1. Welcome to SportsJournalists.com, a friendly forum for discussing all things sports and journalism.

    Your voice is missing! You will need to register for a free account to get access to the following site features:
    • Reply to discussions and create your own threads.
    • Access to private conversations with other members.
    • Fewer ads.

    We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!

Your home is your castle? Not in Indiana

Discussion in 'Sports and News' started by TrooperBari, Aug 30, 2011.

  1. Dick Whitman

    Dick Whitman Well-Known Member

    Which is kind of how it has to be. Because who in the hell wouldn't, if asked, believe that the cops don't have probable cause. You can't hold a mini-trial every time the police want to enter. It is true that the Constitution protects people against unreasonable searches and seizures. Don't read more into it than is there, though. It leaves the remedies up to legislatures and courts.
  2. Dick Whitman

    Dick Whitman Well-Known Member

    There are martyrs to every cause.

    There are a lot of dead police officers, too, gunned down by assholes who didn't want to be searched, seized, or questioned.
  3. RickStain

    RickStain Well-Known Member

    To me, the woman who was shot is even more proof that this is a practical solution (though I have no idea on the Constitutionality).

    Give people the right to armed resistance from police when they don't think the police have a legitimate reason, and you are going to see a lot more shootings on both sides.

    If we get a sudden rush of people being attacked in their homes by fake police, then we can come up with an alternative, but until then, this seems to work.
  4. Piotr Rasputin

    Piotr Rasputin New Member

    You won't see this ruling adopted in California or New York.

    One dunce judge in one politically inconsequential state does not - will not - represent a trend.
  5. Dick Whitman

    Dick Whitman Well-Known Member

    You might eventually see it adopted by five "dunce" judges in a very consequential jurisdiction, however.
  6. Dick Whitman

    Dick Whitman Well-Known Member

    The bottom line is that police need to have some discretion to do their job without fear of being shot at, assaulted, etc., etc. And people need remedies for when police wrong them. The ruling satisfies both sides of that equation.
  7. Piotr Rasputin

    Piotr Rasputin New Member

    If a powerful judge makes such a ruling, "dunce" is the least of the descriptions.
  8. Dick Whitman

    Dick Whitman Well-Known Member

  9. deskslave

    deskslave Active Member

    Exactly what remedy is available to Kathryn Johnston, who, might I remind you, had absolutely no reason whatsoever to expect the police to come knocking down her door. How was she to know that she wasn't being targeted by a home invasion and that the burglars weren't yelling "POLICE!" to throw her off?

    If the cops hadn't been using an illegally obtained search warrant to enter the wrong house, there'd have been no issue. As it turns out, there is. And the fact that you would use the shootings of cops to justify the murder of a 92-year-old woman, by calling them all "martyrs for a cause," well ...
  10. Dick Whitman

    Dick Whitman Well-Known Member

    "Well," what?
  11. Dick Whitman

    Dick Whitman Well-Known Member

    Someone died in a car accident today.

    We should get rid of all cars.

    And roads.
  12. LongTimeListener

    LongTimeListener Well-Known Member

    Just from a quick Wikipedia search, it looks like the officers ended up getting prison sentences for manslaughter and other crimes. I don't know this offhand, but did she recognize that they were police officers when she started shooting? I think this ruling is saying not "the police can do whatever they want in your house" but "if they're wrong you can take legal action later, but please don't come at them with fists or weapons or something bad is almost guaranteed to happen."
Draft saved Draft deleted

Share This Page