Man Wins Partial Victory In Circuit City Arrest 788
JeremyDuffy writes "Michael Righi, the man who was arrested at Circuit City for failing to show his reciept/driver's license, has fought a moral battle against the city for almost a month now. The case has already been settled and he emerged victorious... sort of. It turns out that he's already spent almost $7500 and would have kept fighting them too, but because his family would have been dragged into it, he was forced to take a deal. They've expunged his record and dropped all charges, but he had to give up his right to sue the city to do it."
wrong? (Score:4, Insightful)
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
But when they put them in a hard to access location on a freeway support, they went way over the line. The only way to handle that is to shutdown tr
Re:wrong? (Score:4, Insightful)
Re: (Score:3, Funny)
Did you have them flown in? (Of course you probably live near a border, but it sounded funny in my head).
Re:Why not cooperate? (Score:5, Insightful)
Your post makes the baby 5th amendment cry.
Re:Why not cooperate? (Score:4, Informative)
Carter v. Kentucky [justia.com]
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
There are many things the constitution doesn't explicitly state. That's what we have the judiciary for. They interpret the law. Griffin v. California was the case that determined the prosecution may not use your refusal to take the stand against you. The supreme court relied on their interpretation of the fourth, fifth and fourteenth amendments to arrive at this opinion.
I know y
Something to hide (Score:5, Insightful)
If a person replies as AC, does that mean they have something to hide? Or does it mean that there's an expectation of privacy in going about your business.
Re:Why not cooperate? (Score:5, Insightful)
Another moral of the story: insecure people wearing an uniform because it gives them a sense of power will fly off the handle if they feel their authority is in any way challenged. It isn't the question of being suspicious, it's the question of threatening the policeman's delusions of grandeur.
Q: Why not cooperate? A: Because I am free. (Score:5, Insightful)
I find it sad that we have become so timid, in this country, that we are willing to tolerate this type of activity by the police. While the officer in question might have thought himself justified in making such a demand, and then enforced his wrongheaded belief with the authority we have granted him , he was wrong and should be called to account for it. We have given the police special powers, because it is necessary for them to do their job. I realize it is a very hard and thankless job; it does not pay well, and is often looked upon with scorn. But, that is something which must be accepted when a person chooses to become a police officer. Along with that, there must come an added level of responsibility to use the powers granted by the people, in an appropriate fashion. Any abuse of those powers, no matter how slight, must be punished. This is were we, as a society, are failing to uphold our rights, and will lose them eventually; we not only allow abuses such as these to go unpunished, we have people who encourage it. The AC who posted the idiocy of, "Why not cooperate?" is complicit is the destruction of our rights. He would give over his personal sovereignty to the police because it is easier. Freedom and Liberty are not easy, they are hard, but they are worth the constant struggle. He may think that having the police rule his life will make him safer, but time and again history has shown us that this is not the case. Governments given absolute sovereignty over their citizens do not long remain benign, and usually lead to tyranny and abuses far greater than the constant annoyance of crime.
Liberty requires that each of us take responsibility for ourselves. This includes accepting a certain level of risk from criminals who may abuse their freedom. This means that you will be responsible for protecting and caring for yourself. In then end, you must ask yourself whether it is better to die on your feet or live on your knees.
Patrick Henry said it best:
I know not what course others make take, but as for me: give me Liberty, or give me death.
Re: (Score:3)
Praising other posts (Score:5, Funny)
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
When do we stop? Anarchy? (Score:3, Insightful)
Yes, with anarchy, ie without a ruler or rulers. Instead each person is sovereign.
FalconRe: (Score:3, Informative)
Re:wrong? (Score:4, Interesting)
Exactly. If they see a person stealing, stuffing something into their bag, pants, socks etc... they have a reason to search you and follow up with a citizens arrest. The reason stores have begun searching the bags on the way out is to be sure their employee (the cashier) is not a friend (or taking a kickback) to help you steal the item. This is the stores problem and the solution is not to pretend they have the right to search and detain you. They have the onus of proving you have stolen something. You are not required to prove that you did not. By that logic, they could ask for proof of purchase of any item on your person (assuming the store actually carries said item).
I personally will not shop anywhere where the policy is to search customers on the way out. It's not my responsibility to help them manage their own employees. I'm not a cow and have no intention of giving an inch where constitutional rights are concened.
Re:wrong? (Score:4, Insightful)
Re:You know what would have been REALLY cheap, tho (Score:3)
(PS: Refriend me.)
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
You cannot hold him (kidnapping), search his person, force him to give the products back(theft), or otherwise harrass a person lawfully attempting to exit your property.
In general, you can require whatver you want of people to stay on your property, but the only enforcement you can do is asking them to leave. In this case
Can you imagine... (Score:5, Funny)
Re:Can you imagine... (Score:5, Funny)
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
I never - never ever - show my receipt to the door nazis (they really are called that!) at frys, CC, BB, etc. I keep on walking and never have I been stopped. I look the other way, I ignore them - they ask 'for my papers' and I keep walking. never an issue.
you HAVE the right to just leave and ignore the pimply teenagers at the door. they're a joke and have no real authority.
just keep walking. it works. (and its almost fun, in a way).
Well they did silence you... (Score:5, Insightful)
And by doing so she effectively did silence you and the Brooklyn, OH police department and city will not have a blemish on their record because one of their officers acted like an uninformed dick.
It's an unfortunate situation where you still have to pay out when you are completely in the right.
Re:Well they did silence you... (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:Well they did silence you... (Score:5, Insightful)
It's my responsibility to know what I can't do.
Therefore it is the police's responsibility to know what they can't fucking arrest me for, and the cop's ass should be on the line if they get it wrong. Mine certainly is if I fail in my duty, since the result is a cop arresting me, probably knocking me around a bit in the process, and backing their authority with deadly force. That's hardly trivial, so misapplication of this kind of force should be severely punished. Fine the fuckers, and fire them then throw their asses in jail if they do it repeatedly.
yes sir! (Score:3, Interesting)
As my old mate said... (Score:5, Insightful)
This headline needs rewriting as "Man wins Pyrrhic Victory". $7500 worse off and he didn't even get an apology. Hell, if he'd actually been shoplifting he'd have got a smaller fine than that.
Citizen Review Boards (Score:5, Insightful)
It will solve many problems and make cops stop and think before doing something stupid - especially with all the news lately about abuses of power and authority.
Internal reviews are useless and don't change a thing. If some kind of "policing for police" isn't done soon, it's only going to get much worse.
Re:Citizen Review Boards (Score:5, Interesting)
My city (Omaha) hired an police auditor. Then when she released a report saying that the police were overly rude to black people at traffic stops, she got fired. It's been almost a year now and we still don't have any public review of the police. It's damn frightening.
nice (Score:2, Informative)
He caved and basically has done nothing to prove the system wrong. he was so gung ho about not showing his licensee because it was a law and his right YET he has no spine to follow through cause his family might suffer?
News break: Your family is already suffering from it. Do you believe in what you did? Then sue the city. Oh it was all show, just wanted your 15 mins, and w
Re: (Score:2)
Rights are nice to have. It's even nicer to exercise them. When it really counts.
Has anyone ever heard the phrase, "Cut off your nose to spite your face?"
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
Re:nice (Score:4, Informative)
If that wasn't a factor I'm sure he'd've kept fighting.
Personally, I don't even see why they'd need to get involved, but the prosecutor probably is hoping for a victory on delay and cash rather than just lose on merit early on.
so what was the victory? (Score:5, Interesting)
The PhoneDot effect (Score:5, Interesting)
Of course it was more a joke than a reality, but as time grew, we found that hundreds of people calling businesses and police departments inquiring about "Any new information?" was a great way to get things fixed. I can recall one incident with Circuit City (of all places!) where the managers on duty received nearly 200 phone calls a day from "media inquiries" relating to a direct lie from a sales person to one of our group. It only took 2 weeks of "Any new information" for the company to back down and repair the situation, at which point there was no more news to cover.
Now I know harassment is a "crime," but why isn't there a site like phonedot.org? Instead of the slashdot effect, you can have the phonedot effect. Give it digg like capabilities so bloggers and other media contributors can vote up or down various customer service issues, and then let these thousands or hundreds of thousands of bloggers make their calls to see if there is "Any new information?" until the issue is settled.
When my previous city refused to get rid of the city sticker for vehicles, I typed up a newsletter and printed 30,000 of them to distribute. The newsletter had every phone number of every city official (home, work, cell). It only took 2 months of massive phone inquiries for the city council to end the city sticker harassment, and I think it was a net gain for those who called to inquire. Fight idiotic harassment with idiotic harassment.
Re:The PhoneDot effect (Score:5, Funny)
A highly illegal variation of that is to note the license plate number of a personal enemy and then place "concerned citizen" calls from phone booths near public schools. Give a different name each time and say that you see a suspicious person (give description of enemy's appearance) loitering around an elementary school. Provide license plate number. Of course, if you get caught you'll go to jail but it's such a funny prank that the other inmates might be willing to skip the forcible sodomy in light of the chuckle you gave them.
Re:The PhoneDot effect (Score:4, Interesting)
1. You get harassed by a company or a public official.
2. You post your details about the harassment, as well as any contact information by the harasser, as well as any proof of the harassment (video, audio, photos, receipts, etc).
3. People review the harassment, make initial phone calls to check on it, etc.
4. Harassments are moderated up or down, reviews are moderated up or down. Negative poster karma is displayed (people who lie, post their ex-girlfriend's contact info, etc).
5. Top harassments on each page get the most response from the site visitors. Maybe Michael Righi's case brings 10,000 phone calls a day to the Brookfield, OH police department, and every manager's home and cell phone per day. Issue solved.
I recall when Ron Paul (sorry, had to bring it up) was going to be uninvited from Michigan's GOP gatherings. All it took was a few thousands phone calls a day to get that resolved in a matter of days. Sounds like an excellent way to use one official's negative service to the public's advantage.
The real lesson here (Score:2, Insightful)
How is it a partial victory? (Score:4, Insightful)
He should have held out for legal fees. (Score:2)
Victory? (Score:5, Insightful)
Giving up rights (Score:2)
Probably Still Has Cause Against Circuit City (Score:2)
It would depend on the shoplifting laws in Ohio, of course, but he should at least ask his attorney about it.
Tow things are clear to me (Score:2)
Second, his family's convenience is more important to them than he is. That's not admirable at all.
Now, sue (Score:2)
He should also sue the city under 42 USC 1983 for violating his civil rights. The agreement he was forced to sign, putporting to waive his right to sue the city in exchange for not being criminally prosecuted, is unconscionable and is tantamount to extortion.
I Salute Him (Score:5, Insightful)
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
And reality sets in.. (Score:5, Insightful)
It's great to be able to have the ready cash to spend to help defend your rights when they're infringed upon.
Unfortunately, there are other pain-points that can be hit by authorities to make you comply with their wishes.
Lengthy court battles are the root of it. Sure, YOU may not mind taking all that time off work, and spending all that money.
But what about the people you have to drag into it (witnesses, family, etc)?
Moreover, they rely on apathy.
At the time, the anger and outrage are hot enough to barbecue whole cattle.
But, as time goes on, that anger cools. And it becomes harder and harder to keep oneself motivated.
The authorities know this. And time is on their side, ESPECIALLY since they've got the deep pockets to back it up.
Arrest them all, let the lawyers sort it out (Score:3)
A real police state would bring everyone in for questioning at least once a year and random times in between just for questioning, just in case they had done something wrong. Yeah, that's the ticket.*
* Note for the humor impaired, yes, this is satire.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
I would add that it is his job to know the law and to be able to notify you of laws you have broken before/while detaining you. As such, if he is unable to notify you of the laws you have violated then he is negligent in his duties and has insufficient training to hold such a position of authority.
Ethical? (Score:5, Interesting)
That's on shaky ground ethically speaking
(A) A lawyer shall not present, participate in presenting, or threaten to present criminal charges solely to obtain an advantage in a civil matter.
(A) A public prosecutor or other government lawyer shall not institute or cause to be instituted criminal charges when he knows or it is obvious that the charges are not supported by probable cause.
great way when they ask for your reciepts! (Score:5, Funny)
The next time you are in a checkout where they check for reciepts at the door, wad it up and stick it down your pants when they give it to you. When you get to the door and they ask for it, be obvious about the fact that it is down there and retrieve it but don't unwad it. I think it is unlikely that they will take it from you and unwad it. At that point you can ask if they have any more requests and be on your merry way!
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
I thought the point of this whole thing is that it's equally as unlawful
This is the justice system in America. (Score:5, Insightful)
Combine this with absolutely zero options or oversight from the citizenry and you already have a recipe for disaster.
A cop will therefore hassle a citizen based on a combination of hazy understanding of the law, bad mood, and whether or not he approves of the citizen's attitude. The charge is usually, in the grand scheme of things, fairly minor, but enough to cause a serious headache for the victim. For many things, an arrest will be involved, along with jailtime, bond money, and the embarassment of having to call friends and family to get you out, not to mention the retrieval of whatever confiscated or impounded property -- and the money involved in getting that back.
This is justice in America.
Your court date will roll around and you'll plead not guilty. A trial date will be set, meaning you'll have to schedule your life around that, and try to get a lawyer to help. The average person isn't expected to fully understand the law, because it's so nuanced and convoluted, which is why defense attorneys with years of specialized training exist. The average person is expected to fully abide by the law he doesn't understand, though, which may suggest a problem with the system, but nobody will question it during this process.
On your trial date you'll speak to some self-important prosecutor or solicitor who acts on behalf of the government. He'll treat your minor case like it's the crime of the century. Depending on your demeanor he may offer a deal of some sort, which usually entails you pleading guilty to a somewhat lessor offense. What he probably won't tell you is that if you reject this offer, and make him go through the hassle of an actual trial, he'll push for the maximum possible punishment the law allows, regardless of any circumstances up to that point.
This is justice in America.
If you take his deal, you've just pleaded guilty to an offense you may not have even committed, and is probably something so stupid no one should care even if you did do it, but you're intimidated into the plea by his legal jargon and the fact that, as an average Joe, you don't have the time, money, or resources devoted to fighting it. You'll pay a few hundred dollars in fines and be on your way, with an arrest record, a criminal history, and completely out the hundreds you spent for the bond, the fine, the impound, the attorney, and anything else. The state will pat itself on the back for a job well done for cleaning up the mean streets of dangerous scum like you.
If you don't take his deal you'll be put on trial. For minor offenses you may not even get a jury of twelve average Joes who will sympathize with you; the state has found a loophole and called this an "administrative matter", meaning you'll get tried by a judge, who will claim to be impartial but is on the state's payroll and has a vested interest in making sure things turn out in the state's favor, not to mention his clouded view of every person who appears before him as a criminal.
The judge will ignore everything you say, and your attorney will be mostly powerless since the time for deal-making is over and all he can do is try to object to the prosection's evidence. There will be little evidence to which he can object, though, since for most minor offenses there aren't any significant witnesses or material bits of evidence. Nothing but the policeman's word and charge on the books, often, and this will be taken as wholly sufficient to pronounce you guilty, whereupon you'll pay a huge fine, face possible jail time, and be in worse shape than you had you just meekly submitted instead of trying to assert your rig
Re: (Score:2)
sorry if that offends you, but cops and the whole LE racket stopped existing to 'protect and serve' decades ago
they're now their own power-force and one that intends to keep growing in power. read up on the 'dont taser me, bro!' news story if you doubt the police state we now live in.
Re: (Score:2)
Here is a clue: When asked to leave, leave. When the police show up and ask you to leave, leave. Don't resist arrest.
Please, do not give me some example that is way off in left field. Yes, there is a time for social disobedience, this was not it, nor was this the way to do it.
There is a reason the best forms of social disobedience is public and involve people just sitting and needing to be physical dragged away, without fighting.
I don't
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
And if he does resist arrest, taser him over and over. Make sure you order him to stand up, at the same time you're leaning on him, especially since the function of tasers is to make your muscles not obey you.
It's not the jackbooted thugs that bother me so much as their cheerleaders.
Re: (Score:2)
Oh please, that kid was a dick who was asking to get tasered by his behavior and actions. It only seems outrageous when you look at it on the surface. When you look into the background / detailed information, he had it coming. Hell, if I was there, I would have volunteered to taser the a-hole myself! That's not saying that the police handled the situation well (the entire incident was handled poorly IMHO,) but this
Re:This guy is an idiot (Score:4, Insightful)
Re:This guy is an idiot (Score:5, Insightful)
the guy had balls to stand up for WHAT IS RIGHT and you criticize him for doing what is right over a few dollars (that won't matter in a couple of years)?
when we put money and personal comfort up against all other Rights of society, we are phucked, truly.
I'm proud of that guy. I would call him 'friend' if I knew him.
Re: (Score:2, Informative)
Circuit city still asks to see your receipt, and cops still ask for you identification, and still take you to jail when you aren't being cooperative. This guy has done nothing for our freedoms, except reminded us that we have the freedom to start flame wars over unimportant stories like this.
Re:This guy is an idiot (Score:5, Insightful)
Checking the PDF version of the release [michaelrighi.com] that he uploaded, it specifically mentions that incident. It also includes some vague "anything before this" text. Likely to make sure all legal loopholes are closed. (For example, if Righi claimed that the officer had verbally threatened him with arrest the previous day.) It doesn't, however, say anything about subsequent incidents. Even if the same officer were to arrest him outside of the same Circuit City under similar circumstances in the future, this agreement wouldn't prevent him from suing the city.
Re: (Score:3)
He waived his right to sue the city over this particular incident. He most certainly can sue them if it happens again.
Re: (Score:2)
You didn't even give THAT much and you're calling him a jerk?
Screw you, coward (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:One question... (Score:4, Insightful)
Looking through your other posts, you're obviously no friend of civil liberties. A cursory glance shows you arguing in favor trial-free detention of non-Americans. Why your thinly veiled propaganda gets modded up is a mystery to me.
"I know it's not as "hot" as some of the stuff they've been trying to keep to lately, but c'mon."
What a piss-poor attempt at slander. You try to pass off things like the right to a trial, or the right not to be tortured, as "hot" issues -- as if they're not serious. What else can be said?
Perhaps, but he does have a good point. (Score:2)
Working hard (Score:2, Informative)
They are simultaneously fighting many cases on many fronts. They only have so many people on staff, with so many hours in the day. If they are to fight more cases, they need to hire more people, which costs money.
So, they can only do as much good as they are paid to do, and they have to pick the biggest issues (like challenges to the PATRIOT act itself, over specific infringements for specific individuals).
If you want them to do more, pay them more.
Why Would ACLU Take This? (Score:3, Informative)
Read the blog post. The guy claims to have the resources to pay for his own defense, and more importantly, the case would establish no new legal precedent (there are already two Ohio precedents that cover this situation).
The ACLU has zero reason to waste their limited resources on this case.
Re:Why Would ACLU Take This? (Score:5, Insightful)
Ya, what an asshole, standing up for his rights against a cop that BROKE THE LAW or a store that does the same.
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
Bullshite! The only obligation a customer has to prevent shoplifting is to pay for the items that they remove from the store. Once the transaction is made, the merchandise becomes his private property. The clerk at the door has no more right to demand to see his receipt and merchandise than he has to demand a
Re:Why Would ACLU Take This? (Score:4, Insightful)
A 'poor kid' would have never had the time/resources to fight this, he would have forked over his ID, and took it because he had to. It takes someone who has the resources to take one for the little guy so that future people won't get the same treatment. The poor kid has to worry about paying for his food/rent and can't afford to spend time defending his rights. Sadly, that's just the way it is.
Also note that this 'rich kid' had to cut it short because he wasn't rich enough to let it all play out. That should be telling.
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
The city already let the first set of criminals go free, all they're doing is asking for equal treatment.
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
Re:One question... (Score:4, Insightful)
So really, we have three incidents:
Racist(s) put nooses on tree.
Idiot Racist points gun at people.
Six thugs beat up one guy, and at least one has a history.
Then they try and justify their beating of someone UNINVOLVED in the previous two (by all evidence) because of the previous two.
If six white kids beat up a black kid, people would call it a hate crime -- ESPECIALLY if there was some anti-white "prank" at school three months before. It would be presented as "White kids, angered by anti-white display, beat unrelated black kid."
Instead, it's "Their poor feelings were hurt, so these six black kids ganged up on some random white kid, and that's okay, because there was some racism three months before!"
Attempted Murder for a beating? Not cool. (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:Attempted Murder for a beating? Not cool. (Score:5, Insightful)
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
With that said, the racial tensions need to be ignored when looking at the current case. Someone was beaten by 6 others. That was a crime and those 6 others should be charged. Supporting the 6 who did the beating makes no sense to me. Are we saying it's okay to beat down someone? Is vigilante ju
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
The problem is the disparate set of charges that are leveled when a white person commits a crime and when a black person commits a crime.
Re:Attempted Murder for a beating? Not cool. (Score:4, Informative)
While I'd be up for beating the hell out of any little snotty racist asshole that would hang nooses in a tree in an attempt to intimidate an entire group of people, I have to acknowledge the facts. And these facts are that:
1) These were unrelated incidents that occurred FOUR MONTHS APART.
2) Hanging a noose in a tree is not the same as beating someone up and sending them to the hospital.
3) The legal requirements for charging a youth (not an adult) with a non-violent "hate-crime" is far higher than charging a youth for assault and battery.
So we need to establish that these two events were NOT RELATED. So stop using the results of one to justify the desired results of the other.
Now, after we have done that -- let's look at what reportedly happened that landed these black kids in prison: The white kid was at a gas station and felt threatened by the black kids. So, instead of leaving the scene to avoid a conflict, he went to his truck, pulled out a shotgun and then returned, where they promptly beat his stupid ass.
Now, if some hick went to his vehicle and came back to me with a shotgun (especially in an area where I felt intimidated and threatened routinely because of my skin color), I would surely defend myself by beating his ass and disarming him before waiting to see if he intended to blow my fucking skull clean off my spine.
So should the kids be released? I believe so. But not because of ANYTHING relating to the supposed hypocrisy of the noose-tree incident.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Simply because of that I don't approve of him being released. He's clearly a violent person an
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
As long as the positive side effects still occur.. (Score:2)
Haliburton profits from destroying WMDs..I mean from stopping Saddam's nuke plans..I mean from luring Al-Quieda to Iraq, I mean they profit from bringing Iraq Democracy and Peace.
Why can't the ACLU profit from securing our rights as citizens by wining precedent-setting court cases?
Re: (Score:3, Funny)
What's "hypocrite" about Larry Craig? Did he ask the undercover officer to (same-sex) marry him?
Re:hey folks (Score:5, Insightful)
You, personally, are what's wrong with the world today.
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
You are illiterate and/or lying. The infringement of rights did not come from being asked for a receipt, nor did Righi claim that. It came from being illegally detained for not showing the receipt (which he was under no obligati
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
They do have a right to stop shoplifting. For your protection, this right does not include detaining anyone they think might be shoplifting. If they observe you shoplifting (which requi
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
If the guy feels that it's a fight that's worth having, then it is. Sure it would be easier to show his receipt and have no hassle. But sometimes people decide that this time it's worth it to put forth the effort and not do the easiest thing.
Here's an example: There's a guy on Slashdot who thinks that the whole Circuit City thing was excessively escalated by some guy just basically being
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
I really hope that there aren't many people
Two of my least favorite sayings in one quote (Score:5, Insightful)
Saying: "He must have a lot of time on his hands". Translation: "I don't approve of how you spend your time."
Saying: "You've gotta pick your battles". Translation: "I've gotta pick your battles."
Talk about "snobbish".
Re:I respectfully disagree (Score:5, Insightful)
A store has a right to protect its property and eject people from its premises. They have no rights concerning someone else's property nor their mobility. They should have written down his license plate number and let the police do the policing.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Now, you can refuse whatever search you find unreasonable, of course (theirs was not unreasonable, IMO). In that case they can try to prevent you from leaving their property (store, parking lot) -- see Citizen Arrest, and take all responsibility for the wrongful arrest.
Incorrect. They do not have the right to sea
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
For the record, this is the fourth amendment to the US constitution:
Notice that this amendment does not in any way restrict only the activities of the state; it does not say ".
He didn't deserve any of this (Score:4, Insightful)
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)