Look at those glasses. Plus, at 92 who knows how good her hearing was. Just terrible.
Posted on 11/27/2006 4:15:07 PM PST by FreedomCalls
This action had a stink about it from the first, and it's rapidly turning to a stench. We'll see if any more "evidence" evaporates as the "investigation" continues.
Guess the consitutional notion of 'probable cause' has been shredded these days - along with so much else in the late document.
You didn't know because the police have changed their story.
Libertarian ping! To be added or removed from my ping list freepmail me or post a message here.
Kent: Kent Brockman here for a follow-up with Springfield's favorite hard-luck family, the Simpsons. Folks, any words for the Christmas thief if he's watching?
Homer: Eh, yes… Kent. Uh, hello… jerk. We may never find you, and we should probably all stop looking. But one thing's for sure… you do exist.
Kent: Strong words, strong bewildering words.
I bet her hit to miss ratio for shots fired beat the hell out of theirs hehe.
Exactly what crossed my mind..
It's never going to get any better. Most conservatives in power don't have the courage to admit the WOD is a failure and most leftists are eager to expand the WOD to include a war against people who use tobacco, sugar, vitamin supplements, etc.
well said.
No doubt.
One fact lacking from all the reports I've read, is how many shots they fired. It just says they hit her twice in the chest "and elsewhere".
I have a feeling she went out like Butch and Sundance.
When judges, and their larval form - lawyers, are allowed to decide what the law is, and what the extent of rights are, then it's all about precedent.
The WOD provides an avalanche of bad precedents.
Her family lied. She was only 88. Listen to both sides of the story.
Ha ha ha.
Oh well...
FMCDH(BITS)
The fact that her family was wrong (I have no proof either way they lied) is only a side note. Not a huge difference between 88 and 92. It's quite possible she'd been telling people the wrong age for years.
This is the third thread I've seen on this the last couple days. I hadn't realized until now that it was an informant, not an undercover policeman, who is alleged to have bought drugs at that address. Big difference.
Let me get this straight. An undercover cop is to be trusted but a citizen informant is not to be trusted. Why would you trust a cop since they rely on citizen informants that aren't to be trusted. You got some irrational circular "logic" thing going on there.
If someone comes busting into our home, we are to wait and see if they are cops.
I am beginning to think she wasn't that good a shot, the cops pulled a "Lubbock SWAT" screwup.
Drugs screwup the thinking of cops and DAs as much as they do the druggies.
How stare decisis Subverts the Law:
...It is difficult to estimate how many unconstitutional legislative provisions are adopted each year by Congress, but a plausible number is more than 20,000, or about as many as the number of bills introduced each year. There is simply no way that the federal courts can handle all the cases that might arise under that many provisions. They are almost forced to rely on the presumption of constitutionality of statutes, but members of Congress are increasingly reluctant to restrain themselves from adopting legislation they know to be unconstitutional, but which is supported by some of their constituents, and passing the duty to the federal courts of striking legislation that should never have been passed in the first place.
they identified themselves as they burst through the doors, police saidIf someone comes busting into our home, we are to wait and see if they are cops.
Impersonating SWAT is increasingly being used to break into homes.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.