It's about HIGH DAMN TIME.
Cops get put in their proper place.
THEY ARE the
EMPLOYEES
of We the People.
Bravo to Indiana! Law Enforcement Officers CAN BE SHOT!!!!
Chris - The Rowdy One! #187
2012/06/12 10:45:21
Law enforcement officers need to follow the laws of nature - it is about time. People do have a right to protect their private property; even from government thugs.
EFF YEAH!
If ANYONE comes into my house without an invite, they are going to be dropped. I do not care who they are.
Hats off to Governor Daniels and everyone else involved in making things Constitutionally right for a change.
NOTE: I do not block. You are free to come here and spew venom or whatever else makes you happy.
EFF YEAH!
If ANYONE comes into my house without an invite, they are going to be dropped. I do not care who they are.
Hats off to Governor Daniels and everyone else involved in making things Constitutionally right for a change.
NOTE: I do not block. You are free to come here and spew venom or whatever else makes you happy.
Read More: http://www.allgov.com/Top_Stories/ViewNews/Indiana...
Top Opinion
-
Thor American EXPAT n New G... 2012/06/12 11:07:22
http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com...
Some of the highlights from this case which apply to Indiana's new law:
Our holding in Miller v. United States, 357 U.S. 301, is relevant here, and exposes the fallacy of this contention. We noted in that case that the lawfulness of an officer's entry to arrest without a warrant "must be tested by criteria identical with those embodied in 18 U.S.C. 3109, which deals with entry to execute a search warrant." 357 U.S., at 306. That statute requires that an officer "must state his authority and his purpose at the threshold, and be refused admittance, before he may break open the door."
A contrary holding here would mean that a vague suspicion could be transformed into probable cause for arrest by reason of ambiguous conduct which the arresting officers themselves have provoked. Cf. Henry v. United States, 361 U.S. 98, 104. That result would have the same essential vice as a proposition we have consistently rejected - that a search unlawful at its inception may be validated by what it turns up. Byars v. United States, 273 U.S. 28; United States v. Di Re, 332 U.S. 581, 595.
In order to make effective the fundamental constitutional guarantees of sanctity of the home and inviolability of the person, Boyd v. United States, 116...
http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com...
Some of the highlights from this case which apply to Indiana's new law:
Our holding in Miller v. United States, 357 U.S. 301, is relevant here, and exposes the fallacy of this contention. We noted in that case that the lawfulness of an officer's entry to arrest without a warrant "must be tested by criteria identical with those embodied in 18 U.S.C. 3109, which deals with entry to execute a search warrant." 357 U.S., at 306. That statute requires that an officer "must state his authority and his purpose at the threshold, and be refused admittance, before he may break open the door."
A contrary holding here would mean that a vague suspicion could be transformed into probable cause for arrest by reason of ambiguous conduct which the arresting officers themselves have provoked. Cf. Henry v. United States, 361 U.S. 98, 104. That result would have the same essential vice as a proposition we have consistently rejected - that a search unlawful at its inception may be validated by what it turns up. Byars v. United States, 273 U.S. 28; United States v. Di Re, 332 U.S. 581, 595.
In order to make effective the fundamental constitutional guarantees of sanctity of the home and inviolability of the person, Boyd v. United States, 116 U.S. 616, this Court held nearly half a century ago that evidence seized during an unlawful search could not constitute proof against the victim of the search. Weeks v. United States, 232 U.S. 383.
I will be polite. However if I was a poisonous snake I would bite every libtard there is. Would consider it a community service.
Maybe these cops will stop watching those stupid movies and TV shows that glorify that crap.
Right now, though, I tend to oppose this law, and it sounds ill-advised.
So you are all for removing the liberty of the majority just because of the few bad guys. OK...gotcha.
neither concept. Your confusion is, of course, that the "few bad guys" are the
one in thousands of "bad cops" who might violate the "rights" of a few who are
in the wrong place at the wrong time.
What is so hard about this?
It would serve no great purpose to call you names, but you do get pretty close to that border where common names for madness are used.
Tell me, when you bend over for the government and grab your ankles, is it best to put your hands to the outer part of your ankles or the inner part? I just figured you had the experience.
The 4th is a city cop that is an OK guy but I think he would do whatever the government commanded him to do. He spends good money so we are fine.
believe a single word of your suggestion, not even one. No one
with metal stability sufficient to become an officer would encourage
imbeciles to arm themselves and increase the risks they must face
in their jobs.
I really could not care less.
Stop being a racist too.