No right to resist unlawful police entry:

[GannonFan]

I don't think you should have the right to beat the **** out of the cop. But, you should be able to say "No. You may not enter my home without a warrant." And he should not be able to enter. And, if he tries... you should be able to physically resist.

So you're not against this ruling, per se, you're against the idea of exigent circumstances and the past 40 years (at least) of case law?

[Skjellyfetti]

Yes. Searches should require a warrant. The standards to obtain a warrant, as stated by the 4th amendment, are "probable cause."

I don't understand how the same "probable cause" can be used to justify a warrantless search. Not following how that is consistent with the 4th amendment.

The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.

[citdog]

Yes. Searches should require a warrant. The standards to obtain a warrant, as stated by the 4th amendment, are "probable cause."

I don't understand how the same "probable cause" can be used to justify a warrantless search. Not following how that is consistent with the 4th amendment.

The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.

"UNCLE PETER GET ME MY SMELLING SALTS KYJELLY HAS QUOTED THE CONSTITUTION!"


READ THE 10TH AMENDMENT YOU FOOKING DOUCHEBAG.

[CID1990]

Yes. Searches should require a warrant. The standards to obtain a warrant, as stated by the 4th amendment, are "probable cause."

I don't understand how the same "probable cause" can be used to justify a warrantless search. Not following how that is consistent with the 4th amendment.

The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.

SK, you need to check into the real world. Exigent circumstances have a place.

I can name you specific instances where officer in my squad thwarted violent crimes using the exigent circumstances clause to enter residences. In both cases there were women being assaulted and the officers made entry. In one case it was a rape in progress. In the other the girl was being pistol whipped by her boyfriend.

However, in your world, you would have the police wait for the warrant, THEN enter the house and rope off the crime scene and wait for the coroner.

[Wedgebuster]

No problem 'round these parts, come July 1, any non-felon resident of my state regains the right to keep and bear arms, concealed or not.
Many of these formerly oppressed twerps that are in the game for the power trip and the ease of entry may lose their stomachs for strutting around and pay-trolling around our crime infested hamlet looking for the shit (that be the high school kids), folks do not like this brand of law 'nforcement, and now they got big guns on 'em too.

Maybe we can get back to having the old time small town cops, the ones that just confiscate the beer and drink it themselves...

Oh for the good old days..

[Skjellyfetti]

SK, you need to check into the real world. Exigent circumstances have a place.

I can name you specific instances where officer in my squad thwarted violent crimes using the exigent circumstances clause to enter residences.

Cid, I can name you specific instances where cops committed violent crimes entering residences.

However, in your world, you would have the police wait for the warrant, THEN enter the house and rope off the crime scene and wait for the coroner.

Definitely. That's how I read the 4th amendment. The people are secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects... UNLESS there is probable cause. And when there is probable cause... the authorities must get a warrant.

In your world... cops just barge into homes willy nilly where they suspect a crime is taking place or where evidence is being disposed of.

[GannonFan]

In your world... cops just barge into homes willy nilly where they suspect a crime is taking place or where evidence is being disposed of.

We like to call that world the real world. I'm sure all those people who's lives have been saved by the concept of exigent circumstances are just thrilled that you want cops to wait until the can have someone run over a paper or fax a warrant to them so they can show they are allowed into the house. How super of you.

[CID1990]

SK, you need to check into the real world. Exigent circumstances have a place.

I can name you specific instances where officer in my squad thwarted violent crimes using the exigent circumstances clause to enter residences.

Cid, I can name you specific instances where cops committed violent crimes entering residences.

However, in your world, you would have the police wait for the warrant, THEN enter the house and rope off the crime scene and wait for the coroner.

Definitely. That's how I read the 4th amendment. The people are secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects... UNLESS there is probable cause. And when there is probable cause... the authorities must get a warrant.

In your world... cops just barge into homes willy nilly where they suspect a crime is taking place or where evidence is being disposed of.

You know what SK? You seriously live in a bubble. Your last statement shows that not only do you think rationally, you don't read, either.

I'll make a suggestions for you. Go down to your local police department and sign up to do some ride-alongs. There is really no other way for you to break out of your cycle of ignorance. I promise you that with one or two shifts your entire paradigm will change.

YOU can look online and cite for me cases of police malfeasance. These will be pulled from the entire historical record and from all over the country.

I, on the other hand, can cite you PERSONAL experiences from a long career. There is a difference. You would be up in arms if I said that the majority of gays CHOSE to be gay. That is the same kind of generalization you make when you suggest that police malfeasance is somehow rampant, or at least not uncommon.

This is one of the reasons for your naivete. You believe what you want to, and won't even let someone who has extensive personal experience in the field tell you otherwise.

Exigent circumstances has been considered in REAMS of case law, and has been upheld by both liberal and conservative courts, all the way up to the Supreme Court. It was born of the realization that there are times when one person's right to privacy is trumped by society's interest in law and order.

From what you are saying here, you would seem to agree that if you go over to your boyfriend's house and he decides to chop you up and put you in his freezer and the police hear you calling for help, the police need to go grab a warrant before they can kick down the door. When the police heard one of Jefferey Dahmer's victims crying for help, they did not act. Is that somehow OK with you, or should they have entered Dahmer's home? Think carefully.

In MY world, THAT is police malfeasance.

[Skjellyfetti]

We like to call that world the real world. I'm sure all those people who's lives have been saved by the concept of exigent circumstances are just thrilled that you want cops to wait until the can have someone run over a paper or fax a warrant to them so they can show they are allowed into the house. How super of you.

It sucks, yeah. But, that's the way I read the 4th amendment.

Please explain how your version fits in BETTER with the 4th amendment.

The people are secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects... UNLESS there is probable cause. And when there is probable cause... the authorities must get a warrant.

The 4th amendment doesn't say if there is probable cause... the cops can kick in your door. It says the standard to obtain a warrant is probable cause. So, tell me why it's constitutional for the standard to kick in your door without a warrant under exigent circumstances is "probable cause."

[Skjellyfetti]

When the police heard one of Jefferey Dahmer's victims crying for help, they did not act. Is that somehow OK with you, or should they have entered Dahmer's home? Think carefully.

The dude escaped from Dahmer's house and flagged down a police car on the streets of Milwaukee. Think carefully how this anecdote doesn't fit with the thread.

[Col Hogan]

Yes. Searches should require a warrant. The standards to obtain a warrant, as stated by the 4th amendment, are "probable cause."

I don't understand how the same "probable cause" can be used to justify a warrantless search. Not following how that is consistent with the 4th amendment.

SK, you need to check into the real world. Exigent circumstances have a place.

I can name you specific instances where officer in my squad thwarted violent crimes using the exigent circumstances clause to enter residences. In both cases there were women being assaulted and the officers made entry. In one case it was a rape in progress. In the other the girl was being pistol whipped by her boyfriend.

However, in your world, you would have the police wait for the warrant, THEN enter the house and rope off the crime scene and wait for the coroner.

Cid, I fully get the Exigent Circumstances thing...

But if we go back to the opening post, and look at the article cited, we're not talking exigent circumstances here IMHO...but a bad cop getting protection of the court over a citizens rights...

People have no right to resist if police officers illegally enter their home, the Indiana Supreme Court ruled in a decision that overturns centuries of common law.

The court issued its 3-2 ruling on Thursday, contending that allowing residents to resist officers who enter their homes without any right would increase the risk of violent confrontation. If police enter a home illegally, the courts are the proper place to protest it, Justice Steven David said.

"We believe ... a right to resist an unlawful police entry into a home is against public policy and is incompatible with modern Fourth Amendment jurisprudence," David said. "We also find that allowing resistance unnecessarily escalates the level of violence and therefore the risk of injuries to all parties involved without preventing the arrest."

This is a rouge court (modern Fourth Amendment jurisprudence??? That's code for Na Na, I got the robe and you have to do what I say...screw the Constitution)

There have been home invasions where the bad guys pretend to be police officers...what this court is saying is, lie down and take it...don't defend yourself if someone utters the magic word POLICE...be it the real deal or a bad guy...

I plan to defend my house if someone comes busting through the door...

[Col Hogan]

We like to call that world the real world. I'm sure all those people who's lives have been saved by the concept of exigent circumstances are just thrilled that you want cops to wait until the can have someone run over a paper or fax a warrant to them so they can show they are allowed into the house. How super of you.

It sucks, yeah. But, that's the way I read the 4th amendment.

Please explain how your version fits in BETTER with the 4th amendment.

The people are secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects... UNLESS there is probable cause. And when there is probable cause... the authorities must get a warrant.

The 4th amendment doesn't say if there is probable cause... the cops can kick in your door. It says the standard to obtain a warrant is probable cause. So, tell me why it's constitutional for the standard to kick in your door without a warrant under exigent circumstances is "probable cause."

I gotta admit I do find it funny that you quote, and argue for, an exact reading of the fourth amendment to the Constitution...but have no problem with the legislature and courts trampling all over the second and tenth Amendments on a regular basis...

Or can we count on you now being a strict Constitutionalist???










Ya, that will happen...

[Skjellyfetti]

I gotta admit I do find it funny that you quote, and argue for, an exact reading of the fourth amendment to the Constitution...but have no problem with the legislature and courts trampling all over the second and tenth Amendments on a regular basis...

I always get accused of supporting the courts "trambling all over" the Second Amendment. I'd really love to see some posts where I do that. I'm a gun owner. I believe we have the right to own guns. I've always wondered why suburbanites living in nice, cozy, safe neighborhoods feel the need to carry guns with them wherever they go... but, I don't think I've said that should be outlawed. When exactly have I trampled on any second amendment rights?

And, as far as the 10th amendment goes... ardent 10th amendment supporters tend to focus on that amendment and ignore the "general welfare" part of the Taxing and Spending clause as well. It works both ways. You can call yourself a strict constructionist... but, you still choose to emphasize certain parts of the Constitution over other parts.

[Baldy]

I gotta admit I do find it funny that you quote, and argue for, an exact reading of the fourth amendment to the Constitution...but have no problem with the legislature and courts trampling all over the second and tenth Amendments on a regular basis...

I always get accused of supporting the courts "trambling all over" the Second Amendment. I'd really love to see some posts where I do that. I'm a gun owner. I believe we have the right to own guns. I've always wondered why suburbanites living in nice, cozy, safe neighborhoods feel the need to carry guns with them wherever they go... but, I don't think I've said that should be outlawed. When exactly have I trampled on any second amendment rights?

And, as far as the 10th amendment goes... ardent 10th amendment supporters tend to focus on that amendment and ignore the "general welfare" part of the Taxing and Spending clause as well. It works both ways. You can call yourself a strict constructionist... but, you still choose to emphasize certain parts of the Constitution over other parts.

Ummm, the general welfare clause doesn't refer to today's version of welfare in the manner of entitlements and handouts.

[AZGrizFan]

Anal Jelly getting his ass handed to him in this thread....the irony cannot POSSIBLY escape him.

[citdog]

I gotta admit I do find it funny that you quote, and argue for, an exact reading of the fourth amendment to the Constitution...but have no problem with the legislature and courts trampling all over the second and tenth Amendments on a regular basis...

And, as far as the 10th amendment goes... ardent 10th amendment supporters tend to focus on that amendment and ignore the "general welfare" part of the Taxing and Spending clause as well. It works both ways. You can call yourself a strict constructionist... but, you still choose to emphasize certain parts of the Constitution over other parts.

the "elastic clause" defense is as weak as your schmeckle.

[Skjellyfetti]

Ummm, the general welfare clause doesn't refer to today's version of welfare in the manner of entitlements and handouts.

Alexander Hamilton:

The terms "general Welfare" were doubtless intended to signify more than was expressed or imported in those which Preceded; otherwise numerous exigencies incident to the affairs of a Nation would have been left without a provision. The phrase is as comprehensive as any that could have been used; because it was not fit that the constitutional authority of the Union, to appropriate its revenues shou'd have been restricted within narrower limits than the "General Welfare" and because this necessarily embraces a vast variety of particulars, which are susceptible neither of specification nor of definition.

It is therefore of necessityleft to the discretion of the National Legislature, to pronounce, upon the objects, which concern the general Welfare, and for which under that description, an appropriation of money is requisite and proper. [/size]And there seems to be no room for a doubt that whatever concerns the general Interests of learning of Agriculture of Manufactures and of Commerce are within the sphere of the national Councils as far as regards an application of Money.

http://press-pubs.uchicago.edu/founders ... _1s21.html" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

See, strict constructionists like Baldy like to just gloss over that and assume that "General Welfare" doesn't refer to anything in particular. It's to vague to have any specific meaning.

It was intentionally vague to be a catchall phrase.

[AZGrizFan]

Ummm, the general welfare clause doesn't refer to today's version of welfare in the manner of entitlements and handouts.

Alexander Hamilton:

The terms "general Welfare" were doubtless intended to signify more than was expressed or imported in those which Preceded; otherwise numerous exigencies incident to the affairs of a Nation would have been left without a provision. The phrase is as comprehensive as any that could have been used; because it was not fit that the constitutional authority of the Union, to appropriate its revenues shou'd have been restricted within narrower limits than the "General Welfare" and because this necessarily embraces a vast variety of particulars, which are susceptible neither of specification nor of definition.

It is therefore of necessityleft to the discretion of the National Legislature, to pronounce, upon the objects, which concern the general Welfare, and for which under that description, an appropriation of money is requisite and proper. [/size]And there seems to be no room for a doubt that whatever concerns the general Interests of learning of Agriculture of Manufactures and of Commerce are within the sphere of the national Councils as far as regards an application of Money.

http://press-pubs.uchicago.edu/founders ... _1s21.html" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

See, strict constructionists like Baldy like to just gloss over that and assume that "General Welfare" doesn't refer to anything in particular. It's to vague to have any specific meaning.

It was intentionally vague to be a catchall phrase.

Alexander Hamilton would roll over in his grave if he knew fucksticks like you were using THAT phrase to justify taking hard-earned cash from the workers in this country and giving it away to the lazy.

[Skjellyfetti]

Alexander Hamilton would roll over in his grave if he knew fucksticks like you were using THAT phrase to justify taking hard-earned cash from the workers in this country and giving it away to the lazy.

"left to the discretion of the national legislature"

The legislature passed social security and medicare. If you don't like it.... get people in the legislature that agree with you and change it. quit bitching about it and change it if you don't like it.


And, actually.... Alexander Hamilton got blasted back in the day for supporting strong Federal taxation.

[citdog]

Ummm, the general welfare clause doesn't refer to today's version of welfare in the manner of entitlements and handouts.

Alexander Hamilton:

The terms "general Welfare" were doubtless intended to signify more than was expressed or imported in those which Preceded; otherwise numerous exigencies incident to the affairs of a Nation would have been left without a provision. The phrase is as comprehensive as any that could have been used; because it was not fit that the constitutional authority of the Union, to appropriate its revenues shou'd have been restricted within narrower limits than the "General Welfare" and because this necessarily embraces a vast variety of particulars, which are susceptible neither of specification nor of definition.

It is therefore of necessityleft to the discretion of the National Legislature, to pronounce, upon the objects, which concern the general Welfare, and for which under that description, an appropriation of money is requisite and proper. [/size]And there seems to be no room for a doubt that whatever concerns the general Interests of learning of Agriculture of Manufactures and of Commerce are within the sphere of the national Councils as far as regards an application of Money.

http://press-pubs.uchicago.edu/founders ... _1s21.html" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

See, strict constructionists like Baldy like to just gloss over that and assume that "General Welfare" doesn't refer to anything in particular. It's to vague to have any specific meaning.

It was intentionally vague to be a catchall phrase.

it is "intentionally vague" as you say because IT DOESN'T MEAN ANYTHING OF THE KIND. NOTHING COULD BE CLEARER THAN WHAT THE CONSTITUTION ACTUALLY SAYS IN PLAIN LANGUAGE.










Aaron Burr

[Skjellyfetti]

That's great and all... but, the Constitution DOES delegate taxation to provide for the general welfare of the country to Congress.

Sorry they made it so vague. Not my fault.





See what I mean about "strict" constructionists picking and choosing what parts of the Constitution they are passionate about?

[AZGrizFan]

Alexander Hamilton would roll over in his grave if he knew fucksticks like you were using THAT phrase to justify taking hard-earned cash from the workers in this country and giving it away to the lazy.

"left to the discretion of the national legislature"

The legislature passed social security and medicare. If you don't like it.... get people in the legislature that agree with you and change it. quit bitching about it and change it if you don't like it.

Yeah. Good luck with that. The entitlement mentality is so firmly entrenched in this country now, at unsustainable levels, we're fucked. Any attempt to alter, reduce, amend or eliminate any program which has a significant portion of America feeding at the public trough is met with such a viscerial response as to be almost frightening. You've seen (and applauded, I'm sure) the donks response to Ryan's plan which doesn't even IMPACT seniors over 55, but the donks claim he's cutting Medicare, stealing their money, harming their welfare, etc., etc., etc.,....between the entitlement mentality 40-50% of this country has now, and the scare tactics employed by donks on any attempt at entitlement reform, we're pretty much fucked.

[Skjellyfetti]

Yes. I know you'd rather whine about it.

[Col Hogan]

I gotta admit I do find it funny that you quote, and argue for, an exact reading of the fourth amendment to the Constitution...but have no problem with the legislature and courts trampling all over the second and tenth Amendments on a regular basis...

I always get accused of supporting the courts "trambling all over" the Second Amendment. I'd really love to see some posts where I do that. I'm a gun owner. I believe we have the right to own guns. I've always wondered why suburbanites living in nice, cozy, safe neighborhoods feel the need to carry guns with them wherever they go... but, I don't think I've said that should be outlawed. When exactly have I trampled on any second amendment rights?

And, as far as the 10th amendment goes... ardent 10th amendment supporters tend to focus on that amendment and ignore the "general welfare" part of the Taxing and Spending clause as well. It works both ways. You can call yourself a strict constructionist... but, you still choose to emphasize certain parts of the Constitution over other parts.

Second Amendment to the U.S. Constitution as ratified by the 13 states...

A well regulated militia being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the People to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed.

Doesn't matter to me if you "wonder why" someone feels the need to carry a weapon...for the record, do you support the Second Amendment as written...

Because to truly support it, you need to support what Vermont, Arizona, Alaska & Wyoming have done....as EACH STATE should do, and support Constitutional Carry...

The U.S. Constitution is clear...SCOTUS has twice ruled it is an individual right, not a collective right...to KEEP & BEAR ARMS...

[Skjellyfetti]

Jesus fucking Christ....

I specifically said that I don't understand the need to carry a gun around with you all the time... but, it SHOULDN'T be outlawed.

It's called "reading." Top to bottom, left to right... group words together to form a "sentence." Take Tylenol for any headaches... Midol for any cramps.

I always get accused of supporting the courts "trambling all over" the Second Amendment. I'd really love to see some posts where I do that. I'm a gun owner. I believe we have the right to own guns. I've always wondered why suburbanites living in nice, cozy, safe neighborhoods feel the need to carry guns with them wherever they go... but, I don't think I've said that should be outlawed. When exactly have I trampled on any second amendment rights?