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
(
Read more... )
Here's a good one from the SC decision:"Justice Samuel Alito noted that when occupants respond to a police knock on the door, they are not required to grant police permission to enter their homes. But, he said, if there is no response, and police hear movement inside that suggests destruction of evidence, they are justified in breaking in."(Emphasis added)
So, I guess what Sam is saying (fine, an extrapolation, w/e), there, is that while you don't have to grant them permission to enter your home, you definitely must answer your door when they knock. Because lets's face ( ... )
Reply
Reply
So what I am describing is the state deciding it wants to come into my house without a warrant when I don't want them to come into my house without a warrant. I don't care that anything they find once they come in may or may not ever be used against me - that's entirely beside the point, my point, anyway.
So what I was saying is, if the state officers decide they want to come in, and there are only state officers to be witness to the "strange flushing sound," e.g., there isn't anything I can have to say about such a thing, right?
"We thought so, any reasonable person would think so, we acted in good faith...nice crib, dude. Cya."
Reply
Reply
And yes, I was talking about punishing them for coming into my home when I did not want them to come into my home. Doesn't the QI get a bit fuzzy, though, when there are other actors, say the DA, involved in the thing?
That's beside the point, anyway, considering your final paragraph, which is a situation LE already enjoys.
Reply
Reply
Reply
Leave a comment