LOL indeed. But a ploy? Always the snark, which makes it so difficult to have a grownup conversation on these threads. It’s already been mentioned, but the city and county are not going to try their case in the media, because that is a bad legal strategy, and their lawyers won’t let them forget it. Plaintiff doesn’t have the same problem, since he’s not trying to win a lawsuit, he’s out to get a settlement.
You’ve dismissed that, but, well, that’s why.
Having said that, my puzzlement is always the rabid disdain for applying even the tiniest bit of skepticism to the plaintiff’s claims. FR did yoeman’s work when the media carried the water for Ben Crump’s outlandish lies about George Zimmerman. Posters here weren’t having it, and dug in and pretty much figured out that GZ was being railroaded. So, in that case, we took the plaintiff’s lawyer’s word, and the media’s slavish repetition of same with a grain of salt.
But the Libertarian screw turns when a plaintiff accuses a local police or sheriff’s department of “violatin’ mah rights” (oh, and pay me lots of money). Now we get to listen to a chorus uncritical opprobrium directed at some sadsack local copper trying to take the local dope dealer to jail.
So, to reiterate, I have no idea from the article linked here whether this has any merit or is a bunch of nonsense, or if the truth lies somewhere in between. If you have some additional intel that would shed some light, I for one would like to see it. If not, that’s cool too. But at some point it would be refreshing to see something other than the usual Libertarian snark on one of these threads, even if only once in a while.
It is sort of like hearing a guy yell, "Allah Ackbar!" You tend to immediately jump to the conclusion that he is up to no good.
If you read the news you can find on a daily basis the police acting out in a way that is questionable to say the least and usually criminal. And you always find the "thin blue line" there to try to say that the police were doing nothing wrong when they crossed county lines to do a no knock raid on the house of the mayor of a neighboring town and proceed to shoot his dogs that were running away from them.
On the other hand as a general rule neighborhood watch guys tend to be pretty levelheaded as do CCW permit holders.
So one group has a record of behaving in a criminal manner and one has a record of being the good guys.
Are there good cops? Sure
Are there bad CCW holders? Sure
But in general it tends to be the other way around.
_____________________________________________________________
1. Police obtained a search warrant based on a false alert by the drug dog.
2. There were X-rays and an anal exam.
3. No drugs were found.
3. He did not consent to these procedures.
4. The search warrant did not cover the county where they took place.
_____________________________________________________________
All of the above claims are easily refutable by police if they're false. Is it your position that police would withhold evidence that refutes the above claims?