Posted on 04/30/2002 9:54:01 PM PDT by Spar
Are y'all aliens?
Betcha we would. Judge would have found a way to throw it out. I don't know about you, but I find it a bit refreshing that the police attempt to get the consent of the suspect before barging into the house. Just imagine how this precident effects other areas of law. A woman who consents to sex can come back weeks later and claim rape because she regretted it the next morning. A patient can sue a surgeon -- for successful surgery -- because he can claim the papers he signed were "coerced". Every confession should be thrown out because the DA should have taken it to court instead of plea bargain.
No. Why do you ask?
If bases are covered, if the case is open and shut, the judge has no choice in the matter. Perhaps this judge had some sort of bone to pick, and I think he did, the way these guys went about this investigation gave the judge the exact ammunition he needed.
I don't agree with the past trend of the courts acting vindictively against law enforcement letting known criminals walk with even further protection from double jeopardy because the court seeks to prosecute a law enforcement officer for a perceived infraction without bringing the issue to trial.
This policy has become newsworthy for several decades and now has created a self-fulfilling prophecy. The courts now actually believe in some liberal settings that obvious release of the guilty is just.
BTW, this is also Satan's ploy during his appeal so that he might rule and continue his powerplay. Human history as an evidence test will show that this policy produces a divided house which will fall. Not to worry, though, as this test merely confirms the God is just and an appeal to any authority independent of God is inept.
You may be correct. If the suspect had committed a similar terrorist act in the time it took for them to go out of their way, he would be dead along with many other innocent Americans and we wouldn't have to piddle with the courts.
Well, this is the "fruit of the poisoned tree" argument. Since the warrant was bad, everything that happened later was bad as well.
We view these stories through the lens of our own prejudices. You see this as a story about a corrupt Clintonian judge. I see it as a story about the increasing work the police have to do to get over judges' absurd fourth amendment rulings. realpatriot71 seems to have issues with police. I can guess what they are, but it's not relevant to this discussion. It is frustrating when some people are so insistent on their prejudices that they cannot let go or acknowledge that a particular story does not fit into their template.
You're right, imagine the gall of those airline passengers who took the rights of those hijackers into their own hands.How is stopping a hijacking related in any way to an officer of the law threatening to retaliate against someone for exercising their Constitutional rights?
-Eric
I knew this without you posting it but very glad you found the "evidence" to condemn this Judge for being part and parcel to the ongoing Clinton betrayals of this country.
That being said, however, there is not much left of the constitution to defend thanks to democraps and RINOs.
If however this person is not a US citizen then that is a horse of a different color.
Inalienable rights, which all humans have by their nature of being human, are rights that should be protected by the government, as its first foremost duty, these rights should be protected. The Constitution went out of its way to outline some of the finer points of inalienable rights and the government's repsonsibility. Although the Constitution was not an exhaustive discussion on all inalienable rights - just those the Founing Father thought that government would be most likely to abuse - thes rights exist wether they were discussed in the Constitution or not. The Constituion did NOT "grant" any rights whatsoever merely made a list of the important ones. Part of the "important stuff" is a judicial system that allows an individual a REAL self-defense. Everyone has the right to self-defense - not just US citizens. The Constitution when applicable to inalienable rights proects ALL HUMANS within our borders with respect to prsecution as a matter of principle to uphold the inalienable rights that every human has. American citizens are not a special group of humans subject more protection under the Constitution. Either EVERY human has inalienable rights, not just US Citizens, or no one does.
You've already established that you are a man of principle - think on these things . . .
I'm sorry, that's awfully naive. If they get a warrant, it's "improperly obtained". I wonder if you are trusting that the judge has more information than is given in the story. That may be the case, but the author seems to be saying that the judge was making the case that the witness gave consent and the consent was coerced. I see no evidence from the article that indicates that the witness had anything but free will in the matter.
Thank you! I am just not sure that the US Constitution protects non-citizens. It has been distorted by political winds since Lincoln and I do not have a handle on the current legal position as it relates to non-citizens.
Things get murky when international laws get thrown into the blender.
The Constitution by principle protects inalienable rights, such a self-defense. Every human being, by nature of being human has natural rights. Therefore . . . you finish the syllogism. I willing to bet you can.
====================================
How weird. -- You claim that IF the 14th means what the USSC says, THEN the amendment must have been written in some sort of code which the court was only able to break after decades of study.
-- And, -- you then say that if I draw attention to your bizarre reasoning about 'codes', that I am a liar, deliberately misrepresenting your statement.
You are wrong, and your own words prove your irrationalilty on the subject.
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.