Dead Tiger: The King of the Jungle adjudged by the twin Laws of the Jungle and of Unintended Consequences and found wanting.
The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized. -- Fourth Amendment to the Constitution.
Just another day at work for America's militarized police:
A Tucson, Ariz., SWAT team defends shooting an Iraq War veteran 60 times during a drug raid, although it declines to say whether it found any drugs in the house and has had to retract its claim that the veteran shot first.
And the Pima County sheriff scolded the media for "questioning the legality" of the shooting.
Jose Guerena, 26, died the morning of May 5. He was asleep in his Tucson home after working a night shift at the Asarco copper mine when his wife, Vanessa, saw the armed SWAT team outside her youngest son's bedroom window.
"She saw a man pointing at her with a gun," said Reyna Ortiz, 29, a relative who is caring for Vanessa and her children. Ortiz said Vanessa Guerena yelled, "Don't shoot! I have a baby!"
Vanessa Guerena thought the gunman might be part of a home invasion -- especially because two members of her sister-in-law's family, Cynthia and Manny Orozco, were killed last year in their Tucson home, her lawyer, Chris Scileppi, said. She shouted for her husband in the next room, and he woke up and told his wife to hide in the closet with the child, Joel, 4.
Guerena grabbed his assault rifle and was pointing it at the SWAT team, which was trying to serve a narcotics search warrant as part of a multi-house drug crackdown, when the team broke down the door. At first the Pima County Sheriff's Office said that Guerena fired first, but on Wednesday officials backtracked and said he had not. "The safety was on and he could not fire," according to the sheriff's statement.
SWAT team members fired 71 times and hit Guerena 60 times, police said.
In a frantic 911 call, Vanessa Guerena begged for medical help for her husband. "He's on the floor!" she said, crying, to the 911 operator. "Can you please hurry up?"
Asked if law enforcement was inside or outside the house, she told the operator, according to a transcript of the call, that they were inside. "They were ... going to shoot me. And I put my kid in front of me."
A report by ABC News affiliate KGUN found that more than an hour had passed before the SWAT team let the paramedics work on Guerena. By then he was dead.
A spokesman for Sheriff Clarence Dupnik said he could not discuss whether any drugs had been found at the home or make any other comment. "We're waiting for the investigation to be complete," he said.
In a statement, the sheriff's office criticized the media, saying that while questions will inevitably be raised, "It is unacceptable and irresponsible to couch those questions with implications of secrecy and a coverup, not to mention questioning the legality of actions that could not have been taken without the approval of an impartial judge."
In recent days the increasingly out-of-control federalized paramilitary police mini-armies that currently rule over the cities, towns and hamlets of the United States have won important court victories in Indiana, New Mexico and in the Supreme Court, that validate their ability to engage in unrestricted criminality against innocent citizens under color of law. It doesn't take god-like perfect prognostication to understand that these decisions by the black-robed Mandarins who look out for the interests of the "Ruling Class" at the expense of the "Country Class" will lead to more murdered citizens, and, in short order, dead cops and assassinated judges.
People have no right to resist if police officers illegally enter their home, the Indiana Supreme Court ruled in a decision that overturns centuries of common law.
The court issued its 3-2 ruling on Thursday, contending that allowing residents to resist officers who enter their homes without any right would increase the risk of violent confrontation. If police enter a home illegally, the courts are the proper place to protest it, Justice Steven David said.
"We believe ... a right to resist an unlawful police entry into a home is against public policy and is incompatible with modern Fourth Amendment jurisprudence," David said. "We also find that allowing resistance unnecessarily escalates the level of violence and therefore the risk of injuries to all parties involved without preventing the arrest."
Justices Robert Rucker and Brent Dickson strongly dissented, saying the ruling runs afoul of the U.S. Constitution's Fourth Amendment against unreasonable search and seizure, The Times of Munster reported.
"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," Rucker said.
At least one Indiana sheriff has concluded that if in his opinion he "needs" to conduct random searches, he will.
In New Mexico:
The New Mexico Supreme Court has ruled that police can seize visible guns from vehicles without a warrant.
The ruling overturned district and appeals court decisions that said police had overstepped their authority in searching a vehicle after a lawful traffic stop.
At issue was a 2008 case in Hobbs. Police saw a handgun in the vehicle and then searched it.
They ran a background check and found that a passenger, Gregory Ketelson, had a prior felony conviction. Officers arrested him for being in unlawful possession of a gun.
Ketelson's lawyers argued that an officer does not have authority to enter a car and seize an object absent a search warrant consent or emergency circumstances.
In overturning the lower courts, the Supreme Court said the key issue was whether a police officer could remove a visible weapon from a vehicle to keep it away from those who had just been pulled over.
The court unanimously said: "... We are mindful of the grave need for officer safety in the midst of the dangers and uncertainties that are always inherent in traffic stops. ... It was constitutionally reasonable for the officer to remove the firearm from the vehicle. Therefore, the evidence should not have been suppressed."
The Artesia NM News reports:
The court also said that its decision “does not depend on any requirement of particularized suspicion that an occupant is inclined to use the firearm improperly.”
And nationally, the Supreme Court ruled
The police do not need a warrant to enter a home if they smell burning marijuana, knock loudly, announce themselves and hear what they think is the sound of evidence being destroyed, the Supreme Court ruled on Monday in an 8-to-1 decision.
The issue as framed by the majority was a narrow one. It assumed there was good reason to think evidence was being destroyed, and asked only whether the conduct of the police had impermissibly caused the destruction.
Justice Samuel A. Alito Jr., writing for the majority, said police officers do not violate the Fourth Amendment’s ban on unreasonable searches by kicking down a door after the occupants of an apartment react to hearing that officers are there by seeming to destroy evidence.
In dissent, Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg wrote that the majority had handed the police an important new tool.
“The court today arms the police with a way routinely to dishonor the Fourth Amendment’s warrant requirement in drug cases,” Justice Ginsburg wrote. “In lieu of presenting their evidence to a neutral magistrate, police officers may now knock, listen, then break the door down, never mind that they had ample time to obtain a warrant.”
The case, Kentucky v. King, No. 09-1272, arose from a mistake. After seeing a drug deal in a parking lot, police officers in Lexington, Ky., rushed into an apartment complex looking for a suspect who had sold cocaine to an informant.
But the smell of burning marijuana led them to the wrong apartment. After knocking and announcing themselves, they heard sounds from inside the apartment that they said made them fear that evidence was being destroyed. They kicked the door in and found marijuana and cocaine but not the original suspect, who was in a different apartment.
Taken together these decisions will further embolden the paramilitary gangs that operate under color of law such as the one in Pima County, Arizona, that executed Jose Guerena on a blanket warrant for an entire neighborhood.
I have written before ("“Choose this day whom you will serve.”: An Open Letter to American Law Enforcement) of the dangers of federalized law enforcement -- to the people, the Republic and the cops themselves.
In addition, the Olofson case and other similar cases have convinced many that if we no longer possess the right to a fair trial, we at least retain the right to an unfair gunfight.
I have said this many times and it bears repeating:
If the law -- the entire police establishment at all levels of government, the high priesthood of attorneys and the courts who are supposed to restrain them within the limits set by the Founders' Constitution as well as the politicians who shape the legal battlefield -- no longer protects us then it no longer protects them either.
There is no advantage in being law abiding in an essentially lawless society where the rule of law has been supplanted by the rule of man, which is nothing more than the law of the jungle.
For in the jungle, even the biggest predators can be killed without consequence. The only thing that matters then is the successful completion of the deed by the creature who refuses to be eaten without resistance.
Are these black robed fools really stupid enough to think that the immutable, eternal Law of Unintended Consequences does not apply to THEM?
I'm afraid were are going to see that theory tested in a very bloody manner, with murdered citizens, dead cops and assassinated judges littering their self-made jungle's floor.