Reply #40: Why are you presenting this as an "either-or?"

[caseymoz]

I can't believe it is alleged here that any liberal who is not really an anarchist can read this case and possibly think IDing the guy, the homeowner, and finding out he was a child molester would have been a "heavy handed search, or a "violation of rights."

I can't believe the sheriff's office can possibly make an argument that they didn't ID him because they were respecting his rights, or because they were afraid of lawsuits. If they ID'd him, put together he was child molester with unidentified children living on his property, found out he was on parole, and then decided they couldn't search, I'd call that being afraid of lawsuits. Otherwise, I just laugh in the face of anybody who tries to say this.

I can't believe that, getting a warrant on an anonymous tip and kicking down somebody's door, pinning them to the floor with a gun their ear, planting contraband when none is actually found, and then using that as an excuse to seize his house as forfeited assets is in any way presented as the opposite part of that spectrum.

The difference is not of fear or lack of fear of lawsuits, the difference is between laziness and corruption. Their assurance to the woman that they couldn't search because they don't have a warrant was bullshit to begin with. They hadn't done even the basic, non-invasive, boilerplate work that could have determined if there was anything to get a warrant for, they didn't legally need one to begin with, and they had no intention of "watching" the guy as the sheriff said.

It isn't a matter of police being afraid of lawsuits. How about just some honesty, professionalism and work?