Quite frankly it sounds like your just concern trolling. Multiple people in this thread have expressed concern over the abused women (see myself Maeby, Emma, etc.) the dissenting judges showed concern.

As I've already posted this case is NOT ,as you claimed, limited to cases of domestic violence according to multiple sources. You call us "knee-jerk" and uncaring yet you seem to be clearly ignoring all the evidence in front of you and providing no evidence to prove your side. Again where did you read that this was limited to case of domestic abuse when the articles linked clearly say the opposite?.

How is it uncaring to agree with the dissenting judges that the case sound have been limited to domestic violence? How is the concern for the 14th amendment equal to not caring for the battered women? less

I don't fear public safety personnel and I'm not fixated by theoretical arguments. In practical terms, if the police have come to your door there is a reason for it. Following the law generally protects you from this type of issue. But if you're going to bring attention to yourself - well there are consequences.

I don't expect you to agree and I'm not trying to change your mind. But I'll give you an example of 'theoretical' rights being violated.

In the recent past the NSA and CIA began 'monitoring' phone traffic. Rights groups went ballistic - as if they care about what you are saying to grandma. the truth is that the phone companies monitor phone traffic every day. They are looking for patterns that indicate fraud. In the case of the NSA, they are looking for patterns that indicate terrorist activity.

They don't have the time or interest to actually listen to calls. This only happens after a person of interest has made contact with known or suspected terrorists.

These 'pattern' recognition programs are largely the reason that most terrorist plots are not stopped before they progress too far.

Believe me it's far less obtrusive to have the patterns of your phone traffic monitored than it is to go through security at the airport - which we have all done many times.

There are reasonable limits to rights and courts are there to make those determinations - and there are endless appeals for those who disagree.

You are within your rights to make your outrage known - but I also have the right to disagree with what I see as over restriction of law enforcement to keep us safe. less

That all well and good but it doesn't answer the questions I asked you.

You said the if you read the the article carefully we would see the case was limited to case of domestic violence, hence implying that other didn't read the article carefully. Yet none of what you write in response comes from the article or even this case.

For the third time: Where is your sources that the case as decided by the majority opinion is limited in scope to cases of suspected domestic violence? You made a statement about the ruling itself I twice asked for a source. Your personal ideology is not equal to what the judges decided in their ruling.

I asked: "How is it uncaring to agree with the dissenting judges that the case sound have been limited to domestic violence?"

This would have been directly line with you own earlier categorization of the law (that it was limited to case of domestic violence). If you truly believed in your earlier statement then you should be siding with the dissent or at least not categorizing those that agree with that view as overly restricting law enforcement.

You only cared about the poor abused woman until you could no longer use her story for your side. Now that I punched holes in that argument is that your true ,your above well..if you attract attention to yourself argument, comes out. It is your right to have that opinion but have the bullocks to come out and say it upfront and not hide behind "Won't somebody pleeeease think of the women!". less

Congratulations you've proven your a troll or too obtuse to understand the difference between a fact and an opinion.

You made a factual claim about the article, I showed that that claim was false. The article does not say this was limited to case of domestic violence. This is not an opinion, your claim wasn't in the article linked the article in fact contradicts it.

You claimed that according to the ruling this was limited to case of domestic violence. You gave me your personal political views. YOU are not the ruling, you were not a judge on the case, your views weren't part of the ruling. It ironic you accuse other of presenting their view as gospel when you give us your views when asked how something is according to the ruling (which was written by people who are not you).

For the fourth and final time. Do you have a source for your claim that according to the ruling this case was limited to case of domestic violence? (as in according to the judges not you, again you are not the ruling. It is their views not yours that sets precedent).

If asking for a source when someone claims that according to Y then X is saying their opinion is Gospel then every scientists, lawyer and everyone who has ever done a research paper is now a preacher. less

link

link

Recently, the Indiana Supreme court passed a ruling that would allow police officers the right to enter a home without the needing a warrant. To top this off, a County Sheriff in Lafayette said he was going to use the ruling to do random, house to house searches (doing so would be within his legal rights as a police officer under the new bill) within his county.

So what are your opinions on this ruling? less