Court rules: No Right to Resist Illegal Entry by Police

[Beretta92FSLady]

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.

I never stating that a loud party would allow for officer to enter, and search the home. You are a freaking liar if you are asserting that I stated that.

I stated that a neighbor calls because there are two individuals in an house fighting.

Your response lacks the context which my statements were made. Nice try though.

I wonder sometimes if people realize that the posts in their entirety can be read(e) by all people passing through. That means when you state that a person is stating some 'thing', an individual can easily scroll 'back', and see that you are full of it.

I encourage people to scroll back, see what I have posted, and the context which I posted it in, then come back to this response, and you will discover a disingenuous poster who lies about statements individuals post.

 

[Gunslinger]

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."





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.

18 USC 241 pairs with 242:

Whoever, under color of any law, statute, ordinance, regulation, or custom, willfully subjects any person in any State, Territory, Commonwealth, Possession, or District to the deprivation of any rights, privileges, or immunities secured or protected by the Constitution or laws of the United States, or to different punishments, pains, or penalties, on account of such person being an alien, or by reason of his color, or race, than are prescribed for the punishment of citizens, shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than one year, or both; and if bodily injury results from the acts committed in violation of this section or if such acts include the use, attempted use, or threatened use of a dangerous weapon, explosives, or fire, 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, shall be fined under this title, or imprisoned for any term of years or for life, or both, or may be sentenced to death.

Which is appropriate is dependent upon whether or not a conspiracy exists. 2 or more cops = conspiracy. It doesn't matter if it is cops in 241; it does in 242. The point is, you are incorrect in saying it is 'civil.' It most assuredly is criminal in either example.

Here is your requested statement, as to being "cowardly," it is not a term ever used in regard to me--in the military or civilian persona. (But you do tend to whine and weasel when backed into a corner by your logical ineptitude and insults are your favorite retort.)

Obama behaves like a trained ape, or chimp to give it a higher intelligence. He is not educated, he is indoctrinated. He can't speak without a teleprompter, has never had an orignal thought--only parroting his indoctrinated brainwashing, and is a simpleton on anything more sophisticated than a golf scorecard. Don't throw the race card in, because I don't gas what color the clown is. My opinions of klinton were far stronger. Obama never faced the draft, so could not be a draft dodger, like slick willy. If given the opportunity, however, I'm sure he would have been. Post a "kick me" avatar and expect to receive exactly what you asked for.

 

[Gunslinger]

I never stating that a loud party would allow for officer to enter, and search the home. You are a freaking liar if you are asserting that I stated that.

I stated that a neighbor calls because there are two individuals in an house fighting.

Your response lacks the context which my statements were made. Nice try though.

I wonder sometimes if people realize that the posts in their entirety can be read(e) by all people passing through. That means when you state that a person is stating some 'thing', an individual can easily scroll 'back', and see that you are full of it.

I encourage people to scroll back, see what I have posted, and the context which I posted it in, then come back to this response, and you will discover a disingenuous poster who lies about statements individuals post.

"The police never needed a search warrant to enter your house, just 'probable' cause; and 'probable cause' is a pretty broad term."

That is your quote. Show us again where you 'never stated' the cops "never" needed a search warrant to enter your house. Looks like you're the 'freaking liar,' doesn't it? The loud party I reference is merely a nominal situation. No one said you mentioned it. But your paranoia seems to be on the upswing. Why don't you post an avatar of bin laden, next.

 

[Beretta92FSLady]

18 USC 241 pairs with 242:

Whoever, under color of any law, statute, ordinance, regulation, or custom, willfully subjects any person in any State, Territory, Commonwealth, Possession, or District to the deprivation of any rights, privileges, or immunities secured or protected by the Constitution or laws of the United States, or to different punishments, pains, or penalties, on account of such person being an alien, or by reason of his color, or race, than are prescribed for the punishment of citizens, shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than one year, or both; and if bodily injury results from the acts committed in violation of this section or if such acts include the use, attempted use, or threatened use of a dangerous weapon, explosives, or fire, 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, shall be fined under this title, or imprisoned for any term of years or for life, or both, or may be sentenced to death.

Which is appropriate is dependent upon whether or not a conspiracy exists. 2 or more cops = conspiracy. It doesn't matter if it is cops in 241; it does in 242. The point is, you are incorrect in saying it is 'civil.' It most assuredly is criminal in either example.

Yea, and, your point? Refer to my previous statements regarding the Statute I referenced. You can add this to it, but it makes no difference in my conclusion.

Here is your requested statement, as to being "cowardly," it is not a term ever used in regard to me--in the military or civilian persona. (But you do tend to whine and weasel when backed into a corner by your logical ineptitude and insults are your favorite retort.)

So, he assumes I am referring to him, then he seeks to confront the accusation, or assertion.

Ready, and go:

Obama behaves like a trained ape, or chimp to give it a higher intelligence. He is not educated, he is indoctrinated. He can't speak without a teleprompter, has never had an orignal thought--only parroting his indoctrinated brainwashing, and is a simpleton on anything more sophisticated than a golf scorecard. Don't throw the race card in, because I don't gas what color the clown is. My opinions of klinton were far stronger. Obama never faced the draft, so could not be a draft dodger, like slick willy. If given the opportunity, however, I'm sure he would have been. Post a "kick me" avatar and expect to receive exactly what you asked for.

Easy out, short of calling Obama an ape, but rather, acting like a trained ape. Typical behavior of a coward to refer to a negro man as not being an ape, but acting like an ape, in order to have an easy out when someone points out that you just made a racist statement. As I said before, you believe in something, hell, you have convictions, then say what you mean, and mean what you say. If you want to refer to Obama as being an ape, just say it. Then, conveniently, referring to Clinton, as Klinton...freaking intellectual cowardice B.S. is all it is. Undertones galore.

 

[Beretta92FSLady]

"The police never needed a search warrant to enter your house, just 'probable' cause; and 'probable cause' is a pretty broad term."

That is your quote. Show us again where you 'never stated' the cops "never" needed a search warrant to enter your house. Looks like you're the 'freaking liar,' doesn't it? The loud party I reference is merely a nominal situation. No one said you mentioned it.

First, you quoted a statement I made, and I am not sure where that statement was made, nor the context of the statement.

You provide me with the context which I made that statement in, and I will respond to it. You post some statement I made, out of its context, you are the liar. Context please, or you won't get not one response from me regarding the quote. It's called retaining the context of a discussion. I am sure this is rather convenient for you to go about it this way since you have nothing significant to offer in response.

 

[Beretta92FSLady]

Post a "kick me" avatar and expect to receive exactly what you asked for.

Post racial undertones in your responses, and expect to be referred to as a coward.

 

[Gunslinger]

Yea, and, your point? Refer to my previous statements regarding the Statute I referenced. You can add this to it, but it makes no difference in my conclusion.

So, he assumes I am referring to him, then he seeks to confront the accusation, or assertion.

Ready, and go:

Easy out, short of calling Obama an ape, but rather, acting like a trained ape. Typical behavior of a coward to refer to a negro man as not being an ape, but acting like an ape, in order to have an easy out when someone points out that you just made a racist statement. As I said before, you believe in something, hell, you have convictions, then say what you mean, and mean what you say. If you want to refer to Obama as being an ape, just say it. Then, conveniently, referring to Clinton, as Klinton...freaking intellectual cowardice B.S. is all it is. Undertones galore.

Right. Scream "racist" at the top of your lungs and maybe some halfwit will believe you.Typical leftwing hysteric crap. Yeah, the "undertone" with klinton is that I am a combat Viet Nam veteran. He was a draft dodger who "kept (my) options open." By the way, what branch of the military were you in? If you did serve, I would give some credibility to your statements beyond leftist rhetoric. If not, your opinions are worthless in that regard, and puerile in all others.

 

[Gunslinger]

First, you quoted a statement I made, and I am not sure where that statement was made, nor the context of the statement.

You provide me with the context which I made that statement in, and I will respond to it. You post some statement I made, out of its context, you are the liar. Context please, or you won't get not one response from me regarding the quote. It's called retaining the context of a discussion. I am sure this is rather convenient for you to go about it this way since you have nothing significant to offer in response.

Originally Posted by mmdkyoung123
So now police don't need a search warrant. They can go house to house and demand to be allowed entry and do what ever it is they want to do. How can ANY one think that is how the 4 th amendment should be read/Interpreted. Just absolutely ridiculous. I can't use language in here strong enough to describe how wrong this is.


Your response and direct quote:

"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'. "

Makes you either a liar or fool--or both.

Quote: "you won't get not one response from me..." Now you can't even speak proper English. Better have a med.

 

[Gunslinger]

There is no general 'standard' for the LEO to enter the house, they can enter the house anytime, anyplace, at their discretion. .

What unmittigated BS. You really are one disturbed individual.

 

[Beretta92FSLady]

Right. Scream "racist" at the top of your lungs and maybe some halfwit will believe you.Typical leftwing hysteric crap. Yeah, the "undertone" with klinton is that I am a combat Viet Nam veteran. He was a draft dodger who "kept (my) options open." By the way, what branch of the military were you in? If you did serve, I would give some credibility to your statements beyond leftist rhetoric. If not, your opinions are worthless in that regard, and puerile in all others.

I don't need your credibility. The military didn't allow homos in. Whether I served or not is unimportant in this discussion, there are tens of millions of Americans that don't serve int he military for many reasons. Mine happened to be a denial.

 

[Beretta92FSLady]

What unmittigated BS. You really are one disturbed individual.

It's true, hence the court ruling included in the OP. You would only know that if you actually read(e), and are capable of staying OT through this thread.

 

[Beretta92FSLady]

Originally Posted by mmdkyoung123
So now police don't need a search warrant. They can go house to house and demand to be allowed entry and do what ever it is they want to do. How can ANY one think that is how the 4 th amendment should be read/Interpreted. Just absolutely ridiculous. I can't use language in here strong enough to describe how wrong this is.


Your response and direct quote:

"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'. "

Makes you either a liar or fool--or both.

Quote: "you won't get not one response from me..." Now you can't even speak proper English. Better have a med.

Obviously you are incapable of following responses. There is nothing out of the ordinary in my response. If it is not true, then prove it. Then I will respond with officer entering homes without warrants.

Put your thinking cap on before responding. I expected more from a Gunslinger.

 

[Gunslinger]

I don't need your credibility. The military didn't allow homos in. Whether I served or not is unimportant in this discussion, there are tens of millions of Americans that don't serve int he military for many reasons. Mine happened to be a denial.

We agree on something. You don't have any credibility.

 

[Gunslinger]

It's true, hence the court ruling included in the OP. You would only know that if you actually read(e), and are capable of staying OT through this thread.

The decision never made the statement that I said is unmittigated BS. You did. Res ipsa loquitur. As 99.9% of your statements are exactly that.

 

[Gunslinger]

Obviously you are incapable of following responses. There is nothing out of the ordinary in my response. If it is not true, then prove it. Then I will respond with officer entering homes without warrants.

Put your thinking cap on before responding. I expected more from a Gunslinger.

It's your EXACT QUOTE! What more do you want? "Never needed" isn't open to qualification. It is an absolute. There are instances, as I posted, where this can happen with circumstances unique to a situation. That's NOT what you said. "Prove it"??? Look up fruit of the poison tree; illegal search; the 4th Amendment.

And if you want to quote me on Obama, finish the quote. "indoctrinated, not educated" is key to the quote. Of all people, after your whining about being mis or inadequately quoted, you display a peculiar double standard.

 

[Beretta92FSLady]

It's your EXACT QUOTE! What more do you want? "Never needed" isn't open to qualification. It is an absolute. There are instances, as I posted, where this can happen with circumstances unique to a situation. That's NOT what you said. "Prove it"??? Look up fruit of the poison tree; illegal search; the 4th Amendment.

And if you want to quote me on Obama, finish the quote. "indoctrinated, not educated" is key to the quote. Of all people, after your whining about being mis or inadequately quoted, you display a peculiar double standard.

The first paragraph of your response: ...*wait, there are no absolutes. And yes, there are instances, but those instances fell outside of the context of my response which was fighting in a home, a 911 call being made, and an LEO showing up.

The last paragraph: 500 character limit. Don't complain to me, complain to the Administrator of this Site.

 

[Gunslinger]

Remember: this ruling is about an "illegal" entry by the cops. It is acknowledged as being "illegal." Kind of like when the NKVD rounded up the White Russians or Ukrainians, or the SS rounded up the Jews. Don't resist. Work it out in civil court. How'd that work out for them? Next step: take away the guns from the subjects so they can't possibly resist an "illegal" entry. These so called "justices" are ******* morons.

 

[Gunslinger]

The first paragraph of your response: ...*wait, there are no absolutes. And yes, there are instances, but those instances fell outside of the context of my response which was fighting in a home, a 911 call being made, and an LEO showing up.

The last paragraph: 500 character limit. Don't complain to me, complain to the Administrator of this Site.

Let's see: "never" is not an absolute. Ok, now I understand.

There have been thousands of Homosexuals who served in the military, many with honor and courage, no doubt. Don't use that as a reason you didn't. You insult them with the tergiversation.

 

[SouthernBoy]

Lots of love on this thread. Just pours right through.

 

[Washintonian_For_Liberty]

You know the worst thing about this ruling is that if it stands... it is going to come to every other State in the Union by petition or edict.

We are 1 minute to midnight with midnight being the second Civil War. And actually, since a civil war is a battle for power over the central government. And, since the first war between the States was not a battle for the central government, but to prevent separation.... the war that is coming to this nation will be the first true civil war.

The authoritarians are winning the legal arguments because they continually change the rules, or build every argument they have from precedent and Stare Decisis and not based on the Constitution.