Where did you pull that opinion from? "Cleary ruled on the case without hearing
the facts?" Your simplistic interpretation of the judges comment is quite
telling of your bias. The judge was upholding the defendant's constitutional
rights, indicating that, insofar as he has the ability to prevent it, we are not
in a police state. You should be thankful that there are a very few like him
The Judge clearly ruled on the case without hearing the facts. His comment that
"we are not a police state YET" is telling of judicial bias.
Mahonri, are you really saying that you would be willing to forgo a trial in the
even that a police officer accused you of a crime? A judge's job is to fairly
apply the law. That includes examining the actions of a police officer in the
context of constitutionality. The fourth amendment is what keeps the police from
just walking into your home any time they like and I imagine you probably
appreciate that yourself. Just remember that the rights you deny others will
eventually be denied you.
If the officer had used good judgment and observed the young man for a few
moments, he would likely have had probable cause and would have made a solid
case against him. It was the rash and impatient actions of the officer that lost
That's right, surrender your rights to the police. They don't need some document
that's over 200 years old to tell them what they can and can't do.I
applaud the judge for having the good judgement to separate what clearly would
be an infraction of the law from the method used to determine that the
infraction existed.Nest time you rev your engine, Mahonri, think of
being pulled over just for doing that.
Nice job judge, second guessing the cop who was on the scene and saw what
happened.Here is hoping that the drunk you released never kills
anyone.The cop saw what happened and checked it out. What, is the
kid your nephew?