Posted on 01/17/2014 7:41:35 AM PST by Rusty0604
What also very much disturbs me about this (and other) cases, and I don’t understand it, is, it seems, the guy was not under arrest.
Please anybody correct me if I’m wrong, because I’ve been wondering about this for quite some time.
Had he been under arrest he’d have been entitled to (immediately, no?) get counsel from an attorney, correct?
And if he wasn’t under arrest, what right did they have to detain him or transport him in any way, to any where, for any purpose?
Now, I can understand doing a pat-down, turn out your pockets, that kind of thing even without placing someone under arrest, but this stuff?
Maybe I’m dumb to rely on what I’ve seen on TV, but I’ve seen a lot of “suspects” on TV say: either arrest me or I’m leaving. And then they leave and the cop or whoever says: OK, but don’t leave town.
I’m just not getting this stuff at all.
Who's winning? What are they winning? Is it worth fighting the war?
Who's losing? What's being lost? Is it worth the cost? Can it be recovered? Should it be?
What's really happening here?
If you anally raped the cops in similarly dehumanising fashion, I wonder what they would settle for.
Don’t worry. As the rise of the police state continues, everyone will have a opportunity to be ‘lucky’ like this poor fellow.
All of this was based on a "hit" from a non-certified K9.
Do you suppose the taxpayers of that jurisdiction are actually picking up the tab? I’ll bet the cops aren’t personally shelling out.
Certified...non-certified. It's a damn dog dying to 'please' his master. Outlaw sniffer dogs.
I’ve had a number of drug war supporters tell me that we are not a moral people, so the Constitution no longer applies.
What I find amusing is the answers given when you ask the question by what authority does the federal government regulate drugs? Especially given that in order to regulate a particular substance [alcohol] a constitutional amendment was required, which has since been repealed, and no similar amendment exists for drugs.
If I'm feeling particularly clever I'll also show how the War on Drugs is Treason as defined by the Constitution... which, oddly, they never seem to have any counterargument to either.
The cop seemed to want to do multiple 'hands on" exams first.
Even worse, if you actually start looking really closely at the judicial history of the vast majorty of drug laws, the decisions and citations ultimately trace back to prohibition-era court rulings. Interstingly, when the constitution was amended, this edifice of precedent was never similarly stricken. The entire regime of the unconstitutional and immoral "war on drugs" rests on a flimsy house of cards that the government will protect by any means at its disposal, because it is critical to the support of its usurped power.
"Surgery" in the British sense of the word... Ever watch Doc Martin? What we call a doctor's office, they call "a surgery"...
“Surgery” in the British sense of the word”
Ah, OK, that makes sense, thanks!
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.