.
And the victim gets free legal representation like the perpetrator, RIGHT?
@ 7000 members (assuming all 7000 employees pay the same amount to whatever union they are in and assuming all 7000 are actually in a union) that's almost $2,000,000 in union dues each year. So again, your dues pay for the attorney. The unions know that not every officer is going to need an attorney in their career, so if you never need one, your dues go to pay for the attorney's of other members. So nobody is getting free representation.Well, we do have over 7,000 staff and three unions to choose from in a right to work state - they have to be very competetive or nobody would join.
I have not needed an attorney yet, due to 99% of lawsuits are handled without us even BEING there, merely represented by the state, plus I have this odd quirk - I follow the law, considering myself to be held to a higher standard than others. I must correct one thing to avoid the appearance of misrepresenting, I am NOT a street police officer, but a sworn correctional sergeant for the state.
My point is that there are two layers of free defense before you go to your own pockets, as whatever your dues are, they cannot equal a single billable hour of a defense attroney, particularly a good one. And, I should qualify, in our system, the state picks up the cost of defense unless and until the officer is proven to have violated the law.
What I see it as doing is removing the decision you'll need to make if the entry is unlawful or illegal.
By that logic, you should be able to use lethal force to protect your 1st Amendment rights as well...so you should be able to stop folks trying to burn porn magazines
You split a pretty fine hair there. Let's just say "no extra out of pocket expense".
T'ain't the fact that I am paying, it is the AMOUNT that I personally am paying, and even I can afford $23 a month. It matters not that others are also paying, (and union membership only stands about 20% here, right to work state), but the fact is that IF the state doesn't represent me, I will still only have an out of pocket cost to me personally of $23 a month for expert legal counsel. I don't know if any of the so called "pre paid legal" systems that would be that effective for Joe Citizen to get the same defense.
Man you like to twist things....So here ya go...Porn has been defined as subjective to the viewer by the courts. Much art from the Renaissance and earlier eras could certainly be interpreted by some folks as porn, you know, naked bodies and all of that. So yeah...In a twisted way I sure could see myself using my second amendment rights to defend my first amendment rights. I do believe that's why the founders put that amendment in there....But ya see the founders had just chased tyranny from the land and they put restrictions on the Gov't so that they wouldn't have to to it again...It only took 236 years for those rights to be eroded to the point of this legal decision, which more or less equates legislation from the bench. Another evil that the founders tried to prevent against.
I can't say that I KNOW Jon Burge, Jerry Finnegan or Tony Abbate, but I know OF them.
No that was the logic I was seeing applied, I was arguing against that logic.
it's not the use of force, its the removal of all resistance, that I find so disturbing, and the ablitily of manipulating this regulation to harvest what would otherwise be unlawfully attained evidence.
Yeah, the Founding fathers tried that first, too.
I have the same problem with it...that is why I side with the dissenting opinion that it should have been more restrictive
Where is the twist?
Force is a legal option to defend life and in some jurisdictions property. I know that all cops are good people inside ( I read it on THR), but those fellas that were gunned down in New Orleans by police officers would have been well within their rights to shoot back at the cops that were shootin' at them. So I suppose it would have been up to the deceased to decide if the ambush that they walked into was legal or not. But the right to defend themselves and the lives of their family was never in question. Too bad they didn't know that they were walkin' into an illegal ambush or they could have.
I am often confusing...I often write it off to living by ethics rather than morals, but that isn't the subject of this thread and this isn't the place.
They would still need the warrant or whatever other criteria is necessary for a legal search. The ruling only makes it illegal to physically resist at the time of the violation. You can resist legally after the violation occurs by filing suit.
Would a reasonable person believe that it was not against the law to beat his wife and children? Should a person be deigned the liberty of being able to act as a reasonable person in defense of his own home?
Or as in the cases of Chicago and Philadelphia, actually BEING police officers, although to be accurate, in Philly they were robbing immigrant owned convenience stores (after disabling surveillance equipment), rather than homes.
