Smash of a gavel, and another piece of your freedom is gone.

Hot Air reports a decision by the Indiana Supreme Court that you have no right to defend your home against any police entry, under any circumstances, ever.  The justices had ruled 3-2 that “modern Fourth Amendment” jurisprudence does not support the notion that one is protected against unlawful entry in one’s home.  Bye-bye, Constitution, bye-bye, Magna Carta – for the for the inviolability of one’s home precedent goes that far.

Says “Judge” David in his summary that “resistance is against public policy,”  and that resistance “might escalate the level of violence.”  A bootlicking prof by the name of Bodensteiner at the Valparaiso University School of Law says that the court’s decision is consistent with the idea of preventing violence.  Apparently, anyone invaded, beaten up, cuffed and hauled away by a SWAT team can later appeal the raid later, directing the appeal – I would assume – to the very same authorities that had allowed the unconstitutional raid to begin with.

Don’t make me laugh.

This is Moscow, 1935 or Berlin, 1935 – take your pick. (Actually, Phnom Penh, 1975, also comes to mind.)  That three state Supreme Court justices would take the Constitution so lightly makes me wonder what they teach in law schools these days.  Community organization maybe, certainly not the law.

Let’s see it the U. S. Supreme Court refuses to hear this one, too.


About Michael J. Kubat

I'm a grumpy Czech-born clinical social worker who is vitally interested in the survival in the United States as a viable democracy and a beacon of hope for the rest of the world.
This entry was posted in communism, dictatorship, megalomania, National Socialism, U S Constitution and tagged , , , , , , . Bookmark the permalink.

One Response to HOOSIER HELL

  1. Ian MacLeod says:

    I can remember a time when that judge would have been booted from the bench so hard he bounced! And had the “authorities” failed to listen to the public he’d have been literally dragged out and denounced as a “commie” (even then it had become a generic insult)! even for today though, a ruling like that is unjustifiable. Where and since when did “preventing violence” become such a priority? If that really is the case, why is SWAT used for everything but cleaning offices and taking out garbage? They were designed for violence to counter violence, like an assassin up on a building downtown shooting random people. And they are no longer just a “military style” police unit – they ARE military, plus they’ve got the cop/thug mindset that really prefers an instant death penalty for what police call “contempt of cop,” which means “insufficiently abject fear and grovelling.” Watch some of the YouTube videos, and you’ll see hulking weight lifters on steroids pounding the hell out of scrawny drunks, kicking the faces of handcuffed people on the ground, slamming women face-first into concrete walls, tasing ten-year-olds twenty times. Violence is what SWAT does, and it’s long since filtered down to beat cops.

    With the overuse of SWAT, America has been tending toward this kind of ruling as it is, and because of that attitude criminals have, in places – including Jose Guernas area – taken to dressing like SWAT, breaking in violently, screaming and shouting, demanding subservience as if they had a right to it, tying people up, beating or even shooting them and then robbing the place. And that right there to me says it all: when you can no longer tell the difference between the police and the criminals, it’s time to outlaw them both!


Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out /  Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )


Connecting to %s