WSJ Con Freaks Out

[Rose Siding]

Noted in the wacky WaTimes:

"Did this week mark the first return steps to bipartisan sanity in the war on terror?" Wall Street Journal columnist Daniel Henninger asks.

"....And by helpful coincidence, the Supreme Court decided 9-0 in Brigham City v. Stuart that the police can make a warrantless entry into a home in which people are in imminent danger of physical harm.
As we all are now," Mr. Henninger said.

Since "we all are now" in danger, all warrantless entries should be ok?
Do professional freepers ever read what they write?

Um,

[MadMaddie]

1. I have to ask a question..

Why the Fuck are the Repulicans and Neocons so afraid of their shadows....Why aren't the Dems asking this question? Bad things happen..that's life....making more insane laws to take the rights of citizens is not going to make us safer....

[NanceGreggs]

4. I have to disagree.

"Making more insane laws to take the rights of citizens is not going to make us safer."

Sure they will. If we outlaw all public transportation, no one will ever die in a bus accident, or get mugged on the subway. We should get rid of private transportation at the same time; you can't be injured in a car accident or get run over if there are no cars.

So you have to walk everywhere now, but that's not safe either. You could be robbed on the way, or knocked down by an overly-zealous fellow pedestrian. You might sprain an ankle if you over-do it, or even suffer heat-stroke or frost-bite depending on the weather.

Once the above laws are in place, going to work will be difficult. But we should ban workplaces anyway. Thousands of people suffer workplace injuries every year - better safe than sorry. Besides, if nobody works, nobody has a pay check or money to spend. That will cut down on robberies and fraud, and identity theft will be a thing of the past.

We should all stay home, nice and safe - but how 'safe' is the average house in a hurricane, tornado, or flood? Better to find a nice solid cave somewhere, which is much more likely to survive an earthquake or other disaster.

So we all wind up living in caves, never venturing outside.

I think I've finally figured out where the Neocons and Republicans are leading this country ...

[mrcheerful]

5. Oh no laws that protect the wittle americans from harm real or imagined

are good things. At least they are safe in their Hummers and other 4,000 pound SUV's, reguardless of what experts say about the dangers in driving one are, they "feel" safe. Never mind that laws are meaningless to stop a crime, they are only after the fact so they can imprison people they deem unworthy of being in society. Oh yeah and lets make the laws real effective so the only ones who get imprisoned are the ones who can't afford the legal costs.

Mean while the rich and famous either get off scott free or serve very little time, but hey rich famous people don't committ crimes against the have nots so its ok. As long as americans have their lists of bad people to watch they are safe and have nothing to worry about. WE THE PEOPLE have nothing to fear except be afraid of everything and everyone, don't forget buckle up the lives you save can enrich the insurance companies CEO's.

[NYC]

2. We all are now?

Imminent danger of physical harm?

I wonder if that man lives in constant fear.

[primative1]

7. Constant Fear ...

It is entirely possible that he is in constant fear. I was scanning the stock market on Thursday when the report of gunfire at the capital broke and I was amazed at how quickly the indexes took a dive. Its like they live with their fingers on the trigger knowing that at any minute the jig might be up. Maybe this is the day, maybe the peasants have finally gathered up their pitchforks to storm the castle.

[NYC]

8. It has always been my belief

that the stock market is governed by rumor. Unexplained gunshots fit that category. (or unexplained elevator repair)

Welcome to DU. :hi:

[jaxx]

3. One more step towards the police state.

Your home is no longer your castle, it's an open door to the bastards who can't allow privacy.

[stopbush]

6. Rule #1: Just because a RW sez it doesn't make it so.

Remember that. It will save you a ton of angst.

[vixengrl]

9. I think we all know how likely it is that a terraist

is hiding in our bathroom right now. :eyes: And we will definitely need someone to come into our houses to remove said terraist before he uses the contents of our medicine cabinets against us. In a horrifying terraist act.

I mean, uh, not like the *main bathroom*. You know, like if you have one in your rec room, that you don't use all the time.

Somehow, I suspect that the ruling has more to do with issues where someone is screaming, literally, "Bloody murder!" and there appears to be an actual bloody murder in progress. I'm sure the criteria for imminent danger is certainly more stringent than Mr Henninger's. But it's a lot of faith in the judgement of the person making the call. I mean, we've all heard horror stories from the front of the "War on Drugs" where police, with a valid warrant, burst in and inadvertantly injure or even result in the deaths of perfectly innocent citizens due to a mistake. In a situation where danger is assumed, couldn't that sort of scenario seem more likely? And if someone could come in without a warrant, what's to prevent them saying afterwards, "Well, I thought someone was in imminent danger."