Newton County Sheriff proposes RANDOM HOUSE-TO-HOUSE SEARCHES

The #1 community for Gun Owners in Indiana

Member Benefits:

  • Fewer Ads!
  • Discuss all aspects of firearm ownership
  • Discuss anti-gun legislation
  • Buy, sell, and trade in the classified section
  • Chat with Local gun shops, ranges, trainers & other businesses
  • Discover free outdoor shooting areas
  • View up to date on firearm-related events
  • Share photos & video with other members
  • ...and so much more!
  • rambone

    Grandmaster
    Rating - 100%
    3   0   0
    Mar 3, 2009
    18,745
    83
    'Merica
    Don Hartman Sr., Sheriff of Newton County, Indiana, proposed that random house-to-house searches will now be possible under recent Supreme Court ruling, and useful for squashing what remains of liberty in America.

    IN Sheriff: If We Need to Conduct RANDOM HOUSE to HOUSE Searches We Will

    sheriff_don_hartman.jpg

    "Seig heil, b****es."
    - Don Hartman, Sr.
     

    indykid

    Grandmaster
    Rating - 100%
    4   0   0
    Jan 27, 2008
    11,294
    113
    Westfield
    So are we going to see the start of the rebirth of the USA here in Indiana?

    Did this "Sheriff" take an oath to uphold the constitution?

    I hope saner heads prevail, and very soon. I would really hate to see blood shed because some people "are just doing what we were told to do". My dad fought a war and shed blood in Europe to prevent these things from happening.
     

    PatriotPride

    Shooter
    Rating - 100%
    2   0   0
    Feb 18, 2010
    4,195
    36
    Valley Forge, PA
    So are we going to see the start of the rebirth of the USA here in Indiana?

    Did this "Sheriff" take an oath to uphold the constitution?

    I hope saner heads prevail, and very soon. I would really hate to see blood shed because some people "are just doing what we were told to do". My dad fought a war and shed blood in Europe to prevent these things from happening.

    +1. I hope that I live to see the rebirth of this nation and a return to the Constitution. :patriot:
     
    Rating - 0%
    0   0   0
    Apr 5, 2011
    3,530
    48
    Don't just vent your fury on a forum, folks. 100 page threads on INGO mean little. Write, call, sternly inform these public servants that their constituents take a rather dim view of police invasion. And, of course, prepare for the inevitable if this continues to spiral downward.
     

    Britton

    Master
    Rating - 100%
    3   0   0
    Apr 2, 2008
    1,541
    36
    Knoxville
    Don't just vent your fury on a forum, folks. 100 page threads on INGO mean little. Write, call, sternly inform these public servants that their constituents take a rather dim view of police invasion. And, of course, prepare for the inevitable if this continues to spiral downward.

    I have already emailed my state senator, now it is time to load more mags.
     

    melensdad

    Grandmaster
    Rating - 94.4%
    17   1   0
    Apr 2, 2008
    22,415
    77
    Outside Lowellabama
    OK FOLKS, I think we have to seriously look at this.

    The "Barnes" case did NOT say it was legal for LEOs to conduct random home searches. It said that citizens don't have a right to resist. There is a huge difference. So if this sheriff were to conduct a series of illegal searches he would likely be sued (which the Barnes case ruling indicated would be appropriate). It is also very likely he'd lose in court and get his butt in a ringer.

    Let us not confuse what the sheriff says is legal, with what the court says is legal. The court NEVER said an illegal random search was legal. They did say you can't resist but that does not make the search legal.
     

    melensdad

    Grandmaster
    Rating - 94.4%
    17   1   0
    Apr 2, 2008
    22,415
    77
    Outside Lowellabama
    Melensdad, That is exactly what they said, and that is the problem.

    Well I agree that the ruling was stupid and is a problem.

    But this sheriff takes stupid to a whole new level by compounding what is morally wrong and intentionally violating the law on top of committing a violation against the natural law of self defense.

    He will get his butt sued off. Lose. We taxpayers will pay the bill. But the courts will slap this idea out of the sheriffs head so fast that this guy will lose his job long after people lose all respect for him.
     

    serpicostraight

    Shooter
    Rating - 0%
    0   0   0
    Aug 14, 2009
    1,951
    36
    OK FOLKS, I think we have to seriously look at this.

    The "Barnes" case did NOT say it was legal for LEOs to conduct random home searches. It said that citizens don't have a right to resist. There is a huge difference. So if this sheriff were to conduct a series of illegal searches he would likely be sued (which the Barnes case ruling indicated would be appropriate). It is also very likely he'd lose in court and get his butt in a ringer.

    Let us not confuse what the sheriff says is legal, with what the court says is legal. The court NEVER said an illegal random search was legal. They did say you can't resist but that does not make the search legal.
    so you are going to sue a government employee in a government court that is decided by a government employee? and after a ruling like this you really think anything other than a verdict of carry on officer jbt would be rendered?
     

    melensdad

    Grandmaster
    Rating - 94.4%
    17   1   0
    Apr 2, 2008
    22,415
    77
    Outside Lowellabama
    so you are going to sue a government employee in a government court that is decided by a government employee? and after a ruling like this you really think anything other than a verdict of carry on officer jbt would be rendered?

    The court already ruled. They already said that an illegal search is illegal. They rule against police doing stupid/illegal things all the time and award lots of taxpayer money to the victims of the illegal police actions.
     

    88GT

    Grandmaster
    Rating - 0%
    0   0   0
    Mar 29, 2010
    16,643
    83
    Familyfriendlyville
    Don't be so sure they'll overturn it.

    SCOTUS rules 8-1 that cops can create their own exigent circumstances to validate a warrentless search of a home
    http://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/10pdf/09-1272.pdf

    INGO used to be my pick-me-up. Now I dread logging on for fear of what else I might find on these pages. What is this world coming to?

    Don't just vent your fury on a forum, folks. 100 page threads on INGO mean little. Write, call, sternly inform these public servants that their constituents take a rather dim view of police invasion. And, of course, prepare for the inevitable if this continues to spiral downward.
    And please don't assume that participation on an internet forum is mutually exclusive to any other action. It's a bit insulting to word your suggestion in that manner.

    OK FOLKS, I think we have to seriously look at this.

    The "Barnes" case did NOT say it was legal for LEOs to conduct random home searches. It said that citizens don't have a right to resist. There is a huge difference. So if this sheriff were to conduct a series of illegal searches he would likely be sued (which the Barnes case ruling indicated would be appropriate). It is also very likely he'd lose in court and get his butt in a ringer.

    Let us not confuse what the sheriff says is legal, with what the court says is legal. The court NEVER said an illegal random search was legal. They did say you can't resist but that does not make the search legal.

    It's a difference without much of a distinction from a practical standpoint though. Unlawful is still unlawful. The difference now is that there's nothing but civil redress for the plebe and all criminality on the part of LE has essentially been removed. The saving grace is that because it didn't change the authority of LE to enter, the burden on LE for collecting evidence in a manner consistent with protection of the 4th is still mostly intact.

    so you are going to sue a government employee in a government court that is decided by a government employee? and after a ruling like this you really think anything other than a verdict of carry on officer jbt would be rendered?
    I didn't realize that juries were universally comprised of government employees.
     
    Rating - 0%
    0   0   0
    Apr 5, 2011
    3,530
    48
    And please don't assume that participation on an internet forum is mutually exclusive to any other action. It's a bit insulting to word your suggestion in that manner.

    No offense was intended. It was intended more as an encouragement, to budge those who might not make a habit of doing so while they're still hot and fuming over this issue :patriot: . Goodness knows I'm far too lazy in these matters myself.
     
    Top Bottom