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: <v1aos9$2jt8a$1@dont-email.me> <atropos-FF5B22.12512006052024@news.giganews.com> <v1fo60$3u7am$4@dont-email.me> <atropos-C7C9E2.09505508052024@news.giganews.com>
Content-Language: en-US
From: trotsky <gmsingh@email.com>
In-Reply-To: <atropos-C7C9E2.09505508052024@news.giganews.com>
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 <v1fo60$3u7am$4@dont-email.me>,
>   Ubiquitous <weberm@polaris.net> wrote:
> 
>> atropos@mac.com wrote:
>>> "Adam H. Kerman" <ahk@chinet.com> 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?