Episode-665- Listener Feedback for 5-16-11 — 37 Comments

  1. Jack, you beat me to the article on “unlawful entry and resistance.” Yet another reason I refuse to live in states without a Castle Doctrine: they tend to have more absolutely insane legal precedents to hold to.

  2. Question: The sovereignty of America lies in the people and not the state? I understand sovereignty to mean a recognized government by other recognized governments, being legitament by the people doesn’t enter the picture, normally. Am I on the right track?


  3. I didn’t sell a single oz. of silver.
    The “correction” was set off by the news of Bin Laden’s death. I think people thought that we were about to head into a new age of prosperity or something and started selling, which caused fall. Being cynically minded, I doubt anything is going to change, and the fundamentals are all the same as before. Soooo… I’m still in silver.

  4. @Jack,

    First, I’m from Indiana. Second, when I was told about this, I literally said “This cannot be correct.” Unfortunately, it is true. Having thought about this, I can come to no conclusion than this will CAUSE violations of the 4th Amendment if followed.

    You are correct that the case that led to this irrational decision is not the problem, and about the probable cause. I do not think the police acted wrongly in that particular case.

    However, a court making a decision that acknowledges that a citizen MUST submit to UNLAWFUL actions is insane. Not stupid, not a bad decision–insane, and irrational. No citizen can ever be compelled to submit to UNLAWFUL actions–by anyone. Not I said Compelled. If a cop with a gun drawn orders you to get on the ground, it might be a good idea to comply. That is different from compelled.

    I say this is insane, because the Law cannot compel one to submit to unlawful action–it is incompatible with the entire concept of law.

    As far as the claim that this is to avoid violence–totally false. All this does is eliminate the natural, lawful and proper balance of power between citizens and police. This is enabling bad behavior amongst police (and some percentage of them are going to misbehave). This will increase the chance of violence, because it enables a situation where a citizen is victimized, and that causes a person into a desperate situation at the hands of what would appear to be (and very possibly actually be) an out of control UNLAWFUL action.

    Further, what happens if criminal shows up at your door and says “I’m a police officer, open up.” Exactly how is a citizen supposed to determine whether or not that is a real police officer acting unlawfully or a criminal impersonating a police officer. Better yet–exactly what is the difference at that point?

    Don’t get me wrong–I’m not anti-police at all. They’ve got a tough job and have to deal with idiots daily, but this creates a more dangerous situation for them as well. They are now going to be told–you can enter a home and no one has the right to resist, so immediately someone who does resist will be seen by them as a criminal and treated as such…except they won’t be, and when it is proven unlawful, they will be held accountable (theoretically).

    This insane ruling is a lose-lose for everyone, and you are correct–this MUST be struck down (on 4th amendment grounds) at the Federal level.

    One last thing however. This changes nothing. Every person in this world has a right to defend themselves against ANYONE seeking to harm them, and interestingly, Indiana has some of the strongest Castle Doctrine and self defense protections in the nation. This ruling in direct conflict with these actual laws. The statement by the Indiana Supreme court to “not recognize” is meaningless to me. They don’t have the power to provide or remove my God Given rights by their recognition.

    Still, this is beyond disturbing, and these judges need to be punished (by removal from their offices) at the earliest possibility by any legal means we have at our disposal.

  5. @Everyone,

    For reference here is a link to Indiana’s Castle Doctrine Law–which was recently strengthened.

    It includes a “no retreat” clause now.

    Here are some other relevant areas:
    Use of force to protect person or property
    Sec. 2. (a) A person is justified in using reasonable force against another person to protect the person or a third person from what the person reasonably believes to be the imminent use of unlawful force. However, a person:
    (1) is justified in using deadly force; and
    (2) does not have a duty to retreat;
    if the person reasonably believes that that force is necessary to prevent serious bodily injury to the person or a third person or the commission of a forcible felony. No person in this state shall be placed in legal jeopardy of any kind whatsoever for protecting the person or a third person by reasonable means necessary.
    (b) A person:
    (1) is justified in using reasonable force, including deadly force, against another person; and
    (2) does not have a duty to retreat;
    if the person reasonably believes that the force is necessary to prevent or terminate the other person’s unlawful entry of or attack on the person’s dwelling, curtilage, or occupied motor vehicle.

    This clearly states that a person has the right to use force (which may include deadly force) to prevent UNLAWFUL ENTRY into a person’s dwelling.

    This ruling is in direct violation of this actual law as well, so the Indiana Legislature should vacate the broad application of this ruling immediately.

  6. Shorty asked, “Question: The sovereignty of America lies in the people and not the state?”

    Yes. Amazing, radical people those Founding Fathers. I wish our country still was everything they had planned for it.

  7. In response to “The sovereignty of America lies in the people and not the state?”

    That was exactly my point but I like the phrase you used better. I would like to change three things and put it on a TSP Zazzle store t-shirt if you don’t mind. Just doing it this way,

    The sovereignty of America lies in the people, not the State!

  8. @LEO conference:

    I’m unfortunately not surprised to see this. The MO Highway Patrol had a document leaked in 2009 that grouped Libertarian’s with groups similar to those mentioned on the podcast. Anyone with a Libertarian or Ron Paul 2008 bumper sticker indicated that someone could be involved in a violent militia group and should warrant extra caution.

    The leak caused considerable backlash to the point the LEO’s made a public apology and retraction.

  9. It makes me so proud that I served to protect the rights of the idiots we have making and ruling on our laws. Where did the America I knew and loved go? I’m with Brian. I didn’t sell any of my silver either.

  10. @Randall,

    The US Supreme Court has been consistently chipping away at the 4th Amendment, and in my opinion this is the first line of defense of citizens, whereas the 2nd is our last line of defense.
    While I disagree with that decision as well, I don’t think it rises to the level of irrationality and insanity that the Indiana ruling does.
    The Indiana ruling literally claims that citizens have no right to lawfully resist unlawful actions that are being committed against them. I guess they’ve succeeded in yet another attempt to criminalize existence as a citizen.

  11. Here’s the problem for critics of the Indiana decision: supporters of this decision will, correctly, note that the opposite outcome would give citizens the right to use lethal force against “technically illegal” entries where it is clearly reasonable for the officers to be coming into the house, but there’s a technical defect in the search warrant or some other not obvious consideration that makes the entry illegal. I don’t like the Indiana decision because it’s too broad: I would support a restriction of the castle doctrine where officers sought and obtained a warrant in good faith (a doctrine that has support in federal caselaw) that later turned out to be defective, but no further.

    @KAM – The Indiana legislature can certainly overturn the Indiana SC, but the problem with the approach you outline is that the Indiana SC did not just abrogate the law or declare it void. Rather, they interpreted it to suggest that the Indiana legislature didn’t mean it to apply to law enforcement actions, which constitute a distinct minority of the sort of cases that would come up under this doctrine. I think the Indiana SC is probably right about that, even though we disagree and have good reasons for disagreeing.

  12. One other thing that we need to remember: this ruling isn’t going to matter very much in peacetime. I would never, ever advise a homeowner to go all “Patriots” on law enforcement because once that radio call “officer down” goes out, the big boys are coming and your firepower will not be adequate. It will not matter if what you did was legal, because you’d probably leave the premises in a body bag. I guess your relatives could collect damages in four years in court once the favorable precedent was interpreted by your local appellate court, but as a survival-minded individual, that isn’t an outcome I’d welcome.

    In a lot of ways, this decision is sort of like the Kellogg-Briand Pact outlawing war: it never matters unless it matters, in which case it will not matter. I don’t like the statement it makes about liberty, but it isn’t going to restrict your liberty in any way beyond how it was already restricted by modern law enforcement, even if you live in Indiana.

  13. About the student loan bubble, my wife works for Citi bank (yeah I know evil she thinks so too) in their student loans department. A few months ago she told me that Citi was selling off thier student loans to Discover Financial Services. An article Reuters gives the reason that it does not fit in neatly with the rest of the bank’s retail business. I don’t know that they think the bubble is going to pop but it does make you wonder.

  14. @Boomer-Sooner,

    The problem (as you note) is that the court improperly and inexplicably went outside the bounds of that particular case and have attempted to alter the existing law and Indiana Constitution to say something different. If they did not do this, no change in the Status Quo would exist. A decision that pertained to that particular case would do nothing to encourage citizens to do anything unreasonable. There is already an existing criteria that the response of the citizen be “reasonable” (as stated in the law I posted earlier).

    I disagree that there is a need for the (state)–in this case the Police need additional protections from the citizens. The opposite is true. If a police officer makes a technical error in the honest commission of his duties, then that can be investigated and confirmed, and he can be held to have committed no wrong. This decision reverses the basic principle that our Nation was founded on–(innocent until proven guilty). The Police officer is an agent of the State in the execution of his duties, and has the resources of the state behind him to insure he is protected. The citizen does not have those resources. If a police officer makes a technical error, he gets (likely paid) leave while the matter is cleared up. If the citizen is the victim of a police mistake, he is arrested, taken from his home, made to provide a defense, and likely incur great harm in expenses and personal inconvenience, and that assumes he is found to be innocent.

    This insane decision creates a situation, where a citizen is ordered to submit to wrongful action, incurring great inconvenience at best and great harm at worst–including false imprisonment, not to mention social stigma attached to being arrested.

    The other problem is that they’ve also lowered the bar necessary to obtain a warrant (to the extent you essentially do not need one). This is an unacceptable situation which the Indiana Supreme Court has CREATED. Let’s deal with that–there was not a crisis state in Indiana that required these “Solutions.” These are solutions without problems, stemming from an isolated incident.

    Make no mistake, this Unconstitutional ruling CREATES an environment where there are two outcomes which are both bad. The first is that citizens have their right to be secure in their homes violated at the whim of any police officer for any reason, or second, forces a citizen to have one option (use of force) to resist such a unlawful (by their own definition) violation of their rights.

    Previously, a Citizen could say “No officer, you have no right to come in here” and the officer, acting in good faith would know this and have to act accordingly–or else suffer the consequences. Now, these officers are being told, that the citizen has ABSOLUTELY no right to resist anything they might wish to do. This ruling literally criminalizes a citizen for not submitting to UNLAWFUL action.

    Bottom line–the burden for innocence has been placed wholly on the shoulders of the innocent citizen, and the state’s burden has been eliminated. To even BEGIN to justify such an action, one has to ignore that HARM is done to an individual who is wrongly accused, which is always bad. All this has done is increase the likelihood that an innocent citizen can be so harmed.

  15. @Boomer-Sooner,

    What the Indiana SC did was violate the Indiana Constitution–plainly written. You cannot rule something directly opposite to what is written. If the Indiana version of the US 4th Amendment, doesn’t apply to the agents of the State, who does it apply to?

    By this logic (which I realize isn’t yours), they could equally say that you do not have the right to speak freely, worship freely or own a firearm.

    The Indiana Supreme Court is gravely mistaken if they believe they have the right to interpret into nothingness the literal (clearly stated) text of the Indiana Constitution.

    This ruling is irrational on its face, in any lawful society. OF COURSE a citizen has the right to resist ANY unlawful action being perpetrated against him. That is the fundamental core of why laws exist–to provide a uniform delineation of where you can take your stand. What they are saying is that you cannot take a stand, period.

    No citizen in a free society can be forced to submit to unlawful action by the law. That is an inherently contradiction. The violation of inherent principle upon which our entire society is built cannot be tolerated. NEVER. Because if we do, nothing else matters. If you do not have the right to resist unlawful actions against you, your property, your home, etc then you have no rights.

    How far does this extend? Do you no longer have the right to verbally resist? Should you allow a rogue police officer to enter your home, take your property, rape your wife, murder your children? I’m not suggesting that any police officer WOULD do this, but pointing out that the absolute nature of this insane ruling would allow for this.

    The false premise upon which this ruling is based is that the citizen is done no harm, and can simply pursue other routes to resolve this. That is inherently false. Having someone forcibly enter your home IS harm. Being forced by “law” to submit to unlawful action IS harm, and is not undone by relief from ADDITIONAL harm (if you are lucky enough to win).

    That’s what this ruling demands–that you submit willingly to harm by police authority, no matter how unlawful their action is.

    There are certain times a line must be drawn, and in my view this is one of them. It doesn’t mean anyone is going to engage in violence, but I will tell you now–no one is going to enter my home and do me, my family or my property harm with my permission or agreement.

  16. @KAM

    I agree with most of your concerns. I really, really don’t like the breadth of the decision. However, I think so much of this decision is already our de facto law that the decision itself is at least somewhat a non-event. I do think there are a few places that I think you go a bit far:

    1) The decision does not totally remove the right to resist, but removes the right to resist entry. If the cop starts to rape people, that’s way outside this decision. Entry is a big deal because it’s that bright-line moment when abuse starts to happen, but I think everyone can acknowledge that having a cop in your living room is different from having the cop rape your family and take your stuff. Resisting a cop’s illegal actions once inside the house is not addressed by the decision (although I only read it quickly).

    2) We never really had the right to resist entry with deadly force. It will never, ever, ever happen that anybody on this site or anywhere else will legally gun down a cop for trying to enter the property and get away with it. There might be a bunch of after the fact litigation about what exactly happened, but you’re leaving your house in a body bag if you try that. As you say, there is a point where you draw the line, but if you draw it here, you lose your life or at least your freedom forever. Plain and simple. I’m all for “give me liberty or give me death”, but not to resist an entry that I probably cannot physically resist anyway.

    3) The plain language of the Indiana statute does clearly say that you can resist entry. But you never construe statutes alone. For example, the First Amendment provides that Congress shall make no law prohibiting the free exercise of religion. However, we’d all agree that this does not mean that any religion can do its thing free of regulation. The Aztecs believed in human sacrifice as an integral part of their religion. Congress is on pretty firm ground in prohibiting that because the Founders never intended to allow human sacrifice as part of the religion practiced here in the USA. The same is true of peace officers – yes, the text says you can resist unlawful entry, but I’d bet there are dozens of Indiana statutes explaining why cops are different. I disagree with the decision, but making that distinction is reasonable in some settings and it isn’t clearly outside the court’s powers to do it.

    4) The everyday circumstances where a cop would enter a home are very different from an unwanted private intrusion. The cop is generally at least going to tell you what he wants and will probably go out of his way to make sure you don’t feel threatened if he isn’t arresting you. Why? Same reason you shouldn’t shoot that cop – he wants to live as much as you do.

  17. @boomer-sooner,

    You bring up some good points, which I will address according to your numbers. First however, your opening statement about this being defacto anyway. If that were the case, then what is the “need” for the broad decision at all? Also, enshrining and attempting to legitimize something that is wrong (unlawful) is not a good thing.

    1) Interesting point. So, once they gain entry, I can then resist them illegally searching my home? Oh wait, that’s not true either, because once they are in a place they can act on anything they see. Once they make that intrusion, that leads directly to additional violations. Granted my extreme examples (for the purposes of illustration) are just that. However, with the presumption of guilt for the citizen, exactly how do you prove that you are then justified in taking action against an officer. If the ability to resist entry to ones home–his castle were acknowledged, a line is drawn, and a refuge is established. If you do not have refuge, then you have no choice except force to resist whatever may come next. In other words–I stand by my statement that this (if it occurs) will encourage violence, because you no longer have the option to retreat. Now, because of this insane ruling, you no have a moderate choice to de-escalate defensively. If there is something you don’t feel is right about what the cop is doing, you can’t retreat to the safety of your home, until legitimate help arrives. Now, you are forced to submit Until the situation becomes dire enough to justify use of force. All this ruling does is destroy an expectation (on both sides) of reasonable (passive) resistance.

    2) Probably true, but again, there is a major difference between having the law on your side, and not. You are 100% sure of being convicted now, because the act of resistance–even if the cop was 100% unlawful in his actions is now illegal. The citizen has now been transformed into a criminal even if the cop was 100% in the wrong.

    3) If there were laws on the books saying that Police officers are free to act unlawfully and that citizens must submit, I’d be surprised. So, no, this is not at all justified. Further, no Judiciary has the right to create a law in the first place, which is what this does–by criminalizing legal resistance to unlawful action. At best, they could determine in a case that police actions were lawful and the resistance was not, but it is ridiculous to claim that they can make a blanket ruling of such a thing for events that have not even occurred. Unfortunately, that’s exactly what they’ve done. They’ve take someone who assaulted a police officer and pre-judged everyone else who doesn’t wish to be a victim of future unlawful action to be guilty by default if they put up any sort of resistance. This is not reasonable or rational.

    4) True, until it isn’t. While it is rare, there are corrupt cops in this world, and others that are reckless or power-drunk. This provides those bad cops with a weapon against innocent citizens. A good cop isn’t going to do anything unlawful anyway, so all this does is assist a bad cop in being bad. It’s sort of like gun laws–by definition, they only affect the law abiding.
    Further–by your statements a cop knows he has superior force on his side, and probably better training and better equipment (bullet proof vests), so the odds are already skewed in his favor.

    All this ruling does is provide bad cops, or sloppy cops with justification to be unlawful or sloppy. It enables it, and does nothing to help the cops who do follow the rules. As I said before–this is a lose-lose for the good guys–police officer and citizen.

    You are right–an unwanted private intrusion and a legitimate one are different. However, we as citizens are expected to treat them the same. We are not allowed to resist, period. By the way that DOES include verbal resistance (which the defendant in that case attempted).

    NO RESISTANCE is allowed, period, lawful or not, so I suppose that means you cannot ask to see a badge or ask why they are there. You bet your backside that can and will be chalked up to “resistance” if they want it to. Again–open invitation for anyone to claim to be a cop and waltz into your home.

    Let me bring up another subject. Police now aren’t required to have warrants or knock, and you cannot resist them, legally or not. So…does that mean that my locking my door is resistance? Should I leave it unlocked so I cannot be said to resist them? Again–this is stupid (of course you won’t leave your door open), but under this irrational ruling, what’s the difference? If I see a cop car driving slowly towards my general direction and I’m heading into my house from getting the mail, and lock my door behind me just before he pulls up, and he tries to enter, am I resisting?

    If not, why not? Is it me resisting or the door resisting? How is that ever proven? Right-it won’t be, the police officer’s word will trump mine, and I’ll be guilty of a crime, even in this (Theoretical) case where I wasn’t even aware I was resisting.

    So, you see–what this does is destroy the possibility of REASONABLE, PASSIVE resistance which protects both the police AND the Citizen. It obliterates the possibility of reasonable resistance and escalates EVERY unwanted entry into one that can now be assumed to be unlawful–if you are innocent, because the police would have no legitimate reason to force entry into an innocent person’s home.

    This ruling does a wonderful job at CREATING a situation where every police officer is a potential enemy instead of a protector, because you no longer have the right to judge them by their actions and act accordingly. You are now ordered to be a victim, waiting for a victimizer to come along.

    I’m not trying to be hyperbolic about this, but this is as serious as it gets in my view. People who are the targets of this unlawful action will now immediately have their backs to the wall, and be left with few options.

  18. @boomer-sooner,

    Let me try and provide one more (hopefully) brief example to illustrate why this is ruling creates a real and practical problem.

    Take an innocent citizen and a good cop. For whatever reason, this cop (legitimately) thinks there is some problem going on that he needs to investigate. The innocent citizen knows that this is not true. The citizen also knows that police are now able to act illegally to enter his house without cause and you can’t resist that.

    Immediately, this situation that could be talked over with the psychological and real barrier of a home’s threshold providing backup, is now a threatening one. The citizen who is being wrongly (but honestly) scrutinized is left with the very real possibility that this cop may be acting unlawfully, and no right to create a space between himself and the police officer (by retreating to his home).

    The police officer is certain to note this fear and will likely interpret that to justify his initial assumption. The hostility level has just risen. Why? Because this insane court ruling has destroyed reasonable expectations of safety that a person would enjoy in his own home.

    Now, that police officer is on high alert, and perhaps even to the point where he needs to draw a weapon (let’s say a Taser). That happens and the citizen now has evidence that he’s being attacked, because he’s done nothing wrong. Fear takes over and he runs inside and attempts to close his door.

    The police officer pursues, because this guy is now a criminal for “resisting entry.” He pushes his way in. The citizen now has an aggressive cop chasing him into his own home with a weapon drawn (now perhaps his firearm). Now in full panic mode the citizen (who is completely innocent) attempts to defend himself. Perhaps he shoots the cop, perhaps the cop shoots him.

    Will this happen a lot? Doubtful, but the possibility is increased BECAUSE the natural expectation of safety in your own home has been robbed from the citizen by this rogue court.

    Is this court really so idiotic as to encourage situations to escalate into one like backing an animal into a corner.

    This ruling (like all statist idiocy) does the opposite of what it claims. This increases the odds of altercation, because no innocent person reacts well to being victimized (as they see it), and they WILL act accordingly.

    Not to mention this opens up ALL sorts of potential for harassment. Jack has recommended people use grow-lights for starting seeds. What’s the first thing a cop is going to think when he sees that? I assure you it isn’t going to be “happy gardener.” It is going to be “Pot dealer (or user).”

    If someone happens to be cleaning their gun when the police demand entry (perhaps by mistake or for any number of reasons), are they doing to say “Happy target shooter” or “Dangerous person.” I guarantee you they are going to go instantly to high alert.

    As lucky as we are to have good cops, we know for a fact they are being indoctrinated to treat people like many of us as “militia kooks” or “neo-nazi’s” or whatever other things Jack has recently talked about. You have a Gasden flag on your flagpole, and one of these cops who are drilled with warning about “those people” decides to “check things out.”

    Well, it isn’t hard to imagine how things can get bad quickly. This is a powder keg just waiting for a spark.

  19. I was talking to a friend the other day about college. She is married to one of my classmates (we graduated from an engineering program at the same time). Her husband is an engineer with a defense company; she works at target. Originally she wanted to go to college, but after taking a look at some of her coworkers at target, some of whom had college degrees in the less useful subjects such as history or sociology, she realize that the most likely result of her getting a degree would be accumulating a bunch of debt without actually advancing her career in any way.

  20. As a counterpoint, I’ll say that I’m in law school right now and have no regrets.

    I’ve heard Jack tear down college, and law school specifically, at length. But if I listened to everything Jack said I wouldn’t be thinking for myself.

    When I see people go on at such length about the problems that our legal system is causing, I think it’s important that we encourage everyone in this community that wants to do something about it. I’ve been bitching about the way things are for years, and I think the best way to beat these bastards is to do it from within the system.

    Yes, I’ll have some debt when I get out. I already work and pay bills, and I’m no stranger to frugality, so I’m not worried about it. What I will have is a license that will allow me to do my part in fighting all of this crap legislation and helping defend people that get steamrolled by the system.

    I’m thankful for what Jack and this community does everyday to spread knowledge and inspiration. Jack’s changing the world in his way, and I hope that I can do it in mine.

    No, college isn’t for everyone, but we can’t disparage the people that want to do it with a goal.

  21. Sorry, the guy who wants a solar system, all of us for that matter doesn’t have 5 years. We have 15-18 months before enough people see the storm on the horizon that it will be expensive and not as safe to prep. Plans that go out more than 2 years are optimistic.

  22. Jack,

    I am LEO and have received anti-terrorism training from the FBI in which Sovereign Citizens were discussed under the Domestic Terrorism heading. I think you are confusing the Name of a group with what you think those words mean. It’s like believing you are a Democrat because you believe in democratic elections, or believing you are a Republican just because the US was founded as a republic, or believing that the Name of a law Congress is going to pass actually represents the content of the bill. I know you got fired up on the podcast but you have to remember Sovereign Citizens, just like Republicans and Democrats, believe what the decide to believe, not what we think they should believe based on their Name.

    Their views were described to me as follows; Self-described “sovereign citizens” believe that they are answerable only to English common law and are not subject to any statutes or proceedings at the federal, state or municipal levels. They especially reject most forms of taxation as illegitimate. Participants in the movement argue this concept in opposition to “federal citizens,” who, they believe, have unknowingly forfeited their rights by accepting some aspect of federal law.

    Sovereign Citizens do use the same Symbols as newer groups like the TEA Party but have very different views and philosophies. Sovereign Citizens have been known to attack Law Enforcement Officers who represent an authority higher than the county level, which they view as the ultimate authority on legal matters. They do not tend to act in organized groups but rather lash out against authority figures when contacted. Several State Troopers have been murdered by Sovereign Citizens in my area for engaging in simple traffic stops. That is what prompted the training in our region.

  23. @KAM You stated in post #20 “Take an innocent citizen and a good cop. For whatever reason, this cop (legitimately) thinks there is some problem going on that he needs to investigate.”

    I think in this situation where a cop thinks there is a legitimate problem that he needs to investigate, that is probable cause, even if it turns out to be nothing. With or without a warrant, just because it turns out that nothing illegal was taking place inside the house, if the cop truly believes there is something illegal going on that he needs to investigate, whether that be something life threatening that is immediate or non-life threatening that is not immediate and a warrant can be obtained, finding nothing doesn’t make it illegal.

    Now if a cop is manufacturing or making up probable cause in order to have an excuse to go in, obviously that is illegal.

  24. @Lucas,

    I see your point. What I was attempting to do is explain how this ruling (itself) can help CREATE an issue that will be threatening to both police and citizens. The crux of my point is that previously, the home-owner had an expectation of safety inside his own home–which gives him a sense of security (real or not), and which would dampen panic to some degree.
    Likewise a police officer would be more restrained due to the fact that he knows that a homeowner has a right to refuse entry–EXCEPT in a “hot” situation. I wasn’t intending to imply that someone was inside yelling for help, but rather than he heard something that made him question.

    Here’s another way of saying it. Now, a cop will be emboldened to enter a home, because he knows that no one has the right to resist him, PERIOD. Previously, he would know that a citizen did have a right to stop him, unless he was darn sure there was a good reason.

    What I’m saying is that this tells police that you really need not worry about good reason, because you have the power to enter unimpeded–for any reason.

    If a police officer has SOME reason, below “Emergency” level, he would previously know he had to handle this with more finesse.

    I believe this is simple psychology–if you believe you are in the right and are told you have the authority, you will act on it to that extent. That’s why handing the police absolute authority is so dangerous. It ENABLES aggressive and unwarranted behavior.

    This ruling essentially states the citizen is always wrong and the police officer is always right (even if at some theoretical time later someone might disagree). That sets up a system where the citizen is totally subservient to the (unlimited) power of the police officer. Nothing could be more dangerous to both parties, because that “unlimited power” ends when someone feels threatened and rational thinking takes a back seat to survival instinct.

    As I said–this is a powder keg set up to blow, and in my view could only be put in place by someone who is insane or completely unaware of how human nature operates. Human nature will (like anything) fall to its lowest level given the opportunity, and this ruling provides that opportunity.

    All it takes to understand the core principle behind my opposition to this is to understand that “Power corrupts, and Absolute Power Corrupts absolutely.” This ruling has shifted things very far in the absolute direction.
    I’m sorry if I didn’t explain this particularly well before.

  25. @Lucas,

    I’m sorry for the lengthy replies, but here’s another point. Perhaps you’ve heard of a rather famous psychological experiment (The Stanford Prison Experiment) where a group of people were asked to play the roles of guards and prisoners. There is a lot to this, but the relevant part here is that authority is a dangerous thing, and removing limits to that authority is VERY dangerous.

    This case essentially pushes citizens into the analogous role of “prisoner” and police into the role of “prison guard” (in relation to the Stanford Experiment).

    Indiana’s Now-Rogue Supreme Court has stupidly, and insanely now subjected all Indiana residents to this danger. I’m sorry if people are viewing my position on this as extreme, but I can’t emphasize enough how dangerous this is.

    This is society-damaging manipulation happening before my eyes and I feel that it needs to be resisted with whatever rational, principled means I can muster.

    Your comments and those of Boomer-sooner have been very helpful in assisting me wrap my head around this issue, so Thank you.

  26. A suggestion I’d have for a more conservative investment is Pimco Total Return (PTRAX). It is currently yielding 3%, so nowhere near the REITs, but it beats stuffing it in the mattress. Since 1996 it has traded between $10 and $11.50 – even through the 2008-2009 crash it was remarkably stable, and paid divs the whole time – so it is also nowhere near as risky as the REITs. Of course Pimco = Bill Gross, and he seems to be keeping a close eye on US Treasuries these days.

  27. As said above I think the LE training that is taking place is targeting the group named Sovereign Citezens. I think it is probably being held in Arkansas because it is the one year anniversary of two officers who were killed in West Memphis. I think one of the officers killed was the son of the chief of police there.

  28. Jack,

    I agree with your take on seeing both sides of the issue to a lesser extent, until the other ruling made this week is considered. IN also ruled that now an officer does not have to knock, so taken together, these two decisions mean that an officer can simply walk into your home with no knock, no warning, and no probable cause. That is most definitely a no-go on all levels and the individuals rendering these decisions obviously have an agenda.

    As mentioned in other comments, the most repugnant aspect of these decisions is that courts do not have the Constitutional authority to write laws. The court should have ruled within the law on the specifics of this case and this case only, deferring to the legislature for the law making piece. For this reason, both decisions need to be struck down hard, fast, and without question. Courts being allowed to write laws in this country is one of our biggest diseases, and it absolutely must stop. If it doesn’t, it will eventually be resolved in a manner none of us hope for. These are the types of abuses our founders warned of and gave us the tools to fix.

  29. On the AIDS like virus. I work in Taiwan and aftering reading this have asked several doctor friends what their take on it was. All of them had heard about this and said that they belive it is some form of AIDS. Also you have to remember that China does not like to reveal any of its dirty laundery and there wont be any thing concrete done with this until a NGO gets a hold of it.

  30. Ref the Soverign Citizen movement: I have had dealings with a man who claimed he was as a soverign citizen. He stated he had renounced his citizenship to any government and therefore was not governable by any nation’s laws. He had “legally” renounced his “given” name and thus felt he was no longer responsible for any debt he had incurred while he was still a “slave citizen.” He also said he could not be arrested for the warrant which existed for him under his given name. He explained to me that if I tried to arrest him he would be forced to resist, as it would be a violation of international law, and thus I would be violating his international civil rights. He explained to me that I would be sued in court, and would be singled out by other soverign citizens as a criminal who would have to be punished under “their laws.”

    Whereas all of his threats were non-specific, and veiled, he was trying to make it clear that it would be better if I just left him alone.

    On the way to jail, he advised he would see me again.

    People who belong to these groups are not exercising their rights as soverign citizens of the U.S. or any other nation, they are trying to corrupt the meaning of the words for their financial and criminal benefit.

    Please do not vilify L.E.O.s who are trying to identify and prosecute these indivuduals. Most cops (I would say all, but….) know the difference between concerned educated citizens, hate groups, and charletans.

    If you know a cop (I mean really know them, not just some cop you see at the store), let them know how these jack-holes are stealing the term soverign citizen and giving people like us a bad name. If they don’t know about this group, tell them to take a look at the world service group at

    I can assure you that in all of my training, local, regional, national, including quite a bit of anti-terrorist training, regular citizens who are simply exercising their rights are not even on the radar. Hope this helps.