FREE: JOIN 100,000+ READERS   

≡ Menu
SOVEREIGN MAN

Indiana Supreme Court dispenses with Magna Carta, Constitution

May 16, 2011
Santiago, Chile

Constitution toilet paper Indiana Supreme Court dispenses with Magna Carta, ConstitutionOn June 10, 1215 AD, after prolonged rebellion and frustrating negotiation, a group of England’s most influential barons entered London to force the disastrous King John Softsword into accepting a revolutionary charter of individual freedoms.

Five days later in the Runnymede meadow of Surrey County, John affixed his royal seal onto what became known as the Magna Carta. It still exists on the books today in England and Wales.

This document was one of the more important antecedents to the US Constitution; its proclamations ended the absolutism of England’s monarchy and spelled out very clear rights and freedoms, including, among others, the right of a man to enjoy his private property without trespass from government officials.

Over 550 years later, the framers of the Constitution codified this right in the 4th Amendment to be secure in one’s private property.  Last week, the Indiana Supreme Court effectively rejected both documents in two separate cases.

In the first case of Lacey v. State of Indiana, the Court ruled that police officers serving a warrant on a private home may simply walk right in without knocking.

The second case of Barnes v. State of Indiana is far more startling. The case deals with one Richard Barnes, a regular Joe citizen of Indiana, who was in the midst of marital problems with his wife one evening in 2007. The couple was arguing when police arrived to the scene and attempted to enter the home.

Barnes made it very clear to the officers that they were not to enter his home. The officers did not have a warrant, and they did not have probably cause to believe that anything illegal was happening. But they entered regardless.

Barnes tried to block the door, and as the police officers muscled their way past him, he shoved one of them against the wall in defense of his property.  Barnes was choked and tasered in his own home, subsequently hospitalized, then charged with misdemeanor battery on a police officer.

The case went to court, and the Barnes defense team cited a private citizen’s right to resist unlawful entry into one’s home. They lost. The case was appealed, all the way up to the Indiana Supreme Court. Here’s where it gets interesting.

The Court agreed that the police officers entered the Barnes home illegally. The Court further agreed that one’s right to resist illegal entry has existed since the Magna Carta. The Court further agreed that the US Supreme Court has reaffirmed this right to resist unlawful entry in numerous court cases.

Seems pretty cut and dry, no?

Yet, in summarizing the court’s opinion, Justice Steven David writes, “We hold that there is -no right- to reasonably resist unlawful entry by police officers.”

Wait. Full stop. A citizen has no right to resist unlawful entry by police officers on his private property? Apparently we’re all supposed to lay down like two-toed tree sloths while these jackbooted monkeys turn private property into yet another ‘rights free’ zone.

Americans already have to put up with dispensation of the Constitution at airports, border checkpoints, political events, many train station, and soon to be bus terminals and shopping malls. We’d better add ‘private residence’ to that list as well.

The right to protect oneself and one’s property against unlawful entry is the hallmark of any free civilization.  Conversely, it is the hallmark of a totalitarian police state when government goons have the authority to go stomping around on private property without oversight of a judicious, impartial court.

There is no middle ground here… and a government that is on the way to denying this right is not far down the road from denying other basic, seemingly no-brainer rights– like assembly, criticizing the government, and possession of firearms.

One of the reasons I travel so much is so I don’t have to deal with this kind of nonsense. I enjoy spending time in countries where I have no fear of some government agent forcing his way into my home.

There are a number of such places in the world– Chile is definitely one of them.

Our goal is simple: To help you achieve personal liberty and financial prosperity no matter what happens.

If you liked this post, please click the box below. You can Download our Free 17 page Report The 6 Pillars of Self Reliance.

image

Click Here to Download

About the author: Simon Black is an international investor, entrepreneur, permanent traveler, free man, and founder of Sovereign Man. His free daily e-letter and crash course is about using the experiences from his life and travels to help you achieve more freedom.

Comments on this entry are closed.

  • malgat

     Where are all the protesters?  Does nobody care anymore anyway?  This behavior can only happen in an apathetic society.

    • http://pulse.yahoo.com/_XXUI2U5IPS7IABBMSM4I27BYDA chris

       The protestors are too busy buying guns and ammo, and beefing up their doors to resist jackbooted thugs.

      Seriously, IA is going to become the “shoot first and ask questions later” state if the bench keeps this up.

  • Paul

     The gestapo police get bolder and bolder, and it seems every year they get more and more support from the courts. I see Chile in the horizon…..Paul

  • Jean Fnet

    Apparently we’re all supposed to lay lie down like two-toed tree sloths while these jackbooted monkeys turn private property into yet another ‘rights free’ zone.

  • Domlanic

    Disturbing, yes, on the face of it; but is it the full story? For instance, did the police fear the man in question was assaulting anyone or threatening their life? Surely in such a case one would support police ‘breaking and entering’ to save a life? 

    Just a thought…

    • bob marks

      Just a thought for you – Why didn’t the cops ask questions of the lady?   Do you feel threatened?  Are you O.K.?  Do you want to come with us?   Did he hurt you? Do you fear he will hurt you?   Attempting to justify an unlawful entry with your thought just flat out won’t wash.

  • Domlanic

    Oops, missed the part in the description saying “no probable cause”-  sorry!

  • Domlanic

     Then again… “arguing with his wife” could have been understated,  if she was screaming for her life!

    • Bob Marks

      If that was the case, the cops could have asked her: “Ma’am, are you O.K.?   Do you feel safe here?   Do you want to come with us?   Is this your home?  Do you want us to enter?”  but they didn’t!!!!!!!!!!  They made an unlawful entry and attacked the owner in his house when he went to resist the unlawful entry and then they charged him with a crime!!
       

  • Pete

    Hey Simon,

    Did you see the 60 Minutes piece on “Sovereign Citizens” last night? You can watch it online anytime. This followed the obvious softball interviews and agenda boosting and platform serving Obama/Bin Laden pieces from last week. On last night’s show they also spilled the beans on what most people already knew about Pakistan (they hide & support terrorists). Seems like 60 Minutes decided to paint this exagerrated and extremist picture on “Sovereign Citizens” in order to stigmatize them but I think they have people who agree with several points made daily on this board in mind as well. They simply wanted to profile some loser radicals in order to paint any dissenting non-big government movements with a domestic terrorist brush. Curious on your thoughts on that piece and the recent BS and positive press the media is giving Obama on the Bin Laden. I think this news was all about strategically improving Obama’s approval rating and launching his re-election campaign. Sad to say but I think the guy is going to get re-elected. The Republican candidates seem uninspiring and the only ones worth voting for (like Ron Paul) are not mainstream enough to win.

    • fatfighter59

       People should not choose their candidate of choice like they do a race horse – which one has the best chance to win.  They should vote for who they think is the best one to do the job. In which case, one would not have to be mainstream to win. But regarding votes, as long as we have computer voting, we really do not have voting at all.  They are far too easily rigged and it is a well known fact in Congress and by technicians.

  • Cassady Toles

    I read the case, and I don’t think that you understand what it’s about.  It didn’t say that the search was legal, it said, merely, that a homeowner doesn’t have the right to use force to stop uniformed police officers from entering their home (illegally or otherwise) in reasonable response to a 911 phone call.

    This case isn’t about the fourth or fifth amendments to the constitution.  It’s about the power of the castle doctrine and when it’s okay to use force to repel an intruder, as opposed to either calling the cops, fleeing, or suing after the fact.  In this instance, it would have been easy for him to identify the police and sue them for any damages.  He didn’t have the right to shove one, tackle him, and start choking the guy.

    Did you actually read the case?  Or did you just hear someone talk about it once?

    • Bryan

      Does the 911 call have to be made by the occupant of the house? How would they know if it is a cell phone?

      If my neighbour calls 911 because he hears something, can the police enter my house without a warrant now, even if I tell them not to come in? Can they search my house just because someone (it could be anyone random) called 911 and mentioned my house number? That seems like an easy way to get around the need of having a warrant. Just get a citizen to call 911 and mention a house address.

    • freedom74

      Excellent points. Nice to read informed comment that clears away some of the speculation and sensationalism.

    • http://www.facebook.com/people/Worf-SonofMogh/100000852115778 Worf SonofMogh

       The “castle doctrine” was historically the primary purpose of the fourth amendment, so I don’t think you should so willingly cede it.  Your children and grandchildren will live with that mistake.

      Why should a “uniformed police officer” be able to illegally enter into private property?  You make it seem like I am just sitting there and have no privacy rights.  What if I am naked in the bathtub with my wife?   Or hiding under the couch because I have PTSD and don’t want anyone to know?  

      You destroy people’s feeling of security if the gestapo can simply enter at any time. 

      What about the risk that it is an impostor?   I would have just let a criminal into my home.  The entire risk of an impostor is imposed on the homeowner under the court’s ruling.  The other risk is of a trigger happy home invasion by the police, in a case of mistaken identity.  You simply bear the risk they accidentally kill you.

      This creates a clear caste distinction between cop and citizen, the antithesis of traditional American jurisprudence.  Government agents are not inherently more valuable or important than lay citizen. 

      All that said, I understand where you are coming from in your response–superficial as it is–but the scenario you paint requires police acting in good faith.  But access to liberty has never been dependent upon the assumption that the State’s agents will act in good faith.  

      Liberty is most needed when the State’s agents do not act in good faith.

      Lastly, if you are a Christian, let me remind you of this lesson.  Jesus scolded the Pharisees and lawyers for imposing burdens on others they did not impose on themselves.  In this case, the police have broken the law with their unlawful entry.  If we do that, we go to jail and are liable to be shot.  If they do that, nothing happens, and maybe many years down the road there is a miniscule chance that the taxpayers pay some amount in a civil settlement. 

      What happened to ignorance of the law is no excuse?  Oh wait, that only applies to us mundanes.  Woe unto you, indeed.

    • http://www.facebook.com/people/Worf-SonofMogh/100000852115778 Worf SonofMogh

      I have one more point to split hairs on, but it is fundamental.

      You say the court didn’t’ rule the search was legal, but rather it ruled you couldn’t use force to enforce your rights. This result is absurd.

      A right without a valid and proportionate remedy is not a right at all.  It’s a fiction.  

      There is centuries of western jurisprudence that allows equitable and injunctive relief (i.e. force) to protect petty intrusions of your rights, such as a neighbor who keeps stepping on the corner of your lawn.  Your damages are nil, but the affront to dignity is everything.

  • Guest

    Your details on the Barnes case are not correct.  The call was a domestic in progress, he had pulled the phone from her hand when she tried calling her sister and when the LEO’s arrived she showed signs of distress.  In addition she was willing to grant them entry into the residence on top of which they had probable cause to do so.

    In addition in their ruling the court never said that the entry of the LEO’s was illegal the ruling stated;

    “Because we decline to recognize the right to reasonably resist an unlawful police entry, we need not decide the legality of the officers‘ entry into Barnes‘s apartment.”

    http://www.in.gov/judiciary/opinions/pdf/05121101shd.pdf

    There is a saying that bad cases make bad case law.  This was a poor case to argue on 4TH Amendment grounds.

    • bob marks

       The court said they declined to recognize the right to reasonabley resist unlawful police entry.   That is the issue. 
       
      The cop coulda said “Ma’am – do you want our help?  Do you want to come with us?   Are you O.K. here?”

      Instead they barged in and tasered the man in his own home!!
      There is no way to justify this piece of tyranny!!!

  • guest

     Well… that whole freedom thing.  Nice while it lasted.

  • http://www.bzemic.com/impossibleInstinct/ steve ward

    maybe im just being silly but lets say country X pass that law police are allowed to walk in. So what would stop me from issuing a warrant for the people who allowed this to happen. lets say to the judge who gave the warrant i though he was dealing in drugs or something?  i dont see them making a law that in the end would hurt them?

    • http://pulse.yahoo.com/_XXUI2U5IPS7IABBMSM4I27BYDA chris

      It’s even worse than that.  There WAS no warrant.  Only a call from a neighbor that there was a domestic disturbance, cops show up and kick in the door.

      So, call 9/11, say there is a domestic disturbance at the judge’s house, cops show up and kick int he door… POOF!  Ruling overturned!

  • Brian

    Can anyone tell me about how much USD per year a family of four (mom, dad, 8yo, 6yo) would need to earn to live in Chile comfortably? 

  • Diogenes_

     Commenter Toles below echoes the same thinking in the court documents, that citizens don’t have a right to forcibly resist an unlawful police assault into their homes. The courts reasoning is that supposedly the citizen has an adequate objection response available in following the states administrative procedures after the police invasion takes place. That is the definition of a police state, a state in which there is no absolute right to  the sanctity of ones person,property  and home.

     The court explicitly stated that it is not a crime for the police to invade ones home at will, and whoever objects to an invasion can respond by pursuing Civil not Criminal charges. That means if your wearing a badge, you can bash down your neighbors door at will, handcuff him for hours, strip search his wife, shoot them all if they resist, and the worst that can happen to you is that you will be sued and maybe fired.

    Administrative responses to home invasion by police the courts finding listed as adequate:
    (1) bail, (2) prompt arraignment and determination of probable cause, (3)the exclusionary rule, (4) police department internal review and disciplinary procedure, and (5)civil remedies.

    This is a police state, a state answerable only to it’s own administrative procedures,there is simply no question about it.

    • http://pulse.yahoo.com/_XXUI2U5IPS7IABBMSM4I27BYDA chris

      Unintended consquences…?

      This attempt to protect “officer safety” is going to end up getting a lot of Indiana cops killed. 

      • http://profiles.yahoo.com/u/6EWDTDGGPM2NUB23WZXTLKO6DI Lorili

        At least there’s something good in this then.

  • John Lloyd

    Simon, I hate the police just as much as the next libertarian man but in these domestic abuse cases it’s a really sticky area. What if those cops left and then the man beat his wife to death? Just something to think about…  

    • Michael

      No, nothing to think about, crimes are not committed by intent but by commission.
      If intent or possibilities (“what if”) were ground for judgment, then not one of us would be free, including you.

      • John

         With the exception of probable cause…

      • freedom74

        Anytime a man and wife argue it is probable cause to think he is going to beat her to death?

        Lets see the statistics on this there buddy to see what percentage chance you see as probable cause.

        Basically your probable cause is then a blank check and no protection to any rights at all.

      • MikeB

        Under John Lloyd’s interpretation, probable cause degenerates into the same kind of morass that ‘regulation of interstate commerce’ has. Basically, a blank check for government to do whatever it wants. 

      • John Lloyd

        Probable cause is inherently vague because it can only be established on site. Statistics are really irrelevant, freedom74. You guys don’t have to parot back to me liberty principles from the Cato Institute, Im very familiar with them. I’m simply saying in this case, if I were a cop and I saw a woman who was obviously in distress I would probably want to enter the property to make sure everything was ok and leave when things calmed down. Thats kind of their job….

      • http://pulse.yahoo.com/_XXUI2U5IPS7IABBMSM4I27BYDA chris

         The cop didn’t “see” a woman in distress.  i.e. he had to KICK the door down to get inside.

        The flaw in your logic is that it is not the sole responsibility of the police to protect the woman; that is primarily HER job.

        Cops are there to draw the chalk outline around the dead wife-beating husband and fill out the paperwork.

      • John Lloyd

        What are you a feminist? Most women are in no position, unless they’re armed, to fight a man toe to toe. And I disagree, the police are there to play a preventitive role when possible. ie…a bank is being robbed…they should intervene and not wait for the thieves to get in their getaway van.

      • GUEST

         actually they should wait, so the danger clears from the civilian area. in fact why do banks have anything to rob?? its just paper. this is isnt the old west where a bag of gold coins is the prize; ITS JUST PAPERS.

      • Rogerzuehlke

         I agree. The police have NO obligation to protect us at any time. It is strictly inherent on us to protect ourselves against harm. I will take a chance with a jury of my peers rather than yield to an intruder’s gun.

      • Fab

        If each time I shout at my wife the cops brake the door, I’ll be bankrupt soon.

    • macnucc11

      Then the wife is dead and the husband goes to jail.  You cannot pre-emptively police against every possible situation or outcome and you should never try.  It is exactly this thinking, that the worst is always going to happen that leads to acceptance of violations of constitutional rights.  If the woman and man are theri of their own free will then there is no need for police to referee a domestic dispute.  We should also be encouraging all women to leave relationsships like this and not encouraging them with the possibility of the state officiating their domestic quarells. 

  • Diogenes_

    Hail to dissenting Justices Rucker and Dickson:
            But the common law rule supporting a citizen‘s right to resist unlawful entry into her
    home rests on a very different ground, namely, the Fourth Amendment to the United States
    Constitution. Indeed, ―the physical entry of the home is the chief evil against which the wording
    of the Fourth Amendment is directed.‖ Payton v. New York, 445 U.S. 573, 585 (1980). In my
    view it is breathtaking that the majority deems it appropriate or even necessary to erode this
    constitutional protection based on a rationale addressing much different policy considerations.
    There is simply no reason to abrogate the common law right of a citizen to resist the unlawful
    police entry into his or her home.

                                                    In my view the majority sweeps with far too broad a brush by essentially telling Indiana citizens that government agents may now enter their homes
    illegally – that is, without the necessity of a warrant, consent, or exigent circumstances. And that
    their sole remedy is to seek refuge in the civil arena. I disagree and therefore respectfully
    dissent.

  • BugLike

    Just the beginning. Far worse is headed our way.
    Next they will tell us that criminals also have a right to enter any time they please.

     

    • Diogenes_

        They just did.

  • http://twitter.com/woodyf Woody Funderburk

     CROWN POINT, Ind. – According to Newton County Sheriff, Don Hartman Sr., random house to house searches are now possible and could be helpful following the Barnes v. STATE of INDIANA Supreme Court ruling issued on May 12th, 2011. When asked three separate times due to the astounding callousness as it relates to trampling the inherent natural rights of Americans, he emphatically indicated that he would use random house to house checks, adding he felt people will welcome random searches if it means capturing a criminal.CROWN POINT, Ind. – According to Newton County Sheriff, Don Hartman Sr., random house to house searches are now possible and could be helpful following the Barnes v. STATE of INDIANA Supreme Court ruling issued on May 12th, 2011. When asked three separate times due to the astounding callousness as it relates to trampling the inherent natural rights of Americans, he emphatically indicated that he would use random house to house checks, adding he felt people will welcome random searches if it means capturing a criminal.

  • Diogenes_

    CROWN POINT, Ind. – According to Newton County Sheriff, Don Hartman Sr.,
    random house to house searches are now possible and could be helpful
    following the Barnes v. STATE of INDIANA Supreme Court ruling issued on
    May 12th, 2011. When asked three separate times due to the
    astounding callousness as it relates to trampling the inherent natural
    rights of Americans, he emphatically indicated that he would use random
    house to house checks, adding he felt people will welcome random
    searches if it means capturing a criminal.

    http://smargus.com/indiana-sheriff-if-we-need-to-conduct-random-house-to-house-searches-we-will/?utm_source=feedburner&utm_medium=feed&utm_campaign=Feed%3A+TheSmokingArgus+%28The+Smoking+Argus%29

    • Johndoe

      B.S. 

    • http://profiles.yahoo.com/u/6EWDTDGGPM2NUB23WZXTLKO6DI Lorili

      People will welcome random searches with lead.

    • Stortenbecker

       I think sheriff Hartman may be in for a shock. The article did say that the justices did conclude that the entry of the police into the home was an illegal act. As an illegal act, all the evidence that the police seized would still be illegal, and inadmissible in a court of law. Even if the cops were to catch sum one in this manner the arrest would have to be thrown out of court. Though I agree this ruling is outrageous, and it will wind up in the death of several home owners and a few tax feeding parasites, it does give the police carte-blanch to enter any house they want to and arrest any one that may be smoking weed, and have it stick in court. At least not yet. That may come later when Hartman tries his tactics and the case goes to the Indiana supremes.

  • Meandus

    Buglike, isn’t that what the article said??

  • TonyIII

    The Magna Carta was made at a time when matters of right and wrong were self-evident.  In other words the Natural law, as expressed in The Our Father, was undeniable. Now law students are taught that The Law is a management tool  to guide society. The new law is intrinsically authoritarian.

  • Fred

     The risk for the police is that if they act like an occupying army they may one day be treated like one.

  • Cincinnatus

    This reveals government for what it really is……..A criminal gang writ large.

    Forget the legal sophistry……..government can be controlled by only one method dating from pre-history.

    This is a prime case for exercizing liberty’s obligation to the second amendment.

    The moment a costumed agent of the state illegally enters a home he becomes just another thug bent on mayhem and destruction.

    Remember to use large caliber rifle/carbine defense and always aim for the head. 

    • http://www.facebook.com/profile.php?id=100000659264878 Dawn Weaver

      In a stress situation in close quarters (such as a building interior) most people cannot make a head shot. Aim for the center of mass/chest area to neutralize the threat.

  • http://pulse.yahoo.com/_DUFKFR3JF4AVBZKFFFPA2VC27U mark edward marchiafava

    @buglike, the cops ARE the criminals.

  • http://pulse.yahoo.com/_DUFKFR3JF4AVBZKFFFPA2VC27U mark edward marchiafava

    It appears the courts may have to dust off the oft-overloooked John Bad Elk decision.

  • alicelillie

    If anyone ever tells me I am in a “rights-free” zone, I’ll say no I’m not. Proof: I am here and rights are unalienable.

  • Hignite Mike

    This is not good.  This will result in dead police officers.  If police are not restricted to obtaining search warrents, then citizens won’t be able to discern between police & criminals. 

    If it were me, and someone breaks into my house, even if they are saying “Police, Police”, I’m going to make sure they are dead on the floor before calling the police for confirmation.  I’m not taking the chance with my family. 

    • http://pulse.yahoo.com/_DUFKFR3JF4AVBZKFFFPA2VC27U mark edward marchiafava

      Mike, the police ARE the criminals, there’s no need to discern.

      • Pete

         Yeah, just get rid of the police. Let the gang banging gun shooting thugs take over. I’ll send all the gangbanging thugs that are infiltrating my neighborhood over to your neighborhood, okay ?

    • Guest

      It seems to me like the obvious question is:  What if someone dresses up like a police officer to invade your home.  Why wouldn’t a person use defensive force assuming the invader could easily don a police uniform?

      I don’t see how the judged didn’t see the danger in such a scenario………

      • http://www.facebook.com/profile.php?id=100000659264878 Dawn Weaver

        In AZ, we have had home invaders dressed like military/police. You make an excellent point. But don’t bother activist judges with logic. It only confuses them.

      • The Goob

        The answer is simple; Incompetence, corruption or some combination of the two! 

    • Bob LaCoe

      How do we know they are really police? There are many instances where crooks, rapists, etc have acquired uniforms, badges, and lights for their car in order to stop cars. I agree that better to shoot first than be shot. The courts are just laying the groundwork for the new Brown shirts to invade your home, steal your arms, and anything else they want. It must be stopped ASAP. VOTE, call, write, inform the uninformed, and do not back down.  GOD save this country. 

  • RebelRouser3456

    This is on the heals of last
    month’s Indiana Court of Appeals decision in Baird v Lake Santee, where Chief
    Judge Robb determined that punitive fines are substantially the same as
    governmental fees and that your home may be seized and sold without you ever being
    charged, prosecuted or convicted of a violation.  14th Amendment … not in Indiana.

    My advice: Escape Indiana before
    you’re dead or penniless.
     

  • Jtaurus30815

    If one can’t get justice in the courts then it is time to put the judges on trial for treason. 

    • http://profiles.yahoo.com/u/6EWDTDGGPM2NUB23WZXTLKO6DI Lorili

      Put them on trial in a court of ‘law?’  Presided over by another judge?  Good luck with that.

  • http://pulse.yahoo.com/_GWHTIEWBHEV3ZJ4LEFXK7FR3ZU NWO

    Americans have allowed “Preemptive War” to be the Empires foreign policy, why not the same at home. Jackboots busting doors down to prevent thought crime, or any precrime.

  • Johnhoward

    Indiana is a Christian state and Christians hate people who don’t use their bodies in the approved Christian manner.  Therefore, Indiana Christians love the war on drugs and it is that war that has turned their state into a police state.  Christians have always preferred punishing sin to defending liberty.  America is a Christian nation, we are told by the Christians…..

    • Guest

      It’s an interesting point johnhoward – one that deserves more scrutiny…  I have been told it is a police state by others who live there too.

    • Lpartain

       Ron Paul is a Christian, never forget it.

    • Guest

       Except you forget all of the other “Christian” states where stuff like this is far less frequent. Get a fucking clue.

    • Bradtothebone

      What do Christians and drugs have to do with officers responding to a domestic dispute? You are apparently not a Christian, so by your logic, that must mean you approve of the drug trade?? Come on dude, get a grip. There’s a so-called war on drugs because that’s all there can be against an epidemic that’s destroying the lives of millions of people of all faiths and no faith. I believe guys named John are to blame because I know several people named John who don’t like drugs and approve of the war on them and this is what they get!!

    • Guest

       it’s a redneck fucktard state

    • fatfighter59

       That is an incorrect generalization.  You need to bone up on your history – particularly of the Baptists at the founding of this country.  They turned down being the official “state church” in favor of freedom.

      • Huntergatherer1967

        not baptists i think they were puritans

      • DON

        puritans were the founders of america seeking religious freedoms

  • http://twitter.com/TheSmokingArgus TheSmokingArgus

    To those stating it is “sensational” to report that the ruling pertains solely to the “Barnes” case, you are solely mistaken.

    The outcry against this ruling stems directly from the fact that in writing the opinion for the MAJORITY, Justice Davis went outside of the case before the Court (domestic violence w/probable cause) and stated MODERN (post-PATRIOT-Act) jurisprudence indicates that individuals no longer have the ability to resist any UNLAWFUL entry by law enforcement

    UNLAWFUL entry is any entry into PRIVATE PROPERTY without WARRANT or PROBABLE CAUSE, legally speaking.

    Upon conferring with several law enforcement departments, attorneys, and Constitutional scholars, the ruling opens the door to house to house random searches solely at the discretion of the officer.

    To fail to understand that you are BORN with the right to be free from unwarranted & arbitrary government intrusion is to be a victim of the state.

  • http://pulse.yahoo.com/_DUFKFR3JF4AVBZKFFFPA2VC27U mark edward marchiafava

    What FURTHER proof is needed to convince even the most ardent statists we now live in a POLICE STATE?
    What else need happen before we witness the 2nd American revolution?

    • Southrondixieforever

      What else needs to happen before we witness the 2nd American revolution? Quite a bit, actually. It has to be patently obvious to anyone paying the least bit of attention that the average Joe, good ’ole Joe Sixpack, doesn’t really care if the jackbooted thugs of government control stomp unceremoniously over his threshold unbidden and unannounced….just so long as they don’t pass between him and his TV, or him and the beer cooler. The average American in today’s society simply doesn’t care about the rights he is losing, he’s too busy wondering what’s next on “dancing with the Stars,” or who’s going to win the next football game. As long as the cable is working and there’s cold beer in the fridge, he simply doesn’t give a sh*t. It’s “bread and circuses” all over again…… 

  • Dave

    Domestic violence is the nightmare of every policeman out there. Chances are the complaining person will crack you over the head as you attempt to assist them. More police persons are injuried in a domestic violence case than any other type in the country. I see the point of the police not taking chances.
    That said, the police and the courts were out of line with this ruling. They were out of line because this puts police in the difficult position of invading citizens homes. That is dangerous. It is dangerous to the policeman as well as the citizen. Someone breaking down my door? I personally would run out the back door or open the garage and leave out the back.
    A lot of country folk carry heavy arms. (Like rifles and pistols in their homes.) The temptation is to take up arms and fire through the door. Contrary to popular belief, rifle bullets are not stopped by thin doors and plasterboard. Bullets are deadly.
    That means the invading party is at risk. Then you have the person educated in lethal arms. One of these days they will burst into a living room and get bombed as they come in the door.
    The correct way to handle a situation is to knock on the door, identify yourself as a policeman, and ask to come in and resolve any issues of complaint. Or have the persons come outside. To do otherwise, brings up way too many legal issues and hazard issues to the investigating officer. We as a group do not need to put our police officers in that kind of cowboy situation. In fact, we need to fire the cowboys right off the police forces. They are a danger to us all.
    That is the practical reason behind the fourth amendment.

     

    • Azroper

      why must you liberal pukes ,  disparage cowboys ????  If you burst uninvited into my house,  you will dislike the reception for eternity.                                                                                          signed,  COWBOY

      • Cowboy 2

        I believe you misread the comment to which you responded.  Dave was calling the police that insist on entry without permission a ‘cowboy situation’ and that the ‘cowboys’ should be removed from the police forces.

        Otherwise, I’m right there with you, brother!

  • macnucc11

     I have long believed that we need to get police out of the domestic dispute business.  Cut back on the expense and the unneeded meddling in other people’s affairs.  If the dispute moves to violence then the police should be called but never to mediate a dispute between two consenting adults.

  • http://pulse.yahoo.com/_DUFKFR3JF4AVBZKFFFPA2VC27U mark edward marchiafava

    Has anyone heard of any presidential candidates discussing matters such as this? I haven’t.

  • Sam_B12

     And remember, the opinion was penned by a judge appointed by the Republican Gov, Mitch Daniels.  And he is touted as a presidential hopeful…The GOP and the DNC are major architects of the police state.

  • http://profiles.yahoo.com/u/6EWDTDGGPM2NUB23WZXTLKO6DI Lorili

    There is really only one reasonable response to someone illegally entering your home after you warn them not to.  You have to natural right to defend yourself and family with whatever force necessary.  Either that or you are a slave with no rights at all.  Your choice.

    • Joe w

        I guess since the Federal Government doesn’t protect it’s borders then neither should you.

  • D. El De McClung

    It has become obvious to me that the U.S. Government is beyond saving and as the declaration of Independence declares, the people have the right to abolish their government when and if it becomes too corrupt, criminal, and intolerable.  Abolish, as in “do away with”.  That is now my stance.  Put all the criminals and traitors now in governemnt in jail and start over according to the Constitution.   

  • Rbsmith

    You have misconstrued the Barnes Vs State of Indiana case….Go and read it again….the court overturned two of the charges and remanded the case back for a new trial since there was an inadequate jury instruction specifically for “but we remand for a new trial on those convictions because the jury was not properly instructed on Barnes‟s defense of the right to reasonably resist unlawful entry into his home”.

    He DID in fact have the right to reasonably resist unlawful entry and the court recognized the fact….you present it as the COURT refused the right which it did NOT….you should read not mislead others to prove your point. READ IT HERE: http://www.in.gov/judiciary/opinions/pdf/04151005pdm.pdf 

  • Coldan

    Every case that comes in front of our ‘high’ courts (high on psych meds, apparently) is settled in favor of absolute life and death authority in the hands of the morons they appoint as police officers.
    Don’t bring any further cases.
    Whattaya, stoopid?

  • http://www.facebook.com/profile.php?id=100000659264878 Dawn Weaver

    The judges in the majority of this decision cited the potential for escalated violence if citizens were allowed to resist illegal police entry…I wonder if they have considered the violence inherent in a civil war sparked by continuing, muddle-headed rulings like this, where the judicial system no longer protects the unalienable rights of citizens? Once citizens figure out that their rights no longer exist and the Constitution no longer protects them, they will withdraw their consent for government. Once that happens, TPTB will have  full-scale civil war on their hands. If the laws no longer protect everyone equally, if there are different standards for citizens than those applied to favored classes (illegal aliens, colored people, the ultra-rich bankers, politicians, government officials, etc), then there is no Bill of Rights and the Constitution is little more than used toilet paper. If the law doesn’t protect us all equally, then it protects no one. This is a very dangerous road these idiot “justices” have chosen.

    • Off

       ”illegal aliens”??? “colored people”??? you have to be kidding… the two classes with the least rights ever- did you forget slavery? ‘southern justice’? northern justice? try being an illegal alien under indefinite detention, maybe a young girl far from her family… it’s idiot rednecks like you that are the source of the problem, and the moron cops. civil war, yeah right. armies of lardass walmart patrons.

      • Girlygirl

        This message is for OFF…

        YOU ARE AN IDIOT…. Dawn was expressing the unfortunate
        politically correct realities we are forced to live with
        today…

        The “sacred cows” currently established within our
        society are being used to set up a very dangerous
        political agenda…. that will destroy our entire social
        contract and will gravely affect everyone … including
        the sacred cow du jour…..

        The only individuals that are supportive of favoring one
        group against another are those who think they are about
        to get something for nothing… or those who believe they
        will remain a part of the favored political power base
        when it all shakes out… in either case … both are
        too stupid and too greedy to realize they will be
        sacrificed along with everyone else once they no
        longer serve a purpose….

        Only a mental midget  would rather concentrate
        on what you mistakenly view as “Redneck” thinking rather
        than honestly assessing the accuracy of Dawn’s observations..
         
        If you had any critical thinking skills you would put down
        your racist mindset and begin to recognize what is quickly
        becoming a Totalitarian State… precisely because too
        many Americans have a myopic self serving mindset that
        argues over the “lint on the rug… when the house is
        on fire”!!
         

  • dusty

    When corruption reaches the highest level as it has the power reverts back to the people.It is not only your duty to resist but above all it is your right remember a right is not a privalage. A right cannot be altered in any way by anyone reguardless of there status. Make no mistake the people need to show the corrupt system that they have had enough and will no longer tollerate any abusive action. 

  • donald

    Well I for one am disappointed in reading this! Maybe the indiana  supreme court should revisit some of the happenings in the world like Egypt and Libya where people had enough! They are kicking their former governments Out on their asses,along with arrests of officials! I am not advocating violence at all but I would highly suggest floating a petition of recall to every one of the elected officials holding state office everyone of them Start with An ARTICLE OF IMPEACHMENT on the Governor for violating his sworn oath to adhere to both The U.S. federal and the Indiana state Constitutions! Same goes to the supreme court justices! Come on Indianan’s show them you have the power and enough is enough! Use your POWER to take back your power! Man every shopping mall every bus station every airport every rail station! Use your friends the internet I phones and twitter to make this happen for you! Create your history restoring your rights and freedoms without having to fire a single shot! 49 other states are supporting you in thought spirit and prayer! America thanks you!
     

    • http://www.facebook.com/people/Fenimore-Neon/100000727547089 Fenimore Neon

      49? what are you high? try about 5 would support indiana. the rest already lost their rights too.

  • Tatiana Covington

    Laws are mere man-made pieces of paper with some ink on them What about them? They are no protection, since they can always be broken, overruled, repealed, amended, and just torn up and ignored.

    The reality is that government has always been able to do anything you can’t stop it from doing *by force*.

    The constitution does nothing. I know by personal observation. In April 1972, I looked upon it and the declaration and bill as well, in the national archives.

    What did I see?

    Nine pieces of parchment with some ink on them, not doing a thing.

    • http://www.facebook.com/people/Fenimore-Neon/100000727547089 Fenimore Neon

      exactly tatiana. what can a piece of paper do? in order to do anything…we must use our brains.

    • alted1

      Ya gotta live it. Not look at it. 

  • Stuart Erica

    Cannot allow any Court to dismiss with the sequence of documents that led to the Constitution and reaffirmed. The sequence must be kept untouched where it deals with the “natural rights of people”
    Those right spelled out never changed until some incompetent Congress and judges  used the 14th Amendment and slavery as an  excuse to make politically motivated changes.  Hopefully they take the case up to the Supreme Court we will need it to resolve the present manipulation  over citizenship which is also clear in the  documents,

  • Mike in the East

    I read his request for retrial at the link posted

    http://www.in.gov/judiciary/opinions/pdf/04151005pdm.pdf

    He will get a retrial ONLY because the jury was not given the instructions someone CAN “reasonably resist” UNLAWFUL entry by a police officer: entry without warrant or probable cause.

    Unfortunately, “probable cause” and “reasonably resist” are both subjective terms individual juries get to decide in court…

    They cite another case where pushing = battery = not lawful resistance! How else do you ‘reasonable resist’ someone trying to illegally enter your home? Hitting them with a pillow?

    “Citing Robinson, the State argues that the instruction should not have been given because a defendant may not resist unlawful entry by battering a police officer.

    In Robinson, police officers responding to a 911 call of a possible domestic disturbance, refused to leave the premises after Robinson told them to leave. When an officer attempted to come onto the porch of the residence, Robinson pushed the officer off of the porch.

    Robinson appealed his conviction for battery on a law enforcement officer, and we concluded that Robinson‟s act of pushing the officer off of his porch was not reasonable resistance. 704 N.E.2d at 708. Specifically, we stated “[t]he right to reasonably resist an unlawful entry does not include the right to commit a battery upon a police officer.” Id.”

    The argument from the police is is not the entry was lawful or unlawful, but the resistant was unreasonable! The court says the jury was not informed of the law and so a retrial should take place, but the jury in the next trial will decide the “reasonability” of resistance.

    An illegal intruder ought to be guilty at a crime scene in the eyes of the victim. How can one ONLY use ‘reasonable’ force when one fears for their life or the life of their loved ones?

    One final question: If there are multiple invaders how can I using only my hands to prevent them from entering be reasonable to ME? If a gang (organized group committing a crime) tries to enter my house and I have a gun, I am warning them and if they do not leave I will take them down one by one; or else I will possibly be killed myself. A gang can be a group of thugs wearing bandanas or badges – if they are committing a crime; their life is not my priority, my life and my family’s life is.

    Bottom line, America is becoming more like China where the law is made to protect and preserve the State, not the individual citizen. Interesting note.. Confucianism emphasizes the innate goodness of people in general, and America emphasizes the innate goodness of officers and civil “servants” (both of which are bad presuppositions to have.) I current live in China (more freedoms as a foreigner and looking to launch a tutoring business here in the fall), but am pondering Taiwan or South America for more long-term living.

    • Mike in the East

      Hurray for grammar/spelling mistakes… Glad my post is still readable.

      Simon, keep us up to date on this. I am most curious whenever the retrial happens what the jury will rule on his actions: reasonable or unreasonable resistance. Either way, the fact it is up to subjective determination by a jury is ridiculous.

  • jliparelli

    Nice piece. Funny, I live here and I never heard anything about this case in the news. Too many officials in this country are afraid to antagonize the police and as such, we lose our rights and freedoms.JFL 

    • http://profiles.google.com/jeffcarr46 Jeff Carr

      Then you have been asleep. It has been on the “real” news sources continuously. I say real news meaning the radio and reliable internet sources that can be verified. I do not watch TV for news since they are not reliable sources in my opinion.
       

  • Pyrocop1

    This article is only giving you bits and pieces not the full details.  This has been spun for headline grabbing and web hits.  Do your research people.  The court ruling quoted here do not appear as they have been quoted here!  

    • Pvgdc10

      Pyrocop, if you have done the homework that you recommend all of us to do, why not provide a few links to what you found?

  • Pete

    If the police has no right to intervene in a situation when they are called, then why call the police ?
    What if the guy was in the process of killing his wife; he can just tell the police to leave ? 

  • Daisy

    its very simple, the judge only has the power you give to him, daddy can i please…
    we are at an unprecedented time in history where the haves bury the have not’s. and as we lose individual after individual, they will no longer be there to stand and resist such platant corruption in our system, the system is broken, the criminals are all involved. if you drive the getaway car, you are guilty by association, if they drive the getaway car, you paid for it. This is tyranny and everyone in the system from top to bottom is going along to get along, with their cut of the peoples money. don’t worry, better people than you have all ready been done in, it’s just your turn now. WE stand together, or we go out alone. period

  • Eaglehawk25

    In America the Magna Carta is relevant only to historians (count me among them).  It has no more place in American law than does “international law”.

    • HowardS

      That is true.  However, if you read the statement you will see htat it was referenced only as the basis for our own constitution which IS relevant

  • jtharo@aol.com

    And Indiana is a Republican/Red state!!!  So I guess you cannot trust any politically based government agency in this country.  they all want to take away or severely restrict a citizens rights.  Which party do you want to trough out of office now??

    • Jkjk

      It is more important to note who appointed the “Justices” than to declare what is currently the leading party of the state.  Do you know who the “Justices” are and who appointed them?  Why don’t you find that out and let us know?  However, ultimately most politicians end up being corrupt and only look out for themselves and end up destroying our country bit by bit.  All of these liberties being taken from us is making way for Sharia to be the law of the land.  We’ve been had by our politicians.

  • http://statesmansentinel.com Classical Liberal

    Unbelievable.  Tyranny knows no bounds.

    • http://pulse.yahoo.com/_JYOIGDLLA2XHIGRFX2WWPE27BY GorillaMonsta

      Then all tyrants shall be hung! Hang em high!

  • Cybermercenary

    We’re hearing about the husband’s reaction to having police break into his home.  Nowhere are we hearing about the wife’s reaction.  Is it not her home and property, too? 

     I think I had a different reaction to this story than the author.  A case of “marital problems” loud enough to disturb the neighbors can mean that the wife is getting knocked around.

    If I were being beaten up by an angry husband, I would not want the police to spend a few hours getting a search warrant. I want them to save me. NOW. If someone called the police because of a disturbance in MY house, then my life or that of my children might be in danger.

    How often do we hear stories where neighbors hear screams, shrug it off as none of their business, and when the body is found we all shake our heads and wonder why nobody cared enough to help.

    Now we’re saying that even if the neighbors try to get help, the police are supposed to say, “Sorry. There’s nothing we can do. The man has a right to be left alone in his own home.”

    • Nirmal Chaudhri

      I agree if a wife or child or anyone else – even a pet – is in danger – but that would count as ‘probable cause’ to suspect criminal activity therefore justifying the intrusion. In this case it does not appear to be justified.

    • Mnmicroman

      By the way does this included when the female in a relationship is beating up or coming after her husband boyfriend  As Women can become just as aggressive as men

  • Charles1Martel

    I hope the Indiana Legislature impeaches these “Justices”.

  • Joefrugal

    Excellent article! I too have been “banging the drum” on this completely unconstitutional ruling, and it wasn’t even from the Socialist 9th Circuit Court of Appeals. This is out-of-control and “We the People” need to rise up. Refer to Article III of the Constitution of the United States that says judges of constitutional courts shall serve during “good behavior…” This means they too can be removed for not following the Constitution (of which there IS historic precedence).

  • thomas parkelli

    A true sovereign American is not subject to the above-mentioned encroachments, made by the police officers. They acted against U.S. citizen-subjects, not lawfully protected American people. De facto policing agents have no lawful authority over sovereigns, only subjects. Subjects (of Congress) are so defined by evidence of birth registrations and Social Security Account Numbers, any lacking of which would have prohibited the said encroachments.
    How a ‘sovereign status’ is acquired is taught by only a handful of law-teachers; please do not expect the ‘pied pipers of today’s media’ to know anything about the process of ‘natural rights restoration.’ The afore-mentioned ‘subjects’ had privileges, not rights — a point of law which BAR-member attorneys are ordered never to discuss, under threat of losing their BAR-member cards. Any discussion of ‘Artile 3 protection’ is red herring nonsense, until the basic issue of natural rights restoration is first fully addressed, followed by decisive action with proven lawful remedy.

  • Guest

    Fifteen years ago, mid-way through a college stint with criminal justice as my major,  I (learned) in class from the instructor (retired police officer) that a can of garbage ON MY PROPERTY did not really BELONG to me…..and it was legal for the investigators to rumage through my trash even if it had not yet been pushed to the curb…..I asked a barrage of questions , and the instructor got flustered , end result is this….we do not follow the U.S. Constitution when it concerns trash….He was red-faced when he got through explaining, backtracking and hemming and hawing, basically I was his worst nightmare…..It was THEN and there that I decided to forget about going on to law school as I wanted no part of a system which made me feel dirty, hypocritical, and ashamed….I am also a veteran, and saw so many shameful abuses while active duty that I really do not recognize this country anymore…..I will not be homesick when I leave this land, which is soon…..I am only nostalgic for the 50′s and 60′s back when Mom used to play beautiful music and apple pie was cooking and when microwave dinners were safe to eat…..but, those days are gone…..and this country has gone to the dogs……greed…..it has been destroyed by greed…..and the greed for power…..stay hopeful, everyone on this thread….and get packing…before the borders close….

  • http://pulse.yahoo.com/_JYOIGDLLA2XHIGRFX2WWPE27BY GorillaMonsta

    Thomas Parkelli…………………………… You are 100% correct Sir.

Read previous post:
Is there any truth to the Iraqi dinar rumors?

May 13, 2011 Santiago, Chile Have you heard the rumors about the Iraqi dinar? Week in, week out, we receive...

Close