Posted on 05/28/2019 9:22:03 AM PDT by SMGFan
I am sorry, but the courts should rule in favor of citizens, always. Not the Authorities, we are getting ever closer to the slippery slope to totalitarianism.
So I guess claiming free speech as the reason for beating the crap out of a Trump supporter just got a bit harder.
To be clear:
The ruling in no way limits what someone can say about the police. Bartlett sued the police, claiming the arrest was because he had criticized the police. The court found that since the police had “probable cause” (i.e., Bartlett was allegedly visibly drunk), the police had not acted improperly. That is, the police can’t retaliate by enforcing the law.
This is a real screw-up for civil libertarians, however. CNN notes, “Justice Samuel Alito, on the other hand, worried during arguments about finding a line that would toss out frivolous claims but protect claims with merit, such as a journalist who wrote something critical of a police department and then later is given a “citation for driving 30 miles an hour in a 20-25 mile an hour zone.””
“I had the right to remain silent, I didn’t have the ability to...”
Complete Ruling and many more details here:
https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/18pdf/17-1174_m5o1.pdf
Bypass TF out of Clinton News Network.
From the decision, this sounds very reasonable:
“To prevail on a claim such as Bartlett’s, the plaintiff must show
not only that the official acted with a retaliatory motive and that the
plaintiff was injured, but also that the motive was a “but-for” cause of the injury.”
Further, it seems as if Alito’s concerns were met:
“Thus, the no-probable-cause requirement should not apply when a plaintiff presents objective evidence that he was arrested when otherwise similarly situated individuals not engaged in the same sort of protected speech had not been. “
VERDICT: CNN is guilty of FAKE NEWS!!!
Huh? So all laws (authority) are to be abolished? Let burglars go?
O/T: Someone please post Clarence Thomas ripping the abortion butchers a new one.
NO, I’d put them down in the first place. This is the kind of encroachment on our freedoms that will have us be slaves to said authorities.
I’ve known a lot of cops in my life, many of them were stark-raving crazy in the power-hungry sense of the phrase.
It is likely my life experiences with cops have colored my opinion by so be it. Have a nice day!
You just know this ruling will be used against us someday, perhaps sooner rather than later.
Justice Samuel Alito, on the other hand, worried during arguments about finding a line that would toss out frivolous claims but protect claims with merit, such as a journalist who wrote something critical of a police department and then later is given a “citation for driving 30 miles an hour in a 20-25 mile an hour zone.”
I am sorry, but the courts should rule in favor of citizens, always.
************
Courts should not favor anyone in a case but rule based upon
the law.
alito represents the theory of law.
The BS cops do is the reality of law.
Which do you think occurs in the real world more frequently?
When is the last time they actually followed the Constitution? Few and far between, maybe the judges Trump appoints will change that in time, but for now judges issue rulings to suit their personal feelings, personal peeves etc.
Sort of the case here. I think if she’d shown some contrition early on, he might have let her go. Instead she doubled down on stupid. 4m video, enjoyable.
This is what happens when you spend 20 years listening to the media telling you the other view point is evil and immoral. You can’t fathom your actions have consequences
https://old.reddit.com/r/The_Donald/comments/btbc68/this_is_what_happens_when_you_spend_20_years/
“I cannot un-arrest you”
I know, but it should be considered on an individual basis. Citizens are right sometimes!
“The BS cops do is the reality of law.”
Laws are there for our protection, not someone’s “reality” of it.
When was the last time isn’t the issue. They should rule on law/statues.
Look at your average cop cross-eyed and see what happens to you, that is the reality I was speaking of.
And if that statute is a bad one?
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.