islander wrote: 

 
At our coffeehouse I did T-shirts with "The brown ring of quality" and I wish I still had some of those.
Yes it was a Dogbert logo idea but I ran with it. 

 ScottFromWyoming wrote: 
I'd like to see the circles you come up with using Pi=3.

 

 meower wrote: 
I only saw 4 really dumb ones, plus one I don't understand. The rest I'm okay with

Yesterday, even as controversy continued to mount about a new Indiana law guaranteeing religious freedom, which critics say also could institutionalize discrimination against the LGBT community, the Arkansas legislature passed a similar version of the bill and sent it to Republican Governor Asa Hutchinson.

Hutchinson has said that while he has reservations about the bill, he plans to sign the legislation ... but now he has to factor into his thinking opposition by Walmart, his state's dominant corporate citizen. CEO Doug McMillon said yesterday that he believes Hutchinson should veto the bill, saying it is at odds with his company's values and the state's spirit of inclusion.

In Indiana, Republican Governor Mike Pence has said that he is open to modifying the law, the New York Times writes this morning, "but he has not indicated how he could do so without undermining it. He rejected claims that it would allow private businesses to deny service to gay men and lesbians and said the criticism was based on a 'perception problem' that additional legislation could fix."

The Times goes on: "The bill in Arkansas is similar to the Indiana law, with both diverging in certain respects from the federal Religious Freedom Restoration Act. That act was passed in 1993 and signed into law by President Bill Clinton, Arkansas’s most famous political son.

"But the political context has changed widely since then. The law was spurred by an effort to protect Native Americans in danger of losing their jobs because of religious ceremonies that involved an illegal drug, peyote. Now the backdrop is often perceived to be the cultural division over same-sex marriage.

"Both states’ laws allow for larger corporations, if they are substantially owned by members with strong religious convictions, to claim that a ruling or mandate violates their religious faith, something reserved for individuals or family businesses in other versions of the law. Both allow religious parties to go to court to head off a 'likely' state action that they fear will impinge on their beliefs, even if it has not yet happened."

T-shirt by an Indianapolis florist:

OTHER Dumb Laws in Indiana:

Waitresses may not carry drinks into a restaurant or bar.

It is illegal for a man to be sexually aroused in public.

Hotel sheets must be exactly 99 inches long and 81 inches wide. If any person has a puppet show, wire dancing or tumbling act in the state of Indiana and receives money for it, they will be fined $3 under the Act to Prevent Certain Immoral Practices.

Anyone 14 or older who profanely curses, damns or swears by the name of God, Jesus Christ or the Holy Ghost, shall be fined one to three dollars for each offense, with a maximum fine of ten dollars per day.

A three dollar fine per pack will be imposed on anyone playing cards in Indiana under the Act for the Prevention of Gaming.

The value of Pi is 3.

Grocery stores may not sell any type of cold liquor.

You are required to pour your drink into a glass.

You can get out of paying for a dependent’s medical care by praying for him/her.

“Spiteful Gossip” and “talking behind a person’s back” are illegal. One may not sniff glue.

One man may not back into a parking spot becasue it prevents police officers from seeing the license plate.

State government officials who engage in private duels can be dismissed from their post.

A person must get a referral from a licensed physician if he or she wishes to see a hypnotist unless the desired procedure is to quit smoking or lose weight.

Smoking in the state legislature building is banned, except when the legislature is in session.

All males 18 to 50 years old must work six days a year on public roads.

Baths may not be taken between the months of October and March.

Check forgery can be punished with public flogging up to 100 stripes.

Mustaches are illegal if the bearer has a tendency to habitually kiss other humans.

A few points to keep in mind:

— Police respond to domestic calls ALL THE TIME. 
"Domestic violence-related police calls have been found to constitute the single largest category of calls received by police, accounting for 15 to more than 50 percent of all calls."

— They get a pretty good sense of when the situation is dangerous.

— And remember that domestic violence calls put police and those involved in more danger than any other calls. 

— Unless you've worked in domestic violence services, you probably have no idea how often the woman has to pretend everything is fine now... because her partner has probably threatened to kill her if she gets him in trouble. 

— The police work very hard to keep everyone safe.  I know not all police are good, but they wrangle with these situations more frequently than any other.  They wrangle with these situations and know them better than ANYONE else, anywhere. They're on the front lines, and are experts.  I'm just sayin'... they deserve some credit for knowing when it's time to enter a house, and when it's not.

 oldslabsides wrote: 
 oldslabsides wrote: 
The case represents the difficult situation our police are placed in every day.  Even I don't assume all cops get up in the morning wanting to bust heads. Most cops got into the job to do good. To Protect and Serve. Here was a woman that you or I in good conscience would not want to leave with this man. Personally I want cops to do more protecting. This guy was an asshole who happened to get a lawyer who saw an angle.

The ruling, as I've said, is wrong (that all sides stipulated to the fact that the entry was unlawful makes it clear that there is more about the case that we don't know) but insane in the way they applied it universally to all 4th Amendment cases.

 MrsHobieJoe wrote: 
He deserved it.

 winter wrote: 

LOL-good point

Of course I just wanted to mention that domestic violence sometimes goes the other way.  I thumped Andy once when he was trying to drive over a seagull. 

 MrsHobieJoe wrote: 
My guess is that he probably wouldn't - Schlabby is nothing if not consistent in his principles. Yes, he's very firmly opposed to violence against women, and might well kick a wife-beater's ass himself just for sport, but he's not going to compromise his principles.

As others have noted, the police tend to take domestic violence calls pretty seriously - better to keep things peaceful than have to come back with body bags. I'm inclined to think that's best. And I'm also inclined to think that if we say "it's okay to resist arrest if you believe it's unjust or unlawful" we're setting a bad precedent. Not too many criminals are just going to concede the legitimacy of their arrest, and telling them it's okay to fight will make life a LOT harder for the police. You contest police actions in court - you don't ask to see the radar gun's calibration records while the ticket's being written on the side of the road.

 oldslabsides wrote: 

I can only say that if the wife had been your sister or daughter I'd guess that you'd prefer that the police had gone into the house.  You're right of course that domestic violence may not have been involved but making sure everything is ok given that that was the nature of the emergency call it seems pretty reasonable to me.  As for the my home is my castle bit he violated his citizen rights by disturbing the peace/possibly being violent and the result was that his home got violated.  You live in a society and therefore have to abide by the laws or expect the consequences,

 ScottFromWyoming wrote: 
Finally got to read that one.

In this case, the officer had come to the home in response to a domestic violence call. He found the defendant, Barnes, outside. The officer and the defendant exchanged heated words, and the defendant started yelling at the officer. The officer threatened to arrest the defendant if he didn’t calm down, and the defendant threatened to have the officer arrested if he arrested him. At this point the defendant’s wife came outside, threw a duffel bag in the defendant’s direction, and told him to take the rest of his stuff. She then went back inside the home. The defendant then reentered the home following his wife, but once inside he blocked the officer (and another officer) from entering. The officers asked if they could enter the home, and the defendant’s wife pleaded with the defendant to let them enter. The defendant refused. The police then entered anyway, and the defendant “shoved against the wall.” The officers then tazed the defendant and arrested him.

1) Who called the cops?  We don't know and it matters.

2) Apparently the argument was between the citizen and the cop, not the citizen and his wife - based on the articles being discussed here.

3) Why was the wife pleading with the citizen to let the cops come in?  Was she simply trying to avoid what she perceived as more trouble?  If she felt threatened by her husband, why wasn't she pleading to the cops for them to rescue her?  It's a very important difference.

Yes, I'm splitting hairs - very important hairs.  Anyone here who has known me for more than a week knows that I have NO tolerance for men who abuse women in any way, shape or form.  Those same people know that I believe in natural rights as a matter of most profound principle.  What this case and the ruling based on it represent are the slippery slope toward total police power.

After reading the second article I am still convinced - even more so - that the entry was unlawful and should/could have been resisted. 

 islander wrote: 
I haven't red the other article yet, what I wrote was based on the link in the post that started the thread.  I hope to look at the other article this evening.

 Zep wrote: 
Put some chocolate on that thing!

 Manbird wrote: 
I could sink my teeth into that one. 

 

 Manbird wrote: 
Mmm coconut.

 ScottFromWyoming wrote: 
How about "maroons"? 

 Zep wrote: 
That'll never hold up

 ScottFromWyoming wrote: 
As a wise sage opined below, "the judges are morons."
 

 Beanie wrote: 
That's pretty much my take.  There were also issues at the trial in which the judge refused to allow the husband to tender a jury instruction —

 Volokh quoted: 
So the basis for appeal: husband argued that it was an error to deny him this defense.  Supreme Court of Indiana went a little bit further, which is odd since supreme courts generally limit their rulings to specific cases, and don't like sweeping rulings (like this one). 

I still wonder what constitutes "illegal" (or "unlawful") entry.  "Resist" has a lot of meanings, from peaceable sitting down (going limp), to flight, to shoving and pushing, to armed response.  But any resistance might trigger a response in force, including tearing up the place, or a lethal response.  Good luck litigating that!