Skip to main content
7 events
when toggle format what by license comment
Jun 17, 2020 at 9:41 history edited CommunityBot
Commonmark migration
Jul 4, 2015 at 8:57 comment added o0'. I'm surprised there's no mention of reparations after the fact, but maybe it's in a paragraph omitted here? Or it is implied elsewhere?
Oct 6, 2014 at 16:47 comment added supercat @Ephraim: I think the mentality is that judges are loath to say something is "never" appropriate if they can, with sufficient effort, imagine some vaguely-conceivable scenario where such action could possibly be considered appropriate. I think the Court should have said, though, that such actions should be regarded on its face, both at the time and after the fact, as being criminal. Many criminal codes include an explicit provision which states that for most crimes, a sufficient showing of necessity by the defendant is basis for acquittal; those rules should apply here as elsewhere.
Apr 1, 2012 at 21:56 comment added Ephraim This seems like it would be a violation of either the 3rd amendment right. While commandeering a car may not be exactly the same as forcing you to let them stay in your house, It seems like it is a close enough concept to still be considered a violation of constitutional rights. I'm not quite sure I understand the Supreme Court's mentality on this one...
Oct 27, 2011 at 18:07 comment added Brian Knoblauch Having spoken with a couple police officers about that, they were strongly against it. Unless it was a truly exceptional case, they wouldn't even consider it as there's considerable risk in using equipment that you aren't familiar with and is of an unknown state of maintenance (compounded by the fact that it would probably be a high stress situation both for the officers and the equipment).
Jul 4, 2011 at 16:29 vote accept Naftuli Kay
Jul 4, 2011 at 12:32 history answered Thursagen CC BY-SA 3.0