Third Party & Independents Archives

A Modern 4th Amendment?..

JusticeTraitor Steven David, .,
JusticeTraitor Frank Sullivan, Jr.
Chief JusticeTraitor Randall T. Shepard

Sorry about the formatting rules. I just heard about them recently.

I would care about your formatting rules if you took your citizenship seriously. I cant' see when you've done that, take your citizenship seriously, that is. Why should you. You're fat and happy, collecting your Social Security Benefits.

All you have to do on WatchBlog is be the biggest blowhard. Who cares about the U.S. Constitution? It's obvious you people don't. Otherwise you would have rose up against the rulings the Indiana Supreme Court and the U.S. Supreme court have just made

http://www.in.gov/judiciary/opinions/pdf/05121101shd.pdf

Posted by Weary Willie at May 19, 2011 6:07 PM
Comments
Comment #323669

Sorry to burst your bubble, but Liberal sites discussed this decision a long time ago, and not favorably.

Oh, and two wrongs do not make a right. Don’t leave valid claims around for your opponents to use against you.

Posted by: Stephen Daugherty at May 30, 2011 9:58 AM
Comment #323682

This liberal site didn’t, Stephen Daugherty.

This went right over the heads of the “learned” here on WatchBlog. I fine testament to our citizenship, to apparently not even understand what happened this month to our God Given Rights.

This is a Justice of the Indiana Supreme Court:

“We hold that there is no right to reasonably resist unlawful entry by police officers.

Do you understand what this so-called Justice said, Stephen Daugherty?

“NO RIGHT” TO RESIST “UNLAWFUL” ENTRY!

Who do these judges think they are?

Posted by: Weary Willie at May 30, 2011 4:36 PM
Comment #323687

Weary, Now that Indiana is in line with about 40 other states one has to wonder why you would blame the “liberals” here at WB for not posting an article on this issue. It causes one to wonder why you didn’t post one earlier rather than this weak attempt to cast dispersions upon WB writers. I do have to give you credit though for not blaming Obama for it, as is usually the case with the far right.

Wasn’t the majority opinion written by a Governor Daniels appointee? Doesn’t this issue simply reinforce the common sense opinion that judging the legality of the police officers action in the heat of the moment may not be a wise decision as the homeowner may be wrong in his assumption that the entry by police is illegal?

Calling these judges traitors is a bit much. It seems the tea party is taking the extremist position on this issue. But then they usually do.

Posted by: j2t2 at May 30, 2011 6:11 PM
Comment #323689

I don’t think 40 other states let cops wander thru people’s homes. You will have to clarify that with the curcumstances associated with 40 other instances where a court has defined probable cause and imminent danger. I believe, from what I’ve read about this specific case, is that the officers had probable cause when the call was made.

Facts aren’t clear but I believe the officers were being responsible when they insisted on entry to the home. They were called to respond to people fighting, the people retreated into the house when the cops arrived. My understanding is that the wife/woman involved in the dispute with the husband/man had made the 911 call. She was telling the guy to let the cops in. I believe the Indiana Supreme Court should never have entertained this case.

But, in doing so, they say that any cop can open your door and walk into your house, and you have no recourse but to stand there and let them do it?…

There are not 40 states that allow the police free access to people’s homes, j2t2. Right now, there is just one.

Posted by: Weary Willie at May 30, 2011 6:37 PM
Comment #323690

“Ivan Bodensteiner, a professor at the Valparaiso University School of Law, said that the decision brings Indiana law in line with that of about 40 other states that don’t recognize the common-law right to resist illegal police entry. Although he acknowledged the ruling was broad, Bodensteiner said it really didn’t conflict with the Constitution.

“It’s not a license for police to enter homes in violation of the Fourth Amendment,” he said.

Bodensteiner said the decision doesn’t really give police the power to enter anyone’s home illegally — it simply states that if they do, the resident must turn to the courts for relief.”

http://www.chicagobreakingnews.com/news/local/chibrknews-ind-ruling-on-illegal-police-entry-sparks-protest-20110519,0,1267277.story

Posted by: j2t2 at May 30, 2011 6:42 PM
Comment #323698
Professor Ivan Bodensteiner, of Valparaiso University School of Law, said the court’s decision is consistent with the idea of preventing violence.

What you’re saying, j2t2, is that we must stand by and allow others to enter our home, because not allowing them to enter our home would result in violence. You’re saying an ilegal act must be met with aquiesence? You’re saying the government can enter your home and take a peek in your Chestofdrawers, and then walk out, on his way to a judge that thinks it’s ok for the cop to walk thru your Chestofdrawers!

You’re ok with that, j2t2? What happens when they say the milk you have in your refrigerator, the milk they found when they ransacked your house, didn’t comply with the USDA guidelines?

What do you do then, j2t2? Do you spend time in jail? Do you loose your job because you’re in jail? Do you pay someone some money to get out of jail? Do you put your trust/Pay someone to defend your position?

You do all of the above, j2t2.

This is shoot first and ask questions later mentality.
Do you want a government with a shoot first and ask questions later mentality, j2t2?


http://theswash.com/2011/05/27/botched-drug-raid-kills-iraqi-war-vet-and-threatens-wife-and-child/

Posted by: Weary Willie at May 30, 2011 8:14 PM
Comment #323712
What you’re saying, j2t2, is that we must stand by and allow others to enter our home, because not allowing them to enter our home would result in violence.

No Weary what I am saying is not just any others but the police, even if they are wrong in doing so will enter your home anyway. Live to fight the battle in court or Martyr yourself on the alter of “dead right”.

You’re saying an ilegal act must be met with aquiesence? You’re saying the government can enter your home and take a peek in your Chestofdrawers, and then walk out, on his way to a judge that thinks it’s ok for the cop to walk thru your Chestofdrawers!

I am saying that it is your wisest choice, whether you like it or not, is to acquiesce. Shooting the cop will result an escalation of the violence and ultimately in them shooting you. It is a no win situation that is best resolved in court.

You’re ok with that, j2t2? What happens when they say the milk you have in your refrigerator, the milk they found when they ransacked your house, didn’t comply with the USDA guidelines?

If it was the reason for the search warrant then The search was legal. If it wasn’t the evidence is not permissible in court. You are still alive, the cop is still alive and life goes on.


What do you do then, j2t2? Do you spend time in jail? Do you loose your job because you’re in jail? Do you pay someone some money to get out of jail? Do you put your trust/Pay someone to defend your position?

Yes, Yes, Yes and Yes, more than likely Weary, but the good news is you are alive to defend your position in court. As a libertarian you should also for go any government help with costs for your defense and paying the bills whilst in the jail. However because it is a rich man’s world Weary,you will need money to prove the search was illegal. It is a sad situation Weary but since the conservatives have been chipping away at search and seizures for many years it is what it is. Especially with the courts packed with conservative judges, but then isn’t that what you guys want?

The drug raid you link to seems to be a different situation Weary. The police are now taught to be tough on crime, as conservative have demanded since the days of Reagan. We have been living with this type of police activity for 30 + years and you call the judges traitors for their position that will keep you alive in most cases, I don’t get it Weary. Perhaps you should be upset at the drug laws and the police who cross the line in these killings as well as the conservatives that support these methods.

Posted by: j2t2 at May 31, 2011 12:17 AM
Comment #323746

Your seventeen years old daughter is home alone after school and a policeman knocks on the door. The girl opens the door bacause it’s a policeman. The policeman says he wants to look around. He’s heard things and needs to check it out.

Your seventeen years old daughter may or may not have been taught the fourth amendment, but in this case she did hear about the decision of the Indiana Supreme Court and the U.S. Supreme Court on this very subject on tv… and she is your daughter.

So, she let’s him in….

Do you see where I’m going with this, j2t2?

Why are you saying the government must always dominate?

Stephen Daugherty threatens me,

Don’t leave valid claims around for your opponents to use against you.

Posted by: Stephen Daugherty at May 30, 2011 09:58 AM
and you tell me to get on my knees for my own good.

I am saying that it is your wisest choice, whether you like it or not, is to acquiesce.

Do you expect me to sit still for this kind of crap just because you did?

We have been living with this type of police activity for 30 + years and you call the judges traitors for their position that will keep you alive in most cases, I don’t get it Weary.

Your entire arguement gives police permission to act unlawfully! Your entire response is based on:

but the police, even if they are wrong in doing so will enter your home anyway

How very American of you, j2t2. We just paid respect to the people who have died to protect something you think we should surrender.

Posted by: Weary Willie at May 31, 2011 7:31 PM
Comment #323747

Pastor Martin Niemöller:


First they came for the communists,
and I didn’t speak out because I wasn’t a communist.
Then they came for the trade unionists,
and I didn’t speak out because I wasn’t a trade unionist.
Then they came for the Jews,
and I didn’t speak out because I wasn’t a Jew.
Then they came for me
and there was no one left to speak out for me.

Posted by: Weary Willie at May 31, 2011 7:37 PM
Comment #323750

http://www.cato.org/raidmap/

Posted by: Weary Willie at May 31, 2011 8:21 PM
Comment #323755
Your seventeen years old daughter is home alone after school and a policeman knocks on the door….

Weary, so my choice is have my 17 year old daughter shoot the cop and die defending her right to whatever, or have my 17 year old daughter in jail facing charges etc. I will take the later, hands down. Or I guess my third choice is have the cops reschedule with me to conduct their search but then what would be the point?

Why are you saying the government must always dominate?

Because most individuals that think the answer is to shoot the cop because they think it is an illegal search are worse than the cops, Weary. The government can get out of hand, in fact with the militarization of the police during the past 30+ years of conservative domination they have Weary. But the answer is not shoot the cop because you think the search of your house is illegal. The Waco wackos and the Ruby ridge extremist are a part of the reason the cops have militarized Weary. They have caused the problem with their extremist reactions to police investigations. Do you really want the police to say “oh never mind” if your 17 year old daughter is in your house being held captive by a psychotic killer making the noises you describe in your scenario?

Your entire arguement gives police permission to act unlawfully! Your entire response is based on:”but the police, even if they are wrong in doing so will enter your home anyway”

No it doesn’t Weary. I would agree that some police may stretch the law but even so if you resist and are killed how can you get your day in court? Suppose your interpretation of the law is wrong and you shoot and kill a cop Weary what happens then. Or suppose your interpretation of the law is correct and you are killed after shooting a cop, does it make you right and dead or right and still alive? Do you get do overs on this?

Do you really want the police to walk away each time a homeowner tells them their search is illegal!

How very American of you, j2t2. We just paid respect to the people who have died to protect something you think we should surrender.

Surrender what Weary? Specifically what have we surrendered today based upon the decision you think warrants calling these judges traitors? The surrendering happened many years ago when Conservative ideology took hold in this country.

Posted by: j2t2 at May 31, 2011 11:52 PM
Comment #323756

Weary good link to CATO, I agree that the police do get carried away but look at the deaths of the innocent and ask yourself if resistance at the time of the unlawful entry is worth the price these guys paid.

Your outrage should be directed at the militarization of the police force, IMHO. Remember the conservatives and their war on drugs , as well as the extremist who think they have a right to shoot at police are the problem as well.

Posted by: j2t2 at June 1, 2011 12:02 AM
Comment #323849

That pretty much sums it up. I posted to support the fourth amendment and I get a threat and an arguement.

j2t2, why didn’t the judges insist law inforcement revise their tactics in favor of more investigation and less John Wayne/Rambo? It seems like the path of least resistance to me. It’s easier to tell a law abiding citizen to forfeit their rights than it is to tell a police officer to obey the law. I get that from what you’re saying, j2t2. I respect your right to say it, but I don’t respect you for saying it. You most of all, do not deserve the protection of the constitution if you’re unwilling to defend it.

Posted by: Weary Willie at June 2, 2011 5:37 PM
Comment #323997
why didn’t the judges insist law inforcement revise their tactics in favor of more investigation and less John Wayne/Rambo?

Weary probably because their job is to interpret law not write the laws. It is up to the legislative branch of government to pass laws that protect the citizenry from law enforcement.

The problem is conservatives such as Reagan have demanded tough law enforcement. They were the ones that weakened search and seizure rights in order to fight the “war on drugs”.

Posted by: j2t2 at June 4, 2011 6:43 PM
Comment #324011
Weary probably because their job is to interpret law not write the laws.
Posted by: j2t2 at June 4, 2011 06:43 PM

I’m glad you used the word “probably”, j2t2.
You will be glad also.


j2t2, what do you call; “a modern 4th amendment”?

You’re saying it is a conservative who is responsible for rewriting the 4th amendment.

The problem is conservatives such as Reagan have demanded tough law enforcement.

You’re saying it is conservative judges that have made the rulings I am against.

They were the ones that weakened search and seizure rights in order to fight the “war on drugs”.

But you, j2t2, are defending these rulings. You are trying to convince me I should go along with these rulings. You are saying everyone should kneel before these conservatives while they wage their “war on drugs”.

Are you a conservative, j2t2? Because you are defending what you say the “conservatives” have done!


Posted by: Weary Willie at June 4, 2011 11:28 PM
Comment #324039

Weary I am not defending these rulings I am saying that to think the answer to a police raid on your house is to shoot it out with them is not the answer. I am trying to convince you that the way to win this battle is not by shooting it out with the police. It is a no win situation that only serves to make the unreasonable searches and the random searches that violate the 4th amendment needed to stop the criminals. I am not saying kneel before the conservatives I am saying the way to win any of these battles is through the legislative route. You may have to kneel before the cops as they ransack your house but that is only the battle. You want to win the war, so shooting at them only makes them stronger and you dead, live to win the war.

The Congress needs to pass laws that restrict this usurpation of our civil rights. Your argument should be with the Conservatism ideology that has engulfed the country since the 80’s. Your argument should be with those that spout freedom and liberty yet pass laws restricting these rights. Your argument is with those tea party types that have not passed a law to fight the type of rulings that make it possible for the police to violate your 4th amendment rights without recourse.

BTW that is quite an insult calling someone a conservative like you did.

Posted by: j2t2 at June 5, 2011 9:47 PM
Comment #324078

First off, j2t2, I did not call you a conservative. I asked if you were a conservative bacause you are defending the rulings and alse blaming conservatives for the rulings. You are also countering my points with a scenerio of your own making. I have never posited that the alternative is to “shoot it out with the police”. That was never said by me.

My position is, again to say, that the Indiana Supreme Court should have never entertained this idea of illegal entry. There was probable cause to insure the safety of all parties involved. The justices mentioned in this post are negligent in their duties when the made the blanket statement that a police officer is allowed to enter a home unlawfully. They are giving police permission to break the law. Furthermore, j2t2, any defense made by the police will be upheld because of this ruling. There is no going to court to seek redress because the court has set precident when thay made this ruling. All of the money you say needs to be spent defending yourself would be for naught because the court has already set the precident that a police officer can enter your home unlawfully.

These judges gave the police permission to break the law, j2t2! Why do you not understand that? Why do you defend that?

What good is a law if the courts will not support it? What good would legislation do if the precident has already been set?

This ruling is the death of our freedom and our U.S. Constitution, j2t2. You must get past your blind political partisanship before you can understand this. This ruling is too broad to be useful. This ruling must be overturned. I’m hoping this post will help bring this about. I’m hoping we can end this post with your agreement that the Indiana Supreme Court and the U.S. Supreme Court(in another case) have gone too far, j2t2.

Can we agree?

Posted by: Weary Willie at June 6, 2011 6:40 PM
Comment #324083
Cook County sheriff’s police on a drug raid smashed into a Southwest Side house late Thursday night, terrorizing the elderly couple who lives there before admitting they had the wrong house.
http://archive.chicagobreakingnews.com/2010/10/cops-invade-wrong-house-on-drug-raid-terrorize-elderly-couple.html
“As soon as we entered the home, we knew this couple was not involved in the activity alleged,” sheriff’s police spokesman Steve Patterson said in an e-mail.
“My parents are refugees from the Soviet Union. They are naturalized citizens. They have relatives there who were abused for political reasons. You might expect it there, but not here,” Jakymec said.

http://www.wgntv.com/videobeta/25c98b22-58b6-46e2-89d1-05b10952aaa4/News/Authorities-raid-wrong-house-for-drugs-guns

This is one example of a lack of investigation. This is a knee-jerk reaction to gossip that could have ended up in tragedy.

Posted by: Weary Willie at June 6, 2011 7:02 PM
Comment #324085

Let’s take a look at the death of the innocent, j2t2.

http://www.cato.org/raidmap/

Police executed a search on the home of Mertilla Jones in pursuit of a homicide suspect. A flash grenade was thrown into the home, reportedly landing on Mertilla’s 7 year old granddaughter, Aiyana. What happened next is disputed.
According to police, they entered the premises and announced their presence. Mertilla struggled with the police and one of their weapons discharged. The shot fatally wounded Aiyana who died at the scene. According to the Jones family lawyer, one of the officers fired into the home from the porch prior to any struggle with Mertilla, who struggled in shock at seeing her granddaughter murdered.

The incident was filmed by a television crew but the tape was confiscated by the police. The Jones’ attorney claims to have seen a copy of the tape and that it supports his version of the events.

http://www.time.com/time/nation/article/0,8599,1989857,00.html

At a press conference Tuesday, defense attorney Geoffrey Fieger, who is representing Aiyana’s family, offered this narrative: The flash grenade was thrown through the plate-glass window of the home’s living room, apparently landing on Aiyana, who was sleeping with her grandmother on a sofa. Almost simultaneously, he said, a shot was fired into the house. The grandmother, Mertilla Jones, said Tuesday that as soon as the grenade shattered the window, she leaped to the floor. “I wanted to reach my granddaughter,” Jones said, sobbing loudly. “I seen the light leave out her eyes, and I knew she was dead. She had blood coming out her mouth. Lord Jesus,” Jones continued, “I ain’t never seen nothing like that … You can’t trust Detroit police.” Police officers, Fieger said, then rushed through the front door, which was unlocked.

Posted by: Weary Willie at June 6, 2011 7:12 PM
Comment #324086

There are many instances where police have used force before investigating. The Indiana Supreme Court just gave permission and condone this behaviour when they ruled a police officer can enter your home without a warrant. That means they can enter your home before they have any proof, they can enter your home seeking proof, and can kill you if you do not submit, or they can kill you before you even know what’s happening, and it’s ok. The officer’s safety is more important than your home, privacy, family, U.S. Constitution, life.

Do you want to live in a country that let’s this happen, j2t2?

Denounce this behavour, j2t2. Let the courts know this is unacceptable behavour by insisting the Indiana Supreme Court and the U.S. Supreme Court reverse these rulings.

Be a patriot, j2t2.

Posted by: Weary Willie at June 6, 2011 7:34 PM
Post a comment