I cannot come up with words to describe this retardness

[Dr Mordrid]

Ever consider that the constitution also protects the rights of the police officers not to get injured or killed on duty? I'm sure their families have.

Dr. Mordrid

[cjolley]

That was a complete non-sequitur.

...
My arguement is with the mandatory arrest ordinance itself.
...

Why would a judge rule that mandantory arrest for eating a french fry was constitutional under the 4th ammendment?
Apparently, in his case, because he said to would have been allowed in 1791.
Which just seems unknowable and stupid to me.

It was exactly the kind of results oriented law making that you complain about from judges that you say are to the left.

[Nowhere]

We can always burn bitc...uhmm, I mean witches again. After all, this was completelly legal once

[Dr Mordrid]

He ruled on the arrest being legal, not that the law made any sense whatsoever. The voters will take care of that ruling. Also note that this law is from The Peoples Republic of Washington DC, one of the most liberal cities in the US.

Dr. Mordrid

[Brian R.]

I think the issue is procedures, not legality.

[cjolley]

He ruled on the arrest being legal, not that the law made any sense whatsoever. The voters will take care of that ruling. Also note that this law is from The Peoples Republic of Washington DC, one of the most liberal cities in the US.

Dr. Mordrid

This is still a non-sequitur.

The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated...

He did rule that the law and the arrest it was based on were "reasonable" under the 4Th ammendment.

What do you want to bet that when it comes to the "personhood" of corporations he (and Scalia and Thomas) drops his original intent "principles" in favor of something more practical to his former clients interests.

[Dr Mordrid]

Sigh.....

Once a violation where arrest is mandated takes place it's entirely reasonable for the police to handcuff, restrain, remove belts & shoe strings etc. for the safety of the police officers and the prisoner.

As stated previously the real problem here is a stupid law that mandates arrest for extremely minor offenses.

Dr. Mordrid

[cjolley]

Oh for crying in the night

We are talking about the seizure of her person not her shoe strings.
Nobody give a flying f*** about her cloths.

The ruling was not about the procedures in her arrest.
It was about the constitutionality of the arrest it's self and the law it was based on.
And he thought it was fine because he channeled the minds of some 200 year old dead guys and saw that that it would have been ok with them.
In other words, he ruled in favor of the police* because he wanted to.

If the constitution does not protect us from a law that gets us trotted off to jail for eating a french fry what the hell good is it?


[edit]
* or more to the point, the law the police arrested her under.

[Dr Mordrid]

Technically this local ordinance is legal, the problem is that it's BAD LAW. It isn't the only one either. In fact it's a minor annoyance compared to some of 'em.

Dr. Mordrid

[cjolley]

Technically this local ordinance is legal...

That's not the tune you were singing when the very similar ruling about eminent domain came out a short time ago

I think they are both stupid rulings that ignore the fact that the main reason for having a constitution and judicial branch in the first place is to protect us from the excesses of the legislative and executive branches.

[edit]Please ignor my spelling.[/edit]

[Gurm]

Hell, the city of Boston just last month did away with a 200-year-old local law forbidding "Red Indians" from coming within the city limits, on pain of mandatory arrest and imprisonment!

[cjolley]

That was considered OK in the 1790s, so I guess it is constitutional.

[Jessterw]

Sad.

Apparently common sense and a sense of decency is entirely lacking in this case. The circumstances that occurred after her arrest would have been warranted in any number of given cases; however, such actions taken against her would never have been required had there been some restraint shown on the part of the police. Honestly, arresting a young girl for eating a french fry? A warning or some sort of fine I could understand by a stretch, but not treating someone like a criminal in this manner.

If the girl had been warned and then reacted violently (or resisted) upon being arrested for failure to comply, then this would be another story.

Any judge with an ounce of decency would have ruled that partaking of a french fry in an area where no eating is allowed, was a far cry from anything that should have resulted in the subsequent harassment that young girl faced.