Date: Wed, 8 May 2024 16:57:22 -0500 Mime-Version: 1.0 User-Agent: Mozilla Thunderbird Subject: Re: 5th Circuit police couldn't have known to check address before raid Newsgroups: rec.arts.tv References: Content-Language: en-US From: trotsky In-Reply-To: Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Lines: 39 Path: ...!weretis.net!feeder9.news.weretis.net!usenet.blueworldhosting.com!diablo1.usenet.blueworldhosting.com!feeder.usenetexpress.com!tr2.iad1.usenetexpress.com!news.newsdemon.com!not-for-mail Nntp-Posting-Date: Wed, 08 May 2024 21:57:22 +0000 X-Received-Bytes: 2351 Organization: NewsDemon - www.newsdemon.com X-Complaints-To: abuse@newsdemon.com Message-Id: <17cda24325123c57$282419$4052113$2d54864@news.newsdemon.com> Bytes: 2732 On 5/8/24 11:50 AM, BTR1701 wrote: > In article , > Ubiquitous wrote: > >> atropos@mac.com wrote: >>> "Adam H. Kerman" wrote: >> >>>> Steve Lehto video >>>> >>>> In a bad SWAT raid in 2019 at the wrong location, the 5th Circuit ruled >>>> that the SWAT team commander couldn't have known he had the correct house >>>> before ordering a raid on the wrong house. >>>> >>>> Seriously? Some of us learned how to read an address as very young >>>> children. >>>> >>>> Three-judge panel ruled that there was a 4th Amendment violation but >>>> the SWAT commander is still immune. There's even a case called Maryland >>>> v. Garrison in which the Supreme Court ruled that police must make a >>>> reasonable effort to determine that they are at the right location >>>> before exercising the warrant but that case didn't make it absolutely >>>> clear that it applied to the facts of this case. >>>> >>>> Huh? >>> >>> Now that SCOTUS has shit-canned Roe, maybe they can do the same to >>> qualified immunity. It's the most ridiculous legal concept imaginable: >>> "You have a constitutional right to X. We agree the cops violated that >>> right. But since that right has never been violated in this exact same >>> way before, you have no remedy for the violation of your right." >> >> That would be a _very_ bad idea. > > There's no good reason the government should have a free pass to violate > your rights just so long as no one has violated them in that precise > manner in the past. Oh, this is news. So you agree with a woman's right to bodily autonomy?