[OneWingedShark]

> If this kind of takeover is NOT covered by the 3rd amendment then what is?

I agree, but the judge's decision isn't entirely without merit: the third specifically mentions "soldiers" and so in order to be operative it should be proven that the police are soldiers. (This, I think, would be a good issue to let the jury decide.)

And give that smarmy defense attorney who called it a ‘red herring’ a good ass-beating

Well, it'd probably be easier to make a list of lawyers that don't need one of those than those who do. ;)

[Oatka]

I agree, but the judge's decision isn't entirely without merit: the third specifically mentions "soldiers" and so in order to be operative it should be proven that the police are soldiers.

The police are constantly referring to us as "civilians", so the "soldier" epithet should stick.

[SgtHooper]

LMAO!