Indiana Supreme Court; No Right To Resist Unlawful Entry.

[SpasticGramps]

Meh, where's the anti-federalist argument when you need it? Oh wait, we aren't taught that argument and aren't allowed to study it as part of our education.

Very good point. Not too many have read the Federalist Papers. More and more I find myself wanted to side with the Anti-Federalist argument. We probably fucked up when we accepted the Constitution because it was the beginning of centralized power.

The philosophy is so extreme and outside of the mainstream American political philosophy these days that most will automatically dismiss it.

Maybe we will have an Anit-Federalist Renaissance in the future?

 

[immaculate]

Very good point. Not too many have read the Federalist Papers. More and more I find myself wanted to side with the Anti-Federalist argument. We probably fucked up when we accepted the Constitution because it was the beginning of centralized power.

The philosophy is so extreme and outside of the mainstream American political philosophy these days that most will automatically dismiss it.

Maybe we will have an Anit-Federalist Renaissance in the future?

It's been tried several times in the past to no avail. I think it goes something like "one person can't do everything, but everyone can do something." People today just don't care. But how can they? They've been slowly and steadily conditioned into their entertainment-induced slumber - and for some reason, they like it! Consume, consume, consume, freedom!, consume!

They'll care when it's too late, as the classic scenario always goes!

 

[ijim]

Gary Johnson or Ron Paul

 

[immaculate]

 

[genkisan]

Isn't Indiana the home of the most Neo-Nazi groups of any state in the US?

 

[FinallyFree]

at this point i've already accepted the fact that our government is out to make us slaves, and stripping our rights away is the first step. i think because of all the available information on the net they are stepping up the process... (globalists)

best you can do...don't fuck with the cops, and if you truly feel, without a doubt, that taking a cop's life is the BEST option for the scenario, go for it. let a cop put my family in danger, i wouldn't hesitate putting some 9mm rounds between the fucker's eyes

you want the best chance at survival in the coming decade? do your best to go off the grid. solar power, geothermal, well water with reverse osmosis systems, grow all of your own veggies and if you can, raise some animals or join a local CO-OP. still, even then, with property taxes they still try to fuck you and will cart you off if you don't pay...

we're all fucked. i just pray that i get to survive for another day, enjoy time with my family, and blaze. sucks i'll be out of weed until August. Fuck me.

 

[ak-51]

Within this country, this opportunity is formalized in the Second Amendment.

In my opinion, that level of resistance against our government should be reserved for the end, the revolution. Similarly to how Treason is a crime; it's intrinsic in the concept of our countries founding, yet the government cannot allow it to go on.

This country is declines to suppose lineage or divine affiliation as authority of law, but stands on the idea that there are some things innate (natural) that cannot be taken away (unalienable).

Which rights are innate or unalienable is pretty subjective. It's so broad that you could object to just about any modern legislation on that basis.

This Nations founding bias is radically tipped in favor of individualism over collective.

Isn't the very concept of democracy a step towards collectivism? In essence it is what is best is what is best for the majority.

The federal government's constitutional limitations are to provide for interstate commerce, international treaties and defense. Everything else falls to the states.

I agree, and I think we can both agree that the 10th Amendment has been run all over by the Federal government already. It defines a system that is quite different from our current one, of that I disapprove.

It's idea isn't to protect the collective from the individual, but the individual from the collective.

I don't think those two ideas are mutually exclusive, although they do clash in many instances.

The warrant is the mechanic to protect against unreasonable search. That's why it's called a 'warrant' (i.e. "authorization, sanction, or justification").

I think we are interpreting this amendment differently. It seems like they're implying that there are reasonable searches and seizures that do not require a warrant. If they wanted to restrict all searches and seizures to those that were warranted they could have simply removed the word "unreasonable".

Yes, this limits police authority. It is fucking supposed to.

It does limit police authority, but it also grants it. I think the neutral way of stating it would be that the 4th Amendment defines police authority. The constitution and the bill of rights leave a lot of details up to the Judiciary. I think it was designed that way.

I would suggest there is a different view of being on this planet, operating Lawfully. And the collective apathy doesn't change your Natural Rights and their corresponding Obligations.

I do operate by my own code. To me, a person who's morality is merely a copy of the law is at best a follower and at worst a slave. There is a distinct difference between how I conduct myself and what I feel the government should enforce.

 

[majortom9]

When piggs fly, er die whichever comes first.

When piggs fly, er die whichever comes first.

oops, double post

 

[majortom9]

When piggs fly, er die whichever comes first.

When piggs fly, er die whichever comes first.

Police coming into my house with a warrant would make me see red and all kinds of funny colors, without a warrant I will consider it a threat to my personal safety and they WILL be met with deadly force! If pushing up daises is what I get for it, so be it. This aint Nazi Germany people...not yet.

 

[medicalgreen]

Just last month, the Florida Supreme Court ruled that if a police officer wants to rape you, you have to take it up the ass.

The month before that, the Georgia Supreme Court ruled that if a stranger wants to kill you, you must lie down and submit, without resistance.

1 month before that, the Illinois Supreme Court ruled that if any mafia family member wants to steal your wife, it's perfectly legal for them to do it with force.

Personally, I don't give a shit what any court rules. They are all Bankrupt and adjudicating issues of bankruptcy, and nothing else.

Corporation courts rule for corporations, not people. The Supreme Court of the Corporation can rule anything it likes. It has no bearing on my life whatsoever.

 

[Stress_test]

I think that the biggest problem is that "we", as Americans have let our guard down and haven stopped physical or violent resistance to unlawful impositions from government officials.
They expect: Court action... "They" being the bureaucrats ...
They believe that any disagreements should be settled in the courts. "If you hit me I will sue you".
I disagree. If you hit me, "expect" an ass whippin. Kick my door in, "expect" gunfire because mine is an American household.

The problem with that line of thought is that the citizens of America are on the front lines and cops, DEA, or government agents ignore the laws which the bureaucrats are expect the population to abide by.

Our rights, freedoms and liberties were forged with blood and violence. It is very unlikely that we will keep them without the same.

I pray for a peaceful resolution but at the same time, I will NOT back down if confronted with blatant disregard for Constitutional rights, my Grandfather would haunt me forever if I give up that which he died to protect.

 

[ak-51]

Personally, I don't give a shit what any court rules. They are all Bankrupt and adjudicating issues of bankruptcy, and nothing else.

Corporation courts rule for corporations, not people. The Supreme Court of the Corporation can rule anything it likes. It has no bearing on my life whatsoever.

When people believe that nothing matters and they can't make a difference things can, and will, only get worse.

Anybody who has been busted can tell you that the courts definitely have a bearing on their life.

 

[ImaginaryFriend]

Or read this thread

No knock, no service = prowler = man protecting his wife = Marine shot dead with no evidence of crime.

First post quoted for convenience:

http://azstarnet.com/news/local/crim...f206f8301.html

No drugs were found. No shots fired by the "suspect."

Quote:
The Pima County Regional SWAT team fired 71 shots in seven seconds at a Tucson man they say pointed a gun at officers serving a search warrant at his home.

Jose Guerena, 26, a former Marine who served in Iraq twice, was holding an AR-15 rifle when he was killed, but he never fired a shot, the Sheriff's Department said Monday after initially saying he had fired on officers during last week's raid.
Quote:
Vanessa Guerena says she heard noise outside their home about 9 a.m. Thursday and woke her husband who had just gone to bed after working a 12-hour shift at the Asarco Mine, she said. There were no sirens or shouts of "police," she said.

Guerena told his wife and son to hide a closet and he grabbed the AR-15 rifle, his wife said.
Also neighbor accounts dispute the LEO story of going in "lights and sirens." Said they didn't hear any sirens...

Also, LEO would not let the emergency responders on the property until an hour after the shooting...

Quote:
The Sheriff's Department put in a call to Drexel Heights fire at 9:43 a.m. requesting assistance with a shooting. But crews were told to hold off.

Guerena was dead by the time they were allowed in the house, fire officials said.
...
"I kept begging the officers to call an ambulance that maybe he could make it"
SIAP
__________________

 

[paladin420]

Maybe everyone who thinks that an UNLAWFUL entry should be settled in the courts should ask Jose' his opinion?

 

[monkey5]

I agree!

I agree!

I think that the biggest problem is that "we", as Americans have let our guard down and haven stopped physical or violent resistance to unlawful impositions from government officials.
They expect: Court action... "They" being the bureaucrats ...
They believe that any disagreements should be settled in the courts. "If you hit me I will sue you".
I disagree. If you hit me, "expect" an ass whippin. Kick my door in, "expect" gunfire because mine is an American household.

The problem with that line of thought is that the citizens of America are on the front lines and cops, DEA, or government agents ignore the laws which the bureaucrats are expect the population to abide by.

Our rights, freedoms and liberties were forged with blood and violence. It is very unlikely that we will keep them without the same.

I pray for a peaceful resolution but at the same time, I will NOT back down if confronted with blatant disregard for Constitutional rights, my Grandfather would haunt me forever if I give up that which he died to protect.

Here we are..this is America..land of the free! Here:
http://www.personalliberty.com/cons...&rmid=2011_05_23_PLA_P11773540&rrid=387466790 Enjoy the read! monkey5

 

[Mr Eckted]

The warrant process is the mechanism of the Fourth Amendment. A lawful warrant defines the scope and target of search. Anything discovered, outside the color of the warrant is inadmissible in court. Thus limiting the reach of the government into private lives. This should not be compromised.

Well put

If I'm lying in bed, and I know there is absolutely NO reason a police officer would need to enter my house using probably cause (House party, fight with spouse, crimes or evidence of crimes in plain sight from outside ect...) and they don't say they're there to serve a warrant, how do I know it's really police and not intruders.

We don't defend our homes when police enter them because they do it lawfully, and identify who they are and why they're there beforehand. This law essentially makes it unlawful to defend your home against ANYONE. What's to stop me from kicking in your door in the middle of the night and yelling "police"?

Certainly not you, because you're afraid that even if you are in the right to defend your home, you will automatically be charged with murder or attempted murder. Meanwhile, while you were deciding what to do and trying to identify me, I've shot and robbed you.

Isn't the very concept of democracy a step towards collectivism? In essence it is what is best is what is best for the majority.

Democracy is the ultimate opportunity to express our individual preferences.

 

[crazybear]

In my opinion, that level of resistance against our government should be reserved for the end, the revolution. Similarly to how Treason is a crime; it's intrinsic in the concept of our countries founding, yet the government cannot allow it to go on.

Which rights are innate or unalienable is pretty subjective. It's so broad that you could object to just about any modern legislation on that basis.

Isn't the very concept of democracy a step towards collectivism? In essence it is what is best is what is best for the majority.

I agree, and I think we can both agree that the 10th Amendment has been run all over by the Federal government already. It defines a system that is quite different from our current one, of that I disapprove.

I don't think those two ideas are mutually exclusive, although they do clash in many instances.

I think we are interpreting this amendment differently. It seems like they're implying that there are reasonable searches and seizures that do not require a warrant. If they wanted to restrict all searches and seizures to those that were warranted they could have simply removed the word "unreasonable".

It does limit police authority, but it also grants it. I think the neutral way of stating it would be that the 4th Amendment defines police authority. The constitution and the bill of rights leave a lot of details up to the Judiciary. I think it was designed that way.

I do operate by my own code. To me, a person who's morality is merely a copy of the law is at best a follower and at worst a slave. There is a distinct difference between how I conduct myself and what I feel the government should enforce.

What do you mean the end? How do you know this is not the end taking more & more freedoms away & holding a PLANT HOSTAGE! If this country is not a POLICE STATE ALREADY IT'S ALMOST THERE!

 

[Hammerhead]

Check this I live in a Mobile Home park. The Check cashing place was robbed down the street. The park had 5 cop cars show up. 3 random homes front doors where kicked in to look for the suspect. I talked to all 3 of the people that they did this 2. None of them are Cannabis users or drug use. They dont have a criminal record.

So now the local LEO has the right to kick in your door if he thinks there might be a suspect in your home. If the front door is locked and no one is answering I dont think the suspect got in there. It was just a total invasion of all our privacy.

Its too late our freedoms are being ripped from us until none will be left. I feel so bad for the future generation. We live in a police country

 

[ak-51]

What do you mean the end? How do you know this is not the end taking more & more freedoms away & holding a PLANT HOSTAGE!

I don't really think that's a valid argument. That would be like if the Patriot Act was repealed and I said "well how do you know they're not just going to keep taking laws away until we have none at all and we live in complete anarchy!?" We don't need to speculate on what worse laws may or may not come, we're only looking at one ruling here.

If this country is not a POLICE STATE ALREADY IT'S ALMOST THERE!

We live in a democracy. There are plenty of dictatorships and totalitarian states in the world where we should know that we do still have some freedoms. I'm not saying America is the shining light of the free world, I don't think it is, but I don't think blowing the situation out of proportion is productive.