This Alone Disqualifies Mitch Daniels for the White House

On May 12, 2011, the Indiana State Supreme Court delivered itself of a startling 3-2 ruling:

A jury convicted Richard Barnes of Class A misdemeanor battery on a law enforcement officer, Class A misdemeanor resisting law enforcement, and Class B misdemeanor disorderly conduct. Barnes contests that the trial court‘s failure to advise the jury on the right to reasonably resist unlawful entry by police officers constituted reversible error and that the evidence was insufficient to sustain his convictions. We hold that there is no right to reasonably resist unlawful entry by police officers.

This flies in the face of centuries of British and American common law and, as the dissenting justices point out, U.S. Supreme Court decisions as well.

In Miller v. United States, 357 U.S. 301, 313-14 (1958) the United States Supreme Court held that it was unlawful to arrest the defendant on criminal charges when a warrantless arrest was conducted by police officers breaking and entering the defendant‘s apartment without expressly announcing the purpose of their presence or demanding admission. In recounting the historical perspective for its holding the Court quoted eighteenth century remarks attributed to William Pitt, Earl of Chatham, on the occasion of a debate in Parliament:

The poorest man may in his cottage bid defiance to all the forces of the Crown. It may be frail; its roof may shake; the wind may blow through it; the storm may enter; the rain may enter; but the King of England cannot enter – all his force dares not cross the threshold of the ruined tenement!

Id. at 307. The same is no less true today and applies equally to forces of the State.
At issue in this case is not whether Barnes had the right to resist unlawful police entry into his home – a proposition that the State does not even contest – but rather whether the entry was illegal in the first place, and if so, whether and to what extent Barnes could resist entry without committing a battery upon the officer. Federal Fourth Amendment jurisprudence is equal to the task of resolving these issues.2 In my view the majority sweeps with far too broad a brush by essentially telling Indiana citizens that government agents may now enter their homes illegally – that is, without the necessity of a warrant, consent, or exigent circumstances. And that their sole remedy is to seek refuge in the civil arena. I disagree and therefore respectfully dissent.

Note that this was a 3-2 decision that stripped a right recognized at every level of our legal system, as well as British and American common law: A man’s home is his castle, and he has the right to resist illegal entry into it – by anybody, including minions of the state. This court stripped the guarantee of that right from the citizens of Indiana.

And who was the pivotal player in this judicial drama? A gentleman named Steven H. David, who authored the majority opinion.

Mitch Daniels and the Judiciary –

…And who is David? Here is what Severino reports:

David is a former chief defense counsel for detainees at Guantanamo Bay who praised the majority opinion in Boumediene v. Bush with this trite quote: “The most important thing that Boumediene held is something that I always thought was obvious … that in America, there are no law-free zones.” Or maybe he could explain why the official Steven David bio released by his office announced the fact that David is a member of the American Judicature Society, the leading institutional proponent of the Missouri Plan, and beneficiary of more than $1 million in contributions from George Soros’s Open Society Institute since 2000. Daniels may well have chosen the least bad option presented to him by the commission, but that cannot excuse him supporting a system that ties the governor’s hands to such an extent that he can only choose the least offensive of three liberal nominees.

So, yes, Mr. David, apparently an enemy of the right to resist the minions of the state when they attempt to illegally enter your home, was appointed by Mitch Daniels, a much-rumored Republican candidate for the Presidency of the United States in 2012.

And what Rubin had to report with regard to Daniels’ record in appointing judges in Indiana was disturbing in the extreme. Here is what Carrie Severino had to tell us:

The single most important judicial issue in Indiana is the ongoing debate over the state’s method for appointing appellate judges. It’s not much of a debate, actually, thanks in part to Daniels. Indiana uses a form of the Missouri Plan, the commission-based method for choosing judges that was designed by Progressive Era lawyers to put “experts” in charge of judicial selection. The “experts,” of course, are lawyers. When the issue was in front of Daniels, he took the worst possible approach. In 2009, overwhelming majorities of the Indiana General Assembly (88-3 in the House, 35-15 in the Senate) approved legislation to kill that method in parts of Indiana. Governor Daniels vetoed it. …

Then, when Indiana had a supreme court vacancy to fill, he failed to say a single word about the state’s flawed judicial-selection process and dutifully appointed a nominee sent to him by the state’s nominating commission.

So, when considering Governor Daniels in your choices for the nomination, ask yourself: Is this the man you want appointing Justices to the Supreme Court of the United States? (via SteveF – thanks!)

UPDATE: Welcome, Instapundit readers!

About Bill Quick

I am a small-l libertarian. My primary concern is to increase individual liberty as much as possible in the face of statist efforts to restrict it from both the right and the left. If I had to sum up my beliefs as concisely as possible, I would say, "Stay out of my wallet and my bedroom," "your liberty stops at my nose," and "don't tread on me." I will believe that things are taking a turn for the better in America when married gays are able to, and do, maintain large arsenals of automatic weapons, and tax collectors are, and do, not.


This Alone Disqualifies Mitch Daniels for the White House — 36 Comments

  1. I am now at the point where, if a GOP candidate has held any elective office at the state or federal level, I simply assume they are no friend of liberty no matter what their stump speech has in it. I assume that they have been complicit in the kinds of things we’ve seen in Daniel’s and Pawlenty’s case in this cycle, and all it takes is some digging and time for their bias in favor of the state over the citizen to come out.

    In my mind, it’s pretty much a matter of conditioning. If you spend a few years with a group of people who all subscribe to the same basic philosophy, it’s close to certain that, as a social animal, you will come to basic agreement with that philosophy. The main alternative is that you become disillusioned/disgusted and get out, so if you hang around, I’m assuming the conditioning of the group takes hold.

    The kinds of technocrats who like the job of being a staffer to a politician, and the high-level bureaucrats they work with and sometimes change places with, forms such a group. They have faith in the power of the state to do good; otherwise they wouldn’t have been working for it the past few decades.

    Daniels and Pawlenty are working hard to look like the best choice of the mainstream GOP candidates. Problem is, “mainstream” is defined by the media and the GOP establishment. I’ve concluded, reluctantly, that given our current velocity towards the cliff edge, such a person doesn’t have a ghost of a chance of succeeding at reversing the looming catastrophe. Their background ensures that they cannot and will not go to the wall for the harsh measures that would be needed. They’ll hem and haw, and seek “consensus”, and bend bit by bit, until they’ve come up with some they can trumpet as a solution but which has mostly cosmetic effects. Then, when the meltdown actually comes, they have just given the collectivist media the ammunition they need to blame it all on capitalism and freedom.

    I’m ready now to switch to someone totally unproven, such as Cain. I *know* he would make some damaging mistakes if he got the job. And there’s still the chance of such a person being captured by the GOP establishment very quickly, as Bill Frist was (though Cain’s main attraction is that he looks to be exceptionally resistant). The pressure from the staffers, journalists, and bureaucrats to “be reasonable” will be constant and crushing. So electing a Cain is no guarantee of a solution, and in fact odds are probably against such a person carrying out the reversal of state power, cost, and debt that we need. But, to channel some melodramatic Star Wars dialog, it’s our only hope.

  2. Pingback: Undeclared candidate Mitch Daniels becoming the big man on campus - Page 3 - City-Data Forum

  3. Well, crap. And here I thought I was going to support Daniels as the best of the “electable” lot. I prefer Cain, but I don’t want to back another Fred Thompson – I wasted a lot of money on that last time. I prefer Palin, but I think she is likely such damaged goods in the minds of the Great Unwashed as to be unelectable. Plus it doesn’t really look like she’s going to run. I would happily support Santorum but he’s got too much baggage as well.

    I’ll tell you what, though. I’m not voting for another McCain. So spare me the Huckabees, Romneys, Pawlentys and Johnsons. Listen up, Republicans: there’s a good argument to be made that Obama didn’t win the last election, you lost it. The Republican base stayed home in droves rather than vote for that backstabbing RINO. It didn’t get reported that way by the MSM because it didn’t fit the narrative, but go back and look at the numbers.The base is still mighty unhappy, 2010 notwithstanding.

  4. But, to channel some melodramatic Star Wars dialog, it’s our only hope.

    Lies, Dissatisfaction, sense of Entitlement, and PR lead to Hope.
    Hope leads to Obama.
    Obama leads to Despair.
    And Despair leads to the Dark Side.

    (Hey, if I were 800 years old, I’d be able to distill it down as well as Yoda did.)

  5. Pingback: Why Mitch Daniels should NEVER «

  6. Pingback: Why Mitch Daniels Should NOT be President « Wichita Lineman

  7. Pingback: Breakfast Scramble: Fourth Amendment DOA in Indiana

  8. Pingback: The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects … | Be John Galt

  9. I’m beginning to think Herman Cain may end up being my candidate by default.

    I was starting to think that before this unconscionable decision from the Indiana supremes and its Daniels connections. Daniels’ very lukewarm support of Scott Walker in ‘Sconsin was pretty disturbing. That scratched any support on my part for the man.

    Cain would be a brilliant move for the Repubs, which is why I doubt it’ll happen; the establishment of the Stupid Party will fight tooth and nail against a Cain candidacy. I could see a Cain/Jindal ticket completely neutralizing the race driven Obama juggernaut. Combine an amazingly successful entrepreneur with an experienced executive policy wonk, and I think you’ve got electoral gold.

    But this is the Stupid Party we’re talking about. Oh, well.

  10. So, yes, Mr. David, apparently an enemy of the right to resist the minions of the state when they attempt to illegally enter your home, was appointed by Mitch Daniels, a much-rumored Republican candidate for the Presidency of the United States in 2012.

    Oh come on, Presidents and Governors appoint judges all the time, since when are they responsible for every judgment they make..if that were honestly the case not even Ronald Reagan could claim that all of his appointments were perfect.

    I live in Indiana and Daniels has been a good Governor. He is not a libertarian, he has never pretended to be one. He came to office promising to balance the budget and cut government and reform education and limit the power of public sector unions. And he has done all of that.

    The truth is that there are plenty of people out there who will find reasons to hate all these people and try to sabotage them.

  11. Cain seems like a fine fellow, but conservatives dont need to forestall any Dim race juggernaut, as Palin will be driving one of her own by dominating the white voting bloc created by Odumble (PBUH).

    This will also have the salutory effect of breaking the Hispanic bloc, as they intuit the dangers of going all in for Soetero and STILL losing, thereby foolishly positioning themselves for a showdown, a la Wisconsin and the unions, with a totally pissed conservative majority.

    And Palin is running: spend some quality time in the Palinsphere (C4P, O4P, etc) and you’ll get the lay of the land.

    This blog is a thought leader and commenters need to be much better informed about how Palin is approaching the race.

  12. I don’t think Palin or Cain either one have a chance at winning. I am not sure Daniels does either, but if people are going to dissect his record and make him personally responsible for every decision made by every judge he appoints then it is only fair that they look at the rest of his record. And over all his record is good.

    As for this case, I have heard different things. Some people seem to think this decision means that a cop can kick in your door and kill you with impunity….others say that it only means you can’t beat the officer or physically assault him at your door and that if he has in fact gained entry to your home illegally then there are legal consequences to the officer. It seems to me that it hinges on the idea of what is and is not unlawful entry.

  13. Pingback: Daily scoreboard « Don Surber

  14. Some people seem to think this decision means that a cop can kick in your door and kill you with impunity….others say that it only means you can’t beat the officer or physically assault him at your door and that if he has in fact gained entry to your home illegally then there are legal consequences to the officer. It seems to me that it hinges on the idea of what is and is not unlawful entry.

    Time was (say in the last 30/40 years) they could not stand on your property without your express permission. Even if that was given, that did not allow them to enter your house. If they did, they still needed a search warrant unless you said go ahead and look.

    They can now kick in your door, shoot your dog, rape your kids and steal the silver – and all you can due is sue and hope to win in court. This is a logical extension (from the statist viewpoint) of asset forfeiture.

    They are tired of defining what is illegal and what is not. Now it is legal for a cop to enter your house and do whatever, on the grounds that he is a cop. (Or she. Same disease).

  15. I don’t think Palin or Cain either one have a chance at winning.

    At this point in the last cycle, I thought McCain was down for the count and that I had as much chance of getting the nomination as he did. On the Dem side, everyone was sure Hillary would sweep all before here. So I don’t like making presumptions about who can or cannot win the nomination or the election.

    We have not even seen Cain enough to know what he can do. His first real public outing was a pretty rousing success. Sure, he has a tough road ahead, but I’m certainly not ready to say he can’t win the nomination, and given the volatility in the economic scene, *anyone* who wins the nomination has a fighting chance to win the general.

    As to Palin, I think our commenter above is far too optimistic. Given McCain’s return from the dead in 2008 to win the nomination, I won’t say she can’t do it, but… wow, she has a lot of obstacles. The legacy media really did a number on her. Of course, they used up a lot of their dwindling reserves of credibility getting Obama elected (and trashing Palin in the process), so they’ll have more trouble with new candidates, but for Palin, the damage is done.

    It isn’t fair that she was treated that way and now has that burden. But this isn’t about fairness, it’s about reality. Besides the way she was trashed in the media, the establishment GOP hates her guts with a white hot intensity and would willingly sabotage her at any opportunity. Sure, those jerks won’t like any of the non-establishment upstarts, but they have a special animus towards Palin.

    Who knows, maybe Michelle Bachmann will take the Palin role and run with it, unburdened by the smears endured by Palin. At this point, I’m just hoping for one survivor late into the nomination process that I can support. As I said above, it’s past time for half-measures from establishment GOP types, no matter how burnished their conservative credentials. We need someone who will go on a rampage against overweening government.

  16. @Terrye,
    I live in Indiana, and voted for Daniels, and support most of what he’s done, blah-blah, BUT…

    This is something that cannot be ignored. If Mitch tries to duck the consequences of his appointment, he’s dead as a candidate. Because the buck stops at his desk.

    1. If he didn’t know about this guy, black marks for him and his staff. We don’t need incompetence in 2012.

    2. If he DID know, and appointed David anyway, then he’s just demonstrated that he’s another get-along-go-along Republican of the McCain stripe. We don’t need that in 2012, either.

    And I don’t buy any of the excuses on offer: We’re not talking about traffic court here; if Daniels wasn’t paying attention he should have been. And if David was the “best of a bad lot” (that the nominating commmission came up with), then Daniels has demonstrated zero political skill: I can’t believe a sitting governor is unable to exercise input (formal or informal) in the nominating process.

    If Mitch is serious about the presidency, he should call a press conference Monday morning to announce four things:

    1. That he– personally– finds the court’s decision abhorrent and contrary to American values.
    2. That he cannot support any judge who is so out-of-touch with the American tradition that he would vote in favor of such a decision, and, specifically, that he is encouraging hoosiers to vote against the retention of Judge David in the 2012 election.
    3. That he will IMMEDIATELY call a special session of the legislature “for the purpose of drafting a state constitutional amendment overturning this decision and affirming 4th Amendment protections within the state of Indiana.”
    4. and that he will encourage and support legislative efforts to impeach ALL THREE judges who voted in favor of this decision.

    Anything less is not enough, and excuses will not be accepted.

  17. I live in Indiana and Daniels has been a good Governor.

    I was born and raised in Muncie, IN, and my family is still in the state. I didn’t think much of Daniels before this, and I think less of him now. He is the second coming of Dick Lugar, another faux “conservative” who will swiftly be coopted by the Washington establishment, and who will, in the end, do little or nothing to slow the ongoing collapse of the American republic and financial system.

    Oh, and one other thing. I’m not terribly impressed with his fiscal prowess, either. He oversaw a sales tax jump of 17%, although he certainly did not preside over a 17% cut in spending. He didn’t really cut appropriation, he only kept them from growing (and yes, they did grow – a little). He removed huge swathes of money from local control and centralized it under state control – a strategy that has helped to put California into the financial straits it endures today.

    This is the same patch-the-money-bucket approach that has left us with a bankrupt in all but name federal government. Nor does he strike me as a fearless union buster, given his dismal performance regarding the Walker battle in Wisconsin.

    I think he is exactly what Grouch fears he might be – a go along, get along, pretend to give the suckers what they want, establishment GOP politician.

  18. Well Daniels is not perfect, after all we can’t all be Bill Quick..but last I heard he had an approval rating of about 75% here in Indiana.

    He balanced the budget, he created a surplus, he cut property taxes, he ended collective bargaining for state employees, he privatized a state highway and saved the state money, he put many of the state employees on health savings accounts to save the state money, he supported both merit pay and charter schools here in Indiana as well as a voucher system. He signed the bill defunding Planned Parenthood as well.

    I am not saying he is perfect, but I do think the idea that he is not fit to be president is over the top. After all, Daniels has been Governor for almost two terms. No, Herman Cain never appointed someone to the bench whose opinion you did not agree with…but then Herman Cain never had to make such a judgment either.

    I still think it is unfair. Look at someone like Reagan, 8 years as Governor and 8 years as President..that is a lot of judges and a lot of decisions. I doubt if they would all be pleasing to libertarians.

  19. Well Daniels is not perfect, after all we can’t all be Bill Quick

    Well, there’s an argument. Got your goat, did I? I know, it’s really annoying when somebody forces you to examine your tin god’s feet of clay.

    Tell you what, Terrye: If Daniels will take all the actions Old Grouch demands, I’ll be willing to rethink my position. Until that happens, though, I will regard this as a devastating tell of what Daniels will really be like in the Oval Office. Possibly the most important and enduring decisions a President has to make are those regarding SCOTUS appointments. Based on this, I don’t want him anywhere near that particular power.

  20. I must say this talk of Cain and/or Bachmann is quite far fetched. Its simply not going to happen.

    I have consistently maintained that Palin will have a tougher time winning the nomination than the general and the path to the nomination just got a lot more clear about a half hour ago. Not to mention this week’s Romney implosion.

    Daniels? A homely dork Bush tool vs. the most charismatic and intuitive politician today? Did you all see the Madison speech, for just one example.

    Damaged goods? They’ve done all the damage they can, though no doubt the Dims and Bush establishment will keep trying. The general will be a referendum on Obama, and by the time Palin is through with him you’re going to well and truly know what damaged goods look like.

  21. Well, you’re in pretty fast company, there, Bill –

    After a couple of scans of his usual blog “content”, I’d say Surber’s site is a marvelous re-iteration of the thought embodied in Larry Flynt’s notorious comment to the judge: “Opinions are like assholes. Everybody’s got one.” (‘Course, that’s not always a good thing – viz: much of Surber’s relative-hilarity)

    Meanwhile, back (more or less) on-topic: TerryeC, before you continue much further in your fanboy (fangirl?…) mode regarding ol’ Mitch, it might be pertinent for you to consult what a current (and basically life-long) resident of Indiana, Frank James, has to say about Daniels and his gubernatorial “works”. Fair warning: Frank’s a hardworking farmer (corn and soybeans), so he’s pretty straightforward in his statements, and you’ll do best to search his past material under “Ditch Maniels” as well as “Mitch Daniels” or “Governor”. (By now, you may have a general idea of Frank’s views on Daniels…)

    Meanwhile, my own view is similar to Bill’s previously-expressed judgment of Daniels as…

    …the second coming of Dick Lugar, another faux “conservative” who will swiftly be coopted by the Washington establishment, and who will, in the end, do little or nothing to slow the ongoing collapse of the American republic and financial system.

    By way of comparison: John McCain (aka: Johnny McStain,…) is undoubtedly reckoned by some to be POTUS timber, even today, and often enough he sounds really great…however, based on what he does – and what he knowingly causes to be done – I have no interest whatsoever in his being Chief Executive. There’re a whole lot of people who share that view, I think…

  22. (Daniels)…balanced the budget, he created a surplus, he cut property taxes…

    Well, Daniels did manage to run a surplus for three years – not a large one, but a surplus. Over three years, it totaled 921 million dollars. Since then, he’s run deficits totaling 4.851 billion dollars, giving Indiana a net deficit of 3.93 billion dollars under his administration. This is the very essence of what I call shit-sandwich Republicans – they talk a good game, and even manage to accomplish a few minor victories, but in the long run, they leave us far worse off than we were when they started. Oh, sure, maybe not quite as bad as the Democrats would, but they never manage to actually improve anything over the long term.

    As for the property tax cut, sure. He cut them by a total of 655 million, to date. (More or less). Of course, the 17% sales tax increase raises taxes by about a billion a year, for a net 345 million increase. Again, shit sandwichness at its finest.

    Oh, and were you aware that Daniels would like to inflict a
    European-style Value Added Tax (VAT) on the American people? This adds a tax onto every step of production of goods, and if Europe is any indicator, will raise the prices consumers pay by about 20% – in addition to the sales taxes individual states already add on. And in addition to the Flat Income Tax Daniels also supports. So: he supports sales taxes, flat taxes, and VATs, and in exchange he’s willing to toss a few crumbs to property owners, crumbs which amount to a few percent of the total amount of taxes extorted from the American people to pay for out of control spending – where he doesn’t mind a bit running huge deficits, either.

    That, my friend, is a GOP shit sandwich. Enjoy the yum yum yummy taste.

    And that is why Democrats think he would make a great Republican candidate.

  23. You know, the more I dig into this guy, the uglier he gets. I may have to put together a Mitch Daniels: The List of Infamy post on him.

    There’s sure enough material to add him to the shit sandwich banquet establishment ruling class Republicans enjoy gobbling so eagerly.

  24. …don’t get me wrong. Don is one of the good guys – but he’s establishment GOP all the way.

    Oh, I quite understand – and mostly agree (entirely agree on the “establishment GOP” part) – however, much of what I’m sure he considers the height of subtle, humorous commentary, for my money, comes off as…lacking a certain something…

    Like – humor, maybe…

    About half (sometimes a bit more…) of the time, he’s not nearly as witty as he clearly thinks he is, and the result is sorta like champagne without the bubbles: Still usable, but not nearly as interesting, and mostly missing the point.

    His “scorecard” comment on your post was fairly amusing, of course, but not in the way he intended it – quite the opposite – and, again, missed the point (in that case, by a full 180 degrees).

    If you’re putting together stuff on Daniels, you’ll do well to rummage a bit over at Frank James’ place, too – his take on Guv Daniels’ approaches to education are of particular interest, as well as (IIRC) some of the commentary on taxation policies and the net results thereof from a rural and agricultural business perspective. I follow Frank pretty regularly, and he’s been writing stuff about “Ditch Maniels” for some time now.

    Back on the original topic (sort of) regarding the Indiana court decision, per TerryeC:

    …It seems to me that it hinges on the idea of what is and is not unlawful entry.

    Sorry, but that is simple-minded and arrant bullshit.

    Yes, ultimately, it is up to a court to decide what is – or is not – unlawful entry. However, if a cop tries to come onto my property – much less through my front door (or even through the back window, for that matter) – he has to have either provable probable cause (generally based on reasonable suspicion and/or pursuit that amounts to same) or a legally issued warrant in his hot little hand specifying where he can enter and what he can do there. Otherwise, his is unlawful entry, and he has no greater standing than anyone else.

    There’s a mountain of law that backs that up, most of which can be summarized in two word: Castle doctrine.

    It’s not up to me (as homeowner/landowner) to determine, on the spot, beyond “reasonable care”, that the person – in or out of a cop uniform – I am about to ventilate with .45 slugs is lawfully there because they’re busting my door down at 2:00 A.M., or because they’re piling out of a(n apparent) squad car in my driveway or on my lawn pointing a shotgun. It’s up to the cops to clearly and fully identify why they are there and the (relative) legality of their presence – they know what’s going on (supposedly); all I know is, I’m being invaded – and in fear for my life.

    Those three judges in Indiana are of the opinion that I should have no decision power, in such a situation, if the invader says he (or she) is a cop. I beg to differ – and there’s a bunch of backup to that differing.

    Once again: Glad I don’t live (or work) in Indiana right now, really sucks for those of you who do.

    And yes, ol’ Mitch has to bear at least a chunk of the responsibility for that sorry circumstance. But for his past actions, that court decision quite possibly would have gone 3-2 the other way.

  25. Pingback: Indiana Supreme Court: No right to resist illegal cop entry into home - Democrats, Republicans, Libertarians, Conservatives, Liberals, Third Parties, Left-Wing, Right-Wing, Congress, President - Page 2 - City-Data Forum

  26. The Supreme Court, in an 8-1 decision in a Kentucky case, says police officers who loudly knock on a door in search of illegal drugs and then hear sounds suggesting evidence is being destroyed may break down the door and enter without a search warrant.

    Now folks, I don’t see any possible way for po-po to abuse that ruling.

    None whatsoever.

    Note that the case involved po-po at the wrong address, but still they were justified.

    I’m wondering about reinstating an old-timey ’60s rule…screw the police before they can screw you to the wall.

    I saw it at NRO.

  27. Well, this didn’t take long.

    According to Newton County Sheriff, Don Hartman Sr., random house to house searches are now possible and could be helpful following the Barnes v. STATE of INDIANA Supreme Court ruling issued on May 12th, 2011. When asked three separate times due to the astounding callousness as it relates to trampling the inherent natural rights of Americans, he emphatically indicated that he would use random house to house checks, adding he felt people will welcome random searches if it means capturing a criminal.

    I’d say this meets the definition of “justifiable homicide”.

  28. I’d say this means a lot of cops are going to get shot extremely dead, and Newton County Sheriff’s deputies are highly likely to be among the early victims…

    There are a whole lot of places in this country where a lot of people are inclined heavily to laying down a barrage at anyone breaking down their door, no matter what they’ve been screaming just outside.

    And Don Hartman Sr. is a total ass – “…people will welcome random searches if it means capturing a criminal.”, my left butt-cheek…

  29. he felt people will welcome random searches if it means capturing a criminal

    Sheriff Hartman meet my friends Mr. Smith and Mr. Wesson, as well as my Faithful Indian Companion Red Hawk. I can hit a 6″ target at 25yds. That means head shots no Second Chance(TM). No threat, a promise.
    And Sheriff Newton? The funny way this internet thingy works? I might live in Newton Co. Keep that in mind when you start breaking down doors.

  30. Pingback: New Zeal Blog » Evil Precedent – Indiana Invalidates Fourth Amendment

  31. Pingback: Evil Precedent – Indiana Invalidates Fourth Amendment

  32. Pingback: Citizens Protest Indiana Supreme Court Ruling Quashing Fourth Amendment Rights| The Post & Email

Leave a Reply