Article Image
News Link • Bill of Rights

Boycott Indiana For Killing The 4th Amendment of the Bill Of Rights

• Market-ticker.org
 
The record shows: 911 was called during a verbal altercation. The statement was made that the defendant was throwing his own property within the apartment. No allegation was made that anything was thrown at the other occupant, nor that the defendant was destroying anyone else's property, nor that the defendant struck (battery) or threatened to strike (assault) any other person. In other words, the original cause for the call did not allege an actual crime. It is not illegal to destroy your own property. It is not illegal to raise your voice. Absent a colorable threat to inflict bodily injury or destroy the property of another person there was no crime alleged to have been in progress. The 911 call dispatch went out as a factual fallacy: a claim that a "domestic violence" was in progress. No such actual assault or violation of another's property rights was alleged by the caller. Further, once the officers arrived the caller: Mary came onto the parking lot, threw a black duffle bag in Barnes‘s direction, told him to take the rest of his stuff, and returned to the apartment. The alleged "domestic violence victim" willingly interacted with the defendant and made no indication of an interest in police intervention. She displayed no evidence of a crime against her person and never alleged there had been one, either at the scene or during the 911 call. These facts are in the court record and are not in dispute. Reed and Henry followed Barnes back to the apartment. Mary entered the apartment, followed by Barnes, who then turned around and blocked the doorway. Barnes told the officers that they could not enter the apartment and denied Reed‘s requests to enter and investigate. The apartment is the "castle" of the defendant. He barred the doorway. The threshold is the demarcation between public and private space. Absent probable cause to believe a crime has been or is about to be committed, the police officers had no right of entry. There was no probable cause.

3 Comments in Response to

Comment by Bob Marks
Entered on:

 Why are you wanting to punish business  in Indiana when its just a trio of stupid jurists who tripped on their shoe laces??  The decision in Barnes v. State isn't even final and won't be until after Re-Determination and then Certification by the Clerk of the Supreme Court.

We the people of Indiana are actively expressing our disgust at this decision and contacting the Indiana Supreme Court, our Legislators, the Governor and the Attorney General to stop this stupidity.  We plan to see this vile decision overturned before it even becomes finalized.  

So I ask that you don't go off half cocked shooting at those who would fix the problem.   If you are going to get riled up, put your efforts behind ours and stop doing those things that are hurtful instead of helpful.

bob minarik - rochester indiana - 574-542-9065  

Comment by Temper Bay
Entered on:

The Government and Courts have recently and clearly demonstrated that unless the people are willing to draw blood to defend their 'Rights' then those rights are nothing more than privileges that can be taken or given at either's fancy.

Comment by Stupid Amerkin
Entered on:

Sounds to me like the people need to fire this nazi sheriff and charge him with treason.


Join us on our Social Networks:

 

Share this page with your friends on your favorite social network:

GoldMoney