Originally Posted by ArtyGuy
While I don't agree with the arrest, I don't see how they are going to argue it is in violation of the 3rd Amendment. Police aren't Soldier-- it' my understanding the reason for the amendment was for something very different. It'll be interesting to see how the lawyer(s) argue it.
Militarization of the police. Surplussed military equipment. More LEOs have military background. Rank structure. LE wear uniforms, including combat styled boots. Use of military terminology. DHS getting delivery of 2.7 billion rounds of small arms ammo since January 1 of this year. Expanded/common use of blue coloured roof lights on police cars indicating merger of UN practices (traditionally, U.S. LE/first reponders only used red and white lights).
Probably many more indicia that I missed.
There are at least two sides to every story. I just heard yours and, indeed, you appear to be the victim. But I can't stop wondering what the other side has to say.
Oh, g-d, if only LEOs can be indemnified from willfully ignoring the stupid!
Last edited by Patchman; 07-08-2013 at 16:36..