[Gondring]

Nowhere did the court affirm the right of the police to conduct random searches. Just because the court said there was no right to make a specific response to an illegal activity doesn't make the activity suddenly legal.

By the logic being used, if a court case ruled that a cop was wrong in just shooting someone for speeding, we'd have a chorus of FReepers claiming the case said that people had the right to speed.

I have as many questions about the ISC case as anyone, but that doesn't mean we should be making things up or acting like idiots.

[Quickgun]

If the line I read says “illegal” search, then what the court is saying, is that citizens have no right to resist with force, but if the search takes place illegally,and without a warrant,you could still sue the crap out of the city or county that the police worked for?

[EBH]

According to Newton County Sheriff, Don Hartman Sr., random house to house searches are now possible and could be helpful following the Barnes v. STATE of INDIANA Supreme Court ruling issued on May 12th, 2011. When asked three separate times due to the astounding callousness as it relates to trampling the inherent natural rights of Americans, he emphatically indicated that he would use random house to house checks, adding he felt people will welcome random searches if it means capturing a criminal.

No, but the Sheriff sure thinks it did...

[ctdonath2]

Compelling inaction in the face of a “color of law” violation of rights pretty much nullfies said rights. The violation still isn’t legal, but opposition thereto becomes far harder. The department may decide it can absorb legal costs as a matter of course, as perforation is no longer a concern.

[muawiyah]

You made my day.

That is absolutely hilarious, but you are so right.

I tried one similar to that on a guy yesterday and he gave me that blank gap toothed stare of "are you lookin' at me buddy", so I'm sure he is not someone I'd want on my jury!

I think some of the folks posting on this actually fear having the police find out they have eagle feathers and ivory tusks stashed in their homes.

I'm more concerned with the thought that this particular Chief Justice was "turned" earlier at GITMO by AlQaida he was defending.

Saying that earlier I surfaced someone who seems to know the justice and wants to defend him from such charges.

[muawiyah]

You made my day.

That is absolutely hilarious, but you are so right.

I tried one similar to that on a guy yesterday and he gave me that blank gap toothed stare of "are you lookin' at me buddy", so I'm sure he is not someone I'd want on my jury!

I think some of the folks posting on this actually fear having the police find out they have eagle feathers and ivory tusks stashed in their homes.

I'm more concerned with the thought that this particular Chief Justice was "turned" earlier at GITMO by AlQaida he was defending.

Saying that earlier I surfaced someone who seems to know the justice and wants to defend him from such charges.