Home

Twilight of the Courts: The Elusive Search for Justice in the American Police State

4 Comments

 

This commentary is also available at www.rutherford.org.

By John W. Whitehead
June 5, 2017

“As nightfall does not come at once, neither does oppression. In both instances, there is a twilight when everything remains seemingly unchanged. And it is in such twilight that we all must be most aware of change in the air – however slight – lest we become unwitting victims of the darkness.”—Supreme Court Justice William O. Douglas We have entered a new regime and it’s called the American police state. More

Advertisements

Indiana affirms 4th Amendment right to self protection

17 Comments

Marti Oakley           Copyright 2012 All Rights Reserved

________________________________________________________________________

In December of 2011, the Indiana Supreme Court issued a ruling so clearly unconstitutional, and one which was an outright assault on Constitutional protections and rights, that Indiana’s legislature passed a bill to void that ruling.  Governor Mitch Daniels signed the bill in March of 2012.  The new Indiana bill amends the 2006 Castle Doctrine bill.  This doctrine validates the right of citizens to protect themselves using deadly force to stop illegal entry into their homes or cars, allowing them to self-defend even against unlawful acts of law enforcement.

Indiana‘s original “2006 Castle Doctrine” met with overwhelming, bipartisan support, passing 44-5 in the Senate and 81-10 in the House.  The 2012 amendment to the 2006 Castle Doctrine was a result of the opinions issued last year by the Supreme’s in Indiana. The entire state nearly hurled at once behind this decision that included these statements:

“In sum, we hold that in Indiana the right to reasonably resist an unlawful police entry into a home is no longer recognized under Indiana law.” Indiana Supreme Court Justice Steven David said,

We believe however that a right to resist an unlawful police entry into a home is against public policy and is incompatible with modern Fourth Amendment jurisprudence.”

Does it make you wonder if this justice realized that he was acknowledging the unlawful (criminal) activity of law enforcement when he stated that the citizens no longer could defend themselves from these unlawful activities?

Indiana’s state government responded by amending the 2006 Castle Doctrine, reaffirming the right of citizens to self-defense to include specifically when law enforcement is acting unlawfully and is threatening bodily harm, or unlawful trespass under color of law, or no law at all.

From: Second Regular Session 117th General Assembly (2012)

           SENATE ENROLLED ACT No. 1

AN ACT to amend the Indiana Code concerning criminal law and procedure.

(b) As used in this section, “public servant” means a person described in IC 35-41-1-17, IC 35-31.5-2-129, or IC 35-31.5-2-185.
(c) A person is justified in using reasonable force against another any other person to protect the person or a third person from what the person reasonably believes to be the imminent use of unlawful force.

____ More

Feds Cut Nevadans Some Slack on Real ID Application, But This is Still an Infringement of Their 4th Amendment Rights

3 Comments

This article makes it seem as if Nevadans are getting some sort of lucky break or that they’ve won some sort of concession, but the truth is that this Real ID program is still a violation of the Fourth Amendment’s protections against invasion of privacy.

“The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.”

The real issue with Real ID is that it is not merely an identification card, but an RFID Chip, which can (and will be) used to track an individual’s every move. So, not only is Real ID in violation of the provisions of the Constitution that protect us from having to divulge sensitive information about ourselves to whatever authority demands it, but it is also an Orwellian technology that will make it impossible for anyone to go about their daily lives without being tracked, traced and monitored everywhere they go. That – not the expense to the states of implementing such a program – is the central issue in the fight against Real ID.


%d bloggers like this: