Path: Xl.tags.giganews.com!local-2.nntp.ord.giganews.com!news.giganews.com.POSTED!not-for-mail
NNTP-Posting-Date: Wed, 08 May 2024 16:41:40 +0000
From: BTR1701 <atropos@mac.com>
Newsgroups: rec.arts.tv
Subject: Re: 5th Circuit police couldn't have known to check address before raid
References: <v1aos9$2jt8a$1@dont-email.me> <atropos-FF5B22.12512006052024@news.giganews.com> <v1fo60$3u7am$4@dont-email.me>
User-Agent: MT-NewsWatcher/3.5.3b3 (Intel Mac OS X)
Date: Wed, 08 May 2024 09:50:55 -0700
Message-ID: <atropos-C7C9E2.09505508052024@news.giganews.com>
Lines: 35
X-Usenet-Provider: http://www.giganews.com
X-Trace: sv3-b67dsiBfnikLDuSdz+Q5+gFpkhpzHY2X0HtGYJh5Zy9QfbK0d6AAtlC8edtpWhm+Vdg6NRDBX+7pdqU!IIuQ9jYpYlU28nZfdO7FrISUPTDkJ33Xi1bYjxJIp8NsT2YUU/fJSyBHkQg3dhKpIONxG/XJf5sB!CPQ=
X-Complaints-To: abuse@giganews.com
X-DMCA-Notifications: http://www.giganews.com/info/dmca.html
X-Abuse-and-DMCA-Info: Please be sure to forward a copy of ALL headers
X-Abuse-and-DMCA-Info: Otherwise we will be unable to process your complaint properly
X-Postfilter: 1.3.40
Bytes: 2595

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.