Supreme Court vs. The Fourth Amendment: KO!

[ItsTheSheppy]

The Supreme court ruled against a man who was strip searched, twice, after being arrested for a traffic ticket he had already paid. (http://www.cnn.com/2012/04/02/justice/scotus-strip-search-ruling/index.html?hpt=hp_t1)

Now's the part where we see if the folks who truly consider the Constitution to be a holy document that is perfect and not at all in need of revision come to the defense of the justices who ruled on this case.

Cliff Notes: the 4th Amendment protects against 'unreasonable search and seizure'. The justices ruled that the local authorities know best when to conduct strip searches, and on whom.

My opinion: This was a horrible miscarriage of justice and a sad commentary that the conservative leanings seem to be paradoxically a mish-mash of "Don't Tread On Me" small-government keep-your-hands-off-my-guns freedom lovers, who nevertheless don't seem to extend that to the physical body cavities of the citizenry.

I mean, we're talking about the government putting it's fingers literally inside your most personal bodily orifices. Read the details: He was made to strip naked, turn around a bunch of times, squat, lift up his genitals, etc. If that makes you feel uncomfortable, congratulations: you're not a sociopath.

Now of course strip searches can and sometimes are perfectly necessary, and the 4th Amendment only protects against searches that are 'unreasonable'. However, this guy was no criminal. He'd paid the fine. The warrant hadn't been updated, which as far as I can tell is the government's fault. And yet he was detained for six days, and twice forced to strip naked and submit to humiliating searches.

I'd worry less about the government coming to take my guns, and instead worry more about the government grabbing my junk and shoving its fingers up my rectum just because they deem it necessary, and for that authority to rest with the guy fingering me.

[Quovatis]

Yeah, seems pretty ridiculous.

The bigger question is why they put him in jail in the first place, and with the general population for a simple fine that he had proof that he paid. Put in jail for 6 days for that???? wow

[Malorn]

Meh.

[Quovatis]

Context matters. The way you wrote that slant piece you made it sound like he got stopped for a traffic ticket and got strip searched, which is not what happened. Nice propaganda piece though.

That pretty much IS what happened. It was a traffic stop, they see he has a warrant for an unpaid fine, he has a letter proving that he paid it, they take him to jail anyway for 6 days. Seems very unreasonable to strip search the guy (twice), much less put him in jail at all. After 6 days, a judge let him free, discovering he had indeed paid the fine as his letter attested.

[Vash02]

Yeah, if your going into jail with the general population you should be searched. They were wrong for putting him into jail obviously and he should be compensated for the humiliation the state put him through due to the states incompetence.

[ItsTheSheppy]

You left out the part where he was in prison and it was standard procedure to search all new inmates regardless of the crime that put them in there. There was no 4th Ammendment violation here.

Context matters. The way you wrote that slant piece you made it sound like he got stopped for a traffic ticket and got strip searched, which is not what happened. Nice propaganda piece though.

He was arrested for a nonexistent crime; he'd paid the ticket, but was handcuffed and brought in anyway. Held for six days. Strip searched twice. Those are the events, which I never altered. The ruling was that the strip searches were okay because they are generally okay and there for his 'protection'. Those words are direct from the source.

I know he was in custody. It doesn't matter to me in what order he was strip searched, or in what room of the county lockup. What matters to me is we've given authority for them to strip search anybody, for any reason they can claim is 'reasonable', and as this ruling proves, that reasoning can stretch so far that it seems to me that the only way to get it proven to be UNreasonable would be if you had proof that the police officer was getting off on it.

The fact is, the guy was no criminal, and yet was held for a week and sent through two humiliating searches that were clear violations of his constitutional rights. I don't agree with that.

We've already got TSA agents fondling us through our clothes (with the back of their hands, like that makes a difference). What's the stop eventual rulings finding that maybe they can randomly strip-search people at airports, for our 'protection'. How is that not big government? Hell, how is that not a terrifying government.

This could have been any of us. Get a ticket, forget to pay... okay, my bad, I forgot, I pay it and we're square. Weeks later I'm arrested because the state keeps shitty records and I have to have some guy I don't know fondling my genitals, making me parade around nude in front of him, and inserting his finger inside me? For my protection?

If this isn't a clear violation of the 4th amendment, then the amendment needs to be re-written so that it's more clear.

[Figment]

Ow.

On all counts.

[Vash02]

sheppy, think of it from the prisons point of view. They have been handed a guy who they have been told broke the law. They dont know the details of each and every case that goes through their doors but they have a duty of care to their inmates and that means searching ALL prisoners for contraband and weapons.

The man in the case obviously has a case against the police department for arresting him in the first place and the state for not cancelling his warrant but I dont believe he had a case against the prison.

[ItsTheSheppy]

sheppy, think of it from the prisons point of view. They have been handed a guy who they have been told broke the law. They dont know the details of each and every case that goes through their doors but they have a duty of care to their inmates and that means searching ALL prisoners for contraband and weapons.

The man in the case obviously has a case against the police department for arresting him in the first place and the state for not cancelling his warrant but I dont believe he had a case against the prison.

I disagree.

While I understand that we live in a world of gray areas, I feel that we can err on both sides; by always assuming the best, or always assuming the worst.

Of course we would significantly reduce prison contraband and weapon smuggling by subjecting every single inmate to strip searches. The problem is, we are a country that respects the rights of everyone, inmates included. It's why we don't torture them, or sell them as property anymore. We recognize that they have rights that cannot be infringed. That's part of what conceptually makes the USA a country worth living in.

We live in a world of gray areas and while that is inconvenient and will always lead to difficulty, the easy way out is rarely the best. I imagine we could cut crime significantly by existing in a perpetual police state, by installing cameras in everyone's house, and by subjecting everyone and anyone to random warrant-less searches. But the ends do not justify the means.

What we have right now is a situation where it is very possible where an innocent, law abiding citizen can be arrested, detained for a week, and repeatedly subjected to invasive searches without any probable cause. Let's take it a step further. We not only live in a country where this is possible; we live in a country where the highest court just endorsed it.

I would rather live in a society of dangerous gray areas, than a society of guaranteed safety at the cost of personal dignity and basic rights. More and more that country is not looking like the United States of America.

[Malorn]

Meh.

[Vash02]

No, there should be harsher consequences for police departments and prosecuters for imprisoning innocent people and infringing their rights. However, those conducting the search in this case did have reasonable suspicions that he was guilty. He was delivered to them by the police department and the state had a warrant for his arrest.

Also your wrong about Prisoners not being treated as a commodity by the way. When you have private prisons and unlimited lobbying by companies who own those prisons, prisoners being treated as a commodity is the inevitable outcome.

[Figment]

Are those police cells shared cells, or personal cells? If personal, I don't see any reason why ... no, let me rephrase that, who is going to stuff up stuff up their arse with the idea they'll have to break out of jail for a speeding fine in the first place?

Sorry but a body cavity search (which in some legislation comes down to the definition of rape, ie. entering a body cavity without consent) for an overdue fine? :P

Really?`

Also:

Family Guy - Cavity Search - YouTube

[ItsTheSheppy]

Also your wrong about Prisoners not being treated as a commodity by the way. When you have private prisons and unlimited lobbying by companies who own those prisons, prisoners being treated as a commodity is the inevitable outcome.

The prison system is almost immeasurably broken, I agree. If that was in fact what you were alluding, which is what I'm assuming it was. If it wasn't, it still works to bolster my statement.

The prison (and lockup) he was sent to had no reason to believe he was guilty of anything. He hadn't been prosecuted, convicted, sentenced... any of that. This isn't the 17th century. It's not like they had to wait for that information to show up via the Pony Express. There should have been no question at any time of his 'guilt' or 'innocence'. On another thread on this board I happen to know that you, Malorn, are vehemently defending an individual who is being convicted in the public eye of a possible crime not yet investigated.

In this thread's care, this was a man who was definitely innocent, and yet subjected to a humiliating violation of his rights, and the Supreme Court upheld the treatment. That is a bit more severe than being a public pariah. This is the highest court in the land saying 'Even though you were wrongfully arrested and innocent of any crime, we were well without our rights to violate yours.'

If you're going to stand up for the rights of a man you presume is innocent, then stand up for the violated rights of someone we know was innocent.

[Warborn]

What kind of recompense is Florence entitled to for being wrongfully imprisoned and strip-searched twice?

Having this kind of treatment over a supposedly outstanding vehicle fine is pretty brutal. On the other hand, I guess being in prison these days is about dehumanizing and humiliating people, though, so I'm not surprised a 5-4 decision found it reasonable.

[ItsTheSheppy]

What kind of recompense is Florence entitled to for being wrongfully imprisoned and strip-searched twice?

Having this kind of treatment over a supposedly outstanding vehicle fine is pretty brutal. On the other hand, I guess being in prison these days is about dehumanizing and humiliating people, though, so I'm not surprised a 5-4 decision found it reasonable.

Don't forget how we as a culture scratch our heads and ponder as to why people who go to prison for offenses have such a high likelihood to fall back into that behavior once released.

[Malorn]

Meh.

[ItsTheSheppy]

Humiliating? Yeah I'd imagine so. But if people didn't try to smuggle things into prison that way then they wouldn't have the policy. And if they didn't have the policy people would definitely smuggle things in that way.

Allow me to turn that statement around in a way that may strike closer to home for you.

"If people didn't try to [shoot each other with guns] then they wouldn't have the policy [to take everyone's guns away]." I feel that it fits, because it's a blanket policy put in place to respond to an occasional crime.

I know the response to this: criminals will still have guns, so it doesn't solve anything to take guns away from law abiding citizens.

Here's the part where I drive the point home:

Even with the strip searches, contraband still gets in. There's no point in subjecting people to these searches unless there is adequate probable cause to do so.

There are numerous policy changes we can make. For one; perhaps we have different holding facilities for convicted criminals vs. those awaiting conviction, complete with separate policies. Perhaps a revision of our screening procedures are called for. Perhaps our entire penitentiary system is broken from the ground up and needs a wholesale re-evaluation.

If a single innocent person finds their basic rights violated, then the system is broken. Even if it works 99.999% of the time, it's still broken, and needs to be improved. Because I don't know about you, but I'm not willing to volunteer to have my dignity violated to support a broken system.

[Vash02]

The prison system is almost immeasurably broken, I agree. If that was in fact what you were alluding, which is what I'm assuming it was. If it wasn't, it still works to bolster my statement.

The prison (and lockup) he was sent to had no reason to believe he was guilty of anything. He hadn't been prosecuted, convicted, sentenced... any of that. This isn't the 17th century. It's not like they had to wait for that information to show up via the Pony Express. There should have been no question at any time of his 'guilt' or 'innocence'. On another thread on this board I happen to know that you, Malorn, are vehemently defending an individual who is being convicted in the public eye of a possible crime not yet investigated.

In this thread's care, this was a man who was definitely innocent, and yet subjected to a humiliating violation of his rights, and the Supreme Court upheld the treatment. That is a bit more severe than being a public pariah. This is the highest court in the land saying 'Even though you were wrongfully arrested and innocent of any crime, we were well without our rights to violate yours.'

If you're going to stand up for the rights of a man you presume is innocent, then stand up for the violated rights of someone we know was innocent.
He was guilty of the crime of speeding, dont get that wrong, he was guilty. He had a chance to contest the ticket in a court but he chose to admit guilt and pay the fine and he did. The court system dropped the ball and thought he hadnt paid. The prison did not know he had paid his punishment. From the point of view of the prison, he was caught evading the punishment for his self-admitted crime.

[Malorn]

Meh.

[ItsTheSheppy]

Don't twist my words Guru.

At no point did I say you said anything other than what you did. If what you meant to say was 'don't use my words against me', I cannot make that promise.

He was guilty of the crime of speeding, dont get that wrong, he was guilty.

He was not guilty of any crime as of the moment of his arrest. I got a speeding ticket once, seven years ago. I paid it. That does not mean that today I am guilty of speeding; it didn't mean I was guilty the day after the state cashed the check.

At the time that he was arrested, and most definitely during the six days he was locked up and being subjected to humiliating searches, he was not guilty of, nor rightfully suspected of, any crime. The state fucked up their paperwork and he paid for it with his dignity, basic rights (straight from the Bill of Rights) and personal freedoms.

And the Supreme Court said this was A-okay with a 5-4 vote. Hence my unhappiness.

[Malorn]

Meh.

[Warborn]

I like this Ben Franklin quote and think it applies here:

"They who can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary safety, deserve neither liberty nor safety."

[Malorn]

Meh.

[Vash02]

I like this Ben Franklin quote and think it applies here:

"They who can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary safety, deserve neither liberty nor safety."

We are talking about convicted criminals here not the wider population.


He was not guilty of any crime as of the moment of his arrest. I got a speeding ticket once, seven years ago. I paid it. That does not mean that today I am guilty of speeding; it didn't mean I was guilty the day after the state cashed the check.

At the time that he was arrested, and most definitely during the six days he was locked up and being subjected to humiliating searches, he was not guilty of, nor rightfully suspected of, any crime. The state fucked up their paperwork and he paid for it with his dignity, basic rights (straight from the Bill of Rights) and personal freedoms.

And the Supreme Court said this was A-okay with a 5-4 vote. Hence my unhappiness. He sued the wrong people. He was suing the Jails not the state. If he had sued the state he probably would of won.

[WildGunsTomcat]

Have any of you ever even been to prison?

I have. I worked in one as a corrections officer for 5 years.

Everyone crying about this guy's rights is quite frankly misinformed.

You imagine that it's a brutal...painful thing. This guy's rights were OBVIOUSLY trampled upon, I mean how dare they ask a fucking prisoner to submit to a pat down and strip search...how dare they. If you go to any prison, even if it's the county lockup you are put through a pat down and strip search.

They do it to make sure that the prisoners aren't carrying fucking weapons or drugs around.

Shit, even if you visit your family for less than 5 minutes in the common room...you are told before you leave that room to wait in the holding area. They ask the guy to drop his pants...pick up his ballsack...kneel down...and cough so if he's hiding something in his ass...it'll come out. No one ever touches you, their fingers don't go in your ass....you're not touched ONE time. It's a 20 second deal, and you're done. It's non invasive, trust me I know...I DID strip searches every Goddamn day....never touched a prisoner once except for a weapons check pat down.

It's not hard, and it's not unreasonable. He was in JAIL, that's SOP in jail folks.

Can you imagine how hard it would be to control an inmate population if you were told:

"You can't submit a prisoner to a strip search unless you have reasonable probable cause."

I mean there are already enough rules on Correctional personnel as it is. You can't even fight back against a fucking prisoner without being liable for a lawsuit if they attack you. Thank you liberal agenda for that one.

The prisoners have more rights in prison than the actual staff put there to keep them locked up so they don't harm the general public. It's pathetic.

I agree with the decision. Regardless of whether or not they were right in jailing him for six days, or if paperwork was misfiled...whatever the fuck.....the guy was in jail. They can't determine if this guy's rights were being trampled on....all they knew was that they had a prisoner...he was in jail....SOP is to search him at regular intervals to keep the prison SAFE. That's what the supreme court ruled on...and they ruled quite correctly. Why should this guy get special treatment because someone might have fucked up in paperwork?

I guess because everyone's a special little snowflake now.

Life is hard, deal with it.

[Warborn]

We are talking about convicted criminals here not the wider population.

We're actually talking about a guy who was innocent of any crime, but was held in prison before that was realized by his captors. But I guess it's fine for people arrested for a speeding ticket fine not being paid to be treated like sub-humans (aka. the general prison populace). Guilty until proven innocent, after all, right?

[Vash02]

We're actually talking about a guy who was innocent of any crime, but was held in prison before that was realized by his captors. But I guess it's fine for people arrested for a speeding ticket fine not being paid to be treated like sub-humans (aka. the general prison populace). Guilty until proven innocent, after all, right?
To the prison he was guilty, he admitted his guilt and to the prison he had evaded his punishment. If someone is sentenced to prison and he runs away, they do not bother to have another trial when they catch him, he goes straight to jail.

Mistakes will always happen, perfection cannot be attained. The only thing we can do is make sure the lessons are learned and the victim is properly compensated for his suffering.

You also seem to think speeding is a trivial matter, as someone who has lost two friends due to speeding it is, I assure you, not a trivial matter.

[WildGunsTomcat]

To the prison he was guilty, he admitted his guilt and to the prison he had evaded his punishment. If someone is sentenced to prison and he runs away, they do not bother to have another trial when they catch him, he goes straight to jail.

Mistakes will always happen, perfection cannot be attained. The only thing we can do is make sure the lessons are learned and the victim is properly compensated for his suffering.

You also seem to think speeding is a trivial matter, as someone who has lost two friends due to speeding it is, I assure you, not a trivial matter.

It really is not a trivial matter, you are 100% correct about speeding. Speeding kills a great deal of people.

It was a mistake guys, yes. But at the end of the day, the prison should not have to change their procedures for one man.

Everyone gets strip searched on intake and during visitation times.

It's SOP. The supreme court was correct here. Sorry.

[Sgt Shultz]

We're actually talking about a guy who was innocent of any crime, but was held in prison before that was realized by his captors. But I guess it's fine for people arrested for a speeding ticket fine not being paid to be treated like sub-humans (aka. the general prison populace). Guilty until proven innocent, after all, right?

If he is in prison we are beyond that point so your point is misplaced. You are burning the wrong effigy.

[Malorn]

Meh.

[CutterJohn]

You probably freak out about airport body scanners too.

Ridiculous overpriced security theater that can be defeated with several common tactics.

The only change that should have occurred after 9/11 concerning airline security was a reinforced cockpit door that could not be opened from the outside. Another 9/11 will never happen because now people understand the stakes. Hell, they understood them that morning, which is why the one flight failed.



I agree with you on the strip searches though. If you're in jail/prison, a strip search is acceptable. The man should not have been in prison, both because his warrant should have been voided, and more importantly because jail should not even be considered an option for traffic violations, but all that is a different matter.

Simple fact is he sued the wrong people.


You can't even fight back against a fucking prisoner without being liable for a lawsuit if they attack you. Thank you liberal agenda for that one.

Of course you're liable for a lawsuit. Its your word against theirs until a court makes a judgement on it. Nobody gets to just dismiss things like that based on the claim of self defense. If you want someone to blame, blame past COs who did abuse their power and made this necessary. Some scandalous shit has gone down in prisons over the years, and not all of it is the fault of the prisoners.


And aren't there video cameras everywhere now, for precisely such a situation?

[Warborn]

Anyway, according to this I assume cavity searches would also be constitutional and done at the discretion of the prison for any type of person brought in? After all, the safety of prisoners trumps an individual's right to privacy/dignity, and if you can't be sure people weren't making turns without signaling with a weapon or drugs strapped to their nutsack, how can you be sure they weren't doing it with weapons or drugs up their ass? I can't imagine there being any legal obstacle to doing totally invasive searches on people brought even for even the most minor violations.

And like strip searches, you'd of course be able to rely on the incorruptible and totally humane prison system to ensure that this power isn't abused and used to punish, coerce, or otherwise needlessly degrade people placed in their care. So you'd totally be able to trust prisons systems with this kind of power.

[Chrispin]

And like strip searches, you'd of course be able to rely on the incorruptible and totally humane prison system to ensure that this power isn't abused and used to punish, coerce, or otherwise needlessly degrade people placed in their care. So you'd totally be able to trust prisons systems with this kind of power.

Seriously? You can't just assume a minor offender, or even a person innocent of the crime he is convicted of, is not going to bring in concealed contraband. I think it's only fair that prisoners and prison guards and, maybe but hopefully not, truly innocent people alike get basic protection against concealed weapons by body searching all prisoners.

[Red Beard]

When you applied for social security; you became an employee of the UNITES STATES corporation, and as such you agreed to abide by Public (corporate) policy, and relinquished all your constitutional rights in exchange for 'benefit privileges' which can be taken away. Your application for SS is also the lien on your person for paying income taxes.

Though this whole thing is a fraud, in their eyes the question of constitutionality is irrelevant, because it's like joining the marines; if you get thrown in the brig for disobeying orders and then complain about your constitutional rights, they won't do anything, except maybe laugh at you.

[Chrispin]

Who is they?

[Red Beard]

Take your pick...in the context of the thread; people benefiting from the status quo who understand trust law.


"Soon, every American will be required to register their biological property in anational system designed to keep track of the people and that will operate under the ancientsystem of pledging. By such methodology, we can compel people to submit to our agenda,which will effect our security as a chargeback for our fiat paper currency. Every Americanwill be forced to register or suffer being unable to work and earn a living. They will be our chattel, and we will hold the security interest over them forever, by operation of the law merchant under the scheme of secured transactions.Americans, by unknowingly or unwittingly delivering the bills of lading to us will be rendered bankrupt and insolvent, forever to remain economic slaves through taxation, secured bytheir pledges. They will be stripped of their rights and given a commercial value designed tomake us a profit and they will be none the wiser, for not one man in a million could everfigure our plans and, if by accident one or two should figure it out, we have in our arsenal plausible deniability. After all, this is the only logical way to fund government, by floating liens and debt to the registrants in the form of benefits and privileges. This will inevitably reap to us huge profits beyond our wildest expectations and leave every American a contributor to this fraud which we will call `Social Insurance.' Without realizing it, every American will insure us for any loss we may incur and in this manner, every American will unknowingly be our servant, however begrudgingly. The people will become helpless andwithout any hope for their redemption and, we will employ the high office of the President of our dummy corporation to foment this plot against America."

http://www.texemarrs.com/images/e_mandell_house_parlor.jpg

This quote is attributed to Colonel Mandel House in a letter to Woodrow Wilson (the guy that sold out to let the Bank happen), around the time of the creation of the Federal Reserve Bank. Although this quote's authorship is questioned, if you spend the time to learn about negotiable instruments and commerce, it becomes self evident that this is a description of how the system operates.

Wilson later lamented being a party to this:

"I am a most unhappy man. I have unwittingly ruined my country. A great industrial nation is controlled by its system of credit. Our system of credit is concentrated. The growth of the nation, therefore, and all our activities are in the hands of a few men. We have come to be one of the worst ruled, one of the most completely controlled and dominated Governments in the civilized world no longer a Government by free opinion, no longer a Government by conviction and the vote of the majority, but a Government by the opinion and duress of a small group of dominant men."

http://www.quotecollection.com/author-images/woodrow-wilson-2.jpg

Something for you to chew on...

[ItsTheSheppy]

Though I agree that convicts do give up a certain number of rights by virtue of being convicted criminals, it's worth not losing sight of the fact that the guy in questions wasn't technically guilty (or even suspected) of anything. He had, at the time of his arrest, a clean record. All the same, his rights were violated (is stomach-turning fashion) and the Supreme Court, whose one and only job is to protect the people's rights granted by the constitution, upheld the violation.

[Vash02]

Though I agree that convicts do give up a certain number of rights by virtue of being convicted criminals, it's worth not losing sight of the fact that the guy in questions wasn't technically guilty (or even suspected) of anything. He had, at the time of his arrest, a clean record. All the same, his rights were violated (is stomach-turning fashion) and the Supreme Court, whose one and only job is to protect the people's rights granted by the constitution, upheld the violation.

He sued the prison and not the people who sent him there. AKA sued the wrong people.

[ItsTheSheppy]

He sued the prison and not the people who sent him there. AKA sued the wrong people.

He couldn't sue the police for strip-searching him, because they didn't conduct the strip searches. Catch-22. How nice that the government has set itself up so that nobody is responsible. You'd think the highest court in the country would recognize that, because it took me thirty seconds of thought.

[Warborn]

Anyway, I look forward to the stories of coercion and abuse that are bound to follow this. Another tool to degrade and humiliate prisoners, hooray.

[Vash02]

He couldn't sue the police for strip-searching him, because they didn't conduct the strip searches. Catch-22. How nice that the government has set itself up so that nobody is responsible. You'd think the highest court in the country would recognize that, because it took me thirty seconds of thought.
Yes he can sue the police and the state for the strip search(or really just sending him to prison in the first place). I'm sure that the police knew that sending him to prison would mean a strip search. If they were ignorant of that I'd say thats criminal incompetence.


Anyway, I look forward to the stories of coercion and abuse that are bound to follow this. Another tool to degrade and humiliate prisoners, hooray.
The police already have enough tools to bully people into confessing crimes they did not commit.
All those tiny laws that everyone breaks? they add up to a long time in jail, but the police will cut you a deal if you just confess to this single crime...
And of course overworked public defence attorneys will just urge you to accept it.

[Ait'al]

Your are all forgetting that in the executive branch, let alone our entire government, wrong does not stop because it goes past the first person. It is all incompetency. Those systems are set up with checks to stop all of this. It was all wrong period. And they are legally responsible regardless of the formal checks put in or not. The whole thing is an atrocity. At least as the argument stood when I started posting.

Via the fact that he was wrongly put in prison they are guilty of the strip search. They are responsible to do it step by step and not get any step wrong. Any wrong by them is then compounded as they make mistakes. That is the law towards police and government. Police and any executive are responsible to know for certain what they are doing at all times. That is the measure of their responsibility. It's all about the harm done to others besides them and if they are following the law period(they are far more bound than we are that is the point of our government! They took their oaths and DECIDED to be in our government and there is absolutely no way out of that besides massive blackmail.). That is the standard of law to all things in this government in all cases. And ALL laws regarding government action. That is REQUIRED by the constitution whether anyone understands it or not. It is the meaning of justice!

And to answer Warborns statement. He is entitled to ALL compensation! (just to make the point in case anyone misses it) The concept of damages is the oldest in our law. Only the bill of rights can deny it! Outside of the reality of choosing to sue or not which is a moral choice the law is built around. That is one reason you don't want a lot of laws. You reap what you sow! Less laws more dealing with things and less supposed easy answers(aka asking someone else to deal with it for you aka the judge.) the greater morality which is a reality of ones ability to think which comes with dealing with things. It's somewhat self generating but only if YOU deal with things. Government is potentially, if not totally, morally degrading.

The problem here is that the supreme court is too stupid to understand and follow line of fault. Our law absolutely uses it. If you are guilty of something going up the chain in relevance it is a greater crime not non existent. It is basic law. And our law uses it and states it in many ways. It is the basis of how a judge determines severity in all criminal cases. It is the most fundamental law period, along with damages it is by necessity a part of the meaning of the word justice, again! The prison and the cops are all massively guilty and it should have been stated that. Outside of stupidity it cannot be avoided it was wrong under law. It was all wrong! Technically the man is an inch away from proving conspiracy or other high crimes for god sakes. This is not rocket science. This is a certainty and a surety in our law!

[Vash02]

So what exactly is your point? That was a whole bunch of waffle.