Anyone here from Indiana? Please tell me that there is a huge protest planned.
|
"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."
This is nothing more than the legitimization of a crime that happens world wide. State officials are rushing make themselves immune to prosecution for acts that amount to Conspiracy to Sedition (acts of Government, law, Constitution, Sovereign causing Government, law, Constitution, Sovereign to be held in hatred and contempt). Their Actions are an assault on the State and thus Treason..so it falls to the citizen to enforce accountability when the state fails.
Anyone here from Indiana? Please tell me that there is a huge protest planned.
Never underestimate the power of stupid.
I wonder if the legislature will have the stones to impeach the guilty judges.
On the bright side Tea partiers plan to fight ruling on cop access.
This is a perfect example of how the judiciary utterly fails in its responsibility to protect basic human rights and balance other branches. Worse still they actively promote the expansion of the violent, corrupt, and incompetent police state.
Small wonder that trust in the legal system dies a little more every day.
I find it sad that the response is so muted.
Lawmaker vows action after 'outrageous' Supreme Court decision
That's lawmaker singular. *facepalm*
"We have currently in Indiana a statute, a self defense statute, that gives the right to defend any unlawful entry into one's home, vehicle while they're in it, or upon their person," Young said. "We want to make sure that this is clear that it also applies to the government."
"Already we have a sheriff in Northern Indiana that says this decision has given him the right to go do door to door searches,"
I heard about this, and find it an unconscionable ruling. This is equivalent to removing the right to self defense because it would just add to the potential violence of the situation!
I concur.
A story like this leaves me scratching my head wondering just what it is that has not been mentioned. What subtle nuance was it that made the justices rule like this.
It also tells me I shall not be traveling to Indiana for some time.
It makes me think of all the crap that NOLA law enforcement pulled after Katrina. Why do they want to strip the basic human right of defense?
OK, I don't think the person who wrote that article understands what they are talking about.
"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,"
-Justice Steven David
That doesn't really allow police any more access to your home then they had before - it is still illegal access - it just affects your legal options if you offer resistance. Resisting the police is automatically illegal in practice. (round these parts the term is "Obstruction of government administration") Kind of like you are not allowed to resist an illegal arrest, since it is just an arrest, and doesn't become illegal until a court or judge rules it to be illegal.
I could be missing something, but from my understanding, cops do what they are going to do, and whether it is legal for you gets decided in the courtroom, and what is legal for them gets decided in a lawsuit.
""Already we have a sheriff in Northern Indiana that says this decision has given him the right to go do door to door searches,""
I think that guy understands it less then the guy who wrote the article!
OK, I don't think the person who wrote that article understands what they are talking about.
"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,"
-Justice Steven DavidThat doesn't really allow police any more access to your home then they had before - it is still illegal access - it just affects your ability to offer resistance. Resisting the police is automatically illegal in practice. Kind of like you are not allowed to resist an illegal arrest, since it is just an arrest, and doesn't become illegal until a court or judge rules it to be illegal.
I could be missing something, but from my understanding, cops do what they are going to do, and whether it is legal for you gets decided in the courtroom, and what is legal for them gets decided in a lawsuit.
""Already we have a sheriff in Northern Indiana that says this decision has given him the right to go do door to door searches,""
I think that guy understands it less then the guy who wrote the article!
This kind of case law leads to situations where someone defending themselves from illegal police attack is automatically criminalized. I'm curious how this plays if a battered wife tries to defend herself from her abusive cop husband when he kicks down her door. Precedents have vast power, and this is a bad precedent. I can easily see it leading to more of this.
This kind of case law leads to situations where someone defending themselves from illegal police attack is automatically criminalized. I'm curious how this plays if a battered wife tries to defend herself from her abusive cop husband when he kicks down her door. Precedents have vast power, and this is a bad precedent. I can easily see it leading to more of this.
Although it sure looks like the police were in the wrong, they apparently were not acting illegally (at the time):
"Nor did the sheriff offer to unseal the search warrant and court documents specifying what police were looking for in the home and what they seized."Don't get me wrong, I have strong feelings about police misconduct, but it should be pointed out that we live in a society NOT where "you are presumed innocent until proven guilty", but rather "you are presumed innocent until accused by a representative of The State". Police are the only ones who's actions (including detaining people, use of force, etc.) are presumed innocent until a lengthy legal process set up by The State is carried out.
Check out a documentary called The Miami Model about how the police handle protests in the US. (Hundreds of folks win lawsuits against the police, and the brass at the top get promoted. It happens every time there is a major protest event.)
This kind of case law leads to situations where someone defending themselves from illegal police attack is automatically criminalized. I'm curious how this plays if a battered wife tries to defend herself from her abusive cop husband when he kicks down her door. Precedents have vast power, and this is a bad precedent. I can easily see it leading to more of this.
Although it sure looks like the police were in the wrong, they apparently were not acting illegally (at the time):
"Nor did the sheriff offer to unseal the search warrant and court documents specifying what police were looking for in the home and what they seized."Don't get me wrong, I have strong feelings about police misconduct, but it should be pointed out that we live in a society NOT where "you are presumed innocent until proven guilty", but rather "you are presumed innocent until accused by a representative of The State". Police are the only ones who's actions (including detaining people, use of force, etc.) are presumed innocent until a lengthy legal process set up by The State is carried out.
Check out a documentary called The Miami Model about how the police handle protests in the US. (Hundreds of folks win lawsuits against the police, and the brass at the top get promoted. It happens every time there is a major protest event.)
I tend to agree with your observations, but I think they are also at the core of the problem. As I understand this ruling it creates a legal environment where a citizen who resists an illegal police invasion of his home could prove in court that the police action was illegal in court but go to prison for resisting anyway. This seems insane to me. Someone defending their home should have the presumption of innocence especially when the attackers are engaged in illegal activity while abusing their already massive law enforcement powers. I believe giving police even more power to engage in violent home invasions will lead to more tragedies not less.
Someone is going to take this to the U.S. Supreme Court and it will be shot down. The very idea that someone in that state could have a police officer knock on their door and say "I'm coming in and searching the place." and having the resident not be able to say "No, come back with a warrant," and then be arrested for trying to shut the door if the officer tries to force his way in...that's just ludicrous.
While they're at it, they should strike down Miranda rights. Having to make a person listen and answer that they understand is an awful lot to ask.
I agree with the idea that, under extreme situations such as escaped prisoners, crazed snipers or otherwise highly-dangerous situations, police officers can officially request entry into your home through a verbal manner, recorded via their communication devices and listing to the owner why they are accessing the house and for what reasons if the situation allows them that 2 or 3 minutes.
I don't get this 'cop-hate' you Americans have. It's the most horrible job in the world, upholding the law and getting shat-on by the people breaking it, then having to fight the lawyers to see justice actually be done. Yes there are corrupt police, but not nearly so much as the alarmists and Entertainment Networks (please don't insult true journalists by calling them News Networks!) would have us believe. Instead turn your attention to the imbecilic governments we have in place who are more interested in terms shouting "NO, U!!!!!!" at each other than actually doing right by their countries.
I violently disagree with the idea that police officers can just walk into my house without even that base-minimum courtesy unless I can see the officers are in distress, at which point, my home is now their castle. This law that has just been passed is a complete ass, but also remember the site linked isn't exactly neutral in their reporting.
Now before I get jumped upon by the nanny-state criers, understand I live in an area that is infamous in my state for violent home break-ins, domestic assault, brawling in the streets between three different minorities, cannabis growing, meth-labs, prostitution and having large numbers of third-generation dole-bludgers. I can't even get the police to come out on friday nights when the local rock-spiders come out to wail on each other with whatever is handy, from cricket-bats and star-pickets to empty bottles of jack or limestone rocks from their gardens, and we're talking everyone in the houses, from kids just entering high-school to grandparents. Because every time the police go out, the whole 'our rights have been violated!' cry goes up and more precious time, money and man-power is wasted dealing with the same chronic meat-heads who have no interest in being part of society.
You might look at your police as having too much power. Take it from a guy who lives in a country where the police are g~&~~*n neutered by both the governments and the legal profession and has watched over the past twenty years social violence, organised crime and drug addictions sky-rocket. You guys have it good, occasional a!@~+!+ in the force aside.
Don't cry for me Indiana
The truth is it's for your safety!
Police are your friends,
Don't be alarmed now.
I kept the streets safe,
Don't ask no questions ....
I agree with the idea that, under extreme situations such as escaped prisoners, crazed snipers or otherwise highly-dangerous situations, police officers can officially request entry into your home through a verbal manner, recorded via their communication devices and listing to the owner why they are accessing the house and for what reasons if the situation allows them that 2 or 3 minutes.
I don't get this 'cop-hate' you Americans have. It's the most horrible job in the world, upholding the law and getting shat-on by the people breaking it, then having to fight the lawyers to see justice actually be done. Yes there are corrupt police, but not nearly so much as the alarmists and Entertainment Networks (please don't insult true journalists by calling them News Networks!) would have us believe. Instead turn your attention to the imbecilic governments we have in place who are more interested in terms shouting "NO, U!!!!!!" at each other than actually doing right by their countries.
I violently disagree with the idea that police officers can just walk into my house without even that base-minimum courtesy unless I can see the officers are in distress, at which point, my home is now their castle. This law that has just been passed is a complete ass, but also remember the site linked isn't exactly neutral in their reporting.
Now before I get jumped upon by the nanny-state criers, understand I live in an area that is infamous in my state for violent home break-ins, domestic assault, brawling in the streets between three different minorities, cannabis growing, meth-labs, prostitution and having large numbers of third-generation dole-bludgers. I can't even get the police to come out on friday nights when the local rock-spiders come out to wail on each other with whatever is handy, from cricket-bats and star-pickets to empty bottles of jack or limestone rocks from their gardens, and we're talking everyone in the houses, from kids just entering high-school to grandparents. Because every time the police go...
May I ask where you're from?
Cops have a sucky jobs, and like any other large group there are cops who are great folks and there are cops who rape children, but it still doesn't make it OK when even just a few abuse their power illegally, and it's obscene to enshrine that abuse into law.
Feel free to read through the Government folly thread to get some more back ground on police misconduct.
I certainly hope that this ruling doesn't apply to undercover police officers who don't announce they are police when they enter your home.
I'm not sure I follow.
A bunch of stuff that really isn't the issue here.
This isn't about cop-hate. This is about protecting citizens from abuses of authority. There are cases where American police officers can enter legally into private residences. To use your own example, when police are in pursuit of a suspect and they see him enter a house or apartment, then they can legally enter in order to pursue and subdue. If an idiot has his drugs and paraphernalia laid out on his coffee table in clear view of an officer looking in the living room window, he's just given the officer probable cause to enter and make an arrest.
This law is basically saying that Indiana police officers can enter any residence on a whim and that citizens have no right to keep them out, and can only take action after the fact through what will likely be a long, drawn out, and financially draining process after the fact. It flies in the face of of the protections provided by the 4th amendment of the U.S. Constitution.
Don't cry for me Indiana
The truth is it's for your safety!
Police are your friends,
Don't be alarmed now.
I kept the streets safe,
Don't ask no questions ....
Well, finish the rest of the song.
I weep for the Constitution as it's taken apart, bit by bit. Soon, we'll have no recourse, jack boots on the pavement, searching everyone's houses to arrest them for whatever offense they plant, gotta fill those FE.MA camps right?
lol...only in America...The War on Crime, The War on Drugs, The War on Terrorism and now The War on Our Own Citizens...
I wouldn't say it's only America, but it's definitely out of control.
Eventually, this video will be completely outdated.
....and banned.
I don't get this 'cop-hate' you Americans have. It's the most horrible job in the world, upholding the law and getting shat-on by the people breaking it, then having to fight the lawyers to see justice actually be done. Yes there are corrupt police, but not nearly so much as the alarmists and Entertainment Networks (please don't insult true journalists by calling them News Networks!) would have us believe.
I live in a rural area where pretty much the entire police force seems to be corrupt. I see abuses of power damn near every day, or hear of one that happened somewhere where I was not at the time. The police here have murdered teen boys, mentally ill old women (with a f#%!in swat team no less), and numerous homeless. I have seen cops threaten to kill homeless people. I have had officers walk directly into my home. Hell, the police chief of one of the nearby towns was acting as an arms dealer for criminals and selling drugs, as well as roofie-ing and raping his wife almost nightly (and who later refused to testify as to such for fear of reprisal). He wouldn't have been able to do that without corruption through most of the rest of police force.
Yes, cops ARE that corrupt.
Eventually, this video will be completely outdated.....and banned.
I just saw this for the first time three days ago. It came in a shipment of bootlegged DVDs that my friend ordered off the internet when he was drunk.
The synergistic weirdiosity is freaking me out.
"Wait 'til the union hears about this!"
I don't get this 'cop-hate' you Americans have. It's the most horrible job in the world, upholding the law and getting shat-on by the people breaking it, then having to fight the lawyers to see justice actually be done. Yes there are corrupt police, but not nearly so much as the alarmists and Entertainment Networks (please don't insult true journalists by calling them News Networks!) would have us believe.I live in a rural area where pretty much the entire police force seems to be corrupt. I see abuses of power damn near every day, or hear of one that happened somewhere where I was not at the time. The police here have murdered teen boys, mentally ill old women (with a f!@+in swat team no less), and numerous homeless. I have seen cops threaten to kill homeless people. I have had officers walk directly into my home. Hell, the police chief of one of the nearby towns was acting as an arms dealer for criminals and selling drugs, as well as roofie-ing and raping his wife almost nightly (and who later refused to testify as to such for fear of reprisal). He wouldn't have been able to do that without corruption through most of the rest of police force.
Yes, cops ARE that corrupt.
Sometimes. Which is far too often, but we must beware sweeping generalizations. Yes, I'm guilty of it too. A lot of cop hate is entirely justified, and a lot of cops literally get away with murder and worse.
Some really are good guys. Unfortunately the system punishes and eliminates the good cops more and more it seems.
Some really are good guys. Unfortunately the system punishes and eliminates the good cops more and more it seems.
That's because those good guys that are cops, when they're being good guys, are literally not doing their jobs.
A cops job is to have power and authority over the regular civilian. The purpose behind that power is to "protect & serve." Now, when I'm riding my bike in the middle of the night, and I stop at a stop light, and look both ways, seeing no one coming, and run that stop light on my bike, and an officer sees it, his job, to enforce the laws of the land, is to stop me and give me a ticket. The "good guy" cop won't, because no one was endangered, and he knew I'd be sitting there forever because most lights don't recognize bikes. If I'm sitting in my house smoking a joint, hurting no one, the "good guy" cop isn't gonna knock and try to cite me for marijuana possession, because again, no one was endangered, no one was even inconvenienced because of my choice.
When a cop is a "good guy" he's not doing his job, because his job, when it really boils down to it is social control and oppression, not protecting and serving, unless it's to protect the status quo, not the people themselves.
Does anybody seriously think they CAN DEFEND agianst the cops walking in? you might have a court case after the fact but if you try to physically fight back you are stupid and dead. The gov will win every fight right or wrong, ask waco or ruby ridge folks......
You make a fine point, but what constitutes "resistance"? If you take no violent action and just close the door and say, "No you may not enter because you don't have a warrant, or exigent circumstances." should you be presumed guilty until you can prove otherwise in court? I'm not saying this is your position, but it seems to be the predictable outcome of this ruling if it stands on appeal.
OK, I don't think the person who wrote that article understands what they are talking about.
"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,"
-Justice Steven DavidThat doesn't really allow police any more access to your home then they had before - it is still illegal access - it just affects your legal options if you offer resistance. Resisting the police is automatically illegal in practice. (round these parts the term is "Obstruction of government administration") Kind of like you are not allowed to resist an illegal arrest, since it is just an arrest, and doesn't become illegal until a court or judge rules it to be illegal.
I could be missing something, but from my understanding, cops do what they are going to do, and whether it is legal for you gets decided in the courtroom, and what is legal for them gets decided in a lawsuit.
""Already we have a sheriff in Northern Indiana that says this decision has given him the right to go do door to door searches,""
I think that guy understands it less then the guy who wrote the article!
The problem is the SCUSA has already ruled that evidence gathered by illegal entry is still permissible in court. The specific ruling on that came down... last year? maybe just before last year.
So combined with your inability to do anything about the illegal entry -- basically you are screwed.
Finally it isn't just the tea party fighting this either -- many civil rights groups are lined up to help get this overturned.
I do live in southern Indiana... if I had something to hide I might be more worried... though it might just be about time to move at this rate.
Some really are good guys. Unfortunately the system punishes and eliminates the good cops more and more it seems.That's because those good guys that are cops, when they're being good guys, are literally not doing their jobs.
A cops job is to have power and authority over the regular civilian. The purpose behind that power is to "protect & serve." Now, when I'm riding my bike in the middle of the night, and I stop at a stop light, and look both ways, seeing no one coming, and run that stop light on my bike, and an officer sees it, his job, to enforce the laws of the land, is to stop me and give me a ticket. The "good guy" cop won't, because no one was endangered, and he knew I'd be sitting there forever because most lights don't recognize bikes. If I'm sitting in my house smoking a joint, hurting no one, the "good guy" cop isn't gonna knock and try to cite me for marijuana possession, because again, no one was endangered, no one was even inconvenienced because of my choice.
When a cop is a "good guy" he's not doing his job, because his job, when it really boils down to it is social control and oppression, not protecting and serving, unless it's to protect the status quo, not the people themselves.
I can't really argue with your reasoning. I just don't want to suggest that are cops are wretched human beings.
OK, I don't think the person who wrote that article understands what they are talking about.
"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,"
-Justice Steven DavidThat doesn't really allow police any more access to your home then they had before - it is still illegal access - it just affects your legal options if you offer resistance. Resisting the police is automatically illegal in practice. (round these parts the term is "Obstruction of government administration") Kind of like you are not allowed to resist an illegal arrest, since it is just an arrest, and doesn't become illegal until a court or judge rules it to be illegal.
I could be missing something, but from my understanding, cops do what they are going to do, and whether it is legal for you gets decided in the courtroom, and what is legal for them gets decided in a lawsuit.
""Already we have a sheriff in Northern Indiana that says this decision has given him the right to go do door to door searches,""
I think that guy understands it less then the guy who wrote the article!
The problem is the SCUSA has already ruled that evidence gathered by illegal entry is still permissible in court. The specific ruling on that came down... last year? maybe just before last year.
So combined with your inability to do anything about the illegal entry -- basically you are screwed.
Finally it isn't just the tea party fighting this either -- many civil rights groups are lined up to help get this overturned.
I do live in southern Indiana... if I had something to hide I might be more worried... though it might just be about time to move at this rate.
SCOTUS ruled what!?!? Sadly I believe it, but can you help me out with some links?
SCOTUS ruled what!?!? Sadly I believe it, but can you help me out with some links?
Give me a bit to find them -- it's something that a lot of police departments are deliberately ignoring (on purpose even) as it really starts to make them look bad when they are really trying to not look bad.
Wow -- didn't take as long as I thought -- here is the first link:
Illegal conduct doesn't matter if you are found to be a criminal (before your trial date at that)
The largest problem with applying the Bill of Rights to the police is the fact that the police are not soldiers, or military. In most cases they aren't even state operated. As such the actual protections that you enjoy from them are rather limited compared to the protections you have against the actual military.
And here's the biggest nail in the coffin:
Suppression of evidence, however, has always been our last resort, not our first impulse. The exclusionary rule generates "substantial social costs," United States v. Leon, 468 U.S. 897, 907 (1984), which sometimes include setting the guilty free and the dangerous at large. We have therefore been "cautious against expanding" it, Colorado v. Connelly, 479 U.S. 157, 166 (1986), and "have repeatedly emphasized that the rule's 'costly toll' upon truth-seeking and law enforcement objectives presents a high obstacle for those urging [its] application," Pennsylvania Bd. of Probation and Parole v. Scott, 524 U.S. 357, 364-365 (1998) (citation omitted). We have rejected "indiscriminate application" of the rule, Leon, supra, at 908, and have held it to be applicable only "where its remedial objectives are thought most efficaciously served," United States v. Calandra, 414 U.S. 338, 348 (1974) – that is, "where its deterrence benefits outweigh its 'substantial social costs,'" Scott, supra, at 363, (quoting Leon, supra, at 907). Whether the exclusionary sanction is appropriately imposed in a particular case is an issue separate from the question whether the Fourth Amendment rights of the party seeking to invoke the rule were violated by police conduct.
It boggles my mind that somehow illegally obtained evidence should be permissible at all -- but Justice Scalia seems to think the source of evidence doesn't matter so long as they got the evidence.
And the following limitations on the "exclusionary rule" (or as I call it, "How to $*%K the fourth admendment without looking like you are")
Limitations on the exclusionary rule have included the following:
Evidence unlawfully obtained from the defendant by a private person is admissible. The exclusionary rule is designed to protect privacy rights, with the Fourth Amendment applying specifically to government officials.[17]
Evidence can only be suppressed if the illegal search violated the person's own (the person making the court motion) constitutional rights. The exclusionary rule does not apply to privacy rights of a third party.[18] However, there is a narrow exception to this standing requirement, the jus tertii standing exception. See, e.g., Singleton v. Wulff Et Al., 96 S. Ct. 2868, 428 U.S. 106 (U.S. 1976); The Assertion of Constitutional Jus Tertii: A Substantive Approach, Robert Allen Sedler, California Law Review, Vol. 70, No. 6 (Dec., 1982), pp. 1308-1344; Standing to Assert Constitutional Jus Tertii, 88 Harv.L.Rev. 423, (1974).
The defendant cannot take advantage of the situation (police breaching rules) to turn the case to their advantage, in face of other evidence against them.[19]
The Silver Platter doctrine applied before the Elkins v. United States ruling in 1960. State officials that obtained evidence illegally were allowed to turn over evidence to federal officials, and have that evidence be admitted into trial.[20]
Nix v. Williams held that if the evidence obtained in the unlawful search would almost definitely have been found eventually even without said search (inevitable discovery), the evidence may be brought forth in court.
So here is how it works -- say I'm a police officer and I illegally obtain evidence from you -- since I now have that evidence (as a third party) as a private citizen I can turn it over to someone offical and have it become legal evidence.
It's basically legal money laundrying.
The problem is the SCUSA has already ruled that evidence gathered by illegal entry is still permissible in court. The specific ruling on that came down... last year? maybe just before last year.
Really? Do you remember what that case was called or what it was about?
As for the role of the police... I see both sides. In a society where you have drugs, alcohol, and poor mental health care, someone has to deal with the problems those things lead to. On the other hand, police are often used as the club of the State and the wealthy to maintain inequity. I don't know what the answer is, but I think it is important to hold police to high standards. Corrupt cops are bad for society and other cops. My guess is that the closer the cops are to the community, the better both sides will treat each other.
More attacks on the fourth admendment
There is really a lot out there if you just start looking at it.
Basically put the 'exclusionary rule' is the only actual method of enforcing the fourth amendment -- if the evidence can be provided anyways what good does it do to say it was obtained illegally? You are still in prison regardless of how it was obtained. The only way the fourth amendment has teeth is if it prevents illegal evidence from being presented in court and the official responsible for the illegal method is punished for his infringement on your constitutional rights.
Haven't read it yet, but here are the opinions:
http://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/07pdf/06-1082.pdf
Thanks Abraham spalding.
Serious stuff I didn't know about until now.
More attacks on the fourth admendment
There is really a lot out there if you just start looking at it.
Basically put the 'exclusionary rule' is the only actual method of enforcing the fourth amendment -- if the evidence can be provided anyways what good does it do to say it was obtained illegally? You are still in prison regardless of how it was obtained. The only way the fourth amendment has teeth is if it prevents illegal evidence from being presented in court and the official responsible for the illegal method is punished for his infringement on your constitutional rights.
WOW! I need to read some more, but WTF happened to all of the "fruit of the poison tree" case law?
You know I have to steal this for "Government folly", right? ;)
Thanks for the info, BTW.
More attacks on the fourth admendment
There is really a lot out there if you just start looking at it.
Basically put the 'exclusionary rule' is the only actual method of enforcing the fourth amendment -- if the evidence can be provided anyways what good does it do to say it was obtained illegally? You are still in prison regardless of how it was obtained. The only way the fourth amendment has teeth is if it prevents illegal evidence from being presented in court and the official responsible for the illegal method is punished for his infringement on your constitutional rights.
WOW! I need to read some more, but WTF happened to all of the "fruit of the poison tree" case law?
You know I have to steal this for "Government folly", right? ;)
Thanks for the info, BTW.
Of course! While generally I can see good reason or at least 'no harm' with things like some government spending (honestly the pork amounts to less than nothing compared to the real spending problems -- like tax cuts that don't need to be maintained -- allowing a tax cut to expire isn't the same as raising taxes) -- this sort of regular attack on our constitutional rights is much more serious.
The funny thing is that it's Republican appointed Justices that are doing this sort of thing regularly.
When it comes to Judges Republican (conservative) judges are actually more likely to back the government's position with little to no questions than the Democrat (liberal) judges are.
Haven't read it yet, but here are the opinions:
http://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/07pdf/06-1082.pdfThanks Abraham spalding.
Serious stuff I didn't know about until now.
Feel free to check out the "Government folly" thread. Even if you disagree with my anti-government viewpoint there is some good information about police abuse.
EDIT: Also see "Very Sad"; I bumped it for you. It expands this topic's background a great deal.
More attacks on the fourth admendment
There is really a lot out there if you just start looking at it.
Basically put the 'exclusionary rule' is the only actual method of enforcing the fourth amendment -- if the evidence can be provided anyways what good does it do to say it was obtained illegally? You are still in prison regardless of how it was obtained. The only way the fourth amendment has teeth is if it prevents illegal evidence from being presented in court and the official responsible for the illegal method is punished for his infringement on your constitutional rights.
WOW! I need to read some more, but WTF happened to all of the "fruit of the poison tree" case law?
You know I have to steal this for "Government folly", right? ;)
Thanks for the info, BTW.
Of course! While generally I can see good reason or at least 'no harm' with things like some government spending (honestly the pork amounts to less than nothing compared to the real spending problems -- like tax cuts that don't need to be maintained -- allowing a tax cut to expire isn't the same as raising taxes) -- this sort of regular attack on our constitutional rights is much more serious.
The funny thing is that it's Republican appointed Justices that are doing this sort of thing regularly.
When it comes to Judges Republican (conservative) judges are actually more likely to back the government's position with little to no questions than the Democrat (liberal) judges are.
I'm not sure I agree with that, but our supposedly conservative SCOTUS tends to support your point. While I applaud their belated defense of the fundamental right of self defense their failure to strike down the patriot acts and other odious expansions of state power also support the idea that they are basically statist rather than supporting individual liberty. It's less a case of the courts being right or left than a case of the courts defending and expanding government power.
I can't really argue with your reasoning. I just don't want to suggest that are cops are wretched human beings.
I'm not saying that all people that become cops are inherently wretched people. A lot of them are, they become cops because they wanna power trip. But there are cops that go into their jobs believing the hype, that they're there to protect and serve the people. The problem is that power corrupts, period. All my friends that have become cops have either quit the force within a few months in disgust, realizing their brainwashed folly, or they ended up telling some story at the bar later about how they rolled some hapless sap for some b@~%*@~* reason, and being proud of it. People that were my friends, decent human beings just looking to help their fellow humans, bragging about how they screwed some guy just so they could have a power trip. Needless to say, I tell them how disgusting of a human being I see in front of me now, and break off the friendship.
Basically, it's not that cops, as human beings are wretched. They're just human beings, like me and you, subject to faults and mistakes. It's the job that's wretched.
I can't really argue with your reasoning. I just don't want to suggest that are cops are wretched human beings.I'm not saying that all people that become cops are inherently wretched people. A lot of them are, they become cops because they wanna power trip. But there are cops that go into their jobs believing the hype, that they're there to protect and serve the people. The problem is that power corrupts, period. All my friends that have become cops have either quit the force within a few months in disgust, realizing their brainwashed folly, or they ended up telling some story at the bar later about how they rolled some hapless sap for some b%+%~!+! reason, and being proud of it. People that were my friends, decent human beings just looking to help their fellow humans, bragging about how they screwed some guy just so they could have a power trip. Needless to say, I tell them how disgusting of a human being I see in front of me now, and break off the friendship.
Basically, it's not that cops, as human beings are wretched. They're just human beings, like me and you, subject to faults and mistakes. It's the job that's wretched.
I agree with you and disagree with you. The job is wretched. You deal with the worst that humanity has to offer. You deal with people lieing to constantly like you are a idiot. You deal with the crack Mom who lets her kid starve to death so she can get high...etc. Plus you have to deal with the corrupt cops.
Pretty much what you get is that the people who actualy would make good cops either quite...become numb and just don't care anymore or corrupt themselves.
Well, now the people got served.
|
|
I can't really argue with your reasoning. I just don't want to suggest that are cops are wretched human beings.I'm not saying that all people that become cops are inherently wretched people. A lot of them are, they become cops because they wanna power trip. But there are cops that go into their jobs believing the hype, that they're there to protect and serve the people. The problem is that power corrupts, period. All my friends that have become cops have either quit the force within a few months in disgust, realizing their brainwashed folly, or they ended up telling some story at the bar later about how they rolled some hapless sap for some b%+%~!+! reason, and being proud of it. People that were my friends, decent human beings just looking to help their fellow humans, bragging about how they screwed some guy just so they could have a power trip. Needless to say, I tell them how disgusting of a human being I see in front of me now, and break off the friendship.
Basically, it's not that cops, as human beings are wretched. They're just human beings, like me and you, subject to faults and mistakes. It's the job that's wretched.
I agree with you and disagree with you. The job is wretched. You deal with the worst that humanity has to offer. You deal with people lieing to constantly like you are a idiot. You deal with the crack Mom who lets her kid starve to death so she can get high...etc. Plus you have to deal with the corrupt cops.
Pretty much what you get is that the people who actualy would make good cops either quite...become numb and just don't care anymore or corrupt themselves.
plus all of the filthy criminals that whine about how evil you are for helping limit the fun they have at the expense of others, hell most"victimless crime" is still causing some harm somewhere.
|
|
Does anybody seriously think they CAN DEFEND agianst the cops walking in? you might have a court case after the fact but if you try to physically fight back you are stupid and dead. The gov will win every fight right or wrong, ask waco or ruby ridge folks......You make a fine point, but what constitutes "resistance"? If you take no violent action and just close the door and say, "No you may not enter because you don't have a warrant, or exigent circumstances." should you be presumed guilty until you can prove otherwise in court? I'm not saying this is your position, but it seems to be the predictable outcome of this ruling if it stands on appeal.
What i am saying is always comply with the officers. He says im comming in, don't try to slam the door in his face. He says get on the ground, do it as fast as you can. Go to his superiors or the courts later but do NOT fight the officer or he WILL win. No matter how wrong the cop might be, if you fight back his superior training or superior numbers when backup is called will win and even if he is later found guilty of abuse it will not mend injuries or raise the dead.