|
Post by mommy0608 on Dec 21, 2006 17:39:19 GMT -5
|
|
|
Post by mrsp on Dec 21, 2006 17:44:13 GMT -5
Sure sounds like unreasonable search and seizure to me.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Dec 21, 2006 17:50:51 GMT -5
BS, get the friggin bullet and test it. It needs to be removed anyway...no illegal search and seizure at all.
|
|
|
Post by mommy0608 on Dec 21, 2006 17:51:32 GMT -5
Sure sounds like unreasonable search and seizure to me. That is what I was thinking but then again.....what do I know.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Dec 21, 2006 17:53:27 GMT -5
If the guy has a bullet in his head, a crime has been committed and the police have every right to investigate it...that bullet is evidence, period.
Why would this punk or his attorney object to it unless he was guilty of the robbery?
|
|
|
Post by OldHippieDude on Dec 21, 2006 17:54:35 GMT -5
It puts him at a slight risk of death from anesthesia, so I'd say no to it for that reason alone. Yeah, I think it's crosses the line into "unreasonable."
Peace,
OHD
|
|
|
Post by mommy0608 on Dec 21, 2006 17:54:59 GMT -5
BS, get the friggin bullet and test it. It needs to be removed anyway...no illegal search and seizure at all. Okay, for arguements sake ;D ........(I don't think that this is the case hear....at least they didn't say so but). What if the surgery had the potential to be life threatening? The bullet isn't hurting anything where it is it seems.
|
|
|
Post by mrsp on Dec 21, 2006 17:55:37 GMT -5
It needs to be removed anyway I didn't see that in the article. Lots of times bullets are left right where they are because its doing no harm. If forcing someone to have surgery they don't need or want doesn't count as unreasonable search and seizure I don't know what does. That is a dangerous precident IMO. I do not want to gubbermint to have the right to force anyone to have surgery becasue they "think" it might prove something.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Dec 21, 2006 17:56:23 GMT -5
It puts him at a slight risk of death from anesthesia, so I'd say no to it for that reason alone. Yeah, I think it's crosses the line into "unreasonable." Peace, OHD Oh BS, that faces anyone having anesthesia, including my son tomorrow morning. That's no reason to prevent the police from investigating a serious crime...that's nonsense.
|
|
|
Post by mrsp on Dec 21, 2006 17:57:03 GMT -5
If the guy has a bullet in his head, a crime has been committed and the police have every right to investigate it...that bullet is evidence, period. Why would this punk or his attorney object to it unless he was guilty of the robbery? I would object to the state telling me I have to have surgery I do not want or need. THe fact that there is a bullet there prove he got shot nothing more. Its not proof of a crime at this point.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Dec 21, 2006 17:58:01 GMT -5
It needs to be removed anyway I didn't see that in the article. Lots of times bullets are left right where they are because its doing no harm. If forcing someone to have surgery they don't need or want doesn't count as unreasonable search and seizure I don't know what does. That is a dangerous precident IMO. I do not want to gubbermint to have the right to force anyone to have surgery becasue they "think" it might prove something. A lump on his head? Oh please, there is no way it shouldn't be removed. If it was lodged in his brain maybe you'd have a point...this is just under the skin, that's nonsense.
|
|
|
Post by OldHippieDude on Dec 21, 2006 17:59:45 GMT -5
If the guy has a bullet in his head, a crime has been committed and the police have every right to investigate it...that bullet is evidence, period. Why would this punk or his attorney object to it unless he was guilty of the robbery? There is a distinct, however remote chance that it got there some other way, Grumps. A pissed off friend could have shot him or he may have botched a suicide. Isn't that what it's all about? Giving the accused the benefit of the doubt? Peace, OHD
|
|
|
Post by mrsp on Dec 21, 2006 18:01:54 GMT -5
this is just under the skin With bone growing around it. Its been there long enough for new bone to form so no, its not as simple as its just sitting under the skin. And if bone is growing around it, yup, it can stay right where it is without doing him any harm.
|
|
|
Post by OldHippieDude on Dec 21, 2006 18:02:53 GMT -5
It puts him at a slight risk of death from anesthesia, so I'd say no to it for that reason alone. Yeah, I think it's crosses the line into "unreasonable." Peace, OHD Oh BS, that faces anyone having anesthesia, including my son tomorrow morning. Going down a bunny trail, ..but my best to your son, GOM. I'm sure he'll be fine. Peace, OHD
|
|
|
Post by OldHippieDude on Dec 21, 2006 18:04:47 GMT -5
this is just under the skin With bone growing around it. Its been there long enough for new bone to form so no, its not as simple as its just sitting under the skin. And if bone is growing around it, yup, it can stay right where it is without doing him any harm. I think your exactly right, mrsp! Peace, OHD Peace, OHD
|
|