Court rules: No Right to Resist Illegal Entry by Police

[sudden valley gunner]

We are supposed to be a republic, not a democracy.

Exactly

If you throw a frog into a pot of boiling water, it will jump right back out.

If you throw a frog into a pot if lukewarm water and slowly heat it to the boiling point, the frog will stay in the pot - and die.

Such is the erosion of our Constitutionally guaranteed rights!

And I'm starting to feel more froggy every damn day...

I'm starting to feel like the dead frog......

I have way to many inter reactions with police, court, judges, etc, the last few years than I would like. In our current society if you feel safe and protected by our system you are not paying attention. No one is safe and no one is protected by the laws that are supposed to restrain our government and keep us free.

 

[Toad]

This ruling may be onto something as it may be correct that we don't have the right to resist an unlawful entry... but instead maintain a duty to repel any such overreach of state authority by any means necessary.
Just a thought...

 

[riverrat10k]

Another good article from Karl Denninger on this.....

"Absent probable cause the act of forcibly entering the defendant's apartment was a crime. Using physical force, including a weapon, was a further crime. Indiana IC-35-42-2-9 appears to apply to a "choke hold" and is a class "D" felony. Battery with a taser is also a crime."

http://market-ticker.org/akcs-www?post=186593

 

[Dreamer]

Well, if anything good can come from this, at least we don't have to worry about the neo-con Governor of Indiana who supported this ruling, Mitch Daniels, running for President in 2012 on the Republican ticket...

http://market-ticker.org/akcs-www?post=186651

 

[Dreamer]

Another interesting way to look at this ruling is that perhaps the Justices in the Indiana SC are sick and tired of the over-reaching of LEAs, and decided to rule this way to get the case "kicked upstairs" to SCOTUS, where they will hopefully rule on the flagrant unconstitutionality of the ruling, and therefore get it entered into Federal Case Law, where it would have a LOT more weight across the nation than a "local" ruling in their own court...

Of course that is assuming that the Indiana SC is:

1) actually interested in maintaining the Constitutional Rights of US Citizens,

2) savvy enough to game the system on that level, and

3) not entirely in the pocket of the neo-feudalistic puppet masters who are chipping away at the US Rule of Law in their century-long agenda to return the West to a pre-Renaissance Feudal state...

 

[hogeaterf6]

Ind Gov Dniels did not support this ruling. He disagrees with it. The courts ruled it, not the Gov. Last I knew the 2 were a different ball game. Ind Gov is pro 2A. He signed 2 pro gun bills the last year, the last of which takes place July 1st.

 

[We-the-People]

The decision is wrong, we all know this. All we can do is work to get it to the SCOTUS and overturned before armed government agents invading homes becomes so intolerable that the people realize the tipping point has been reached.

As for the civil war, it is coming and it will begin through economic destruction of this country. When the dollar becomes worthless paper (the aforementioned discussion of the dollar being dropped as the worlds reserve currency is acurate and timely) hyperinflation will run rampant and civilization will fall to the wayside. It is inevitable unless the course we are on is stayed. Keynesian economists will disagree, Austrian school economists will agree. It's the same argument (socialism vs capitalism) that has been played before and is argued (on the side of socialism) in our universities today.

There is a reason the TEA party became so powerful in such a short amount of time. Lets hope they remain powerful enough to reverse the path of economic destruction that we are on.

 

[slowfiveoh]

Imagine having a conversation with someone who instead of adhering to the most probable definition of a law, statute, or constitutional enumeration, elects to try what meaning may be pried out of the words.

Imagine someone who cannot focus on the clear and obvious meaning of minimalistic constitutional amendments because they want to pretend that ambiguity exists within the words.

Imagine the observation of a double-agent or agent provocateur acting within the bounds of their role as a supporter of all that is RTKBA, while simultaneously attempting to cast doubt on all commentary and law substantiating said right by picking at the edges.


You will find yourself endlessly and tirelessly attempting to get through to an individual about the error of their ways, the lack of their logic, and the complete void of abstract thought between their ears.

The true problem, is that said individual does not want to concede to the raw, apparent truths.

Said individual wants to talk about how many different ways they can twist said words to apply their own meaning, and then attempt to get you to believe in it.


"Oh this is tragic. It is completely unconstitutional to allow law enforcement officers unfettered access to the homes of citizens!"

followed by

"Well, who are "they?" Why is it "immoral?" "

Some of you won't get what I am saying.

A fair amount of you will.


Don't argue with mental midgets, and certainly don't hop into their hamster wheel with them.

 

[since9]

Imagine having a conversation with someone who instead of adhering to the most probable definition of a law, statute, or constitutional enumeration, elects to try what meaning may be pried out of the words.

Imagine someone who cannot focus on the clear and obvious meaning of minimalistic constitutional amendments because they want to pretend that ambiguity exists within the words.

That someone sounds a lot like people who incapable of thinking clearly or understanding as simple as "...the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed."

Don't argue with mental midgets, and certainly don't hop into their hamster wheel with them.

You're right, as that's getting into their own game with them. Our best solution is to vote them out of office then tell them "Thank you for your opinion, however, we have work to do undoing the damage you did."

Problem is, I don't know if there's enough people left in our country who can still think clearly enough to make this happen. One thing I've seen is that in times of hardship people get back down to brass tacks and leave the fluff.