The funny thing about rights is that you have them even if you've done other bad things. The thinking on display here ("the guy was a criminal anyway") is the primary slippery slope to tyranny that we have seen in the past 100 years.

Seems like he was legally eligible to be arrested for a variety of reasons. The FBI is still not allowed to use fraudulent warrants to that end. The rule of law is no such thing unless it applies to everyone equally.

▲

tptacek 15 hours ago | parent | next [-]

Help me understand where you're seeing the "fraud" here? The warrant I'm reading is off PACER. It was very definitely approved by a judge.

	▲	nerdponx 11 hours ago \| parent [-]
		You're right, and you aren't the only one correct me on this. I was responding to the implication that it's OK for him to be arrested regardless of how, because he did bad and criminal things. The premise of the article being false (i.e. the warrants are fine) wasn't mentioned in the post I responded to.

▲

echelon 15 hours ago | parent | prev [-]

> "the guy was a criminal anyway"

He violated 6 or 7 criminal things.

I'm on the civil rights and free speech maxxing side, but this was clearly a criminal in the act of actively criminaling.

The danger here is in crying wolf when this isn't a case of rights being violated for a non-perpetrator. This guy was willfully breaking laws left and right.

Don't cry wolf. We need that energy elsewhere.

▲

Asooka 15 hours ago | parent [-]

The part where he sustained a head injury during arrest and was denied medical help is definitely a violation of his rights. The rest ... yeah

	▲	trollbridge 14 hours ago \| parent [-]
		Yeah - even if George Floyd’s arrest was lawful, arresting him in using such violent force he died is certainly not. Saying “well he was a bad guy and had done bad things” doesn’t justify inflicting head injuries or holding a roadside execution.