Saturday, May 14, 2011

Liberty's last gasp

Attention: If you live in Indiana and home invasion robbery is your thing, start dressing like a cop.

This past Thursday, the Indiana Supreme Court ruled 3-2 that citizens are not allowed to resist a police officer's unlawful entry into their homes. The fourth amendment to the US Constitution is dead, at least in Indiana:
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.
The language is pretty unequivocal, but those three Hoosiers feel that the language is a bit dated, saying (emphasis mine):
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.
Stunning. The reference to "modern Fourth Amendment jurisprudence" implies that the nature of our rights as enumerated in the Constitution is adaptable and subject to change over time, yet I'm not sure what part of "shall not be violated" the justices fail to understand. As for the "public policy" language, I'm not even sure where to begin except to say that I'm pretty sure public policy has little to do with our rights under the Constitution. The bottom line, though, is that this is what happens when liberals' notions of a malleable Constitution meet reality.

OK, so the Indiana justices didn't actually rule that cops can enter anyone's home without a warrant or probable cause, but that's the end result. Further in the ruling they say that the proper course of action when a cop commits an unlawful armed home invasion is to take it up with the courts. The same courts, presumably, that issue shit decisions such as this one.

I, for one, wouldn't physically resist an armed man forcibly entering my home. I would, however, grab the phone and dial 911 and tell them that an armed man has just forced his way into my house. Even assuming the dispatcher was aware that a cop was already at my home for some reason, the ensuing confusion might be amusing.

But far better that this craptastic decision never needs to be tested and is brought to the US Supreme Court and struck down. Better yet, maybe Indiana Governor Mitch Daniels will read Alex Kauffman's open letter to him and act before it even gets to the Supremes.

Tuesday, May 10, 2011

Slut walk? How about a pimp walk, too?

Just a little while ago on Twitter, Brittany Cohan tweeted this bit about an upcoming "Slut Walk" in DC:
So this is the first time I am seeing this...... (Late, I know- but WOW)
I've been hearing about these events for several weeks now, most recently about one in Boston. The link Brittany tweeted provides background on the rich history of the Slut Walk, which goes back, gee...nearly four months:
SlutWalk Toronto started because of a statement made on January 24th, 2011 by the Toronto Police advising young women not to "dress like a slut" in order to be safe. Toronto's Slutwalk was an organized response on April 3, and many cities have followed in its wake, including the upcoming Washington DC participation scheduled for August 13th of this year.
So maybe the Toronto police were a bit crass with their advice, but were they wrong? Is it really wrong to advise people to engage in a little common sense to avoid crime?

For as far back as I can remember we've been advised not to advertise wealth when out and about, especially in strange locations; leave the Rolex watch at home, don't flash lots of cash, that kind of thing. Should there also be a PimpWalk in DC, then? You know...everyone put on their finest Armani suit, wear lots of expensive bling and parade around SE Washington DC at night?

I don't subscribe to the notion that a woman asks to be raped by the way she dresses any more than a wealthy-looking man asks to be robbed by the way he dresses, but there is such a thing as sensible risk management.

Monday, May 02, 2011

Credit where it's due

My friends will hate me for this, but here goes...

Osama Bin Laden is dead. Yes, the cocksucker is dead. I'm thankful to President Obama for the method in which Osama Bin Laden was dispatched. We've been waiting for this day for a long time, and I was never sure I'd see it.

Barack Obama could have taken the easy way out and allowed the compound in Abbottabad, Pakistan to be leveled by Predator drone missiles and a few JDAMs dropped from B2 bombers, but he made the right choice in authorizing a special operations team to go in and do it "by hand". So, yeah, I'm giving Obama some props for this.

Yeah, I's not like Obama himself went in with guns blazing and blew Bin Laden away. That shit happens only in the cheesiest of movies. But once the military and intelligence community pinpointed OBL's location, Obama would have been presented with a menu of options for how to deal with him. The selections at the top of the list would have included air strike or insertion of a special ops team to take him out. Reportedly, Obama wanted incontrovertible evidence that we'd gotten the bastard and opted for door number two.

The decision was a risky one not just operationally but politically, and could very well have ended up being yet another event to compare Obama to Jimmy Carter had things gone wrong, but he took the chance anyway. So the man has more balls than I thought.

This is not to say that I'll vote for the man in 2012, but I'm willing to give credit where it's due.

On the critical side...

The administration went to great lengths to stress that Bin Laden's remains were given proper treatment in accordance with Islamic custom and that he was properly buried at sea. My reaction to that is...who the fuck cares? The same bed-wetters who worry about stupid shit like that are the ones who say that OBL and his ideology don't represent Islam. So, again, who the fuck cares if his burial was properly Islamic?