf-A-Holic

15 years ago

#33

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....

ZRX1200 wrote:

What case are you trying to link to?

ZRX1200
Herf-A-Holic Topic Starter

15 years ago

#34

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
Herf-A-Holic

15 years ago

#35

Papachristou wrote:

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
Aficionado

15 years ago

#36

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
Herf-A-Holic

15 years ago

#37

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.

Papachristou 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?

Papachristou
Aficionado

15 years ago

#38

rfenst 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?

tailgater
Herf-A-Holic

15 years ago

#39

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
Herf-A-Holic

15 years ago

#40

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?

Papachristou wrote:

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...

Users browsing this topic

Important Information: