(Untitled)

[gunslnger]

To partially answer the question of why some people want smaller government, here are two examples.

Indiana Supreme Court: citizens have no right to resist unlawful police entry

Short version: A police officer is within his rights to enter a home for any reason or no reason at all, while a homeowner is powerless to block or interfere in any with

Comments

[a_new_machine]

First, this is contrary to the 4th Amendment on its face

Would you mind explaining that? Where does the Fourth Amendment vest in the home-owner the power of enforcing its provisions against the police?

[a_new_machine]

Quoting the amendment doesn't answer the question. The right to security against unreasonable searches exists, yes. This does not mean that citizens get to enforce it. The right to freedom from racial discrimination exists as well, but that's enforced only by Congressional action under Section Five of the Fourteenth Amendment. The Fourth Amendment does not explicitly vest enforcement powers. It does not, to use the libertarian phrase, grant a positive right to the use of force to defend against unreasonable intrusion. It simply commands government not to do it. So I ask again: facially, how does the Indiana court's ruling violate the Constitution

[a_new_machine]

Interesting - the Fourteenth Amendment is, similarly, a restrictive amendment, and yet it has an explicit enforcement provision. Why does one require enforcement, and more than that, enforcement by Congress alone, and the other is self-enforcing or enforced by the citizens?

[a_new_machine]

So, must we presume that any provision in the Constitution that doesn't explicitly state how it will enforced, must be enforced by private citizens? If not, then what makes the Fourth Amendment different from any of the other negative rights (rights against double jeopardy, or the right to be free of restrictions on speech) in the Constitution?

[a_new_machine]

and if the government does, that the citizenry can appeal to the court.

So, you're saying both that they can appeal to the court for relief (thus enforcement rests with the courts), and that they can physically resist the intrusion? Or one or the other? What the court says here is, "You cannot physically resist. If you want relief, come to us." And you can do that. What you've said in that post would allow the Indiana ruling.

[a_new_machine]

Well, yes. But then, people break laws - especially ones so personable and mutable as what is "reasonable" under a given set of circumstances. It's easy to say "well they shouldn't have broken the law," but unless you want to make everything wholly subjective (that is, what is reasonable to each investigating officer) you're going to need someone other than the officer to decide when they've overstepped the law.

IMO, the best way to do that is via the court system - it reduces the chance of rash and disproportionate responses on either side, provides a neutral arbiter, and "cools" the conflict over time, while carrying the mark of legitimacy that the courts provide (at least, when you agree with the ruling :P ). Giving the decision for what's "reasonable" into the hands of every homeowner everywhere is asking to have them overreact.

[a_new_machine]

Let's put it this way:

You're a homeowner, and you're perfectly innocent of every crime under the sun. The cops show up at your doorstep with a warrant to search your house for evidence of . You know with epistemological certainty that you are innocent, therefor you will think their search is unreasonable. Now, let's presume that whatever evidence they had that you *did* commit a crime was strong, but they were interpreting it wrong, or something. But they definitely fulfill the warrant requirements (probable cause and particularity

[a_new_machine]

But warrants can be judged unreasonable later. They can be based on false evidence, or the judge could've fucked up and not included particularity in the warrant.

[a_new_machine]

Also: You're misreading the decision. What it says is "If this was illegal, then you need to come to the courts. You have no right to make the decision of its illegality, and then enforce it, on your own. That's the courts' role." The article is, frankly, a shitty synopsis. For instance, from the article:
[quoting the decision] "a right to resist an unlawful police entry into a home is against public policy and is incompatible with modern Fourth Amendment jurisprudence. We also find that allowing resistance unnecessarily escalates the level of violence and therefore the risk of injuries to all parties involved without preventing the arrest."

[the reporter's restatement]Short version: A police officer is within his rights to enter a home for any reason or no reason at all, while a homeowner is powerless to block or interfere in any with the officer's entry.The difference between the court's statement and the reporter's version is vast. One states that force in the moment is an improper means of obtaining a remedy to an illegal entry