4 ms·

Court: No, You May Not Force Your Way into a Home and Strip Search Six Children

53 points by 4ad 6y ago

java-man 6y ago
I cannot even find words how revolting this is. As we develop various technical solutions, and keep discussing merits of this or that javascript framework, let's keep in mind that the technology we develop may end up in the hands of the people described in the article. Or this might have happened already.
mindslight 6y ago
Just a friendly reminder that if this crime had been committed by two people not wearing state-costumes, they both would be getting prosecuted for 6 counts of sexual assault of a minor. Our justice system has been taken over by criminals, and they are using it to act out their own sick fantasies that have little to do with justice.
- spicybright 6y ago
  Don't worry, the two individuals will totally be punished fairly for molesting 6 children. Glad the system works, right? /s
Mirioron 6y ago
Would the woman have been legally justified to defend herself and the children? Or was her only legal option to stand there and let the abuse happen?
- tssva 6y ago
  Legally she could have never let them enter the house. Once inside she could have legally stopped the searches at anytime and required both the officer and social worker to leave her home. What she could do legally matters little when two government officials, one armed, told her that exercising her legal rights would result in them returning with a court order to take her children.
- jwineinger 6y ago
  Against an armed deputy? I don't see that ending well
phobosanomaly 6y ago
What on earth was in the social worker's head leading up to this? Is there some context that doesn't justify, but maybe explains the situation? Is it just as simple as a bully arbitrarily abusing a position of power?
pmiller2 6y ago
> This is so much of a violation the court doesn't even have to look for precedent. Right here is the key sentence of the article. Normally, in cases involving qualified immunity, the circumstances have to match up more or less exactly with some precedent in order for qualified immunity to be denied. So, if officers break into someone's place and steal/seize money and rare coins, without justification, as happened recently, when faced with a precedent about officers seizing money alone, the Court might conclude that qualified immunity applies. Once qualified immunity applies, that effectively kills the case. The worst part about this is that means the case can't become the specific precedent that the Court is looking for. This is why qualified immunity is terribly constructed: there is no way for the Court to say "You did the wrong thing, but you didn't know, so you had qualified immunity. But, next time someone does that, they should know better."
deleted 6y ago
[deleted]

53 points by 4ad 6y ago

I cannot even find words how revolting this is. As we develop various technical solutions, and keep discussing merits of this or that javascript framework, let's keep in mind that the technology we develop may end up in the hands of the people described in the article. Or this might have happened already.

mindslight 6y ago

Just a friendly reminder that if this crime had been committed by two people not wearing state-costumes, they both would be getting prosecuted for 6 counts of sexual assault of a minor. Our justice system has been taken over by criminals, and they are using it to act out their own sick fantasies that have little to do with justice.

spicybright 6y ago
Don't worry, the two individuals will totally be punished fairly for molesting 6 children. Glad the system works, right? /s

Mirioron 6y ago

Would the woman have been legally justified to defend herself and the children? Or was her only legal option to stand there and let the abuse happen?

tssva 6y ago
Legally she could have never let them enter the house. Once inside she could have legally stopped the searches at anytime and required both the officer and social worker to leave her home. What she could do legally matters little when two government officials, one armed, told her that exercising her legal rights would result in them returning with a court order to take her children.
jwineinger 6y ago
Against an armed deputy? I don't see that ending well

phobosanomaly 6y ago

What on earth was in the social worker's head leading up to this? Is there some context that doesn't justify, but maybe explains the situation? Is it just as simple as a bully arbitrarily abusing a position of power?

pmiller2 6y ago

> This is so much of a violation the court doesn't even have to look for precedent. Right here is the key sentence of the article. Normally, in cases involving qualified immunity, the circumstances have to match up more or less exactly with some precedent in order for qualified immunity to be denied. So, if officers break into someone's place and steal/seize money and rare coins, without justification, as happened recently, when faced with a precedent about officers seizing money alone, the Court might conclude that qualified immunity applies. Once qualified immunity applies, that effectively kills the case. The worst part about this is that means the case can't become the specific precedent that the Court is looking for. This is why qualified immunity is terribly constructed: there is no way for the Court to say "You did the wrong thing, but you didn't know, so you had qualified immunity. But, next time someone does that, they should know better."

deleted 6y ago

[deleted]