[jonesboheim]

In this case probably not but I sure don't want to give the govt. a precident to perform surgery on suspects in order to obtain suspected evidence. Give them that power, and it can only lead to a very bad and dark place eventually. Sometimes it's better to let a case go than set up future generations for who knows what horrors politicians will visit upon them.

This situation definately raises some interesting questions. What if it's not a suspect but some bystander that got popped? Do we want the right to force them to undergo invasive surgery? And what if the surgery wasn't so "safe" (btw, there is no such thing as "safe" surgery) - who makes the determination if we're going to force a suspect to undergo it?

This has the potential to set a dangerous precedent.

[TheKidster]

Yes it does so I'm fine with this kid walking, it would be a lot harder to be ok with that if he had killed they guy or maimed him or something. My liberties are a lot more important than getting the case to stick to this thug. Besides, he'll end up in jail within a year anyhow, hopefully nobody will get hurt the next time, except maybe himself.

[Sandy]

This has the potential to set a dangerous precedent.

There's nothing precedent-setting about this. If the bullet can be removed without general anesthesia, the suspect loses. If general anesthesia is required, the suspect wins. Considering that the bullet is just under the skin, I suspect it can be removed fairly easily using nothing but a local anesthetic. If so, the suspect doesn't stand a chance.