Rally planned in response to Barnes ruling

May 24, 2011
Back to TopCommentsE-mailPrintBookmark and Share

People are upset about the recent Barnes v. State ruling by the Indiana Supreme Court that says Hoosiers don’t have the common-law right anymore to resist unlawful entry by police into their homes. It’s what some people these days do when they are upset: they go to Facebook and create pages in support of or against something.

“STAND UP for your Fourth Amendment Rights” is calling for people to peacefully protest the Barnes decision at the Indiana Statehouse Wednesday. So far, more than 1,700 people say they will attend. Another 1,100 say they may attend.

There’s also the “Indiana Defending the Fourth Amendment, Recall Justice David” page, which is promoting the rally on its page. At this writing, only 59 people “like” this page, which is a PAC created to defeat Justice Steven David in his upcoming “recall election.” I’m going to assume the group meant when he’s up for a retention vote, which is November 2012. Justice David authored the Barnes decision.

We’ll be covering the rally, and would like to speak to any attorney or judge who is planning to attend. You can contact reporter Michael Hoskins directly at mhoskins@ibj.com or 317-472-5231.

ADVERTISEMENT
  • would like to speak to any
    lawyer or judge attending??? More likely hand them over to JLAP to have their mind scrubbed. Details at www . archangelinstitute . org
  • New Walcome Mat Language
    Now you may see a few welcome mats stating "GET A WARRANT" instead of "WELCOME."

Post a comment to this story

COMMENTS POLICY
We reserve the right to remove any post that we feel is obscene, profane, vulgar, racist, sexually explicit, abusive, or hateful.
 
You are legally responsible for what you post and your anonymity is not guaranteed.
 
Posts that insult, defame, threaten, harass or abuse other readers or people mentioned in Indiana Lawyer editorial content are also subject to removal. Please respect the privacy of individuals and refrain from posting personal information.
 
No solicitations, spamming or advertisements are allowed. Readers may post links to other informational websites that are relevant to the topic at hand, but please do not link to objectionable material.
 
We may remove messages that are unrelated to the topic, encourage illegal activity, use all capital letters or are unreadable.
 

Messages that are flagged by readers as objectionable will be reviewed and may or may not be removed. Please do not flag a post simply because you disagree with it.

Sponsored by
ADVERTISEMENT
  1. First comment on this thread is a fitting final comment on this thread, as that the MCBA never answered Duncan's fine question, and now even Eric Holder agrees that the MCBA was in material error as to the facts: "I don't get it" from Duncan December 1, 2014 5:10 PM "The Grand Jury met for 25 days and heard 70 hours of testimony according to this article and they made a decision that no crime occurred. On what basis does the MCBA conclude that their decision was "unjust"? What special knowledge or evidence does the MCBA have that the Grand Jury hearing this matter was unaware of? The system that we as lawyers are sworn to uphold made a decision that there was insufficient proof that officer committed a crime. How can any of us say we know better what was right than the jury that actually heard all of the the evidence in this case."

  2. wow is this a bunch of bs! i know the facts!

  3. MCBA .... time for a new release about your entire membership (or is it just the alter ego) being "saddened and disappointed" in the failure to lynch a police officer protecting himself in the line of duty. But this time against Eric Holder and the Federal Bureau of Investigation: "WASHINGTON — Justice Department lawyers will recommend that no civil rights charges be brought against the police officer who fatally shot an unarmed teenager in Ferguson, Mo., after an F.B.I. investigation found no evidence to support charges, law enforcement officials said Wednesday." http://www.nytimes.com/2015/01/22/us/justice-department-ferguson-civil-rights-darren-wilson.html?ref=us&_r=0

  4. Dr wail asfour lives 3 hours from the hospital,where if he gets an emergency at least he needs three hours,while even if he is on call he should be in a location where it gives him max 10 minutes to be beside the patient,they get paid double on their on call days ,where look how they handle it,so if the death of the patient occurs on weekend and these doctors still repeat same pattern such issue should be raised,they should be closer to the patient.on other hand if all the death occured on the absence of the Dr and the nurses handle it,the nurses should get trained how to function appearntly they not that good,if the Dr lives 3 hours far from the hospital on his call days he should sleep in the hospital

  5. It's a capital offense...one for you Latin scholars..

ADVERTISEMENT