If you can read this, either the style sheet didn't load or you have an older browser that doesn't support style sheets. Try clearing your browser cache and refreshing the page.

(Courthouse News Service)   Refusing to let the police use your home as a lookout? That's a smashed open door and assault and arresting and jailing and some looting by the police while you are away   (courthousenews.com) divider line 63
    More: Scary  
•       •       •

14056 clicks; posted to Main » on 04 Jul 2013 at 5:03 PM (1 year ago)   |  Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook   more»



Voting Results (Smartest)
View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest


Archived thread
2013-07-04 05:13:49 PM
10 votes:

halB: Marcus Aurelius: If even a fraction of this story is true, this entire police department is getting their asses sued off.

If the resulting judgement is enough to raise taxes, they might even suffer some consequences, like paid vacations and such.

Unless one of the officers was in a position to make policy, or they had done this a couple of times before and so there was an unwritten policy, this will be dismissed with prejudice.

There are very, very, very few ways to sue the police.  You think THIS is bad?  I find the fact that it's almost impossible to sue the police to be worse.


The police are in violation of 18 US 241 and 18 US 242.  Basically, civil rights violations with conspiracy thrown in.  They violated both the 3rd and 4th amendments.

The law needs to be changed so that when a cop (or anyone in a position of authority) blatantly and knowingly breaks the law, they can be held personally liable and their pension is not immune.  Let's see how quickly the cops start paying attention to the Constitution when that happens.

/Yes, I know, never going to happen.
2013-07-04 05:09:42 PM
8 votes:
Honestly, I'm surprised they didn't kill the dog.
2013-07-04 05:09:11 PM
7 votes:

Rincewind53: Jesus farking Christ.

They're right, that is a Third Amendment violation. Do you know how rare that is?


I think it's the first time I've ever heard of one since after we kicked the british out.

And for anyone who claims the police aren't military.  Take a look at them these days.  They're wearing military clothes and carrying military grade weapons.  Besides, as the writers of the Constitution defined it, the police do count.
2013-07-04 05:03:31 PM
6 votes:
Jesus farking Christ.

They're right, that is a Third Amendment violation. Do you know how rare that is?
2013-07-04 02:23:16 PM
5 votes:
That is one seriously messed up story.
2013-07-04 05:57:02 PM
4 votes:
Cops serve and protect each other and whoever the chief tells them is paid in full for a "MONEY.  HANDS OFF" pass.  We're just the meat in a street gang control war sandwich and whoever wins, we're just gonna have to carry on keeping our heads down and staring at our feet lest we end up on the ass end of a substance addled thug beatdown.

America as the fairy tale we were sold is over.  The  melting pot didn't, the fragmented culture serves the wealthy and keeps us barking sh*t at each other while they rifle the joint and the cops are the bouncers.  The gangstah boyees just skim the crumbs and keep us thinking the cops are on or team.

We have no team.  We're biomass.  We're the pockets they pick to replace what they steal.  We're revenue farms.  We're chattel that got too uppity.

And the only comfort is knowing that when the other shoe drops and the joint is busted out like a mobster bar, and the getaway car is being dropped into D, that the goon squad who were totally convinced that they had a seat in it are gonna be sitting on the curb next to us, surveying the decimation and saying "well, that didn't work out."
gja [TotalFark]
2013-07-04 05:29:38 PM
4 votes:
This shiat simply MUST stop. The alternative is this continues, festers and gets worse.
Then, at some point, it will all come to a head like a deep pustulistic boil and 'pop!'.
These types of incidents only have 1 effect, to galvanize the seething hatred the general populous feel for those who feel they are above the laws they are charged with upholding while abusing those they have been chartered with serving (the public at general).

Dear LEOs,
Stop this crap or at some point someone WILL go utterly batshiat and find a group of folks who feel the same and they will bring it to your front door.
It's not a matter of if, but when, as long as you stay this course of behaviour.
Sincerely,
John Q. Public
2013-07-04 05:10:42 PM
4 votes:
So far, our government has thoroughly trashed all the Constitutional Amendments but the Third.

Now they're gunning for that one too! Let no Amendment remain untrashed.
2013-07-04 09:10:03 PM
3 votes:

Smeggy Smurf: Normally I'd take the side against the pigs on any story but this one is as over the top as a 10 year old kid telling a lie about how mutant space Marines broke into the house and that's why the lamp is broken.  It's too much to possibly be true.


At one time people would have thought the very idea of the police randomly stopping people on the street and frisking without cause as too far fetched to be believed.

That's the problem.  The police HAVE gone over the top.  This is how a "slippery slope" works in reality.  We're about halfway down that slope.  Do we ride it out or try to find some brakes on this farking thing?
2013-07-04 06:14:22 PM
3 votes:

namatad: Lady Indica: namatad: OgreMagi: The law needs to be changed so that when a cop (or anyone in a position of authority) blatantly and knowingly breaks the law, they can be held personally liable and their pension is not immune.  Let's see how quickly the cops start paying attention to the Constitution when that happens.

/Yes, I know, never going to happen.

THIS would solve so many problems.

You know what solves a lot of problems? Requiring cams and recording equipment. Good cops have NOTHING to fear from it.

Interesting how many departments fought tooth and nail against it, and how many still do NOT utilize a tool which can ONLY protect good cops, and help assure convictions.

If you have to go outside the law to do your job, to work the grey areas to dispense justice...you're one of the bad guys and fark you.

MHMM
and yet, study after study has shown that dashboard cams and similar reduce the number of lawsuits against the police and cities, reducing costs to taxpayers.

along with reducing police misconduct.
OF course the police would be against this.


The initial fear (and this was even with good cops) is that a lot of their shiat looks bad, but is legal. They were afraid that the public (stupid & cop hating public) would not understand what they were seeing and just be all 'oh see the cop was rough and mean, GIVE THEM TEH MONIES'.

Reality is, people are pretty farking reasonable, and it surprises even me how often people are on the side of the police when they see someone pepper sprayed and roughly taken down for non compliance. People aren't that farking stupid, and they can easily see through someone being a mouthy coont and refusing to comply...to cops raging on someone and beating the shiat out of them for no reason.

Once the data came out (fewer lawsuits, better defense, less probs) it was adopted a lot of places. And it's STILL bitterly fought by many unions and cities. That some still bitterly fight it, should tell you a lot. Also ANY tampering with such devices should carry a really serious criminal penalty.

That all being said, I know cops who years before this was possible, carried personal tape recorders on them. I know of more than one who was literally saved by having this, when people filed false complaints against them. One CHP officer I know had a complaint and lawsuit filed against him by a woman he gave two speeding tickets to. She tried to get out of it on looks, and recognized him as a customer in the grocery store he went to. Didn't work, she got the ticket. Second time she propositioned him. He refused, gave her the ticket. She had done it in such a way that he wasn't obligated to file bribery shiat, but he told her she was crossing the line.

Anyhoo, she tried to get him fired. Caused an investigation, and initially filed a lawsuit. She claimed he'd asked her out repeatedly, even stalking her at her grocery store!!! And when she refused his attention, he started stalking her on the highway! It almost sounds believable too, and in the 80s when people were kneejerking on this type of sexual abuse, he'd have been farked. It looked bad.

But he carried a personal recording device, because he personally knew other cops who'd had their asses saved by it. And he stockpiled tapes for six months or some crazy amount of shiat before recycling. Anyway, he had it all on tape, and it saved his ass.

He was then able to file a civil suit against her, and won a $10k (max at the time) judgment. I don't believe he ever collected a penny on it, was more the principle of it.

Sadly, she did not face any criminal charges.

Anyhoo my entire point to this clearly fascinating and entertaining tale ;) is that most cops have heard a similar story. I can't even THINK of a story I've ever heard from any cop (and I know a lot of them in many depts through family) that ever had 'and the recording/video damned the good cop'. Not once.

They should be under constant video and audio. No reason for them not to be. Safer for them, and safer for us and better for adjudicating justice.

Can't think of any good reason not to, unless you're a scumbag who doesn't want to get caught with their hand in the till. Or farking groupies on patrol. Or roughing up people while using racist epitaphs.
2013-07-04 05:38:17 PM
3 votes:

James F. Campbell: Cops found guilty of abusing their authority should be, at the very least, imprisoned for the rest of their lives.


Don't necessarily agree with that [life], but I do believe any 'abuse of legal authority' should carry with it a hefty sentence modifier, like a hate crime. Along with similar burdens of proving it. That should go for ANY legal authority that is abused in the commission of a criminal act, IMHO.
2013-07-04 05:29:40 PM
3 votes:

wambu: He refused a police order. They put their lives on the line every day to protect him and protect his rights! That day was just not his turn. The ungrateful civilian is lucky to be alive . These cops are [i.imgur.com image 54x11] .


Pretty sure you're being sarcastic, but it's absolutely legal to refuse a request from a police officer. They have to give you a lawful order. Otherwise, it's a request. Unfortunately, most people aren't good at figuring out which is which.

Even worse, neither are most police officers.
2013-07-04 05:21:13 PM
3 votes:

hardinparamedic: OgreMagi: They violated both the 3rd

No, they did not. There is NO Third Amendment Violation here, as the police are NOT considered under constitutional jurisprudence as members of the United States Military OR a State National Guard or Militia under the command of a Federal military commander.

Instead, it's a slam dunk for a fourth, and a fifth amendment violation of their rights.


If they aren't military, they need to stop looking and acting like military.  Until that happens, they are military.
2013-07-04 05:17:03 PM
3 votes:

Fluid: The Third Amendment says "no soldier" rather than "no policeman", though.


And they call "ladies of the evening" crack whores now.  Semantics change.
2013-07-04 05:12:12 PM
3 votes:
Holy shiat. What would have happened if he shot one of them?

/cause he should have.
2013-07-04 05:08:04 PM
3 votes:

Marcus Aurelius: If even a fraction of this story is true, this entire police department is getting their asses sued off.

If the resulting judgement is enough to raise taxes, they might even suffer some consequences, like paid vacations and such.


Unless one of the officers was in a position to make policy, or they had done this a couple of times before and so there was an unwritten policy, this will be dismissed with prejudice.

There are very, very, very few ways to sue the police.  You think THIS is bad?  I find the fact that it's almost impossible to sue the police to be worse.
2013-07-04 03:56:09 PM
3 votes:
If even a fraction of this story is true, this entire police department is getting their asses sued off.

If the resulting judgement is enough to raise taxes, they might even suffer some consequences, like paid vacations and such.
2013-07-04 02:40:04 PM
3 votes:
Some paid time off should show them.
2013-07-04 06:13:02 PM
2 votes:
eventhelosers:   Plaintiff could have helped the cops out but the point is he had a right to be an ahole and not let them in.

??? Refusing to let the cops in your house does NOT make you an ahole.
2013-07-04 05:53:46 PM
2 votes:

darkmayo: So is there any other links to this story that don't just refer back to this article? Incident happened in 2011.


I found this:

http://www.scribd.com/doc/151769636/Mitchell-v-City-of-Henderson-et- al -Complaint

I haven't read all of it yet, and it looks like a lot is redacted or something. Anywho, there yas go
2013-07-04 05:39:14 PM
2 votes:

Dow Jones and the Temple of Doom: Hey dude, I get it, you're friends with cops, and you think they'd never do something like this to you. It's cool.


And I get that you knuckleglaze with the idea of not being an internet tough guy, and shooting a cop. Really. Stop being such a pussy and just do it. Be the an hero FARK wants you to be, bro.

James F. Campbell: Cops found guilty of abusing their authority should be, at the very least, imprisoned for the rest of their lives.


License them at the state level, like every other regulated profession. Take the departments out of this, and appoint a board to oversee those licensed by the state.

Department refuses to discipline Officer Dickbag? Yank his license. Legally, can't work as a cop anymore anywhere without that. Problem solved.

Also think there should be a federal level agency just to handle police civil rights and brutality issues.

OgreMagi: When 3rd was written it was specifically because the British government had placed soldiers in private homes for the purpose of POLICING the colonialists.  There was no actual police force at the time.  I think a judge would rule that this does fall under the meaning of the amendment.


Well, the problem with that is those soldiers were commissioned regulars of the British Army or the Commissioned Militia under control of the British Continental Army, not town constables or the county/province sheriff. So, the term would be more applicable to Military Police than it would regulars, given the intent of the language.
2013-07-04 05:31:20 PM
2 votes:

Milo Minderbinder: Rincewind53: Jesus farking Christ.

They're right, that is a Third Amendment violation. Do you know how rare that is?

No, its not. Cops are not soldiers.


endthelie.com
2013-07-04 05:24:23 PM
2 votes:
Land of the free...


/not so much anymore.
//you guys are totally farked.
///NSA! NSA! er... USA!
2013-07-04 05:19:29 PM
2 votes:
Hey, this is what big government does. Why are we surprised. And just wait... Big government is  gonna get LAAAAARGER! Yay!
2013-07-04 05:14:18 PM
2 votes:
Yes, the police count as soldiers. I doubt this will turn into a Federal case, but their asses will get handed back to them.
2013-07-04 05:13:15 PM
2 votes:

OgreMagi: And for anyone who claims the police aren't military.  Take a look at them these days.  They're wearing military clothes and carrying military grade weapons.  Besides, as the writers of the Constitution defined it, the police do count.


Erm, I hate to bust on your parade here, but legally the civilian police are NOT considered members of the military or state militia/national guard. This isn't a third amendment issue.

Fourth, Fifth and possibly sixth, on the other hand....
2013-07-04 05:11:17 PM
2 votes:
Fark Cop Apologists to blame the homeowner in 5... 4... 3...
2013-07-04 05:10:55 PM
2 votes:

halB: Marcus Aurelius: If even a fraction of this story is true, this entire police department is getting their asses sued off.

If the resulting judgement is enough to raise taxes, they might even suffer some consequences, like paid vacations and such.

Unless one of the officers was in a position to make policy, or they had done this a couple of times before and so there was an unwritten policy, this will be dismissed with prejudice.

There are very, very, very few ways to sue the police.  You think THIS is bad?  I find the fact that it's almost impossible to sue the police to be worse.


Interesting that you find it almost impossible to sue the police when replying about an article where someone is, you guessed it, suing the police.
2013-07-04 02:55:49 PM
2 votes:
This is why we're supposed to have the right to defend ourselves with lethal force.  Good luck surviving such an encounter, though.
2013-07-05 04:08:28 PM
1 votes:

hardinparamedic: OgreMagi: I hope the government forcibly requires you to bunk a bunch of marines in your home.

Well, then he'd have a 3rd Amendment violation, now wouldn't he?


Mock's own words, "Let me repeat that word, SOLDIERS."  What do you think a marine will say if you call him a soldier?
2013-07-05 02:48:55 PM
1 votes:

wambu: He refused a police order. They put their lives on the line every day to protect him and protect his rights! That day was just not his turn. The ungrateful civilian is lucky to be alive . These cops are [i.imgur.com image 54x11] .


You're the type who would have ratted out Anne Frank and her family in their hiding spot. You know that?
2013-07-04 10:40:35 PM
1 votes:

Gyrfalcon: OgreMagi: Gyrfalcon: Marcus Aurelius: If even a fraction of this story is true, this entire police department is getting their asses sued off.

If the resulting judgement is enough to raise taxes, they might even suffer some consequences, like paid vacations and such.

IF.

The whole thing doesn't make a lick of sense from a tactical standpoint--which means either the homeowner is lying his ass off OR the cops broke in to rummage around because the homeowner had some nice stuff and then they cobbled up the excuse after the fact when he actually complained about it.

I find either explanation entirely plausible. What I find entirely unlikely is the "we need to use your house as a lookout for a DV investigation." So one side or the other is full of total bullhookey.

If it were two homeowners having a pissing match, I'd say, "who the fark knows?"  But with one side being the police, I'm going to have to assume the police are the lying sacks o'shiat.  Too many instances of police misconduct going on, too many cases of the police thinking they can do whatever the fark they want, to whomever they want, and there will be no consequences.  They lost any benefit of the doubt a long time ago.

Well, there are two possible stories:

1. The cops asked for entry for a legitimate cause, were denied, and the homeowner subsequently made up the story out of whole cloth to make a claim against the city, or get back at the cops for some other reason. This scenario makes sense if the homeowner has a history with one of the cops (like if one of the cops is his ex-brother in law or something) or some kind of gripe against the city.

2. The cops broke into the house for some other reason (a bogus drug warrant, a fake search) and rummaged around, pepperballing the homeowner when he protested, and then threatened him when they left, assuring him nobody would believe him. Then when he filed suit, they hastily cobbled together this b/s story about a "domestic violence investigation" as a pre ...


If consider the time when the Constitution was written, police forces did not exist.  Armed agents of the government enforcing the law were all soldiers.  Now we have armed agents of the government enforcing the law who are not considered soldiers by the strictest of definitions, but I personally feel they fall under the definition as intended by the authors of our Constitution.

Even without the 3rd Amendment violation, there's enough bad shiat going on here that it should get every single cop involved in the unemployment line.
2013-07-04 08:57:21 PM
1 votes:
What's wrong with people.

Ban police unions, institute licenses for cops that they must renew on a yearly basis by proving knowledge of law, institute REAL civilian review boards.

Problem solved.

Cops are not your friends, they are reactive and are trained in how to trick you.  This is not Russia or China and if you approve of gestapo tactics by thugs with a badge, you need to move to Communist China immediately and write us after a year of living there.

That's where we're headed.  Disgusting pigs.
2013-07-04 07:34:31 PM
1 votes:
 It's strange to hear people arguing in favor of this insanity, and on Jul 4th no less. Without irony even.
sad and disgusting.
2013-07-04 06:39:35 PM
1 votes:
One of my dreams is to have a homeowner shoots and seriously injures a police officer who illegally entered into the home, and the courts rule that the shooting was justified.
2013-07-04 06:32:16 PM
1 votes:
This is why every time a cop dies, I laugh my ass off.

Fark every last god damned one of them
2013-07-04 06:24:40 PM
1 votes:
www.kurzweilai.net

It comes out next week. Buy it. Read it.
The author has a blog called the agitator. If you haven't go on his blog and read it. This is nothing compared to what other people have gone through.
/Yeah we militarized our police force over the past two decades
//It will only get worse, not better.
2013-07-04 06:19:44 PM
1 votes:

Mithiwithi: The idea that playing it implies that you lost the argument is merely a corollary, and largely ignored these days anyway.


I'm aware of that.  As well it should be.
2013-07-04 06:19:41 PM
1 votes:
Dear American Government,

THIS IS NOT A PLAYBOOK.


upload.wikimedia.org
2013-07-04 06:13:51 PM
1 votes:
If that story is even remotely accurate I hope that the guy collects about $10 million from that police department and that all of the cops involved lose their jobs.
2013-07-04 06:07:57 PM
1 votes:

Marcus Aurelius: If even a fraction of this story is true, this entire police department is getting their asses sued off.


This is what's wrong with America.

If even a fraction of this story is true, all the cops involved should be hung or at least branded on the arm as blacklisted and left unemployable with a scar you can't hide.

At the very least, they should go to jail and enjoy all the comfort of having to break large rocks into pea gravel for a few years then be released blacklisted and unemployable with a record in the system.

At the barest minimum, any lawsuit should come out of their personal assets directly. Paycheck, saving, and pensions.
2013-07-04 05:57:46 PM
1 votes:
As someone who has done nothing wrong, I am so much more frightened of our police than I am of either drug dealers or terrorists.
2013-07-04 05:48:51 PM
1 votes:

eventhelosers: I like how they name the units "rescue 2".


Riiiight.

First - those vehicles are used for rescue in active shooter situations. They allow tactical teams to deliver care safely to victims that otherwise would set and bleed until the shooter was neutralized. Second - they're not patrol vehicles. They don't rumble down the streets all the time. They're basically kept locked up until needed.

Third - Those have no weapons on them. In fact, that model of the M113 was either used as a military ambulance, or as a coms/command post vehicle

Forth- The reason those departments use them is because they're dirt cheap from surplus sources.
2013-07-04 05:41:14 PM
1 votes:
So is there any other links to this story that don't just refer back to this article? Incident happened in 2011.
2013-07-04 05:35:09 PM
1 votes:
Cops found guilty of abusing their authority should be, at the very least, imprisoned for the rest of their lives.
2013-07-04 05:31:34 PM
1 votes:

wambu: He refused a police order. They put their lives on the line every day to protect him and protect his rights! That day was just not his turn. The ungrateful civilian is lucky to be alive . These cops are [i.imgur.com image 54x11] .


8/10 would troll again!
2013-07-04 05:30:48 PM
1 votes:
For all those who have no problem with the ever increasing "security measures" enacted to keep us safe. There is a whole lot more of this in your future.
2013-07-04 05:30:16 PM
1 votes:

A Shambling Mound: And anyone that didn't protest the orders to storm this guy's house, doubly so.


But zey were only follovink orderrs.

www.addictinginfo.org

Godwin's pithy remark is not actually a law.  It was a pithy remark.  Deal.
2013-07-04 05:29:50 PM
1 votes:
Wambu: 1/10. Nice try. Need to be a little more invective, maybe use a "personal story."
2013-07-04 05:27:44 PM
1 votes:

wambu: He refused a police order. They put their lives on the line every day to protect him and protect his rights! That day was just not his turn. The ungrateful civilian is lucky to be alive . These cops are [i.imgur.com image 54x11] .


+2 for carefully crafted irony.
2013-07-04 05:26:53 PM
1 votes:
My favorite part is how they totally forgot all about the original reason for wanting to use his house in the first place.

Sorry sacks of sh*t, the lot of them. And anyone that didn't protest the orders to storm this guy's house, doubly so.
2013-07-04 05:23:07 PM
1 votes:
Happy Fourth of July, suckers.
2013-07-04 05:22:43 PM
1 votes:

hardinparamedic: OgreMagi: They violated both the 3rd

No, they did not. There is NO Third Amendment Violation here, as the police are NOT considered under constitutional jurisprudence as members of the United States Military OR a State National Guard or Militia under the command of a Federal military commander.

Instead, it's a slam dunk for a fourth, and a fifth amendment violation of their rights.


Any judge who holds an original intent doctrine would say this violates the third. In fact, I'd guess the SCOUS would rule 6-3 against, depending on Scalia's mood.
2013-07-04 05:22:12 PM
1 votes:

halB: Unless one of the officers was in a position to make policy, or they had done this a couple of times before and so there was an unwritten policy, this will be dismissed with prejudice.


You do realize that this is in federal court, right?
You do realize that this is constitutional rights case?

Yah, my guess is that this will actually be a pretty interesting case.
2013-07-04 05:21:43 PM
1 votes:

bunner: [i.imgur.com image 500x280]


What's the difference?
2013-07-04 05:21:25 PM
1 votes:

cornfedokie: Clearly they were Wonton Criminals. I mean If they had nothing to Hide why didn't they Let the officers in their home and offer to cook them a fine hot meal as well.


3.bp.blogspot.com
2013-07-04 05:20:58 PM
1 votes:

EngineerAU: The only other third amendment case I can think of was one where prison guards went on strike and were replaced with members of the national guard. The prison guards had living quarters on site at the prison which they paid rent for. During the strike they were locked out of their living quarters and the national guard used them. If I recall correctly, the judge said he couldn't rule for the prison guards because there was no precedence set for him to rule on and the case wasn't clear cut enough for him to create one.


That's really interesting, hadn't heard of that. Plus the lockout was probably in relation to other action (the strike) and not 'we're locking you out to give them your home', otherwise even without precedence that'd be a slam dunk. Without that with it being a seperate action...yeah I could see them throwing up their hands.

/loves learning cool new things
2013-07-04 05:19:01 PM
1 votes:

hardinparamedic: He'd have no legal right to do so


No, but he'd damned sure have a moral right.
At least, his moral right to defend his home from hostile invaders could be weighed against his moral obligation to stay alive to provide for a wife/child/dog, and possibly come up favorably.
2013-07-04 05:18:13 PM
1 votes:

bunner:


It would cost you but the results would be the same and the reresponse time would be better
2013-07-04 05:17:44 PM
1 votes:
The only other third amendment case I can think of was one where prison guards went on strike and were replaced with members of the national guard. The prison guards had living quarters on site at the prison which they paid rent for. During the strike they were locked out of their living quarters and the national guard used them. If I recall correctly, the judge said he couldn't rule for the prison guards because there was no precedence set for him to rule on and the case wasn't clear cut enough for him to create one.
2013-07-04 05:17:39 PM
1 votes:

LL316: halB: Marcus Aurelius: If even a fraction of this story is true, this entire police department is getting their asses sued off.

If the resulting judgement is enough to raise taxes, they might even suffer some consequences, like paid vacations and such.

Unless one of the officers was in a position to make policy, or they had done this a couple of times before and so there was an unwritten policy, this will be dismissed with prejudice.

There are very, very, very few ways to sue the police.  You think THIS is bad?  I find the fact that it's almost impossible to sue the police to be worse.

Interesting that you find it almost impossible to sue the police when replying about an article where someone is, you guessed it, suing the police.


Anyone can file a lawsuit over pretty much anything, there's plenty of nutty examples. Their point is, that the game is rigged; it's very difficult to win a civil suit against the police. And damn near impossible to sue them personally.
2013-07-04 05:16:16 PM
1 votes:

hardinparamedic: abhorrent1: Holy shiat. What would have happened if he shot one of them?

/cause he should have.

He'd have no legal right to do so, since the police identified themselves as officers of the law carrying out their duties.

Had he done so, we'd be reading about a guy headed to a date with a needle, rather than a guy headed to a date for a massive financial windfall.

However, these things really don't surprise me from California, Arizona, Texas, Florida, and New York.


"Their duties" include illegally breaking into people's homes and shooting them and their pets with pepper balls?
2013-07-04 04:12:07 PM
1 votes:
USA! USA! USA!
 
Displayed 63 of 63 comments

View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest


This thread is archived, and closed to new comments.

Continue Farking
Submit a Link »






Report