Replies

No, all rights don't have to be, but the ones that are are specially protected.

Don't get me wrong, if you read all my posts relating to this you will see that I only condemn the deputy for not asking the right question. I have condemned Hiibel several times for doing himself no favors with his attitude, and the way he "acted" guilty. Cops pick up on that faster than anything.

My post that you quoted me about LEO's and A-holes, was specifically aimed at the younger, newer, officers, based on ones I have met in the last 8 or so years. I still believe that there is something in the training that gives them that aura, and the feeling they can abuse their power without reprisal.

I know there are reprisals within the LEO community, but to the average citizen they never know that the rude patrolman giving them a ticket with attitude, was previously a corporal who got busted for something. Compound that with the public stories of "accidental" shootings where the officer is not publicly charged and you get those folks who "hate cops".

Additionally the LEO community as a whole gives the public the impression that no one should question their actions. Being the enforcement arm of the government is exactly why every action by the police should be looked at seriously. Not criticized for political reasons, but at least debated on the merits of how much should the government hassle citizens?

IMO as little as possible. This case will be decided and will become Law of the Land. I prefer that the ruling lean much farther toward the right to remain silent and freedom from unlawful search and seizure.

Much of this has come about since the militarization of the police (under Clinton.) Some of it has been around for awhile though. I had a sheriff's deputy in class who got stopped at a roadblock (license check) and the highway patrol approached with drawn guns. He asked why are they pointing guns at a fellow officer; one of the highway patrol asked who he was; his reply was: "I sit next to you in fingerprint class."