Indiana repeals the 4th amendment?????

[leroy]

Dave:_____________

When this kind of thing is goin on per your example here:

...So when your daughter or your Granddaughter is getting her face beaten in by her thug drug dealer boyfriend she decided to live with; you want the cops to stand by and call a Judge? .......

If i see it or it comes to my ears, i wont need the law. I'll take care of it myself. I simply will not need the assistance of the "law" (....and neither should you....).

You may believe that the "law" is the great protector of all that is good and holy in society. I (...and many others here...) simply dont believe that; and neither should you. The LEO establishment, the justice enterprise, and all it's apparagics regularly make mistakes. Simple observation of their operation will tell you that. In my mind, it is far better to veer on the side of right doing than it is to allow agents of government act with impunity and immunity. Take the time to read this:http://www.mikechurch.com/Today-s-Lead-Story/in-sheriff-if-we-need-to-conduct-random-house-to-house-searches-we-will.html. Mark cited it in an earlier post. It advocates random house to house searches.

Remember this, kickin in doors and shooting is a two way street. This business about immunity and saying "it was a tragic mistake" means nothing to those who get killed or maimed. No amount of "legal recourse" and trial baloney can can erase this truth. The fact is that when someone is layin dead or maimed for life, that is a tragic, irreversible (...and quite possibly wrong...) decision that someone made. It applies equally to both LEO and the citizen. In either case, it will not (...and cannot...) lessen the devastation brought on surviving (...or maimed...) members of either side of this tragic mistake. We as a society have decided to confer upon the LEO cadre the authority to take the lives of citizens based on split second decisions and 'hunches". That is, indeed, a most serious responsibility. As such, it should be very carefully applied and protected. This ruling flies in the face of this responsibility in my opinion.

You may be part of the group that worships the law and think that whatever the "law" does is ok. That is simply not so, and no amount of "whitewashing", apologetics, and examples can erase that.

My opinion does, indeed, diverge from yours and that's ok with me. We can disagree.

Having said all that; dont presume to lecture me or anyone eles here because i dont see it your way. The way i see things, ya aint equipped too well with evidence to substantiate your position. You can cheer (...and/or argue...) for one side or the other; but dont presume to blaspheme and berate those who dont agree. If this was clear cut; it would have never made it to the courts and there wouldnt be a discussion about the Fourth Amendment. This aint about "domestic abuse"; it's about kickin a door in where you "think a drug crime is in progress". Read the opinion and the related info. Police (...and citizens as well...) have long had all the tools they need to handle crimes they "see in progress". This one is about "thinking one is in progress".

Hows that?

leroy

Edited May 22, 2011 by leroy
added link.

[East_TN_Patriot]

I think this is a bit over the top:

Most folks simply want to be left alone and secure in their own homes. I keep hearing about this "war on drugs" and handling of thugs. There aint much of that goin on in my estimation. If LEO gets lucky enough (...or, in most cases, is allowed....) to find some of these chumps; the legal system simply lets them go. In my mind, at least, the idea of "agressive enforcement" of laws is laughable.

I and many others are, indeed, alarmed at the idea that the police or anyone else for that matter could kick your door in without announcing themselves all in the name of "suspicion of wrongdoing".

ET: I noticed that you live in north knox county (...powell...). In the last couple of years there have been two or three home invasions that resulted in death either to the perpetrators of the invasion or the homeowner. There is a case on trial right now in the knox county court RE: a home invasion in south knoxville that left three people dead. Two innocents in the house; and one thug. This crime was perpetrated on a retired LEO officer, who the perpetrators knew, and were willing to try to kill in order to take his perscription medication.

The fact is that folks are edgy. They do not feel safe in their own homes and are wary of those knocking on their doors; let alone those who would put their foot to the door and kick their way in; no matter who they purport to be --- thug or LEO. There are lots of folks (...including me...) who cant tell the difference when the door cracks in; and that is the exact crux of the problem.

To be looked upon as "protectors of the community" and legitimate representatives of government, it is my view (...and i believe the view of many others...) that LEO should be held to a high standard of conduct. Once you kick in the wrong door and shoot the wrong family member, it simply aint enough to say "sorry, we made a mistake", and go on about your business. To say that these "wrong entries" dont happen is to ignore reality. I do not believe that the LEO enterprise is in any way anything other than a microcosm of anything other than the whole of society. That says to me that they are just as prone to do the wrong or mistaken thing as anyone else. This aint LEO bashing; its a simple observation of the reality of things.

The fact is that this ruling is dangerous to both citizens and LEO. The point of this whole little essay is to say in the kindest possible terms that not all judicial rulings are beneficial or necessarily correct.

I'll close with this observation:.... In our system (...for the time being, at least...) the government derives its power from the consent of the governed (...as some smart guy said years ago...). When government infringes on that consent (...which i think this does...), there is an inevitable pushback. The wise among the "governors" understand that well and are faithful stewards of the power handed to them by the "consent of the governed". This ruling stretches the forbearance of the governed and means nothing to the thug element in our society. All in all, this is a bad ruling and should be quietly set aside. There are simply places where application of this ruling is a dangerous thing. This ruling presupposes a docile and unarmed populace. There are places where this is simply not so. Many of them are in Tennessee (...and i would assume, in other locations as well...).

Food for thought.

leroy

OK... a couple of points here. First, you still seem to be missing the point that NOTHING CHANGED WITH THESE TWO COURT RULINGS. THESE GUIDELINES FOR WARRANTLESS ENTRY HAVE BEEN IN PLACE FOR OVER 50 YEARS. These rulings are not anything new. They are not giving the police any more power than they have had for at least half a century. They are not allowing the police to come and randomly kick in doors on a whim. Everyone is getting all riled up over NOTHING. LITERALLY NOTHING. The cases simply re-affirmed what was already there.

Next, to suggest that law enforcement is not putting drug offenders in jail, consider these facts:

1) The United States has become the world's leader in incarceration rates. We put a greater proportion of our population in prison than any other nation on the face of the earth. The vast majority of these offenders are non-violent drug offenders. We currently have over 7 million people at any given time under some form of official correctional sanctions. In 1983, before Reagan re-introduced the "War on Drugs" there were roughly 600,000 drug arrests in the United States. By 1989, this number had doubled to 1.2 million. in 2007, there were almost 2 million people arrested for drug offenses. 4/5 of these were for possession. Most of these arrests are for marijuana. During this time, drug use has remained relatively unchanged across the entire population. And although arrest rates for violent crime have been relatively stable, overall violent crime rates have been on a massive decline since the 1970s. Bureau of Justice Statistics data for all of this is below.

See also: http://www.whitehousedrugpolicy.gov/publications/pdf/nsduh.pdf

So, now that I have thoroughly debunked the argument that law enforcement is not focusing on drug crime or putting violators in jail, I'll address the next points.

I don't quite get what the issue of random home invasion robberies has to do with the issue of whether the police, acting under official color of law, and either making entry after a "knock and announce" that is required by case law, or during execution of a valid search warrant approved for a "no-knock" entry by a judge. In any case, violent crime is on an overall downward trend and I don't live my life in perpetual fear of imminent victimization. I take rational and normal precautions such as my CCW, keeping my doors locked an porch lights on at night, and maintaining general due vigilance regarding my surroundings. I don't worry that I am constantly facing immedate death or serious physical injury every moment of my life.

Next, the issue of mistakes by police is a very real and serious problem. These case decisions do not change that in any way. The only way to prevent this from happening is to #1) seriously hold officers accountable when they do make these mistakes and/or #2) completely do away with no-knock warrants and SWAT teams altogether. That's a different debate for another time, but again, nothing new has come about following these rulings. If you think they are wrong, that's fine, as long as you understand that you are calling literally hundreds of court rulings over decades of jurisprudence wrong as well.

Finally, I agree that most folks do want to be left alone in their homes, and that's exactly what we do. The number of incidents where an officer makes a completely unlawful and unjustified entry into a home is so miniscule, that's it's almost a non-issue. Even in the cases that started this thread, the people were involved in criminal activity, so let's not suggest that these were incidents involving Joe and Jane Smith sitting in their living rooms one night watching the 700 Club when the mean old police kicked in their door. Estimates are that police use SWAT around 40,000 times per year, and the number of errors is less than 1% of these (much like the stats on gun ownership vs. illegal use of guns). It's essential that we are honest and accurate on what the real threat is. It's a complex issue, and one main part of the puzzle that keeps coming up is the "War on Drugs." I started my police career as a 100% supporter of drug prohibition and the drug war, but by the time I left policing 10 years later, I had become a 100% supporter of harm reductions strategies and legalization/decriminalization of some banned substances. CATO did an excellent report on this topic for those interested:

Overkill: The Rise of Paramilitary Police Raids in America

[DaveTN]

Dave:_____________

When this kind of thing is goin on per your example here:

If i see it or it comes to my ears, i wont need the law. I'll take care of it myself. I simply will not need the assistance of the "law" (....and neither should you....).

You may believe that the "law" is the great protector of all that is good and holy in society. I (...and many others here...) simply dont believe that; and neither should you. The LEO establishment, the justice enterprise, and all it's apparagics regularly make mistakes. Simple observation of their operation will tell you that. In my mind, it is far better to veer on the side of right doing than it is to allow agents of government act with impunity and immunity. Take the time to read this:IN Sheriff: If We Need to Conduct RANDOM HOUSE to HOUSE Searches We Will | Today's Lead Story. Mark cited it in an earlier post. It advocates random house to house searches.

Remember this, kickin in doors and shooting is a two way street. This business about immunity and saying "it was a tragic mistake" means nothing to those who get killed or maimed. No amount of "legal recourse" and trial baloney can can erase this truth. The fact is that when someone is layin dead or maimed for life, that is a tragic, irreversible (...and quite possibly wrong...) decision that someone made. It applies equally to both LEO and the citizen. In either case, it will not (...and cannot...) lessen the devastation brought on surviving (...or maimed...) members of either side of this tragic mistake. We as a society have decided to confer upon the LEO cadre the authority to take the lives of citizens based on split second decisions and 'hunches". That is, indeed, a most serious responsibility. As such, it should be very carefully applied and protected. This ruling flies in the face of this responsibility in my opinion.

You may be part of the group that worships the law and think that whatever the "law" does is ok. That is simply not so, and no amount of "whitewashing", apologetics, and examples can erase that.

My opinion does, indeed, diverge from yours and that's ok with me. We can disagree.

Having said all that; dont presume to lecture me or anyone eles here because i dont see it your way. The way i see things, ya aint equipped too well with evidence to substantiate your position. You can cheer (...and/or argue...) for one side or the other; but dont presume to blaspheme and berate those who dont agree. If this was clear cut; it would have never made it to the courts and there wouldnt be a discussion about the Fourth Amendment. This aint about "domestic abuse"; it's about kickin a door in where you "think a drug crime is in progress". Read the opinion and the related info. Police (...and citizens as well...) have long had all the tools they need to handle crimes they "see in progress". This one is about "thinking one is in progress".

Hows that?

leroy

Leroy… it’s good to know that you will be there when someone needs help, but some of us are mere mortals and can’t respond as fast as the cops.

I have been a Police Officer and have responded to domestic violence calls more times than I can count. Let’s not forget that is what this case was about; not a drug dealer flushing drugs. I have had to, more than once, force my way past an abusive husband that has beaten his wife. Who knows, I may have kept him from killing her. But I was there, I had the information that the Judge couldn’t have, and I acted exactly as our founding Fathers would have wanted. That’s why they used the word “unreasonable†in ruling out searches instead of just requiring a warrant for any search.

Yes you and I will just have to disagree. It’s bad enough for the victims and their families that the Police did not get there in time; but it would be much worse it the victims were beaten or murdered while the cops stood by wringing their hands so you can feel good about tying the hands of the cops.

But I base that opinion on my experience of having been the responding Officer on these calls.

As far as the drug thing goes… I have said here many times that I do not support cops using military tactics and wearing subdued clothing (wearing black face masks… give me a break) to enter house on drugs raids. I am amazed at both the number of Officers that will participate in it and the number of Police Chiefs that will allow it. That’s not an innocent mistake; its cops that never got to play “SWATâ€. It’s reckless and irresponsible; any Officer involved in it and any Chief that allows it should be held accountable.

Food for thought

[leroy]

ET:___________

We can (...and are...) havin a big long winded discussion about all this. There are folks on both sides of it. We can agree to disagree. I can agree with lots of what you have to say in the above post; but it does not change my opinion on this one. This is simply a case of bad law and "the ends justifying the means" in my view. There is a county sheriff in Indiana who has advocated "random house to house searches" based on this ruling by the IN Supreme Court. There is a 13 page thread on this very subject on the IN Gun Owners Forum (...as of a few minutes ago...).

As to "laxity in enforcement" ... These folks that are in jail for "drug related" crime are the little fish. We simply dont put the big ones in jail. This fact is obvious from casual inspection. The "drug problem" aint gettin smaller; someone must be continuing to furnish drugs for the addicts.

I will grant that these "smaller fish" are doin the breakin and entering and are, to some extent, being caught. The fact is that we are witnessing a continuing breakdown of society and folks are scared. In that atmosphere, the law is viewed as largely ineffective. Law enforcement is loosing this battle. That is the reason for this very ruling.

Those that believe that the end of society should be a docile society Kept safe and policed by law enforcement would do well to consider that the most efficient form of government (...read that control of the citizenry...) is a dictatorship. In that system the dictators make all the decisions and enforce the rules without question. Our system is considerably less efficient and a lot better for the individual citizen. No one here wants the "efficient solution". No one here is blaspheming responsible law enforcement.

They (...and i...) are criticizing a decision that flies in the face of a free people, all done in the name of "enforcement of law". This is a bad idea.

I intentionally added the citations of the home invasions because no knock LEO searches can be mistaken for them. I'm sure you can appreciate that.

leroy

[Guest Lester Weevils]

As to "laxity in enforcement" ... These folks that are in jail for "drug related" crime are the little fish. We simply dont put the big ones in jail. This fact is obvious from casual inspection. The "drug problem" aint gettin smaller; someone must be continuing to furnish drugs for the addicts.

I will grant that these "smaller fish" are doin the breakin and entering and are, to some extent, being caught. The fact is that we are witnessing a continuing breakdown of society and folks are scared. In that atmosphere, the law is viewed as largely ineffective. Law enforcement is loosing this battle. That is the reason for this very ruling.

Hi Leroy

Nothing is a panacea. If we quit the war on drugs there would still be drug-related theft.

I don't think the addiction rate would spike on decriminalization, because anybody who wants drugs can get them now. How many people would say, "Goody! Now that it is legal I can finally become a pitiful useless addict!"

Perhaps here is a faulty analogy, but lots of people are HEAVILY addicted to cigarettes and booze. I'm sure some people burgle, mug or shoplift for booze and cig money, but the rate appears much lower than with drug addicts.

Social and health problems aside, the biggest legal woes with tobacco and booze are underground dealers who sell cheaper than licensed stores. If drugs were decriminalized, then the ATFE&D would be tasked with going after street pharmacists who undercut Rite-Aid and avoid tax. Just like they go after moonshiners on the tax issue.

But the store price would be so much lower that the street pharmacists would have to drastically cut their retail rates. For many dealers the lower profit wouldn't be worth the legal risk and they may even have trouble price-competing against Walmart or Rite-Aid. Most dealers would find other lines of work.

With lower prices, some addicts might not have to steal to feed the habit. Even among the lazy good-for-nothings who choose to steal to feed a habit, they wouldn't have to steal nearly as much as they currently do.

Thieves should go to jail because they are thieves of course. Just don't stack up addicts in jail like deadwood just because they are addicts, if they didn't break any other law.

[East_TN_Patriot]

ET:___________

We can (...and are...) havin a big long winded discussion about all this. There are folks on both sides of it. We can agree to disagree. I can agree with lots of what you have to say in the above post; but it does not change my opinion on this one. This is simply a case of bad law and "the ends justifying the means" in my view. There is a county sheriff in Indiana who has advocated "random house to house searches" based on this ruling by the IN Supreme Court. There is a 13 page thread on this very subject on the IN Gun Owners Forum (...as of a few minutes ago...).

As to "laxity in enforcement" ... These folks that are in jail for "drug related" crime are the little fish. We simply dont put the big ones in jail. This fact is obvious from casual inspection. The "drug problem" aint gettin smaller; someone must be continuing to furnish drugs for the addicts.

I will grant that these "smaller fish" are doin the breakin and entering and are, to some extent, being caught. The fact is that we are witnessing a continuing breakdown of society and folks are scared. In that atmosphere, the law is viewed as largely ineffective. Law enforcement is loosing this battle. That is the reason for this very ruling.

Those that believe that the end of society should be a docile society Kept safe and policed by law enforcement would do well to consider that the most efficient form of government (...read that control of the citizenry...) is a dictatorship. In that system the dictators make all the decisions and enforce the rules without question. Our system is considerably less efficient and a lot better for the individual citizen. No one here wants the "efficient solution". No one here is blaspheming responsible law enforcement.

They (...and i...) are criticizing a decision that flies in the face of a free people, all done in the name of "enforcement of law". This is a bad idea.

I intentionally added the citations of the home invasions because no knock LEO searches can be mistaken for them. I'm sure you can appreciate that.

leroy

Leroy... I'm more than willing to allow anyone to have a differing opinion than I, but in this case, it definitely seems you are finding ways to make the facts fit your opinion.

For instance, the reason the courts ruled the way they did is because they HAD TO. They didn't rule that way because of the drug war, they ruled that way because our court system runs on the idea of precedent and the courts must interpret and apply the law as it already exists. The case law says that what the cops did was within the scope of the reasonableness clause in the 4th Amendment, so the court followed that precedent and applied the existing case law here. Nothing more. Nowhere does the case law before, or in these two cases, allow for random house to house searches. If they did, that would be a violation of case law a-la the 9th Circuit Court of Appeals in California, which is notorious for "making law" by ignoring precedent. I see no indication that anyone in this debate advocates such a blatant disregard for civil rights and I will join you in vigorously fighting such a push. Again, if you want to disagree with the legal argument on its own merits, that's fine, just don't make the argument into something it's not.

Also, as far as the drug war is concerned, we have spent literally trillions of dollars trying to get the "big fish" with little luck for a couple of reasons. First, those big-time drug folks are in other countries. They operate outside of the jurisdiction of the US. We can only arrest the folks who they employ to do their work domestically. The US has been highly criticized for essentially exporting our drug war to these countries and they have become literal war zones. Just look at Columbia, Peru, and Mexico. This leads to the second problem, which is corruption within these nations. The economies in drug producing nations is extremely poor and the illegal drug trade is a major part of their economy and it is nearly impossible to eliminate such a major part of their fiscal survival. As a result, politicians and police in these nations are extremely corrupt and actively subvert American efforts to fight the drug war in these nations. The problem is even greater when we are also calling for eliminating foreign aid to these countries. So essentially, we are saying "we know your economy sucks and your survival, and the survival of your citizens, relies on the money the drug trade creates, but we need you to stop that for our American citizens who are too stupid to not take drugs, and, oh by the way, we're cutting all of your foreign aid too. Good luck with that and thanks for your cooperation." Again, this is not a problem that is easily solved by just doing more enforcement, enforcement that requires officers to utilize "no-knock" warrants or just going after the "big fish." If life were that simple, we'd have beaten the drug problem decades ago. The problem is the individual user, and until the user decides not to use, this problem won't get any better. Wasting trillions of dollars on drug enforcement has been an epic failure, caused a multitude of problems with civil rights, placed the police and the public in a precarious relationship, and has resulted in thousands of deaths that include bad guys, good guys, and innocent bystanders.

[DaveTN]

Hi Leroy

Nothing is a panacea. If we quit the war on drugs there would still be drug-related theft.

I don't think the addiction rate would spike on decriminalization, because anybody who wants drugs can get them now. How many people would say, "Goody! Now that it is legal I can finally become a pitiful useless addict!"

Perhaps here is a faulty analogy, but lots of people are HEAVILY addicted to cigarettes and booze. I'm sure some people burgle, mug or shoplift for booze and cig money, but the rate appears much lower than with drug addicts.

Social and health problems aside, the biggest legal woes with tobacco and booze are underground dealers who sell cheaper than licensed stores. If drugs were decriminalized, then the ATFE&D would be tasked with going after street pharmacists who undercut Rite-Aid and avoid tax. Just like they go after moonshiners on the tax issue.

But the store price would be so much lower that the street pharmacists would have to drastically cut their retail rates. For many dealers the lower profit wouldn't be worth the legal risk and they may even have trouble price-competing against Walmart or Rite-Aid. Most dealers would find other lines of work.

With lower prices, some addicts might not have to steal to feed the habit. Even among the lazy good-for-nothings who choose to steal to feed a habit, they wouldn't have to steal nearly as much as they currently do.

Thieves should go to jail because they are thieves of course. Just don't stack up addicts in jail like deadwood just because they are addicts, if they didn't break any other law.

I don’t think I arrested a lot of burglars and thieves that were doing it because of a drug or alcohol habit. It was my experience that most of them did it because that was their job; it’s how they live. They were brought up without any work ethics, religion or morals and so they lead a life of crime. Of course you get the shoulder of the liberals to cry on if you blame drugs or alcohol. Who wants to admit to everyone they are just a low life thief?

We need jobs. And we need our kids educated. They need to know that they can get an education and get a job and not have to steal. But that is not a realistic goal for many of them. And there is something we can do about that.

[leroy]

ET:____________

RE: This:

...Leroy... I'm more than willing to allow anyone to have a differing opinion than I, but in this case, it definitely seems you are finding ways to make the facts fit your opinion. ...

Really?

I do not think that you or anyone else here is qualified to make this call. You may not like my analysis and thinking, but you cant be intellectually honest and open minded and make the judgement that im "making facts fit my opinion." That calls into question my innermost thinking and my motives. My opinion is, in fact, my opinion; just like your "opinion" is yours. No one here has called into question the "motives" of those arguing these points until now. You need to think about that a bit.

Opinion is just that: ..."opinion"... . Everybody has got 'em and many times they differ; just like now. Opinion is based on both facts and perceptions. Perceptions are the perview of those that have them. You see this as business as usual. I see it as a bad call which will shortly be abused.

The fact is that it's hard to defend your opinion. That's why we seem to be movin to the next phase. That phase seems to be calling into question the motives of those that disagree with you. That aint the way to win. More than that, i firmly believe that there are no "winners" with this one. Only those who agree or disagree.

By the way: Dave:___________

Dont disagree with any of this:

...I don’t think I arrested a lot of burglars and thieves that were doing it because of a drug or alcohol habit. It was my experience that most of them did it because that was their job; it’s how they live. They were brought up without any work ethics, religion or morals and so they lead a life of crime. Of course you get the shoulder of the liberals to cry on if you blame drugs or alcohol. Who wants to admit to everyone they are just a low life thief?

We need jobs. And we need our kids educated. They need to know that they can get an education and get a job and not have to steal. But that is not a realistic goal for many of them. And there is something we can do about that....

leroy

[East_TN_Patriot]

ET:____________

RE: This:

Really?

I do not think that you or anyone else here is qualified to make this call. You may not like my analysis and thinking, but you cant be intellectually honest and open minded and make the judgement that im "making facts fit my opinion." That calls into question my innermost thinking and my motives. My opinion is, in fact, my opinion; just like your "opinion" is yours. No one here has called into question the "motives" of those arguing these points until now. You need to think about that a bit.

Opinion is just that: ..."opinion"... . Everybody has got 'em and many times they differ; just like now. Opinion is based on both facts and perceptions. Perceptions are the perview of those that have them. You see this as business as usual. I see it as a bad call which will shortly be abused.

The fact is that it's hard to defend your opinion. That's why we seem to be movin to the next phase. That phase seems to be calling into question the motives of those that disagree with you. That aint the way to win. More than that, i firmly believe that there are no "winners" with this one. Only those who agree or disagree.

OK, except I am bringing up multiple facts, data that I have collected from multiple sources and existing case law, to back up my comments. Your opinion appears to be based on mere speculation and your own interpretation of the facts as you see them - if I am wrong, please feel free to point out where you are collecting your info. In other words, you are using your own opinion to back up your opinion and calling that "fact." I study and teach these issues every day and I can seek out literally dozens of cases that back up what I am saying. I am not stating opinion, but providing the "facts" as best as we can obtain them. If you don't agree with the facts on principle, that's perfectly acceptable, but you seem to be treating facts as mere opinion, thereby allowing you to disregard them and replace them with your own "facts" and opinions as equally legitimate. Again, I'm not providing opinion, but just telling everyone the reality of the case law and how it applies to the 4th Amendment.

[bajabuc]

I got a little ill reading this post. What it all boils down to is the Willingness of the Officer to disregard the Constitution and violate a citizens civil rights. If Police said...that's not legal and we won't do it there wouldn't be a problem. However, policy pretty much requires the officer to acquess to the administrations decision to violate. Most of what's been happening is the failing attempt to keep the alcohol industry's products to be the "escape" of choice.

[Guest 6.8 AR]

ET. You have drawn conclusions on that data. Are

you really going to stick to the notion that someone

else can't draw a different conclusion?

Read your own tag line. If you agree with her

statement, that appears to me to be as much of

a contradiction as anyone else's "opinion".

I think the disagreements are based on the feelings

portrayed by that tag line and people's wariness of

additional laws, or the perception. You make a fine

argument otherwise.

I've been having disturbing second thoughts on the

"war on drugs" because of this discussion. You were

right about the cake and eat it, too, but I think this

will all end up in more tyranny in the end.

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[leroy]

ET:________________

RE: this:

....you don't agree with the facts on principle, that's perfectly acceptable, but you seem to be treating facts as mere opinion, thereby allowing you to disregard them and replace them with your own "facts" and opinions as equally legitimate....

The fact is that i do not agree with the ruling on principle (...remember, courts can make lousy decisions too. This is one, in my opinion...). Ive never deviated from that positon since the beginning of the discussion. I've also said its ok to have differing opinions. The fact is that the justice enterprize can and has made bad rulings and mistakes. There was a time when the supreme court ruled that a certain class of people (...slaves...) were property and could be bought and sold like cattle.

In regards to the intrepretation of facts and data:

I am a man who has made his living playing with numbers; stacking up facts and data in the best possible light. Data manipulation is not a lie in the strict sense; only a "creative" use of facts and data with the goal of shedding the best possible light on a specific situation. There is an old limeric that i would call your attention to: "....Figures dont lie, but all liars can figure (...especially if they have a professional and compelling need to. Read that: job security and demonstrating progress...). Numbers and statistics are just that; and they should be viewed for what they are, nothing more.

As you can tell; i do not worship the law nor those who are sworn to uphold it. I intend to respect the law and those who are sworn to enforce it as long as they are deemed worthy of that respect; and by and large they are. Do i think they make mistakes, cover them up, take advantage, and obfuscate the facts; even stretching as far as wrongdoing? You bet. By and large (...thankfully...), those instances are rare, but they are there; and some are heinous.

I think the justice enterprize is pretty much like everything else. That means that the whole spectrum of society; all the way from those who are honest, noble, and truly called to this vocation to the lousiest, rattiest, sorriest among the debris of mankind are represented. We can quibble about the details of qualifications on this; but it is a fact.

I view the legal enterprize as a necessary evil that does some good. Others here see it as a holy calling and an infallible definition of what is good for us "unwashed rustics" or ordinary citizens. If you view the law and and its apparagics as as the ultimate authority in government and leave out the citizen's voice; you devolve into classes and become cynical concerning your brother otherwise law-abiding citizens who dont see things the way you do. This allows those who are worshipers of the law and its apparagics to become "super citizens" and "upholders of rightdoing" which can allow for a casual kicking around of us dissenters. That effectively repeals the First Amendment and the right to vote --- you simply dont need the vote or free political speech -- the legal enterprize will tell you all you need to know, dictate what you will do, then enforce it at the point of the gun and arrest powers if you dont do what they say. I dont like that, and neither sould you. That's why we have elections, debate, and "checks and balances" (...for the time being, anyway...).

The problem with our system at this juncture in history is the tendency of our society to see the law and the supreme court as the ultimate authority; rather that what it was originally meant to be. A mere interperter of the law. As our society devolves further into hedonism and anarchy and ethical teachings are forgotten and/or disregarded; more "tools" are needed to fight crime and keep the peace. This results in the citizens of the usa being increasingly put upon in the name of giving law enforcement all the tools they asked for to "fight crime" thru a continual lessening and restriction of freedoms that was never envisioned by the founding fathers. Every time the fight aint goin too well; the law enforcement enterprize asks for more authority and leeway to infringe upon various citizens rights. That is exactly what this recent ruling and those berfore it is. I dont like that and neither should you.

I wont play the "facts" game in regards to crime reduction; simply because my casual obvservations tell me a different story. My neighborhood is simply not as safe as it was 10 or 20 years ago; and there are plenty of folks who would join me in that opinion.

I'll close with this: This issue is, at its heart, a philosophical one. The question is this:

Do you believe that the incursions into and resulting limitations upon your freedoms guaranteed by the constitution as the result of these rulings are worth the little bit of additional help given to those sworn uphold the law or not?

My vote is no. It may be ok for you; it aint for me.

As regards to "facts replacement". I dont believe there has been any; and i would ask you to point out specific examples. There has, indeed, been a different conclusion drawn --- worlds apart. Incidents cited in my posts are true. You may take a different view of them and thats ok. Casual observation and a bit of research will prove otherwise.

When you stoop to calling things that are true untrue; you are trying to impune the character and motives of those who disagree with you to lessen their credibility. That trick may work in court; but it is, at it's core, unethical. I've defamed you in no way. I have questioned your judgements and conclusions; not your motives. You need not question mine. I find that offensive.

Hope this little essay finishes this discussion. It is at a clear impasse.

leroy

[DaveTN]

Hope this little essay finishes this discussion. It is at a clear impasse.

What part of the Constitution do think guarantees you the right to beat the piss out of your wife, leave her bleeding to death in the other room, and then tell the cops they are no longer needed and try to block their entry?

As has been pointed out to you several times; nothing has changed here. But you seem to think that simply putting a door between a criminal and the Police protects him from capture.

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.

That word was put in there for this very reason. Was entering the home is this case unreasonable? Of course it wasn’t. Were the Officers justified in lighting him up with a taser? Of course they were.

[Guest 6.8 AR]

You referring to probable cause? Look at those words

directly following it.

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[leroy]

Dave:______________

Read the supreme court decision. Not the IN decision. The supreme court decision that scotches the IN decision is about police suspecting the destruction of evidence; not whupping up on your wife and barring entry. The IN sheriff that is talking about "random house to house searches" aint talkin about whuppin up on your wife and barring entry either.

As has been said before, i dont condone whuppin up on anyone (...nor do i believe anyone else here on TGO or in the "real world" does either...) while LEO or anyone else is standin around watchin for that matter. All my posts are aimed at "unnanounced no knock searches"; not standin by to get a warrant while some bozo kills someone else.

If an officer has "probable cause" to think something like mayhem is goin on or is in 'hot pursuit"; you dont need a warrant, and im ok with that. I have a problem with fishin trips, not real crimes in progress.

Sorry for any misunderstandin.

leroy

Edited May 23, 2011 by leroy

[Mark@Sea]

Dave, your straw man is burning.

The justices went far beyond "entering while domestic violence is occurring". They went so far, in fact, the Indiana AG is asking them to revisit the ruling. A state senator is promising a law to reverse the ruling.

There is a pretty hefty movement to can the sheriff who decided this ruling allows him to conduct warrantless, random home searches. Quite frankly, I wouldn't want to be a deputy in his department.

As far as precedent is concerned, several hundred years of precedent should be a good guideline - without a warrant, and barring a few very narrow sets of circumstances, the police have no right to enter your home at will.

Cops are citizens with the power to make a misdemeanor arrest. Those who would consider themselves as a separate class forget this at their peril.

"Only Ones" can become "Lonely Ones" quicker than you'd believe.

"Any man who covers his face and packs a gun is a legitimate target for any decent citizen" Jeff Cooper

[DaveTN]

If an officer has "probable cause" to think something like mayhem is goin on or is in 'hot pursuit"; you dont need a warrant, and im ok with that.

That’s the way it was when I started as a cop in 1978, and to the best of my knowledge that’s the way it is today (with the exception of Homeland Security). What do you think has changed, or what do this this decision will change?

You can’t resist the cops… period. It’s always been that way and it will always be that way. You can’t resist an arrest just because you think it’s unlawful…. Period.

Now… if you think the cop’s entry into your home or your arrest is a criminal act by the Police, or someone pretending to be the Police; you have to do whatever you think is right. But there’s a whole hell of a lot of difference in a Judge ruling later that a cop didn’t have probable cause; and a cop committing a home invasion. You can’t stop a cop because you don’t think they have probable cause; we have courts to deal with that. Court is not held on the street.

Ya know, I’ve had plenty of people, usually that are drunk, decide that they aren’t going to jail because I didn’t have cause, or I didn’tread them their Miranda rights, or any number of things they saw on a TV show. The ones that resisted ended up with more charges, the ones that fought ended up with felony charges; it just isn’t worth it.

[DaveTN]

Is this the Sheriff that you guys are so worried is going to go house to house kicking down doors?

On May 16, 2011, I was contacted by a reporter of an internet radio station. Her question concerned a recent Indiana Supreme Court decision, allowing police officers to make random warrantless searches. I advised her that I was not clear on that particular ruling; she then asked how the Sheriff’s Office conducted searches of residences. I informed her that searches were only conducted with a warrant, probable cause or when an officer is in hot pursuit. When questioned about the Supreme Court ruling, I advised her that as police officers, we enforce those laws set forth by our legislative branch. This reporter then asked about the violation of Constitutional Rights. This State Supreme Court ruling in my opinion cannot override our U.S. Constitutional Rights and I’m sure this state ruling will be revisited.

When I was asked about my thoughts on random searches and how people would react, I gave her the scenario of looking for a criminal or escapee. I advised her that if people were aware of this situation, they would gladly let you search a detached garage, outbuilding, etc., if it meant keeping them safe, but this would only be after securing permission.

This court ruling is just open for lawsuits if a police officer would attempt a random search without due cause. Somewhere in this conversation things were definitely taken out of context. I'm now quoted as saying the Sheriff's Office will be conducting random house to house searches.

I want the citizens of Newton County to rest assured that no member of the Newton County Sheriff’s Office will enter the property of another person without first having a warrant or probable cause to do so. I strongly stand behind my oath to uphold the Constitution of the United States of America, as well as that of the State of Indiana.

What 4th Amendment? Indiana Sheriff Says Random, Warrantless House To House Searches Are Okay | Techdirt

[leroy]

Dave:________________

My problem is "no knock door kickin searches" fishing for crimes you think are in progress; not the ones you actually know to be in progress. The supreme court ruling is about "thinkin that evidence is being done away with"; not "hot pursuit" or "mayhem in progress". That is what has everyone's hackles up. The supremes essentially said that "thinking that evidence is being destroyed" is enough to allow for door kickin searches and that the citizen had better not interefere with them.

My problem (...and everyone elses problem...) goes this way:

Number one: It appears that this ruling would allow the sheriff to ride down the street in front of my house. He can "imagine a crime in progress and/ or destruction of evidence in progress" (...if im understanding correctly...) at ANY time, not specified times for serving warrants.

Number two: He can proceed to initiate a no knock search and i better not interfere with it.

The big problem is: ...how do i know that it is, in fact the sheriff that is doin the door kickin when im layin in my bed in the middle of the nite with my shotgun or my AR next to my nitestand?? When the door cracks in, what would your reaction be?

As i and others have said; i cant tell who is who at nite and i may genuinely think my and my family member's lives are in danger when the door busts open and envoke the "castle doctrine". When i do that; either i or someone else could be dead. That, in a nutshell, is the crux of the problem. Any legal niceties and pronouncements may not mean too much to those layin dead or maimed as the result of this foolishness.

Havin said all this; do ya understand why everyone is stirred up?

Number three: When the shootin and killin is all over and someone is maimed and/or dead; the sheriff who started all this can invoke this legal precident and say " i thought they wuz destroyin evidence." The poor private citizen (...if he and his family members are still alive...) is turned into a criminal simply because he was protecting his home and family.

RE: the "random house to house sheriff" is indeed the one you've identified. looks to me like he may have come to his senses. He may have realized that there will be another election in the near future.

Hope this clears things up a bit more.

leroy

[DaveTN]

Leroy,

If someone comes through your door at night yelling they are the Police, you have a decision to make. A decision that will decide whether you or someone else lives or dies.

This is exactly the situation that happened in Lebanon when the cops had the wrong house. The home owner fired on the Police and they killed him. He was innocent and he is dead. A terrible tragedy.

The Police had a warrant and it was signed by a Judge.

How often do you think that happens and what would you do to make sure that doesn’t happen again?

If I needed to arrest you and I knew that you were armed and had said you would kill cops that tried to arrest you; I would want a no knock arrest warrant and I would like to take you while you are asleep, with extreme prejudice, and I would like make sure if anyone dies; it’s you.

Or… I could have SWAT surround your house, giving you plenty of time to arm yourself and create a hostage situation.

How would you work that? Just call them up and see if they would like to surrender?

As I’ve said before I don’t support subdued uniforms or masks; it should be a crime for a cop to wear a mask on a raid. The entry Officers should be uniformed Officers that wear the same uniform Patrol Officers wear. I did it, I didn’t feel the need for a mask or subdued uniform. But then,I’ve been known to run with scissors.

[bajabuc]

It all boils down to the money...Not Guilty should mean you're free to go...not free after you pay court costs...not free to be fleeced by the attorney. Not Guilty means the government made the mistake and the government should pay.

[DaveTN]

It all boils down to the money...Not Guilty should mean you're free to go...not free after you pay court costs...not free to be fleeced by the attorney. Not Guilty means the government made the mistake and the government should pay.

Are you in the right thread?

[leroy]

Dave:_________________

Were goin around in a big circle here. You seem to be missing a key fact (...as near as i can tell...). That fact is that if im a law abiding citizen and the door breaks in in the middle of the nite, there aint time to find out who is knocking it down. That, to me at least, is a very dangerous situation for participants and bystanders on both sides of the door.

I got no problem with the police announcing who they are and expecting immediate compliance with "were commin in". That lets you know who they are; and that's what i think should be goin on.

This new ruling seems to allow (...ill grant i dont know this for sure; but it "seems" to to me...) for the officer drivin down the street to suddenly have a "vision or revelation" that something unlawful is goin on, and then he can proceed to kick in doors without benefit of a warrant, review, or anything else (...other than an ok from his supervisor...) because he "thinks that there is somethin goin on".

That puts this entire decision at one level without any review. My complaint (..aside from the ourtragous infringement on the fourth amendment....) about this is as much an officer safety issue as it is a citizen safety issue. You seem to believe that only civilians and would be hoodlums get shot. That aint necessarily so. Officers may survive the shootin better because of body armor, etc; but it is entirely possible that both sides of this misunderstandin can get hurt or killed; especially innocent bystanders.

Officers have family and the folks who could potentially get their doors kicked in have family too. Nobody wins in this if the shootin starts and the ones shootin back are only guilty of being at the wrong house (...which may happen to be theirs...) at the wrong time. Thats why this is so outrageous to most folks that look at it. I certainly hope im wrong about this; but thats what i believe the rulling says. Thats why i and others are stirred up about it.

leroy

[Mark@Sea]

This effectively recreates the 'Writs of Assistance", which were basically self written search warrants the Brits used. This was exactly the reason the fourth amendment was written.

They aren't Brits, but they might as well be wearing red coats.

[Guest 6.8 AR]

"We believe however that a right to resist an unlawful police entry into a home is against public policy and is incompatible with modern Fourth Amendment jurisprudence." This was a comment from the link with the Sheriff embracing the decision.

"Modern Fourth Amendment jurisprudence". What does that say about the Fourth Amendment? It means, "We'll get around to the rest of it, later. It's sufficient today, that we can do what we want". Shred one piece of the Constitution at a time.

This stuff could have come right out of an Ayn Rand book, almost verbatim. That's what surprises me. "modern", without looking it up, means that something is happening over time. One might want to take a closer look at what the scoundrels are doing, instead of what they are saying, because if it smells of feces, it will eventually end up in our face, oh, one, two five years down the road.

Instead of cowering and just saying it was like this all along, and refusing to admit there is a cause and effect in everything in society, one might consider the irreparable damage potential to your freedom because of the usurpation taking place, instead of siding with something you might have an attachment to, and that's it.

I am equally surprised that some of you "supposedly" 2nd Amendment lovers would let this issue slip through your grey matter without unleashing some rational thought, instead of the usual cheerleading BS about one group or another. If I were to pick anything in this country to stand with, it would be the US Constitution, because without it you wouldn't have anything else in this country to be a

sycophant about.

The fourth amendment and Obamacare are sitting in the same place, as far as I'm concerned. They both have to be righted, and until they are, they are a disgrace to our way of life. that is, unless you consider some that is unconstitutional to be acceptable.

I still don't understand why some think academics are the only ones who can interpret the Constitution. So many of them usually get it wrong with their living, breathing crap. Others have a vested interest in the outcome of a particular situation. Ring a bell?

Edited May 24, 2011 by 6.8 AR