The Smallest Minority on earth is the individual. Those who deny individual rights cannot claim to be defenders of minorities. - Ayn Rand
As I've said in other comments, collectivists see the rule of law and equality under said law as obstacles to be overcome, not ideals to be upheld.
As if we needed more examples of "The State is not your friend."
Will we or nill we, decisions like this --and attitudes like those of the people who made it -- bring us closer to the communication that needs no translation.
Part of the problem is built into the Fourth Amendment itself. By banning only "unreasonable" searches and seizures, it basically invites courts to make up their own rules as to what is or isn't reasonable. Thank Allah the Second Amendment isn't worded that way.
True, but isn't that what precedent is for? In both cases the dissenting opinions point out what Buie actually said, and how the subsequent courts have twisted it into meaning something else entirely. If the Supreme Court has ruled on something, as was noted in the Silveira dissent, lower courts don't have the power to tell higher courts they were out to lunch. They are bound by those decisions.
Except as in this case, where they're not. IANAL and you are, but that's not how I understand the system is supposed to work.
Uh oh. So the court tells us that we are entitled to an unfair gunfight, but no longer safe in our own homes?
This is going to work out poorly for both the person "safe in their home" and the police/deputy who is serving an arrest warrant. The notion of "probable cause" is suffering.
Of course, the long-standing solution is to Never-Ever-Ever invite a police officer, or known vampire, into your home (or even let them see past you into a living space for an alleged "probable cause" entry). If you must speak to an officer at your door, it should be through a barrier that they can not grab you and pull you outside through (for a frisk/beat-down/"assaulting an officer"). If they have a warrant for your arrest, step outside and lock the door behind you, making their unlawful search of the locked space completly and clearly unlawful. Notice the trend of suspicion?
Police officers need the cooperation of the public much more than we need them. They would do well to lay off of the SWAT/SERT militarized ninja black-face-mask mentality and get back to "Protect & Serve" as Peace Officers (vs. Law Enforcement Officers) should do.
Yeah, that wil happen.
can't you see that arguing about the minutiae of the various decision set down for us proles by our black robed, bewigged masters is what they *want us* doing? that's why there's been 3 generations of propaganda ladled out by the government skoolz that "violence never solves anything" and "we're a nation of laws, not men". keep us endlessly debating, forver splintering into ever smaller and easily managed factions, and nothing will threaten the expansion of the leviathan.
look at it for any length of time and you'll see it's all road apples. when we piss off the government, then violence is always their answer. i won't bother writing about waco or any of the rest - you all know about them. as for that whole 'nation of laws' crap, there's a good portion of congress - and the secretary of the treasury - who have committed crimes that would land any of us in jail had we done them. there is of course no question that these fine gentlemen and ladies are above such mundane things as "prole law".
this whole post brings nothing to mind so much as the "people's front of judea" arguing endlessly about their anti-roman manifesto, while tugging their forelocks to each and every roman whose path they cross. by allowing yourself to take seriously their legal shell game, by allowing it to be the final authority on what is right or wrong, you're playing on their field, using rules they wrote, and letting them be the referee for any disputes. gee - wonder who's gonna win??