Comments | elengul: (без темы)

elengul

(Untitled)

Jan 15, 2009 10:43

I really love it when the SCOTUS guts the Bill of Rights.

That is the PDF to the syllabus of the ruling. For a more digestible thing to read on it, I recommend the New York Times article on the subject ( Read more... )

Comments 9

just got get better at... blackheart666 January 15 2009, 16:00:46 UTC

destroying the evidence...

to paraphrase what the Joker said: "This Country deserves a higher class of criminal."

pneumatik January 15 2009, 23:50:59 UTC

So here's what's so crazy how the different SCOTUS justices tend to vote. First, there's the decision you mention. Then there's the D.C. gun case, where 4 of 9 justices said that the 2nd amendment doesn't give people the right to bear arms. Guh?!?!

elengul January 16 2009, 00:31:51 UTC

Yeah, I definitely don't always get the SCOTUS rulings. I'm tempted to actually try to wade through the syllabus and get a better idea as to why they think what they do ...

pneumatik January 17 2009, 00:04:10 UTC

It's very hard to figure out /why/ they think how they do. Their deliberations are private, and I'm not aware of any retired justices ever divulging details of those deliberations. The way they vote, I can't figure out which ones are the crazy ones and which ones are reasonable.

Whenever I daydream about being so rich I don't have to work, I consider watching all the SCOTUS hearings and blogging about it. I figure it would be fun. Either SCOTUS or the House of Representatives committee that meets in the basement of the Capitol building and determines what bills reach the floor when. I think it's the rules committee. Anyway, it's apparently where all the real politic-ing goes on.

OP Police plus a gutted 2nd amendment... blackheart666 January 16 2009, 10:56:46 UTC

do you -really- need me to give you a conspiracy theory primer?

menhalae January 17 2009, 03:27:55 UTC

Keep in mind that it is a good thing for criminals to be punished for their crimes. The specific dude in this case is clearly a criminal, so ideally we want him to be punished. If we are going to set him free, we need a good reason for doing so. Normally in police misconduct cases, the good reason is that we want to discourage the state from behaving improperly. But once a system gets big enough, then statistically mistakes are inevitable despite even the best efforts to prevent them. Should we let a dangerous meth dealer back on the street because some clerk made a mistake months prior? In my opinion, no ( ... )

pneumatik January 18 2009, 01:46:20 UTC

Wheeee!! Everyone, slide down manhalae's slippery slope!

So how can you tell if an administrative error is on purpose or not? If the police dept. can't find a piece of evidence the day of a trial, is it just administrative error and we should trust that the police really found the murder weapon with the defendant's fingerprints on it?

Which t's and f's need to be crossed, and which ones don't? I guess none of the details are important, as long as we only ignore them when the defendant is /clearly/ a criminal. And if maybe we lock up someone who would have been found innocent if all the details were considered and handled correctly, well, you can't make an omelet without breaking a few eggs.

menhalae January 18 2009, 18:11:01 UTC

The "administrative error or not" question is a question of fact that both sides can argue in court, as with every other question of fact ( ... )

pneumatik January 21 2009, 00:54:54 UTC

I was going to write up a longer response, but then I read the end of your comment and saw that you agree with me that this ruling means that police departments as a whole aren't responsible for probable cause, just the cop doing the search. The difference between your opinion and mine is that you think this isn't too bad, while I think it's terribly because it gives cops a reason to do searches without legitimate cause.