skeptical scientist wrote:This is a bullshit ruling, but I understand how the court went along with it. Our current court has never particularly cared about the rights of citizens. What I don't understand is how it ended up 8-1.
Police should need a warrant (or an invitation) to enter someone's home, period, unless they have cause to believe that someone's life is at risk.
What, citizens have rights? When did that happen?
And if not Rodney King, then my girlfriend's friend who happens to now be paralyzed because the police shot him for resisting police, and by resisting police they mean, trying to get a police dog to stop biting him while he was already on the ground. A police dog that the police where not calling off so that it would continue to inflict injury.
And there is absolutely no way that trying to get a dog to stop biting you is a threat to safety of officers that necessitates assault with a deadly weapon by the police.
Sorry, I don't really have much respect for an institution that continually neglects the civil rights of the people they're supposed to "protect" and "serve." Even more so when there's the constitutional problem where the hearsay of an officer is continually perceived as being better than the hearsay of a citizen. It's why traffic court is bullshit because it's up to you to prove your innocence because you're guilty until proved innocent.
Well, we might have won the war on terror, but we also "won" the cold war and we only decided to increase military spending. So, it's not like ending a war has any relation to not continuing to waste services and institutions on the systems used in it.