Those who are LEO's you (and who I would want) would want to lead or head a dept would not be given the chance because of the lack of policitcal connections and/or their belief in doing what is best for the people and the constitution.
-
Be sure to read this post! Beware of scammers. https://www.indianagunowners.com/threads/classifieds-new-online-payment-guidelines-rules-paypal-venmo-zelle-etc.511734/
Newton County Sheriff proposes RANDOM HOUSE-TO-HOUSE SEARCHES
- Thread starter rambone
- Start date
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!
Member Benefits:
Those who are LEO's you (and who I would want) would want to lead or head a dept would not be given the chance because of the lack of policitcal connections and/or their belief in doing what is best for the people and the constitution.
All politics aside, all the Hooah stuff aside, I (By the Grace of GOD) took a squad over, and brought a squad back.....all alive.
If for no other reason that is what I am glad for, and I would do it again even now knowing I would be disabled again as I am now.
I lost a civilian career, a military career, walk funny, wear leg braces, have migraines from a TBI, have fused neck, back is screwed for all practical purposes, and general memory loss of blocks of years going back to childhood. But I would do it again if it meant that even one of my soldiers wouldn't have come back. (Again by the Grace of God, not cause I am some sort of leader or something)
So if your a vet, then regardless of how misguided you feel now, your character is solid for taking the oath, walking the post, and doing what you said you would do. Don't let the screwed up politics of the situation make you feel like any less of a patriot. You have proven your core values are pure regardless of the motivations of those elected.
From one Vet to another, and not in a passing manner like "have a nice day" Thank you for your service brother.
For all the merit in your statement, where are the rebuttal articles and retractions they rush to print in their effort to avoid libel suits?
Hearing a brief bit of your story, I cannot find words that would adequately illustrate how much I appreciate your service and sacrifice. I can never thank you enough, nor can I rep you enough. You may be 18 or 80, but know I respect you in a way that I only reserve for the finest of people.
(doesnt even come close to what I wish I could do, but rep'd)
So you need a rebuttal before you decide it's not fact? Shouldn't you need supporting evidence before deciding it's true?
C'mon 88, I'm not saying he didnt say those things, but jeez the article, which is the only source material for the other links popping up 'round the net, fails to name the source who heard this statement, and further, there's not even a time/date, or location where this statement was made.
And why would another Sheriff speak "under anonymity" in saying that he believed the ruling was bad? I think the ruling is bad, and if asked face to face I'll tell anyone that.
There are way too many things that don't add up about this. Libel can be easily avoided, as the person reporting/printing this story will obviously not be the person who heard the statement in contention. And of course, I bet the source spoke under "anonymity," as well.
I appreciate the kind words. Briefly and not looking for kudos, I am 48 served all my life in a Military or Police uniform. (Living off you taxpayers, living the high life
)
CVMA544 said it best, but let me chime in for a minute. We have our freedoms, including the privilege to disagree, because Americans have been answering the bugle since before we were even a nation. Because of the citizen soldier, the Founders were able to establish three independent branches of government. There's already a movement among law makers to rectify this court decision. You served your part in preserving this balanced form of government. It isn't perfect, but it can and does work. Thank you for your service brother.
And while I'm on my soap box, law enforcement isn't the easiest way to make a living either. It's certainly not as much fun as it used to be. I'm not sure where Sheriff Hartman is coming from, but let's not paint all LEOs with the same brush. I'm of the opinion this recent court decision doesn't make it safer for anyone and may even subject officers to greater danger and/or liability.
shibumiseeker
Grandmaster
Is anyone but me curious to see the only source of this is in a news site that admits it parodies things? I haven't followed this thread, but has anyone actually verified that this person is indeed the sheriff of that county?
malern28us
Master
I appreciate the kind words. Briefly and not looking for kudos, I am 48 served all my life in a Military or Police uniform. (Living off you taxpayers, living the high life
I have no problems paying for those that were willing to pay the ultimate sacrifice. I do have problems paying for an elected official that makes 6 figures and props his fat a$$ behind a desk and kisses babies.
Maybe we should make the position much like a priest. Low pay and a free house to live in. Might only attract people that want to serve. I would be more than happy to have the sheriff over for a monthly meal so I could get a chance to voice my concerns about the community. Oh wait, that would be to unrealistic.
Crikey. I'm about ready to put you on the ignore list. A civil, rational conversation with you is just about impossible, you know that?
You're right. A lot of things don't make sense. On of which is this sheriff's silence in the face of such alarming accusations. At the very least his job is at stake. It is in his best interest to play the game and issue a statement to the contrary. My questioning his lack of response is in no way an indication of my opinion of his guilt.
I tend to take things at face value and judge their validity according to the evidence that supports it or opposes it. For this one, there isn't much either way. Nothing to support it, but nothing to suggest it's wrong either.
Why is it that you condemn for extending your same level of scrutiny to the entire picture?
As to your other question: I can speculate why a thin blue line member would want to remain anonymous when throwing a colleague under the bus. Surely you can too.
I agree, and elected officials shouldn't get a pension for those positions. They tend to think they are only ones who can do that job, and low and behold what would we do with out them?
Crikey. I'm about ready to put you on the ignore list. A civil, rational conversation with you is just about impossible, you know that?
You're right. A lot of things don't make sense. On of which is this sheriff's silence in the face of such alarming accusations. At the very least his job is at stake. It is in his best interest to play the game and issue a statement to the contrary. My questioning his lack of response is in no way an indication of my opinion of his guilt.
I tend to take things at face value and judge their validity according to the evidence that supports it or opposes it. For this one, there isn't much either way. Nothing to support it, but nothing to suggest it's wrong either.
Why is it that you condemn for extending your same level of scrutiny to the entire picture?
As to your other question: I can speculate why a thin blue line member would want to remain anonymous when throwing a colleague under the bus. Surely you can too.
When have I ever been un-civil to you? Seriously, don't pull that card. You can debate my logic and rationality, but certainly not my courtesy, when extended from others.
malern28us
Master
I honestly think after a couple people ( either civilians or police) are shot or injured, public outrage would solve the whole problem.
The sad part is that we cannot address the ineptitude of the judges.
I never condone violence, but might be willing to ignore any acts committed against the judges. " I didn't see anything. There was a lot of glare."
The sad part is that we cannot address the ineptitude of the judges.
I never condone violence, but might be willing to ignore any acts committed against the judges. " I didn't see anything. There was a lot of glare."
yepthatsme
Master
I take my hat off to you Sarge470. It would be great if all LEO took their jobs as seriously and with as much respect as you. Keep up the good work and keep in mind that your efforts do make a difference.
GeneralCarver
Marksman
What this guy is promoting is absolutely wrong. It is a gross violation of the 4th amendment. Sure, they might catch some bad guys, but that is not the main reason why they are pushing for the ability to search without warrants. That policy is being pushed because they know it will be necessary to have it to maintain as much control as possible in the future when the REAL unconstitutional laws/behavior begins happening and the population begins to resist. Does this Sheriff know that? I doubt it. But this is what totalitarian governments have been doing for ages and that's the origin of the motives for developing such policy.
Allison_Bricker
Plinker
- May 17, 2011
- 7
- 1
Hello thank you for linking to my article on SmArgus.com
As it relates to the legal ramifications of this Indiana Supreme Court ruling, my analysis was validated by several law enforcement sources and a Constitutional attorney. Supreme Court Justice David in writing the MAJORITY opinion did so in a manner that went outside the matters presented in BARNES v. STATE of INDIANA.
When he wrote "MODERN" legalese for (post-PATRIOT-Act) jurisprudence that Hoosiers may not resist UNLAWFUL entry, with the stroke of a pen he decreed the ability for law enforcement to conduct random house to house searches.
In order to appreciate the full gravity of the ruling, we must understand exactly what UNLAWFUL ENTRY means in the legal sense.Telephone any police chief and ask what does UNLAWFUL ENTRY MEAN; you will get an answer that states an UNLAWFUL ENTRY is any search of PRIVATE PROPERTY without PROBABLE CAUSE or WARRANT.
Therefore if neither PROBABLE CAUSE nor a WARRANT must be issued, it is left to the arbitrary whims of the department or officer on the scene.
Further as it relates to the inferences that this story is phony, all I can offer is that I have been publishing for 3 years, in that time never once have any of my articles ever received a LIBEL DEMAND RETRACTION LETTER from the facts presented therein.
Furthermore, Mike Church who retained my services as a Contributing Editor & Publisher, would not risk Libel litigation (nor his contract with Sirius/XM) by allowing libelous news reports to be published anywhere on his site which directly tied to the Sirius/XM show. (The article was originally drafted for MikeChurch.com where it also currently resides.)
Thus, you have my word as the author that the following is all true:
a.) I telephoned the Newton County Sheriff's Department on May 16th, 2011 and asked his secretary to speak with Sheriff Hartman since he as Sheriff is the highest-constitutionally-elected law enforcement officer in the state.
b.) Sheriff Hartman was asked if UNLAWFUL entry by law enforcement means entry without PROBABLE CAUSE or WARRANT. He indicated that is the definition of UNLAWFUL ENTRY.
c.) I then asked the Sheriff if he was familiar with the BARNES v. STATE of INDIANA ruling by the Indiana Supreme Court, to which he replied "yes."
c.) When asked what would then stop police from conducting random searches, he indicated to me that he would "follow the law as decided by the Indiana Supreme Court."
d.) I then asked again if this meant he felt he could conduct random searches without Probable Cause or warrant to which he replied, "if the Supreme Court has said Hoosiers cannot resist, I follow the law. If that means we can conduct random searches then we will if needed"
e.) Sheriff Hartman was then asked about whether he felt his oath to the Indiana State Constitution Section 11. was superior to the Indiana Supreme Court ruling to which he responded in a annoyed fashion, "Ma'am, I have already told you twice, if the supreme court says Hoosier cannot resist, then that is the law."
f.) I then asked if he saw any benefit to conducting Random Searches, to which he replied, "the people would be happy to have random searches if it means the capture of a criminal."
I thanked him for his time we hung up the telephone and utterly astounded at what he told me, immediately began to draft the article.
As it relates to the legal ramifications of this Indiana Supreme Court ruling, my analysis was validated by several law enforcement sources and a Constitutional attorney. Supreme Court Justice David in writing the MAJORITY opinion did so in a manner that went outside the matters presented in BARNES v. STATE of INDIANA.
When he wrote "MODERN" legalese for (post-PATRIOT-Act) jurisprudence that Hoosiers may not resist UNLAWFUL entry, with the stroke of a pen he decreed the ability for law enforcement to conduct random house to house searches.
In order to appreciate the full gravity of the ruling, we must understand exactly what UNLAWFUL ENTRY means in the legal sense.Telephone any police chief and ask what does UNLAWFUL ENTRY MEAN; you will get an answer that states an UNLAWFUL ENTRY is any search of PRIVATE PROPERTY without PROBABLE CAUSE or WARRANT.
Therefore if neither PROBABLE CAUSE nor a WARRANT must be issued, it is left to the arbitrary whims of the department or officer on the scene.
Further as it relates to the inferences that this story is phony, all I can offer is that I have been publishing for 3 years, in that time never once have any of my articles ever received a LIBEL DEMAND RETRACTION LETTER from the facts presented therein.
Furthermore, Mike Church who retained my services as a Contributing Editor & Publisher, would not risk Libel litigation (nor his contract with Sirius/XM) by allowing libelous news reports to be published anywhere on his site which directly tied to the Sirius/XM show. (The article was originally drafted for MikeChurch.com where it also currently resides.)
Thus, you have my word as the author that the following is all true:
a.) I telephoned the Newton County Sheriff's Department on May 16th, 2011 and asked his secretary to speak with Sheriff Hartman since he as Sheriff is the highest-constitutionally-elected law enforcement officer in the state.
b.) Sheriff Hartman was asked if UNLAWFUL entry by law enforcement means entry without PROBABLE CAUSE or WARRANT. He indicated that is the definition of UNLAWFUL ENTRY.
c.) I then asked the Sheriff if he was familiar with the BARNES v. STATE of INDIANA ruling by the Indiana Supreme Court, to which he replied "yes."
c.) When asked what would then stop police from conducting random searches, he indicated to me that he would "follow the law as decided by the Indiana Supreme Court."
d.) I then asked again if this meant he felt he could conduct random searches without Probable Cause or warrant to which he replied, "if the Supreme Court has said Hoosiers cannot resist, I follow the law. If that means we can conduct random searches then we will if needed"
e.) Sheriff Hartman was then asked about whether he felt his oath to the Indiana State Constitution Section 11. was superior to the Indiana Supreme Court ruling to which he responded in a annoyed fashion, "Ma'am, I have already told you twice, if the supreme court says Hoosier cannot resist, then that is the law."
f.) I then asked if he saw any benefit to conducting Random Searches, to which he replied, "the people would be happy to have random searches if it means the capture of a criminal."
I thanked him for his time we hung up the telephone and utterly astounded at what he told me, immediately began to draft the article.
E5RANGER375
Shooter
yep. just the response i would expect from certain law enforcement leaders. If the court says it then we have to do it. **** the constitution.
theres your answer people if you ever asked if there will be some who will march to ANY order against the people.
theres your answer people if you ever asked if there will be some who will march to ANY order against the people.
Site Supporter
Staff online
-
GodFearinGunTotinSuper Moderator -
Cameramonkeywww.thechosen.tv
Members online
- mcoppers
- cavemike
- rhslover
- TJ Kackowski
- Cavman
- Michigan Slim
- BeDome
- Quiet Observer
- wildcatfan.62
- JStang314
- GodFearinGunTotin
- Compatriot G
- 63PGP
- Hawkeye
- mcapo
- Longhair
- Tryin'
- acss502
- RugerRem2882
- x34822
- Myrradah
- Doug
- redryder
- Mark-DuCo
- Slow Hand
- bobzilla
- ChrisK
- KLB
- Johnk
- Tankerdave
- Businessend
- nrar15
- Ingomike
- OneBadV8
- LokhXIV
- tsm
- Loar
- Butch627
- Bosshoss
- walt o
- STAGE 2
- wtburnette
- Taurus the turtle
- Cameramonkey
- AndreusMaximus
- bulldogs42
- rdbs505
- billmyn
- deo62
- Larry!!!
