>>Not in courts in the USA. hmmm I wonder if that is why I stated "SHOULD BE" not that is was. Clearly the indication was that I believe the current position

>>Not in courts in the USA. hmmm I wonder if that is why I stated "SHOULD BE" not that is was. Clearly the indication was that I believe the current position by the court system is wrong, and that we have allowed law enforcement to much latitude in this area. That we as a society to seek to more tightly control what law enforcement is allowed to do in the name of "law and order", then maybe we would not have the clear abuse of power we see on the streets every day. >>If we allow law enforcement to break some laws legally, they aren't breaking the law. Again words matter, clearly I should SHOULD NOT, again indicating my bleif that there should not be exemptions in the law for law enforcement like they have today. We as a society would suffer far less abuse from law enforcement if we did not create a separate class of individual called "law enforcement" that we exempt from the laws that everyone else has to obey. Again to be clear this is a position I believe society SHOULD adopt, not that I believe it has, thus commenting "well under the law today...." is pointless as that is not the conversation. I am fully aware that today we do exempt law enforcement from the very laws they are to enforce upon others. I find that to be unethical and untenable >>It's against the law for you to break my laptop to pieces, but it's not against to law for me to break my laptop to pieces. That is a ridiculous analogy, that that then some how conclude that we are all property of the government, and by extension law enforcement? That some how property rights apply to abuses by government agent? Really?