What Makes You Laugh?
- oldviolin - Apr 18, 2024 - 2:49pm
Trump
- rgio - Apr 18, 2024 - 2:46pm
Israel
- R_P - Apr 18, 2024 - 2:32pm
Ask an Atheist
- miamizsun - Apr 18, 2024 - 2:29pm
Remembering the Good Old Days
- miamizsun - Apr 18, 2024 - 2:28pm
NY Times Strands
- geoff_morphini - Apr 18, 2024 - 2:20pm
Robots
- miamizsun - Apr 18, 2024 - 2:18pm
Wordle - daily game
- geoff_morphini - Apr 18, 2024 - 2:15pm
NYTimes Connections
- geoff_morphini - Apr 18, 2024 - 10:42am
Song of the Day
- oldviolin - Apr 18, 2024 - 10:22am
The Obituary Page
- ptooey - Apr 18, 2024 - 9:57am
Radio Paradise Comments
- GeneP59 - Apr 18, 2024 - 7:58am
Museum Of Bad Album Covers
- Steve - Apr 18, 2024 - 6:58am
Today in History
- Red_Dragon - Apr 18, 2024 - 6:39am
April 2024 Photo Theme - Happenstance
- haresfur - Apr 17, 2024 - 7:04pm
Europe
- haresfur - Apr 17, 2024 - 6:47pm
Country Up The Bumpkin
- KurtfromLaQuinta - Apr 17, 2024 - 5:23pm
Name My Band
- GeneP59 - Apr 17, 2024 - 3:27pm
What's that smell?
- Isabeau - Apr 17, 2024 - 2:50pm
USA! USA! USA!
- R_P - Apr 17, 2024 - 1:48pm
Business as Usual
- black321 - Apr 17, 2024 - 1:48pm
Things that make you go Hmmmm.....
- dischuckin - Apr 17, 2024 - 1:29pm
Talk Behind Their Backs Forum
- VV - Apr 17, 2024 - 1:26pm
Russia
- R_P - Apr 17, 2024 - 1:14pm
Science in the News
- Red_Dragon - Apr 17, 2024 - 11:14am
Magic Eye optical Illusions
- Proclivities - Apr 17, 2024 - 10:08am
Ukraine
- kurtster - Apr 17, 2024 - 10:05am
Photography Forum - Your Own Photos
- Alchemist - Apr 17, 2024 - 9:38am
Just for the Haiku of it. . .
- oldviolin - Apr 17, 2024 - 9:01am
HALF A WORLD
- oldviolin - Apr 17, 2024 - 8:52am
• • • The Once-a-Day • • •
- oldviolin - Apr 16, 2024 - 9:08pm
Little known information... maybe even facts
- R_P - Apr 16, 2024 - 3:29pm
songs that ROCK!
- thisbody - Apr 16, 2024 - 10:56am
260,000 Posts in one thread?
- oldviolin - Apr 16, 2024 - 10:10am
WTF??!!
- rgio - Apr 16, 2024 - 5:23am
Australia has Disappeared
- haresfur - Apr 16, 2024 - 4:58am
Earthquake
- miamizsun - Apr 16, 2024 - 4:46am
It's the economy stupid.
- miamizsun - Apr 16, 2024 - 4:28am
TV shows you watch
- Manbird - Apr 15, 2024 - 7:28pm
Live Music
- oldviolin - Apr 15, 2024 - 2:06pm
Republican Party
- Isabeau - Apr 15, 2024 - 12:12pm
Vinyl Only Spin List
- kurtster - Apr 14, 2024 - 11:59am
Eclectic Sound-Drops
- thisbody - Apr 14, 2024 - 11:27am
Synchronization
- ReggieDXB - Apr 13, 2024 - 11:40pm
Other Medical Stuff
- geoff_morphini - Apr 13, 2024 - 7:54am
What Did You See Today?
- Steely_D - Apr 13, 2024 - 6:42am
Photos you have taken of your walks or hikes.
- KurtfromLaQuinta - Apr 12, 2024 - 3:50pm
Things You Thought Today
- Red_Dragon - Apr 12, 2024 - 3:05pm
Poetry Forum
- oldviolin - Apr 12, 2024 - 8:45am
Dear Bill
- oldviolin - Apr 12, 2024 - 8:16am
Radio Paradise in Foobar2000
- gvajda - Apr 11, 2024 - 6:53pm
Mixtape Culture Club
- ColdMiser - Apr 11, 2024 - 8:29am
Joe Biden
- black321 - Apr 11, 2024 - 7:43am
New Song Submissions system
- MayBaby - Apr 11, 2024 - 6:29am
No TuneIn Stream Lately
- kurtster - Apr 10, 2024 - 6:26pm
Caching to Apple watch quit working
- email-muri.0z - Apr 10, 2024 - 6:25pm
April 8th Partial Solar Eclipse
- Alchemist - Apr 10, 2024 - 10:52am
Bug Reports & Feature Requests
- orrinc - Apr 10, 2024 - 10:48am
NPR Listeners: Is There Liberal Bias In Its Reporting?
- black321 - Apr 9, 2024 - 2:11pm
Sonos
- rnstory - Apr 9, 2024 - 10:43am
RP Windows Desktop Notification Applet
- gvajda - Apr 9, 2024 - 9:55am
If not RP, what are you listening to right now?
- kurtster - Apr 8, 2024 - 10:34am
And the good news is....
- thisbody - Apr 8, 2024 - 3:57am
How do I get songs into My Favorites
- Huey - Apr 7, 2024 - 11:29pm
Pernicious Pious Proclivities Particularized Prodigiously
- R_P - Apr 7, 2024 - 5:14pm
Lyrics that strike a chord today...
- Isabeau - Apr 7, 2024 - 12:50pm
Dialing 1-800-Manbird
- oldviolin - Apr 7, 2024 - 11:18am
Why is Mellow mix192kbps?
- dean2.athome - Apr 7, 2024 - 1:11am
Musky Mythology
- haresfur - Apr 6, 2024 - 7:11pm
China
- R_P - Apr 6, 2024 - 11:19am
Artificial Intelligence
- R_P - Apr 5, 2024 - 12:45pm
Vega4 - Bullets
- nirgivon - Apr 5, 2024 - 11:50am
Environment
- thisbody - Apr 5, 2024 - 9:37am
How's the weather?
- geoff_morphini - Apr 5, 2024 - 8:37am
Frequent drop outs (The Netherlands)
- Babylon - Apr 5, 2024 - 8:37am
|
Index »
Radio Paradise/General »
General Discussion »
We need to be aware of what just happened in Indiana
|
Page: Previous 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10 Next |
ScottFromWyoming
Location: Powell Gender:
|
Posted:
May 14, 2011 - 10:54am |
|
Beanie wrote: A woman was voicing a fear of attack and physical abuse. This was a lawful entry. One partner saying yes overrules the other partner saying no, especially if there is a threat of imminent violence. Pretty cut and dried. The judges decided to expand the ruling in a way that makes a jump in both logic and the law.
I agree but for some reason I haven't deciphered, the judges and the state all are not contesting this; they're stipulating that it was an unlawful entry.
|
|
Beanie
Location: under the jellicle moon Gender:
|
Posted:
May 14, 2011 - 10:34am |
|
ScottFromWyoming wrote: Right, and I've said so. This case is stupid and 3 judges should be out of jobs. Do you agree, based on the description of events, that the entry was unlawful? Don't go by what the judges said because we both agree they'e morons. Should the police have said "Good Day to you then sir!" and turned around?
A woman was voicing a fear of attack and physical abuse. This was a lawful entry. One partner saying yes overrules the other partner saying no, especially if there is a threat of imminent violence. Pretty cut and dried. The judges decided to expand the ruling in a way that makes a jump in both logic and the law.
|
|
sirdroseph
Location: Not here, I tell you wat Gender:
|
Posted:
May 14, 2011 - 7:31am |
|
|
|
hippiechick
Location: topsy turvy land Gender:
|
Posted:
May 14, 2011 - 7:20am |
|
islander wrote: The supreme court is now going to be looking into our spelling errors on RP? Slabby's right, the Man has too much power. < /sarcasm >
Hardee har har!
|
|
islander
Location: West coast somewhere Gender:
|
Posted:
May 14, 2011 - 7:11am |
|
hippiechick wrote: Chicago TribuneHopefully the Supreme Court will take a look at this and shoot it down. The supreme court is now going to be looking into our spelling errors on RP? Slabby's right, the Man has too much power. < /sarcasm >
|
|
islander
Location: West coast somewhere Gender:
|
Posted:
May 14, 2011 - 7:09am |
|
oldslabsides wrote: Based on the description of events in the article, the entry was unlawful. Yes, the police should have left - two people arguing isn't against the law. Really? An obvious domestic argument with high violence potential. A guy who is already arguing with police barricades himself and his wife in the home while his wife is pleading to have the officers come in, and you think they should just pack up with a "nothing to see here" and go on their way? Couple of points: The police have the right to detain citizens when investigating an incident - They probably could and should have prevented him from re-entering the home. The wife was pleading to let the police in. I'm not sure about the legal requirements for establishing ownership, but if two parties are in a house and one wants the police to come in and the other does not, I think it's a stretch to call that an unlawful entry. The judges are clearly morons. Any precedent you are concerned about here will not stand very long. All your rights to be secure in your home (even to do some illegal stuff with impunity) are still there.
|
|
DaveInSaoMiguel
Location: No longer in a hovel in effluent Damnville, VA Gender:
|
Posted:
May 14, 2011 - 7:07am |
|
I bet the ACLU will side with the judges if some victim of this needs help - unless of course its an illegal immigrant thats the victim and then they will be all over it....
Those judges need to be be immediately recalled and then prosecuted for abuse of power and spend serious jail time. If this makes it through its the start of a very slippery slope indeed.
|
|
duchamp
Location: Florida Panhandle Gender:
|
Posted:
May 14, 2011 - 7:05am |
|
callum wrote:The ruling wasn't on the powers of cops. The ruling was on the rights of homeowners to resist the cops. For instance in the Chicago Times story the first line is "People have no right to resist if police officers illegally enter their home". That doesn't mean that officers can just enter your home; it means that if they do you shouldn't resist. If they don't have a warrant or probable cause, then sue them, the officers will be disciplined etc. Do homeowners need the right to resist police officers? And at what point can homeowners exercise this right? Imagine the case where officers have probable cause to believe a crime is being committed and can therefor enter the property and the homeowner disagrees with their assessment that they should enter. Either he resists, someone gets hurt and it goes to court, or he doesn't resist and he take them to court. Simple; only one option doesn't end with people getting hurt. I would say if a cop no longer needs a warrant to enter your house that is a POWER of police issue. Did it not address both the power of police AND the right to resist that power?
|
|
duchamp
Location: Florida Panhandle Gender:
|
Posted:
May 14, 2011 - 7:03am |
|
oldslabsides wrote:My home is my castle. NO ONE - especially the cops - gets to make an unlawful entry into my home while I'm in it. The burden of proof is on them, not me; by entering my home against my will THEY are perpetrating violence. Proving they were in the wrong and I was innocent in a court of law operated by the establishment that the cops work for is not something I should have to do. THEY (the cops) are the ones who need to think really hard before they force entry to someone's home and an assumption based on (probably) a third party's report isn't "probable cause." I'm sure you've already surmised we're never gonna come together on this one, lad. that's so old school.. .. just foolin' with you.
|
|
hippiechick
Location: topsy turvy land Gender:
|
Posted:
May 14, 2011 - 6:53am |
|
callum wrote:The ruling wasn't on the powers of cops. The ruling was on the rights of homeowners to resist the cops. For instance in the Chicago Times story the first line is "People have no right to resist if police officers illegally enter their home". That doesn't mean that officers can just enter your home; it means that if they do you shouldn't resist. If they don't have a warrant or probable cause, then sue them, the officers will be disciplined etc. Do homeowners need the right to resist police officers? And at what point can homeowners exercise this right? Imagine the case where officers have probable cause to believe a crime is being committed and can therefor enter the property and the homeowner disagrees with their assessment that they should enter. Either he resists, someone gets hurt and it goes to court, or he doesn't resist and he take them to court. Simple; only one option doesn't end with people getting hurt. Chicago TribuneHopefully the Supreme Court will take a look at this and shoot it down.
|
|
duchamp
Location: Florida Panhandle Gender:
|
Posted:
May 14, 2011 - 6:50am |
|
triskele wrote:is that not unconstitutional? how can you make warrants un-necessary?
It's the new AmeriKa.
|
|
hippiechick
Location: topsy turvy land Gender:
|
Posted:
May 14, 2011 - 6:50am |
|
oldslabsides wrote: “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,”
Yes, it's a poorly written article, but if the above quote from the ruling is correct then the ruling is all the way wrong, wrong - wrong. I'm not speaking to the incident on which the ruling is based - that's inconsequential at this point - what matters is the ruling.
I guess MODERN now means "We can do what the fuck we want."
|
|
ScottFromWyoming
Location: Powell Gender:
|
Posted:
May 14, 2011 - 6:47am |
|
oldslabsides wrote: Based on the description of events in the article, the entry was unlawful. Yes, the police should have left - two people arguing isn't against the law.
Check Zep's link and revisit this... the woman was pleading for the husband to let them in.
|
|
ScottFromWyoming
Location: Powell Gender:
|
Posted:
May 14, 2011 - 6:45am |
|
Zep wrote: As usual the facts present a somewhat grayer picture. semantics This article seems to use illegal and unlawful interchangeably. I was starting to wonder if there was a hair the judges were splitting by their use of unlawful. /semantics
|
|
Red_Dragon
Location: Dumbf*ckistan
|
Posted:
May 14, 2011 - 6:40am |
|
ScottFromWyoming wrote: Right, and I've said so. This case is stupid and 3 judges should be out of jobs. Do you agree, based on the description of events, that the entry was unlawful? Don't go by what the judges said because we both agree they'e morons. Should the police have said "Good Day to you then sir!" and turned around?
Based on the description of events in the article, the entry was unlawful. Yes, the police should have left - two people arguing isn't against the law.
|
|
triskele
Location: The Dragons' Roost
|
Posted:
May 14, 2011 - 6:40am |
|
is that not unconstitutional? how can you make warrants un-necessary?
|
|
Red_Dragon
Location: Dumbf*ckistan
|
Posted:
May 14, 2011 - 6:38am |
|
callum wrote:The ruling wasn't on the powers of cops. The ruling was on the rights of homeowners to resist the cops. For instance in the Chicago Times story the first line is "People have no right to resist if police officers illegally enter their home". That doesn't mean that officers can just enter your home; it means that if they do you shouldn't resist. If they don't have a warrant or probable cause, then sue them, the officers will be disciplined etc. Do homeowners need the right to resist police officers? And at what point can homeowners exercise this right? Imagine the case where officers have probable cause to believe a crime is being committed and can therefor enter the property and the homeowner disagrees with their assessment that they should enter. Either he resists, someone gets hurt and it goes to court, or he doesn't resist and he take them to court. Simple; only one option doesn't end with people getting hurt. My home is my castle. NO ONE - especially the cops - gets to make an unlawful entry into my home while I'm in it. The burden of proof is on them, not me; by entering my home against my will THEY are perpetrating violence. Proving they were in the wrong and I was innocent in a court of law operated by the establishment that the cops work for is not something I should have to do. THEY (the cops) are the ones who need to think really hard before they force entry to someone's home and an assumption based on (probably) a third party's report isn't "probable cause." I'm sure you've already surmised we're never gonna come together on this one, lad.
|
|
Zep
Location: Funkytown
|
Posted:
May 14, 2011 - 6:36am |
|
|
|
ScottFromWyoming
Location: Powell Gender:
|
Posted:
May 14, 2011 - 6:33am |
|
oldslabsides wrote: Again, if the cops are allowed to assume whatever they wish and act upon it, we're screwed. I'm still not speaking to the case, I'm speaking to the ruling.
Right, and I've said so. This case is stupid and 3 judges should be out of jobs. Do you agree, based on the description of events, that the entry was unlawful? Don't go by what the judges said because we both agree they'e morons. Should the police have said "Good Day to you then sir!" and turned around?
|
|
Beanie
Location: under the jellicle moon Gender:
|
Posted:
May 14, 2011 - 6:29am |
|
I agree with Scott: the case was an exception and the court used it to establish a much-too-broad rule. It won't stand up.
|
|
|