Stop and Frisk is pretty bad. Openly violates both the 4th and 14th Amendments.
But now, you can shoot the cops. With your camera.
With a nod to Angry Alex
But now, you can shoot the cops. With your camera.
With a nod to Angry Alex
Showing posts with label 4th Amendment. Show all posts
Showing posts with label 4th Amendment. Show all posts
Monday, June 18, 2012
Thursday, July 21, 2011
Resisting Arrest
This man is going to jail for resisting arrest.
Some neighbor called the police, said "a black man" was entering the house.
Of course, it was his house, if that matters.
Nope, it doesn't matter. Off to jail with you, amigo!
Some neighbor called the police, said "a black man" was entering the house.
Of course, it was his house, if that matters.
Nope, it doesn't matter. Off to jail with you, amigo!
Sunday, May 22, 2011
Grand Game: Hoosier 4th Amendment Edition
I am incredulous about many things in this case.
And it turns out that the Attorney General, who in principle benefits from the decision, actually had the juevos to ask Bozo and the Clown Court to think this over. This judge is Mitch Daniels' big achievement, as a nomination? I'm glad Daniels dropped out of the Prez race. One fewer Constitution-breaker for me to hate. The judge who wrote the opinion, Steven David, is an idiot. Don't take my word for it; it says so on the interwebs, and so it must be true.
The first point is that this was clearly within the scope of probable cause. No 4th Amendment issue need be raised. The Indiana Court is just engaging in recreational judicial legislation. It's not (just) that they got it wrong, THERE WAS NO ISSUE THEY HAD TO ADDRESS.
But they also got it way wrong. The point is not that there is a remedy for false arrest and home invasion. The point is that there has to be a presumption that protects citizens from harrassment and to be secure in their homes and their possessions. "They can sue"? Are you kidding me? Sovereign immunity protections aside, even if that WERE somehow a remedy, the 4th Amendment is explicit, and the body of court decisions is clear. I don't have to sue, because the cops can't come in. And if they do come in, they can't use the evidence. End of story.
Yes, in THIS case they had probable cause, and could have entered. But that's what's so outrageous about writing a 4th Amendment opinion on these facts. You can't freakin' amend the Constitution just because in your opinion another remedy has become available. And, again, let me point out that this is a "conservative" court. God save us from conservatives, as Dan pointed out.
Jeez. Am I going to have to vote for Obama? Cause that's messed up. But we need liberal judges, on both state and national courts, to stop this erosion of our most basic, and until now settled, civil rights.
Nod to Angry Alex. Thanks!
.
.
And it turns out that the Attorney General, who in principle benefits from the decision, actually had the juevos to ask Bozo and the Clown Court to think this over. This judge is Mitch Daniels' big achievement, as a nomination? I'm glad Daniels dropped out of the Prez race. One fewer Constitution-breaker for me to hate. The judge who wrote the opinion, Steven David, is an idiot. Don't take my word for it; it says so on the interwebs, and so it must be true.
The first point is that this was clearly within the scope of probable cause. No 4th Amendment issue need be raised. The Indiana Court is just engaging in recreational judicial legislation. It's not (just) that they got it wrong, THERE WAS NO ISSUE THEY HAD TO ADDRESS.
But they also got it way wrong. The point is not that there is a remedy for false arrest and home invasion. The point is that there has to be a presumption that protects citizens from harrassment and to be secure in their homes and their possessions. "They can sue"? Are you kidding me? Sovereign immunity protections aside, even if that WERE somehow a remedy, the 4th Amendment is explicit, and the body of court decisions is clear. I don't have to sue, because the cops can't come in. And if they do come in, they can't use the evidence. End of story.
Yes, in THIS case they had probable cause, and could have entered. But that's what's so outrageous about writing a 4th Amendment opinion on these facts. You can't freakin' amend the Constitution just because in your opinion another remedy has become available. And, again, let me point out that this is a "conservative" court. God save us from conservatives, as Dan pointed out.
Jeez. Am I going to have to vote for Obama? Cause that's messed up. But we need liberal judges, on both state and national courts, to stop this erosion of our most basic, and until now settled, civil rights.
Nod to Angry Alex. Thanks!
.
.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)