Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

To: Phlyer

“The example that was used to explain this came up a while ago. After the DC Beltway sniper started shooting people, they would set up roadblocks and look in each vehicle as it went by. That was “reasonble” even though there were no warrants.”


Not only was no warrant issued, there was no “probable cause” that any particular car had the shooter(s).

“As a general rule when seeking an assessment on judgment matters like this, the question should be settled in court with a jury of “We, the People” to assess the “reasonableness” of these searches.”


I agree, we should have local juries determine the reasonableness of searches, which could be done if courts agreed to hear “Bivens action”-type suits against the government agencies and departments that carry out searches. I have to tell you, such disincentive for abusive searches would make me feel much safer in my person, papers and house than do those misinterpretations of the Bill of Rights by liberal judges, which only seem to benefit criminals.


63 posted on 06/17/2013 7:53:28 AM PDT by AuH2ORepublican (If a politician won't protect innocent babies, what makes you think that he'll defend your rights?)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 58 | View Replies ]


To: AuH2ORepublican
liberal judges, which only seem to benefit criminals.

That is the core of the problem. To the statist mind, all authority - and therefore, inevitably - responsibility are collective. No individual can be responsible (except for those in official capacity, and then it is their 'office' that has the responsibility and authority) and so no individual should expect the state to recognize any individual authority, of which the authority over private property is one of the most important.

Conversely, since no individual is responsible for anything, then criminals are not responsible for their own actions. They are the 'victims' of 'society' and must be protected from their own folly. Thus, the statist judges (I don't consider them 'liberal') seek to equalize everyone who has no state-established office - the law-abiding are not to be trusted or expected to exercise good judgment any more than demonstrated criminals.

Ultimately, the statist does not respect the people. And people with self-respect would never voluntarily allow a statist government to come to power.

Which shows how har we have fallen since, "We, the People," set up this nation.
82 posted on 06/17/2013 9:41:47 AM PDT by Phlyer
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 63 | View Replies ]

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article


FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson