Court rules: No Right to Resist Illegal Entry by Police

[sudden valley gunner]

Yes, but in application it is not void from inception. The law, or Law is only found void by SCOTUS.

Patently untrue.

SCOTUS was never meant to be and never meant to have the tyrannical power to define constitutionality of laws. They took this power wrongly and immorally for themselves.

 

[Citizen]

Patently untrue.

SCOTUS was never meant to be and never meant to have the tyrannical power to define constitutionality of laws. They took this power wrongly and immorally for themselves.

Pssst, SVG. She said "in application." She's right.

You're right, too. Its just that you're right about something else.

 

[Beretta92FSLady]

Pssst, SVG. She said "in application." She's right.

You're right, too. Its just that you're right about something else.

I knew someone is reading my posts!

Patently untrue.

SCOTUS was never meant to be and never meant to have the tyrannical power to define constitutionality of laws. They took this power wrongly and immorally for themselves.

Tell me then, what was SCOTUS mean to 'do' (not be).

"They 'took' the power 'wrongly' and 'immorally' for themselves," please, explain to me how they 'took' the power, how it was 'wrong', and what makes it 'immoral'. Thank you.

 

[EXTREMEOPS1]

+1

Go down what road? Responding to an individual or group of individuals breaking in your door with guns drawn, claiming to be LEO, when you know for a fact that you have not committed any crime. If I am sitting in my home, and an individual or group of individuals break into my home, me being of the mind that there is no reason an LEO agency would be invading my home, I would assume that the individuals are posing as LEO's. Does that conclusion seem unreasonable? FWIU, conservatively, 10% of raids are at the wrong address.

The issue here is that from what I understand, and you can correct me if I am wrong, if the LEO serving the warrant, or entering your home (without warrant) in 'good faith', meaning, they reasonably believed that the entry was valid, will not allow for you to successfully pursue 'civil remedies'. If I am wrong about this, link me up.

Break my door down claiming to be LEO.......OH Hell No!!!!!!

 

[Citizen]

SNIP Tell me then, what was SCOTUS mean to 'do' (not be).

"They 'took' the power 'wrongly' and 'immorally' for themselves," please, explain to me how they 'took' the power, how it was 'wrong', and what makes it 'immoral'. Thank you.

See Article III of the federal constitution.

http://topics.law.cornell.edu/constitution/articleiii

SCOTUS is not delegated the power to decide the meaning of the constitution itself.

Now, in one sense, the rationale in Marbury vs Madison makes sense. SCOTUS (or any court) would have to be able to say such-and-such is unconstitutional. I'm not particularly talking about a check or balance here. I'm talking about whether a court can be required to go along with such-and-such government assertion. If something were unconstitutional, but the court was required to go along with it, the court would no longer be independent. And could be required to accept arguments for which the judges had no authority to accept, driving honest, constitution-minded judges into ethical dilemnas. Thus, SCOTUS having authority to rule on constitutionality makes sense.

Or, so you would think if you read Marbury vs Madison and took its limited viewpoint.

All it takes is a little imagination to figure out another possible solution. One pro-freedom author, Kenneth Royce, suggested that any constitutionality questions could be resolved by a super-court made of the Chief Justices of the several states. The key lies in the fact that SCOTUS, in Marbury v Madison, did not have to take that exact solution to the problem. They could have said, "We don't have authority to rule on constitutionality. We need either the authority, or a ruling by another body before it gets to us."

Inasmuch as the constitution and fedgov are creatures of the states, any questions about the meaning of the constitution are deservedly questions for the states themselves to answer, not the fedgov to answer for itself. Especially since the whole reason for having a constitution is to limit the government thus created. Its a false limitation if the fedgov gets to decide what its own limits are. We all know where that leads.

 

[Citizen]

Posing as LEOs? Actual LEOs?

Already happened. On May 5th. Before the ruling.

Jose Guerena, former Marine. Killed by SWAT while he was defending his home. No drugs found.

According to his wife, Jose's last words were: "Vani, go into the closet with the kid. Go!" He then grabbed his AR-15 and went to confront the people who threatened his family. Seven seconds later, he was dead. His killers unleashed a fusillade of 71 shots...

During the assault on her home, Vanessa called 911, and a team of paramedics was dispatched by the nearby Drexel Heights Fire/Rescue department. Medical personnel arrived within two minutes of that call. After emerging from her hiding place, the terrorized woman pleaded with the SWAT team to allow the rescue workers to treat her husband. Rather than doing so, they held help at bay for over an hour – until their victim was dead – supposedly in the interest of "security."

http://lewrockwell.com/grigg/grigg-w212.html

 

[Beretta92FSLady]

See Article III of the federal constitution.

http://topics.law.cornell.edu/constitution/articleiii

SCOTUS is not delegated the power to decide the meaning of the constitution itself.

"...with such exceptions, and under such regulations as the Congress shall make," I am guessing this line is where you derive your reasoning?

Or are you stating that SCOTUS is not there to do anything but find a 'thing' to be either Constitutional or unConstitutional? You do realize that there is a process that the Justices go through, a reasoning process, hopefully a logical one at that, where they make a finding on whatever case they are presented with. In order to come to that finding requires that they examine the area of the Constitution by which the issue is being argued, look at past rulings, and findings if there are any, how those rulings, and findings relate to the issue being argued, then the Justices, based on their interpretation of the Constitution makes a finding.

Please, let's not get into the whole "the Constitution is not for interpretation" B.S. If that was the case then all of the Justices would come to the same conclusion, and make the same finding. Obviously the Justices interpret the Constitution. On paper it might look all pretty, and stuff, this idea that the Justices find the Constitutionality of some 'thing' absent interpretation, but in application, interpretation is part of the process of making a finding.

Now, in one sense, the rationale in Marbury vs Madison makes sense. SCOTUS (or any court) would have to be able to say such-and-such is unconstitutional. I'm not talking about a check or balance here. I'm talking about whether a court can be required to go along with such-and-such government assertion. A court has got to have the power to say, "No, we do not have the authority to approve such argument as the government is making. It is unconstitutional." And, if the court has that latitude, it necessarily means the court would have the latitude to approve such-and-such government argument as being constitutional.

The Court doesn't go along with "such-and-such" Government assertion. The Government argues why some 'thing' is Constitutional, and another party argues why that 'thing' is unConstitutional, then the Court finds the 'thing' to either be Constitutional, or unConstitutional.


Also, to what I think is your point - there is nothing the the ruling you cited that appears off. SCOTUS found that the Supreme Court of the United State is the judicial review, and that the Constitution is the "the fundamental and paramount law of the nation" (http://www.oyez.org/cases/1792-1850/1803/1803_0/). What else were they going to find...that the Constitution is not the Law of the Nation, and that the Supreme Court of the United States is not the judicial review?


Sovereignists, and Constitutionalists are under this impression that there is some 'Freedom' that has somehow eluded us all in the 20th, and 21st century. That this 'Freedom' was once there, but no longer is. Give me a freaking break. There were laws, and Laws prior to this ruling, and there will be laws, and Laws always.

 

[SouthernBoy]

INDIANAPOLIS | Overturning a common law dating back to the English Magna Carta of 1215, the Indiana Supreme Court ruled Thursday that Hoosiers have no right to resist unlawful police entry into their homes.
In a 3-2 decision, Justice Steven David writing for the court said if a police officer wants to enter a home for any reason or no reason at all, a homeowner cannot do anything to block the officer's entry.

http://www.nwitimes.com/news/local/...cle_ec169697-a19e-525f-a532-81b3df229697.html

Apparently they made the decision based on the premise that confrontation can lead to violence and that any illegal entry can be corrected in court. More dilution of our rights compared to the State.

If I might, just for a moment, move this thread back to the original precept reported by the OP...

I seem to recall reading some case law in Virginia where this would not hold water. In other words, a citizen is entitled to resist an illegal activity of a police officer(s) when said action may put his life or property in jeopardy. He may use whatever force is needed to stop this assault on his person. The caveat is that the officer(s) actions must be clearly illegal. When an officer acts in this fashion, he is acting outside of the law and is therefore no longer an officer of the law but rather an outlaw.

I welcome corrections to this post as I consider it to be a very important matter. I do remember a man who shot a Fairfax police officer during a break-in of his home by the officer (may have been more than one). He was acquitted at trial and the judge admonished both the officer/department and the citizen. He didn't like the idea of citizens shooting police, but he found the citizen's actions to be proper under the instant circumstances.

 

[sudden valley gunner]

Sovereignists, and Constitutionalists are under this impression that there is some 'Freedom' that has somehow eluded us all in the 20th, and 21st century. That this 'Freedom' was once there, but no longer is. Give me a freaking break. There were laws, and Laws prior to this ruling, and there will be laws, and Laws always.

Unless you like tyranny there are many "freedoms" that have been lost to us. And the constitution is not meant to "interpreted" differently than what it was says, period and thats not BS. You have made many of our points in your own statements on the different opinions the judges have. They allow their own wants, desires and political ties influence their decisions and to twist the meaning of something to fit that. It is very disappointing they do this and very wrong. Oh and let's not forget that Presidents try to pack the court, and many of these decisions were made under "duress" and threats. Especially FDR's mass amounts of unconstitutional "laws" and programs.

Ever heard of Blackstone's Commentaries? His description of how law works and the "...absolute rights inherit in every Englishman " is what our legal system is supposed to be based on. It is the basis for the constitution and our government.

What has happened since then is the socialistic philosophies of Bentham who believed law was the tool for the government has steadily eroded our legal system, and of course those in power like this because it gives them more power. And they have tricked many in the population that this is how it is supposed to be and always will be. Sounds like you feel the same.

 

[nobama]

+1 when you have jackasses ruling against the Constitution OR against the will of the people, (obama care) you have tyranny. Thats why the left says the constitution is a living,breathing thing that has to be molded into todays times. This is for what they claim to be the "common good" Horse s%$t. If they came out and said what they really wanted to do, they would never get elected.

 

[eye95]

Actually there have been rulings that acquitted folks for resisting illegal actions by LEOs.

The point is well-made, though, that one needs to be legally sure of himself (or in immediate rational fear of life or limb) to resist. If I am sure that the cops are acting illegally, I will resist. If I am sure that not resisting will result in imminent danger to my life or limb, I will resist. Otherwise, I will seek my remedies in court.

You can't stop bad things from happening to you. At best, you can reduce the probability and be prepared for the eventuality.

 

[TFred]

I was out of town all weekend, and just saw this today.

There are at least two major problems with this ruling, problems that must not be allowed to stand. I don't know what course of action is available, if this case will be appealed to the SCOTUS, or if there may be a grassroots effort in Indiana to overturn the ruling via legislation... something must be done if we are to preserve the core nature of what is (or is fast becoming "was") the United States of America.

1. This ruling protects the bad behavior of cops. The common law allowance for a person to resist illegal acts by LEOs does one thing in a very big way: it ensures that every LEO knows, if only in the very back of their mind, that if they are going to be a criminal in a uniform, then they take on the risks of that criminal behavior, and could end up dead or injured as a result of their criminal activity. Even if only a little bit, this gives a criminal-minded LEO a reason to reconsider. This ruling takes that away. Cops who decide to be criminals have free reign against a citizenry who is now in fact, disarmed to resist.

Reduction of violence may be a worthy goal... but we should never protect a criminal from the prospect that his victim may employ righteous violence to resist serious injury or death.


2. This ruling protects criminals who claim to be cops. This is by far the worst outcome of this ruling. What home-invading criminal in his right mind will now not yell "POLICE" at the top of their lungs as they break down the door? This is virtually the same as any gun-control scheme, it disarms the law-abiding citizens, and leaves only the criminals armed with deadly weapons. Just as with all gun-control, it is doomed to fail because criminals do not obey the law.

I sure hope this ruling gets a ton of press coverage, the sheep need to know what is happening, and how they are being reduced to helpless victims by these liberal courts.

TFred

 

[jeremy05]

Sounds like a good ruling to me.

From what I have read so far, and i may have jumped the gun on responding, but

A LEO enters the house, which he believes to be legally without a warrant and you want to resist him by some means.

A court the the best place to resolve any disputes that you would have with this. Also if the LEO is wrong then $$$$ for you.

 

[jeremy05]

2. This ruling protects criminals who claim to be cops. This is by far the worst outcome of this ruling. What home-invading criminal in his right mind will now not yell "POLICE" at the top of their lungs as they break down the door? This is virtually the same as any gun-control scheme, it disarms the law-abiding citizens, and leaves only the criminals armed with deadly weapons. Just as with all gun-control, it is doomed to fail because criminals do not obey the law.


TFred

By this logic, if a criminal is going to yell POLICE why not yell POLICE SEARCH WARRANT! Remember they are criminals.

 

[TFred]

By this logic, if a criminal is going to yell POLICE why not yell POLICE SEARCH WARRANT! Remember they are criminals.

The problem with your conclusion is that you are looking at the wrong parties. This doesn't change anything for LEOs acting legally. All this does is protect the LEOs who are either gone bad, or who are negligent to the point of having gone bad.

It's that fear of reprisal when they go bad that keeps everyone one their toes. This ruling grants this special form of criminal special status.

TFred

 

[Gunslinger]

Typically when an LEO does it, the issue is a Civil issue, and not a Criminal issue. Think of the LEO as not an individual, but rather, and extension of an entity that is the government.

Not according to 18 USC 241.

Like your new avatar. No one else thought to use a chimp.

 

[Gunslinger]

Most egregious violation of the 4th Amendment in the history of this country. The SS kicking in your door and taking a look around 'just because.' Some dead cops will show how smart this ruling was to 'limit violence.' And some massive legal settlements against rogue cops will quickly convince lawmakers they need to reign in the ******** on the supreme court. This will go to SCOTUS and be struck down.

 

[Beretta92FSLady]

Not according to 18 USC 241.

Do you seriously read the links before you send them?

I posted:

"Typically when an LEO does it, the issue is a Civil issue, and not a Criminal issue. Think of the LEO as not an individual, but rather, and extension of an entity that is the government."

Firstly, I stated 'typically', meaning' most of the time, but not always. Your link deals with 'conspiracy' which under the statute is two or more persons engaging in a direct, conscious act that is conspiratorial.

Statute as provided by your link:

" If two or more persons conspire to injure, oppress, threaten, or
intimidate any person in any State, Territory, or District in the
free exercise or enjoyment of any right or privilege secured to him
by the Constitution or laws of the United States, or because of his
having so exercised the same; or
If two or more persons go in disguise on the highway, or on the
premises of another, with intent to prevent or hinder his free
exercise or enjoyment of any right or privilege so secured -
They shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than
ten years, or both; and if death results from the acts committed in
violation of this section or if such acts include kidnapping or an
attempt to kidnap, aggravated sexual abuse or an attempt to commit
aggravated sexual abuse, or an attempt to kill, they shall be fined
under this title or imprisoned for any term of years or for life,
or both, or may be sentenced to death."

Like your new avatar. No one else thought to use a chimp.

We all know the implication of an avtar in these arenas depicting a chimp. It's one of those cowardly act I referenced before where individuals make a statement without officially making one. If you believe in some 'thing' then stand by it.

 

[Gunslinger]

The police never needed a search warrant to enter your house, just 'probable' cause; and 'probable cause' is a pretty broad term. Now, to search the home, yes, they need a search warrant, with the exception of 'clearing' the house for 'officer safety'.

Wrong, but that's your usual state, so what else is new? You need PC to 'get' a search warrant to enter a house. The police need probable cause plus exigent circumstances, or an emergency to enter your house without the consent of someone who has the authority to give consent, or a search warrant, or an arrest warrant for someone who lives there. Google "exigent circumstances" and you can find enough case law to learn what is or isn't considered exigent circumstances. A call from a neighbor that you're having a loud party doesn't cut it. The police have plenty of time to get a warrant under these circumstances and that's what they have to do.

 

[Beretta92FSLady]

-STATUTE-
“ If two or more persons conspire”
What is being established here is that this statute applies to “two or more persons conspire[ing].”
“ to injure, oppress, threaten, or Intimidate”
Conspiring to do what? What is the act, or acts? Well, “to injure, oppress, threaten, or intimidate.”
“any person in any State, Territory, or District in the”
Where would this conspiracy have to take place? In Russia? No. Apparently in the “State, Territory, or District,” of the United States.
“free exercise or enjoyment of any right or privilege secured to him
by the Constitution or laws of the United States, or because of his
having so exercised the same”
Ok, this is where you might have just browsed through, and assumed that there is not need for context.
Now, if an individual is engaged in the “…free exercised or enjoyment of any right or privilege secured to him by the Constitution or laws of the United States...”. We need to really dig a bit deeper into what this line is actually stating here.
The persons conspiring must engage in an act outlined above that would stop, or hinder the “free exercise or enjoyment”…but of what? “…of any right or privilege…”. Where are those ‘rights’, and ‘privileges’ derived from? Well, they are “…secured to him…”. Ok. What document or entity are these ‘rights’, and ‘privileges’ derived from? “…the Constitution or laws of the United States…”.
Basically, what is being stated here is that, so long as whatever the person is ‘exercising’ is considered to fall under a Constitutional, or lawful ‘right’ or ‘privilege’, the individual is ‘protected’ by this statue. And the persons directly, purposefully engaging in a conspiratory manner as outline in this Statute will be found in violation of this Statute, and subject to criminal prosecution.
Statutes, the Constitution, laws, Laws, etc., there is what’s on paper, and there is this ‘think’ I call “application,” meaning the application of these ‘things’ does not translate, necessarily, into a mirror image of the ‘Legal’ document.

I would go through the rest of the Statute, but hopefully, I clarified what the Statute states, and also what some of the terms such as ‘right’, ‘privilege’, ‘law’, and ‘Constitution’ require, which is ‘Context’, in order to establish what the Statute is, and is not stating.