• Indiana Supreme Court Declares 4th Admendment Void Since It 'Conflicts With Public Policy"
    79 replies, posted
Article VI, clause 2: [B]This Constitution, and the Laws of the United States which shall be made in pursuance thereof; and all treaties made, or which shall be made, under the authority of the United States, shall be the supreme law of the land; and the judges in every state shall be bound thereby, anything in the constitution or laws of any state to the contrary notwithstanding. [/B]What is so hard to understand?
[QUOTE=Capitulazyguy;29814234]Britain's is older.[/QUOTE] [url=http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Constitution_of_the_United_Kingdom]Nope[/url]
[QUOTE=1239the;29812806]The constitution was adopted in 1787, ratified 27 times (including one amendment simply to repeal another amendment), with the latest amendment being adopted in 1992. It is the oldest constitution still in use by any country in the world.[/QUOTE] thanks for the history lesson professor.
The implications of this ruling aren't what you all seem to think they are. They aren't giving the police carte blanche to enter your house and shoot you and your family while they sleep. What the ruling does however, change, is the fact that you can't resist forcefully an officer who you suspect is entering your home illegal, but that you should instead document the event and bring prosecution against them later. When put into the correct context and read with a careful mind, this ruling seems a lot less ridiculous, right?
[QUOTE=Kagrenak;29833905]The implications of this ruling aren't what you all seem to think they are. They aren't giving the police carte blanche to enter your house and shoot you and your family while they sleep. What the ruling does however, change, is the fact that you can't resist forcefully an officer who you suspect is entering your home illegal, but that you should instead document the event and bring prosecution against them later. When put into the correct context and read with a careful mind, this ruling seems a lot less ridiculous, right?[/QUOTE] No, not at all. It seems completely ridiculous and is a blatant violation of the 4th amendment. This is intended to protect cops who unlawfully enter a home like the one in the story. You wouldn't be able to bring it to trial at all because the ruling states that a cop has a right to unlawfully enter your home, he doesn't need a warrant or any of the other qualifications needed to enter a home. There is nothing in the 4th amendment about using violence as a means of fighting for your 4th amendment, so there was no protection for the guy using violence against the cop. But the cop had no right to enter the home. Yes, the judge states that you can still protest illegal entry in the court, but there is no way that if you are guilty that the charge is going to be taken seriously because law enforcement gets off the hook very easily. In any case where you are guilty of something and you claim a violation of rights, you are likely to not be taken very seriously especially in cases of drug use. There is no reason to protect cops from actions they should not be committing.
[QUOTE=SKEEA;29833564]Article VI, clause 2: [B]This Constitution, and the Laws of the United States which shall be made in pursuance thereof; and all treaties made, or which shall be made, under the authority of the United States, shall be the supreme law of the land; and the judges in every state shall be bound thereby, anything in the constitution or laws of any state to the contrary notwithstanding. [/B]What is so hard to understand?[/QUOTE]exactly and so that everyone remembers this He Who sacrifices freedom for security deserves neither.
I do [i]sort of[/i] understand their reasoning. Today there are a lot more illegal things that can happen inside a house with no way for police to see them, like meth labs, illegal guns being kept and/or sold, other things, etc. But that is why we allow officers to go to a judge and obtain a search warrant. It's silly to let them just step inside whenever they want to.
[QUOTE=lulzbocksV2;29833674][url=http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Constitution_of_the_United_Kingdom]Nope[/url][/QUOTE] Saying "nope" and linking to that article doesn't really work. While it's not properly codified, the de facto constitution of the UK is way older than the US constitution. I mean a key part of it was written in 1297 and is still part of the law in the UK.
[QUOTE=Pepin;29838763]No, not at all. It seems completely ridiculous and is a blatant violation of the 4th amendment. This is intended to protect cops who unlawfully enter a home like the one in the story. You wouldn't be able to bring it to trial at all because the ruling states that a cop has a right to unlawfully enter your home, he doesn't need a warrant or any of the other qualifications needed to enter a home. There is nothing in the 4th amendment about using violence as a means of fighting for your 4th amendment, so there was no protection for the guy using violence against the cop. But the cop had no right to enter the home. Yes, the judge states that you can still protest illegal entry in the court, but there is no way that if you are guilty that the charge is going to be taken seriously because law enforcement gets off the hook very easily. In any case where you are guilty of something and you claim a violation of rights, you are likely to not be taken very seriously especially in cases of drug use. There is no reason to protect cops from actions they should not be committing.[/QUOTE] That's not what the ruling says. What the ruling says is: Law Enforcement can't legally enter your house without a warrant. If they do enter your house without a warrant, however, you can't use force to try and get them out. The purpose of this is to ensure civility. If a police officer enters your home, possibly illegally, and you attack them and try and force them out, someone could get shot, people will get hurt no matter what. You can then later bring action against them. As well, anything gathered through this, because there's no warrant and no probable cause, is null and void in court anyway. It doesn't give Cops the right to enter your home illegally. It says you can't stop them from entering illegally, at least no with violence.
[QUOTE=Jsm;29845220]Saying "nope" and linking to that article doesn't really work. While it's not properly codified, the de facto constitution of the UK is way older than the US constitution. I mean a key part of it was written in 1297 and is still part of the law in the UK.[/QUOTE] That's like saying the U.S. Constitution is just as old because it was based off of the same thing.
[QUOTE=1239the;29812583]Honestly I think basing a society around a document written hundreds of years ago is just downright retarded. So this is good, in my opinion.[/QUOTE] What makes it irrelevant? People are no different today. The names of issues, people, places, things, and locations all change, but the base human nature today hasn't substantially changed since 1215, [I]or[/I] since 1787. If the government can disregard one law because it conflicts with their interests, who is to say they won't disregard others as well? These laws are for the protection of the people - the 4th amendment is there to keep us safe from the government, and was created with the practices of the British Empire and others in mind (i.e. breaching privacy and what not). They truly have no right to supersede it, and nothing is actually different enough today to warrant a change.
Oh fuck I live in Indiana, *hears door get kicked down*
[QUOTE=lulzbocksV2;29846342]That's like saying the U.S. Constitution is just as old because it was based off of the same thing.[/QUOTE] There's a [B]massive[/B] difference between being based off and actually being something.
[QUOTE=Treybuchet;29845806]That's not what the ruling says. What the ruling says is: Law Enforcement can't legally enter your house without a warrant. If they do enter your house without a warrant, however, you can't use force to try and get them out. The purpose of this is to ensure civility. If a police officer enters your home, possibly illegally, and you attack them and try and force them out, someone could get shot, people will get hurt no matter what. You can then later bring action against them. As well, anything gathered through this, because there's no warrant and no probable cause, is null and void in court anyway. It doesn't give Cops the right to enter your home illegally. It says you can't stop them from entering illegally, at least no with violence.[/QUOTE] [url]http://codes.lp.findlaw.com/incode/35/41/3/35-41-3-2[/url] Indiana's Castle Doctrine has a "stand your ground" clause, and allows for deadly force in the protection of one's home if they believe it necessary to terminate an intruding force to protect themselves or a third party. If I was in my home and some guy claiming to be a police officer wanted to enter without a warrant, I'd be seriously concerned that he might be an impersonator. If the guy started trying to bust in my front door to get in, again without a warrant, there would probably be little doubt in my mind that the guy was an impostor. For all I know, he could tie me up and rob the place, or kill me, or both. I wonder how long it will take before someone makes use of the Castle Doctrine against an officer. I talked about this article with my dad, who is a retired FBI agent. He believes that the police will likely continue with the system of obtaining a warrant, regardless of what this law allows before it is struck down by the supreme court.
[QUOTE=Treybuchet;29845806]That's not what the ruling says. What the ruling says is: Law Enforcement can't legally enter your house without a warrant. If they do enter your house without a warrant, however, you can't use force to try and get them out. The purpose of this is to ensure civility. If a police officer enters your home, possibly illegally, and you attack them and try and force them out, someone could get shot, people will get hurt no matter what. You can then later bring action against them. As well, anything gathered through this, because there's no warrant and no probable cause, is null and void in court anyway. It doesn't give Cops the right to enter your home illegally. It says you can't stop them from entering illegally, at least no with violence.[/QUOTE] Last time I checked, cops were normal humans like the rest of us. I do believe there are laws that prevent people from entering your house without your permission, and in some states you're allowed to use lethal force to communicate the fact that you want them to get the fuck out. How does wearing a uniform and a shiny badge suddenly give you the right to arbitrarily ignore laws? Police are supposed to get warrants from a judge, who decides whether they actually have a legal reason to enter a house. Warrants are there to protect you from getting intruded upon by police who don't have a valid legal reason to enter your house. And for that matter, pressing charges [I]after[/I] the matter? That would be the same as if a random man entered your house and snooped around, while you're forced to sit against the wall and watch him. The only way a cop can enter your house is if you give him permission, they get a warrant, or if they know a crime is happening inside or if they can clearly see contraband in your house. If they enter your house otherwise, they aren't doing their duty as a police officer and they should be treated like an ordinary person.
Why do I live in this state. Also, the Indiana government is trying to change the State's constitution so that gay marriage will NEVER be legal. Why do I live in this state.
As well, officers can enter if they have probable cause. And in a case like that, they wouldn't have a warrant.
[QUOTE=Pepin;29818853]The patriot act was voted for in 2001. The vote was. Republicans in favor: 211 Republicans not in favor: 3 Democrats in favor: 145 Democrats not in favor: 62 As you can see, Republicans were far more in favor, but the majority of Democrats were also in favor. To me, this says the Republican party are more likely to jeopardize rights, but the Democrats are also very likely. The second vote in 2006 had a 66-124 yes to no vote from democrats and a similar vote from republicans. I see this more as Republicans trying to stick with their position and Democrats appealing to reason and to the opposition. The thing about this though is that the patriot act was actually being put through congress prior to 9/11 and was being shot down by both parties very easily, there wasn't any real difference between party opinion. What this goes to show is that both parties are likely to vote for these types of laws given the circumstance, and that democrats are less likely to go for it under a Republican president. I believe that we would see the opposite trend in voting if there had been a Democratic president at the time.[/QUOTE] They called it the [i]Patriot Act[/i]. Had the Democrats not voted for it after 9/11 they would have been slaughtered by the media and and the public at the time.
[QUOTE=1239the;29812883]Does the U.S. Constitution do good? Yes. It's established equal rights, abolished slavery, and set standards of conduct for the U.S. government to follow. But there's not a single fucking chance that any founding father could have written it in foresight of the context of modern day society, so it is my opinion that it should be scrutinized and rewritten in a more up to date context. But apparently that's bad, so, pile boxes on me. All of them. Every single fucking box.[/QUOTE] ahahahahahhahahahahahaha [img]http://www.facepunch.com/image.php?u=50204&dateline=1283648730[/img]
[QUOTE=Sega Saturn;29862675]They called it the [i]Patriot Act[/i]. Had the Democrats not voted for it after 9/11 they would have been slaughtered by the media and and the public at the time.[/QUOTE] Not the reason. They voted for it,m much like many republicans, and many people supported it purely because they were afraid. It seemed like a good idea at the time, but the decision wasn't rational. Everyone was blinded by emotion and what not.
Sorry, you need to Log In to post a reply to this thread.