TexasCHLforum.com

At face value my initial response was visceral and I instantly thought, "Well, there is another chip cut off the bill of rights and a reduction of my 4th Amendment!" it is a slippery slope and IMHO this is yet another hard push to reduce our ability to remain a Republic of the Free. Free from Govt. intrusion in EVERY aspect of our lives in the guise of "Well it's for YOUR safety and if you're not doing anything wrong then you don't have to worry.. That's being a subject and not a citizen...

This thread has gone from talking about the SCOTUS ruling to taking sides on whether LEO are corrupt or not and will abuse this ruling to the point of stating this will eventually devolve our society to a police state.

Given the stories about LEO recently I have been thinking lately about LEO's and my interactions with them over the years. I spent 17 years in EMS and 15 years as a Paramedic. I've worked side by side with countless LEO and as with any other group there are always good and always bad but... It has ALWAYS been that they are a breed apart and treated me with respect and a mutual understanding. But, recently some cursory interactions (got pulled over for License plate light out) and me just saying "hello" when I see one as a note of respect. Since I am not doing EMS any longer (and don't know any or interact with any on a professional level) I can only say that my recent interactions have left me with one thought, Wow, he was kinda rude and condescending. I can only hope they were having a bad day or is it just the new way they are dealing with John Q. Still hope it was the first one...

Do I think this ruling will take the majority who are everyday decent LEO and create a stormtrooper who will kick in my door and arrest me for whatever they want? Resoundingly, NO!
BUT... Again, this is a hard push down that slope to a place we have NEVER been as a Republic and one that the Founding Fathers made every attempt to avoid.

As Abraham Lincoln said, we can only be taken down from the inside and we are possibly but hopefully not on our way toward a very bad mixture of a democratic socialism with a hard push by some toward Communism.

Oh, and if you get wrongly arrested and accused unless you have $$$$$ you're more likely than not gonna be in a world of hurt and it's going to ruin your life for quite a while until you can hopefully straighten it out...
Just my .02

Medic624 wrote:This thread has gone from talking about the SCOTUS ruling to taking sides on whether LEO are corrupt or not and will abuse this ruling to the point of stating this will eventually devolve our society to a police state.

I don't think corruption is really a factor in this. The ruling broadens police power and changes the balance between government power and individual rights. It's a small change that in practice probably won't affect most people but could be life altering for those who are affected. I think the likely negatives are that it will increase the number of mistaken entries, sometimes with lethal consequences, and that it will be exploited by home invaders, and all for little to no gain on society's side of the balance sheet.

Heartland Patriot wrote:I'm really not sure how to take the replies to what I said...first off, I am NOT happy about this decision. However, when I was talking about criminals getting too much support from some folks, I'm talking about those who initiate violence against others, whether physical or against one's property...but the charges get "plea bargained" down, or the person gets an "insanity defense" when its not warranted...I would like to see those that set the priorities for law enforcement have them concentrating on murderers, rapists, thieves, etc...but, if drug dealers are creating a climate that fosters violent crimes (robbery to get money for drugs or a murder committed in the commission of said crimes), then they are not simple businessmen selling a product. I understand that its a complex problem, but I also think that this court decision was NOT the way to go. I guess I just don't have enough legal knowledge to make what I think about it any clearer. My apologies.

You shouldn't consider my response as criticism. I understood that you don't support the ruling, and was merely amplifying one aspect of something I took you to be critical of as well. I too agree that violent crimes should be top priority for law enforcement --and by this I don't just mean the police, but legislators, prosecutors, and courts.

VMI77 wrote:

Medic624 wrote:This thread has gone from talking about the SCOTUS ruling to taking sides on whether LEO are corrupt or not and will abuse this ruling to the point of stating this will eventually devolve our society to a police state.

I don't think corruption is really a factor in this. The ruling broadens police power and changes the balance between government power and individual rights. It's a small change that in practice probably won't affect most people but could be life altering for those who are affected. I think the likely negatives are that it will increase the number of mistaken entries, sometimes with lethal consequences, and that it will be exploited by home invaders, and all for little to no gain on society's side of the balance sheet.

I fully agree but my response was getting long winded its just a potentially devistating and dangerous ruling that they knew full well the ramifications it could bring with such a decision.,

While "warrantless home entry" has been allowed by court rulings for decades (multiple cases), there was always a real risk of evidence being excluded if actual exigent circumstance didn't exist.

The police were knocking loudly on the wrong apartment door (their suspect was in a different apartment) and simply had to believe evidence was being destroyed to have justifiable entry (and the fruits from their search of the wrong apartment admissible).

Although I didn't see a timeframe on how quickly you must answer the door, one of the justices did indicate that the apartment dweller could have answered the door and simply refused entry since the police did not have a warrant (I guess that would have removed the exigent circumstance).

I just hope these additional powers don't extend to the green police in the future, allowing them to bust through your front door if they see what they believe to be incandescent lighting inside your home.

I wonder how long it's going to be before there is a shootout and we have people dying over a marijuana cigarette? That's crazy and I hope it never happens, but mistakes can happen.

hirundo82 wrote:

bci21984 wrote:Dont give the police reason to believe that youre possessing illegal drugs inside your house and im pretty sure they wont pay you a visit.

Yeah, they'd never hit the wrong house then leave you to bleed to death in front of your wife and child for an hour after they shot you.

Or shotgun a six year old through a window.

Indiana says you can't resist illegal search. Same week, supreme courts says "no such thing as illegal search" if police think they have a reason to enter.