1 posted on
12/21/2006 1:03:43 PM PST by
SmithL
To: SmithL
Mr. Olive should've been carrying a .45 ;-)
2 posted on
12/21/2006 1:06:49 PM PST by
300magnum
(We know that if evil is not confronted, it gains in strength and audacity, and returns to strike us)
To: SmithL
"soft, fatty tissue on his forehead"????
Huh?
4 posted on
12/21/2006 1:10:21 PM PST by
patton
(Sanctimony frequently reaps its own reward.)
To: SmithL
It seems from the article that the fact that a bullet is indeed lodged in Bush's forehead has not yet been established, which means that the title of this article is a bit misleading.
12 posted on
12/21/2006 1:20:26 PM PST by
Sopater
(Creatio Ex Nihilo)
To: SmithL
"We know he's not a criminal," she said. "He's a good kid."
LOL!!! A bit hard headed, but a good kid who just happens to have a bullet in his head.
To: SmithL
"soft fatty tissue of his forehead"
HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA!
14 posted on
12/21/2006 1:23:11 PM PST by
Hegemony Cricket
(When music is banned, only the bands will have music.)
To: SmithL
raises questions about patient privacy Once the formerly private citizen has entered the system, privacy, such as it is or was, is over.
16 posted on
12/21/2006 1:25:43 PM PST by
RightWhale
(RTRA DLQS GSCW)
To: SmithL
Let him keep the bullet in his head.
But I see no need to give him antibiotics if it gets infected.
19 posted on
12/21/2006 1:27:45 PM PST by
BeHoldAPaleHorse
(Dyslexics of the world, UNTIE!)
To: SmithL
Simple. Offer to replace it wiith something in a higher caliber.
29 posted on
12/21/2006 3:33:14 PM PST by
Shooter 2.5
(Vote a Straight Republican Ballot. Rid the country of dems. NRA)
To: SmithL
I like to consider the question of what sort of effect a case's precedent will set. To be sure, that's not generally a legitimate basis for deciding constitutional issues, but in close calls it can be reasonable.
If the precedent is set that a person who is shot cannot be forced to allow the bullet to be removed from his person for examination, I don't really see what harm that could do. Realistically, are crooks going to fear getting shot any less if they're told they can forbid forensic analysis on any bullets that come to rest in their body?
By contrast, giving the state more power to force people to submit to intrusive surgical examinations is apt to have dangerous consequences down the road.
30 posted on
12/21/2006 9:19:37 PM PST by
supercat
(Sony delenda est.)
To: SmithL
raises questions about patient privacy and how far the government can go to solve crimes without running afoul of the constitutional protection against unreasonable searches and seizures. Why would this be an unreasonable search when the kid has admitted a role in the robbery?
Also, the kid admitted taking part in the robbery, but not the shooting. Um, wasn't the shooting part of the robbery?
40 posted on
12/26/2006 6:47:03 AM PST by
zeke15
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson