No right to resist entry by LEOs

[Bunnykid68]

Wonder if he will get re-elected

 

[finity]

The public in general will not know this new law and IMHO this will cause a lot of misunderstandings in the public relations of LEOs at large.

Ignorance of the law is no excuse. Right?

There are many who post on these gun forums (this is rabid on all of them) who probably were not the valetictorian of their senior class. They live a simple life and have a simple understanding of the law. They live in a world of Clint Eastwood movies and wishing for better days. It's pretty easy for "pot stirrers" to get them riled.

In reality, this Court decision changed virtually nothing.

So Kirk, T. Lex, E5Ranger, PatriotPride, jbombelli, Lashicon, Hickman, mrjarrell, CarmelHP, Prometheus, et al. I'd like to ask you all -

Which are you? The knuckle-dragging simpletons or the pot-stirrers that get them all riled up over "virtually nothing" at all?

I know which one I am,...but I'm not tellin'.

If the bad LEO enters your house and you don't think it was proper, there's a civil (and perhaps criminal) court just waiting to hear from you.

That's all well and good...unless your dead. Or the cops just make something up to cover their asses once they realize they made a "mistake" (intentionally or not), then it all becomes legal again.

I kind of fall on the side of Kirk's idea that MAYBE the police should be in fear of immediate repercussions from an innocent party to make them think twice about busting in someone's door, with or without a warrant.

We're not discussing public situations here. We're discussing the legal right that was given to LEO's to enter your home with no warrant, no probable cause, and no call to your house. Actual UNLAWFUL situations where they were never supposed to be in the first place.

I don't think anyone actually thinks that the courts just gave police carte blanche authority to enter without a warrant or PC...OK, except maybe that moron of a sheriff above.

Unless I'm mistaken all they did was say that you can't resist if they do. You can STILL sue them in court after the fact (for all the good it will do you).

Don't get me wrong, that's bad enough by itself & has far reaching ramifications but it's not (as Jake said) the end of the world...yet.

 

[Kutnupe14]

If that were the situation, he wouldn't be doing anything UNLAWFUL. If there is a bar fight and people point to you, he'd be doing his job by detaining you until proven otherwise.

So a person that isn't in violation of the law can be justifiably detained by police because of the word of another person? You're ok with that?

Whoa nelly! I need to find some pointers pronto....

I think I'm going to invent a new acronym... JBC (Jack-Booted Citizens)
I love the consistency of this place...

 

[The Bubba Effect]

So a person that isn't in violation of the law can be justifiably detained by police because of the word of another person? You're ok with that?

Whoa nelly! I need to find some pointers pronto....

I think I'm going to invent a new acronym... JBC (Jack-Booted Citizens)
I love the consistency of this place...

Kutnupe14, how do you feel about this ruling?

 

[silverspoon]

What do we need to do to reverse this.

Is this being appealed to a higher court?

It's time to give my representatives a call for sure.

 

[Kutnupe14]

Kutnupe14, how do you feel about this ruling?

I think it's a bad ruling. The scope is too wide, and gives LE too much room to "play." I believe that actions of the officers were lawful and correct (which again was not debated by the court) but the lengths the court would have allowed the officers IF their entry was unlawful is 100% incorrect.

 

[The Bubba Effect]

I think it's a bad ruling. The scope is too wide, and gives LE too much room to "play." I believe that actions of the officers were lawful and correct (which again was not debated by the court) but the lengths the court would have allowed the officers IF their entry was unlawful is 100% incorrect.

Thank you for your straightforward and thoughtful answer.

 

[Kutnupe14]

What do we need to do to reverse this.

Is this being appealed to a higher court?

It's time to give my representatives a call for sure.

I don't think it can be reversed unless because the court didnt make a determination of the legality of the officer's entry. I would think that another case with a legit unlawful entry, met with resistance would need to come up.

 

[ckcollins2003]

So a person that isn't in violation of the law can be justifiably detained by police because of the word of another person? You're ok with that?

Whoa nelly! I need to find some pointers pronto....

I think I'm going to invent a new acronym... JBC (Jack-Booted Citizens)
I love the consistency of this place...

I never said I was "okay" with it. I simply stated the fact. Go ahead and read what I said earlier 4 or 5 more times so you'll understand the difference between the term, "unlawful" and "immoral". If one or more witnesses were to pick you out to be the cause of the situation, or involved violently in any way, the police officer has every right to detain you at that time. Until you are proven innocent, you are guilty. Nevermind the way I stated it, it may look backwards but it is in fact the way it is.

You were saying this would have been, "unlawful" in that situation of a bar fight, which it is not. Is it wrong for him to make that mistake? Yes. Is it unlawful? No.

Maybe you're the one who needs to look up some definitions and do a little research. Nobody but you would have found the police officer in that situation that you gave as conducting in an unlawful manner.

I don't think anyone actually thinks that the courts just gave police carte blanche authority to enter without a warrant or PC...OK, except maybe that moron of a sheriff above.

Unless I'm mistaken all they did was say that you can't resist if they do. You can STILL sue them in court after the fact (for all the good it will do you).

Don't get me wrong, that's bad enough by itself & has far reaching ramifications but it's not (as Jake said) the end of the world...yet.

Tell me, what charges would your lawsuit consist of? If a police officer just up and entered your home, which by this ruling means he is doing nothing wrong, what charges would you bring against him? No crimes have been committed. Are you going to charge him with being a police officer?

Seriously though, what charges can you bring up against a police officer if he does conduct a "random" search of your house, like that Sheriff wants to do.

 

[PatriotPride]

So Kirk, T. Lex, E5Ranger, PatriotPride, jbombelli, Lashicon, Hickman, mrjarrell, CarmelHP, Prometheus, et al. I'd like to ask you all -

Which are you? The knuckle-dragging simpletons or the pot-stirrers that get them all riled up over "virtually nothing" at all?

I know which one I am,...but I'm not tellin'.

Hmmm. It makes me chuckle to see someone without a valid argument do the only thing they can: try to insult the intelligence and experience of those they disagree with. Truly humorous.

 

[jbombelli]

Ignorance of the law is no excuse. Right?





So Kirk, T. Lex, E5Ranger, PatriotPride, jbombelli, Lashicon, Hickman, mrjarrell, CarmelHP, Prometheus, et al. I'd like to ask you all -

Which are you? The knuckle-dragging simpletons or the pot-stirrers that get them all riled up over "virtually nothing" at all?

I know which one I am,...but I'm not tellin'.

I'm Batman.

 

[The Bubba Effect]

Does anyone who actually read the ruling see anything to imply that this gives LEO's the right to enter a dwelling without warrant or exigent circumstances?

I'm not a lawyer, but it appears to me to say that you cannot resist law enforcement if they try to force their way into your house, whether they have a legal right to come in or not. That's a mess in itself, but I don't see what gives people the impression that this ruling gives police the right to enter without a warrant or exigent circumstance.

Please take note that I am not saying I agree with the "right to resist" part of the ruling. I think that's a violation of a person's natural rights. I just think there's a real problem and there's a pretend problem here and I want to make sure we focus all of our efforts on fighting the real problem. If I misread the ruling, then I need to know, so help me out folks.

Am I missing something?

PS:

@Jake46184

Your advice seems to be that we should calm down and not be outraged at this unjust interpretation of the law because this interpretation is not likely to be applied against us.

I am outraged because I believe that this interpretation of the law is unjust. I believe that above all, the law must be just. If I am to follow the law, it will be because either I believe it to be just and worthy of following or because I fear the punishment that will fall on me if I do not follow it.

If I follow it out of fear of punishment, it makes me a coward. I want to live in a decent society where people get along and respect each other. I want to follow the law. I want the law to be worth following. I have no intention of being a coward.

Go ahead and make a smart comment about me watching to many Clint Eastwood movies if you want, but I was always more of a John Wayne man myself, so get it right if you're going to do it.

PPS: Pots need stirring lest the porridge becomes complacent.

 

[88GT]

Let's say there's a fight at a bar that you weren't involved in, police are called, and arrive. The entire scene is confusing, some one in error points to you as being one of the combatants, and police try to detain you. Do you resist?

So a person that isn't in violation of the law can be justifiably detained by police because of the word of another person? You're ok with that?

Whoa nelly! I need to find some pointers pronto....

I think I'm going to invent a new acronym... JBC (Jack-Booted Citizens)
I love the consistency of this place...

Let's make this a little more applicable to the ruling, if we can. The ruling specifically addresses unlawful ENTRY into the home, not simply erroneously detaining someone based on bad information taken in good faith.

If you want to use your example, the fight breaks out on the sidewalk of a residential neighborhood and the instigator retreats into his home. Even thought the responding LEOs have the right man, they have no right to enter his home to question him.

Now that we've got apples back in our basket instead of oranges, I'll answer your question: Yes, I will resist. The IN Supreme Court can suck donkey balls.

 

[The Bubba Effect]

So Kirk, T. Lex, E5Ranger, PatriotPride, jbombelli, Lashicon, Hickman, mrjarrell, CarmelHP, Prometheus, et al. I'd like to ask you all -

Which are you? The knuckle-dragging simpletons or the pot-stirrers that get them all riled up over "virtually nothing" at all?

I hope I'm a pot stirrer. I am kind of knuckle draggy though (long arms and short legs).

 

[Kirk Freeman]

I kind of fall on the side of Kirk's idea that MAYBE the police should be in fear of immediate repercussions from an innocent party to make them think twice about busting in someone's door, with or without a warrant.

Oh, come now, we have nothing to fear. It's not like we have law enforcement officers advocating kicking in doors and conducting house to house searches in light of this ruling . . .

IN Sheriff: If We Need to Conduct RANDOM HOUSE to HOUSE Searches We Will | Today's Lead Story

ummm, wait a minute, now that the police think they have nothing to fear, door to door searches ARE in the immediate future.

Well, the state supreme court will defend our ancient rights.

 

[jbombelli]

Well, that didn't take long.

 

[ckcollins2003]

Does anyone who actually read the ruling see anything to imply that this gives LEO's the right to enter a dwelling without warrant or exigent circumstances?

I'm not a lawyer, but it appears to me to say that you cannot resist law enforcement if they try to force their way into your house, whether they have a legal right to come in or not. That's a mess in itself, but I don't see what gives people the impression that this ruling gives police the right to enter without a warrant or exigent circumstance.

Please take note that I am not saying I agree with the "right to resist" part of the ruling. I think that's a violation of a person's natural rights. I just think there's a real problem and there's a pretend problem here and I want to make sure we focus all of our efforts on fighting the real problem. If I misread the ruling, then I need to know, so help me out folks.

Am I missing something?

To try and explain it better, the part of it saying, "unlawful entry" means they do not have to have a warrant, probable cause, or any cause for that matter to enter your home. You cannot resist if they want to come inside. You just have to let it happen and let them go about their ways.

"Unlawful" is such a broad term it can mean anything from, "they were called and entered the house without permission" all the way up to "breaking and entering", not saying police are going to start robbing people at gun point, just to clarify that breaking and entering is in fact unlawful entry.

IMO, the term "unlawful" needs to be taken out of the ruling. I say if they have probable cause or reason to believe someone may be in danger, they should be allowed entry and met with absolutely no resistance.

In terms of the Barne's case, I approve. In terms of ruling complete unlawful entry to LEO's with the entire population of Indiana based on a single incident, I don't approve.

Hope this helped to explain it a little better for you.

 

[SemperFiUSMC]

I heard tonight that the Noble County SOG has been executing no-knock warrants for unpaid hospital bills. Anyone heard anything about this?

 

[ckcollins2003]

I heard tonight that the Noble County SOG has been executing no-knock warrants for unpaid hospital bills. Anyone heard anything about this?

I heard they found Alf during one of those raids...

 

[The Bubba Effect]

To try and explain it better, the part of it saying, "unlawful entry" means they do not have to have a warrant, probably cause, or any cause for that matter to enter your home. You cannot resist if they want to come inside. You just have to let it happen and let them go about their ways.

"Unlawful" is such a broad term it can mean anything from, "they were called and entered the house without permission" all the way up to "breaking and entering", not saying police are going to start robbing people at gun point, just to clarify that breaking and entering is in fact unlawful entry.

IMO, the term "unlawful" needs to be taken out of the ruling. I say if they have probable cause or reason to believe someone may be in danger, they should be allowed entry and met with absolutely no resistance.

In terms of the Barne's case, I approve. In terms of ruling complete unlawful entry to LEO's with the entire population of Indiana based on a single incident, I don't approve.

Hope this helped to explain it a little better for you.

I'm with you on the "unlawful" part.

The point I think we might be interpreting differently is whether or not the homeowner still has recourse through the courts against "unlawful entry".

The way I read it is that a person cannot legally physically resist the entry, but an entry without warrant or probably cause would still be considered unlawful. If I'm right, the homeowner cannot physically impede/light on fire/shoot/set dogs upon an unlawfully intruding LEO, but can instead only sue them in court for their illegal entry.

It's not as the homeowner has no recourse against illegal entry, it's just that the homeowner must seek their recourse only in the courts, rather than by defending their home by force.

Is that how you see it?

If I'm right, I still think it's a bad deal, but a different animal than the total dismissal of the homeowner's protection against illegal search.