Members Bass8987 Posted January 15, 2009 Members Share Posted January 15, 2009 Court says evidence is valid despite police errorWASHINGTON Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Members catphish Posted January 15, 2009 Members Share Posted January 15, 2009 Heard this story last night. Pretty lame. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Members Goofball Jones Posted January 15, 2009 Members Share Posted January 15, 2009 Heard this story last night. Pretty lame. Actually, in the context of the case that was presented, I tend to agree. But I'm sure the law enforcement would NEVER abuse this now. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Members catphish Posted January 15, 2009 Members Share Posted January 15, 2009 But I'm sure the law enforcement would NEVER abuse this now. Which is the whole reason FOR the amendment. Yeah, if it's a genuine clerical error, it sucks, but we should gladly pay that price. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Members hi.flyer Posted January 15, 2009 Members Share Posted January 15, 2009 Aw, {censored}! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Members t3ch Posted January 15, 2009 Members Share Posted January 15, 2009 Actually, in the context of the case that was presented, I tend to agree. But I'm sure the law enforcement would NEVER abuse this now. +1 and +1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Members FailBoatCaptn Posted January 15, 2009 Members Share Posted January 15, 2009 i'm not sure how i feel about this Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Moderators ThudMaker Posted January 15, 2009 Moderators Share Posted January 15, 2009 Good thing Bush is gone in a couple of days, because these SCOTUS mofos are going to change their tune really quick when Obama's in the White House. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Members MrJoshua Posted January 15, 2009 Members Share Posted January 15, 2009 I'm not sure that I think searching someone because you think there's a warrant out for them is "unreasonable," even if you later find out you were mistaken. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Members RSBro Posted January 15, 2009 Members Share Posted January 15, 2009 I'll be waiting to read the first time this is used as an excuse not by local law enforcement but fed agents. The last they we as citizens need(ed) is a green light for doing whatever the hell they feel like, with a Supreme Court case to back it up. Change, Day 1!! :idea: Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Members Goofball Jones Posted January 15, 2009 Members Share Posted January 15, 2009 Good thing Bush is gone in a couple of days, because these SCOTUS mofos are going to change their tune really quick when Obama's in the White House. Why? They're appointed for life. It's not like Obama or any president can come in and fire them...only nominate new ones when one retires. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Members lug Posted January 15, 2009 Members Share Posted January 15, 2009 Good thing Bush is gone in a couple of days, because these SCOTUS mofos are going to change their tune really quick when Obama's in the White House. I LOL'ed Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Members hi.flyer Posted January 15, 2009 Members Share Posted January 15, 2009 I'll be waiting to read the first time this is used as an excuse not by local law enforcement but fed agents. The last they we as citizens need(ed) is a green light for doing whatever the hell they feel like, with a Supreme Court case to back it up. Change, Day 1!! :idea: Yep, watch out... Pharaoh Barackenkhamen I is coming after you disloyal motha{censored}as who voted against him! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Members catphish Posted January 15, 2009 Members Share Posted January 15, 2009 Why? They're appointed for life. It's not like Obama or any president can come in and fire them...only nominate new ones when one retires. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Members RSBro Posted January 15, 2009 Members Share Posted January 15, 2009 Yep, watch out... Pharaoh Barackenkhamen I is coming after you disloyal motha{censored}as who voted against him! I was just going to say that if Bush were being confirmed this soon, and with the plane crash mentioned in another thread, you'd be raising a conspiracy {censored}storm the likes of even the LAVAMAN thread had never seen!! :thu: I can see the thread title now: "Bushie Attempts To Kill Hundreds With Canadian Co-Conspirators!" :mad::cop: Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Moderators ThudMaker Posted January 15, 2009 Moderators Share Posted January 15, 2009 Why? They're appointed for life. It's not like Obama or any president can come in and fire them...only nominate new ones when one retires.Um. I wasn't being serious. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Members hi.flyer Posted January 15, 2009 Members Share Posted January 15, 2009 I was just going to say that if Bush were being confirmed this soon, and with the plane crash mentioned in another thread, you'd be raising a conspiracy {censored}storm the likes of even the LAVAMAN thread had never seen!! :thu: I can see the thread title now: "Bushie Attempts To Kill Hundreds With Canadian Co-Conspirators!" :mad: :cop: I'm no conspiracy theorist. I'm just here for kicks. You may be onto something tho... I wouldn't put it past that nefarious bastard... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Members RSBro Posted January 15, 2009 Members Share Posted January 15, 2009 He isn't part of the One Drop Rule. Homey don't play that. I'd prefer Judge Joe Brown, but wtf-ever. They're both awesome. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Members bbl Posted January 15, 2009 Members Share Posted January 15, 2009 "Chief Justice John Roberts, writing for the court, said the evidence may be used 'when police mistakes are the result of negligence such as that described here, rather than systemic error or reckless disregard of constitutional requirements.'" Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Members RSBro Posted January 15, 2009 Members Share Posted January 15, 2009 "Chief Justice John Roberts, writing for the court, said the evidence may be used 'when police mistakes are the result of negligence such as that described here, rather than systemic error or reckless disregard of constitutional requirements.'" So, if you're incompetent, instead of just plain 'ol mean, you get a pass?? Great. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Members hi.flyer Posted January 15, 2009 Members Share Posted January 15, 2009 So, if you're incompetent, instead of just plain 'ol mean, you get a pass?? Great. Yea, that's what I was thinking too. Good motivator for the cops to do their jobs, huh? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Moderators ThudMaker Posted January 15, 2009 Moderators Share Posted January 15, 2009 Yea, that's what I was thinking too. Good motivator for the cops to do their jobs, huh? Now just wait for them to be so competent that they can fake negligence. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Members RSBro Posted January 15, 2009 Members Share Posted January 15, 2009 Yea, that's what I was thinking too. Good motivator for the cops to do their jobs, huh? They actually work in your state?? :poke::poke: Damn. Ours just sit along the million miles of highway and recklessly endanger lives 24/7 by chasing after those "criminals" going 4-5mph over the speed limit... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Members hi.flyer Posted January 15, 2009 Members Share Posted January 15, 2009 Now just wait for them to be so competent that they can fake negligence. Holy crap! You just like, blew my freakin' MIND, man!! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Members Goofball Jones Posted January 15, 2009 Members Share Posted January 15, 2009 Um. I wasn't being serious. YES YOU WERE! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.