By whose necessity?
Basically what citizen is saying is that we need to overapply an old piece of case law that has nothing to do with police action by the government, the case he cited involved a private company what wanted to sugically examine a woman who claimed to suffer crippling injury as a result of the railroad company using a faulty railroad car that collapsed on her. it had nothing to do with a search on the side of the road or serving a warrant or making an arrest, which is getting OT anyway.
My, my fellas. Such an articulate and laser-focused rebuttal.
Lets start with having a surgeon examine the woman. He got that part right, but he completely overlooks the fact that in order to examine her against her will, the government must seize her temporarily. The court's whole point was that the government had no authority to compel the woman to submit to such an examination, so it wasn't going to order it.
And, according to him,
Botsford is an old piece of case law. So, lets get rid of Bushell's case c. 1670--its even older and there is no point in protecting jurors from punishment for their decisions. And, lets get rid of John Lilburne's cases--they're even older and we all know that if you have nothing to hide, you don't need a right against self-incrimination. In fact, lets get rid of some of Edward Coke's decisions from the late 1500's and early 1600's, especially the one's that carried forward expressly in our common law by virtue of being slightly older than the first colony here. Hell, the whole Bill of Rights and the Fourteenth Amendment are pretty old--lets just scrap them. Shoot, while we're at it, lets get rid of the fundamental principle of Magna Carta--its really, really old--that the king and his government are themselves subject to the law and restricted by the law. If you look close, that's really what EMN is saying with his "more leeway" comments--the government should not be restricted by the law anywhere he wants "leeway." He's really saying cops should have leeway to make it up as they go along.
And, he seems to have overlooked that the principle underlying this "old" case is the exact principle quoted in Terry v Ohio. And, the Terry court themselves made the very mistake he's accusing me of: applying a case about a private company to police action and criminal law. My, my. One does wonder if he thinks through on his arguments before banging them out on his keyboard.
EMN wrote, "Now I believe it's nessecary that cops be given more leeway, anyone who thinks otherwise is not living in reality land..." Notice that rather than explain why cops need more leeway, he just heaves in a pre-emptive
ad hominem attack.
EMN wrote, "Cops, in order to properly do the job that the majority of the public expects them to do, need reasonable leeway for actions made to protect the public in good faith." Ahhhh. "The majority of the public", rather than, say, the constitutional authority granted police as limited by the constitutional restrictions (rights) placed upon them. Yep. Your rights and mine, gentle reader, are subject to whatever the majority of the public expect from police. You can just scrap the whole idea that rights are necessary in a democratic republic specifically to prevent the majority from oppressing the minority--in this case the minority (according to him) who don't appreciate being temporarily seized, and when done illegally have huge hurdles to overcome in seeking redress.
And, if it was getting off-topic, as he says, why did he reply? As in, its too obvious he was just trying to shut down discussion without articulating reasoned counter-arguments.
Tsk, tsk, tsk. And, he was coming along so well these last few months. (sigh)
).
