That's My Bullet and You Can't Have it!
The Aeson
22-12-2006, 21:58
One of the more bizzare unreasonable search and seizure issues I've seen. I suppose that you could argue he's probably guilty, because why else wouldn't he want to take the bullet out of his head, but...
Texan prosecutors want the bullet, embedded under the skin in 17-year-old Joshua Bush's forehead, to be removed.
They say it could help convict Mr Bush of the attempted murder of a used-car salesman in a row following a robbery.
The case has raised privacy concerns, with Mr Bush's lawyers fighting to have the bullet remain in his head.
'Big old knot'
Prosecutors say the 9mm bullet became lodged in the soft fatty tissue in Mr Bush's forehead in a shootout with the car salesman.
Police say Alan Olive returned fire after Mr Bush tried to shoot him.
I just can't believe I missed him at that distance
Alan Olive, businessman
They say Mr Bush was part of a gang that had tried to take cars from the forecourt.
Identified to police by other gang members, Mr Bush was interviewed.
Mr Olive, a competitive pistol shooter, said a man returned after the police had investigated, threatening to kill him if he gave evidence. The shootout followed.
"I just can't believe I missed him at that distance," Mr Olive says in court papers.
Prosecutor Ramon Rodriguez told Associated Press news agency that Mr Bush "looked like hell. He had a big old knot on his forehead".
Mr Rodriguez said Mr Bush later said he was hit by a stray bullet while on his couch in his flat.
A judge issued a warrant for the bullet's removal in October but a doctor said he did not have the proper tools.
A second operation was ordered for last week at a hospital but that was postponed for unspecified reasons.
Now Mr Bush's lawyers say the removal would be a denial of his civil rights, although the surgery would not be life threatening.
The lawyers base their case on the constitution's protection against unreasonable searches.
Rife Kimler, Mr Bush's lawyer, told AP: "When the medical profession divorces itself from its own responsibility and makes itself an arm of the state, it's a dangerous path."
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/americas/6203069.stm
AB Again
22-12-2006, 22:03
What is unreasonable about it?
There is a person who defended their property, as they have a right to do in the USA, with a firearm. In the process he shot the assailant. Now there is an individual who has been identified, through other means, as being that assailant. The bullet in his head is evidence in this crime. If it came from the gun of the person defending his property then this proves him to be the assailant. As there is reasonable cause to believe that he is the assailant, the seizure warrant is reasonable.
Smunkeeville
22-12-2006, 22:05
maybe he doesn't want to be forced into unwanted/unneeded surgery?
AB Again
22-12-2006, 22:09
maybe he doesn't want to be forced into unwanted/unneeded surgery?
So he wants to spend the rest of his life with a bullet in his head. It is a zero risk surgery by the way, if you read the story.
Additionally - he doesn't get much say in this matter. If it has been ruled that the bullet has to be provided as evidence then it has to be provided. His lawyers can, and are appealing, but if their appeal loses he will have to undergo the surgery.
Smunkeeville
22-12-2006, 22:12
So he wants to spend the rest of his life with a bullet in his head. It is a zero risk surgery by the way, if you read the story.
Additionally - he doesn't get much say in this matter. If it has been ruled that the bullet has to be provided as evidence then it has to be provided. His lawyers can, and are appealing, but if their appeal loses he will have to undergo the surgery.
I did read the story. There is risk with any surgery.
It doesn't hurt me to let cops come look around my house, but I still won't let them without a warrant, I really wouldn't get surgery without a court order.
The Aeson
22-12-2006, 22:13
So he wants to spend the rest of his life with a bullet in his head. It is a zero risk surgery by the way, if you read the story.
Additionally - he doesn't get much say in this matter. If it has been ruled that the bullet has to be provided as evidence then it has to be provided. His lawyers can, and are appealing, but if their appeal loses he will have to undergo the surgery.
He could always take the bullet out himself and swallow it instead.
Fifth Ammendment, maybe? What's the one about the right not to incriminate oneself?
Well, then again, the bullet IS someone else's property, so...
AB Again
22-12-2006, 22:15
I did read the story. There is risk with any surgery.
It doesn't hurt me to let cops come look around my house, but I still won't let them without a warrant, I really wouldn't get surgery without a court order.
To repeat the point
A judge issued a warrant for the bullet's removal in October but a doctor said he did not have the proper tools.
There is a court order in existence.
So he wants to spend the rest of his life with a bullet in his head. It is a zero risk surgery by the way, if you read the story.
Additionally - he doesn't get much say in this matter. If it has been ruled that the bullet has to be provided as evidence then it has to be provided. His lawyers can, and are appealing, but if their appeal loses he will have to undergo the surgery.
A person has a right to refuse any medical treatment. You cannot compel him to have surgery.
Smunkeeville
22-12-2006, 22:18
To repeat the point
There is a court order in existence.
either way I would still use my 5th amendment right to avoid it.
A person has a right to refuse any medical treatment. You cannot compel him to have surgery.
I don't think that's treatment... I mean, treatment for what? Not-being-convicted-itis?
I don't think that's treatment... I mean, treatment for what? Not-being-convicted-itis?
It doesn't matter that he's in no danger, he cannot be compelled to get medical treatment regardless of why.The only way they could get him is the fact he's 17. If they'd get his mother to consent to the surgery he's boned. That's unlikely, and trying to get him made a ward of the state would take too long, he'd turn 18 before the paperwork got done.
The Kaza-Matadorians
22-12-2006, 22:55
One of the more bizzare unreasonable search and seizure issues I've seen. I suppose that you could argue he's probably guilty, because why else wouldn't he want to take the bullet out of his head, but...
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/americas/6203069.stm
Unless he shot himself in the head (which didn't happen, obviously) the bullet is someone else's property and they have a right to get it back
Smunkeeville
22-12-2006, 22:58
Unless he shot himself in the head (which didn't happen, obviously) the bullet is someone else's property and they have a right to get it back
not exactly true. I seem to remember a jewelry thief in my area who had (in an attempt not to get caught) swallowed a diamond necklace, the jewelry store owner wanted the man to get endoscopy to remove the necklace but the court ruled that they had no real standing to force a medical procedure on him. The police had to wait for it to pass, even though the guy could have died he still had the right to refuse medical treatment, and yes, even though it wasn't his necklace he had the right to refuse medical treatment.
Imperial isa
22-12-2006, 23:04
not exactly true. I seem to remember a jewelry thief in my area who had (in an attempt not to get caught) swallowed a diamond necklace, the jewelry store owner wanted the man to get endoscopy to remove the necklace but the court ruled that they had no real standing to force a medical procedure on him. The police had to wait for it to pass, even though the guy could have died he still had the right to refuse medical treatment, and yes, even though it wasn't his necklace he had the right to refuse medical treatment.
i do recall reading some thing like that before
The Kaza-Matadorians
22-12-2006, 23:15
not exactly true. I seem to remember a jewelry thief in my area who had (in an attempt not to get caught) swallowed a diamond necklace, the jewelry store owner wanted the man to get endoscopy to remove the necklace but the court ruled that they had no real standing to force a medical procedure on him. The police had to wait for it to pass, even though the guy could have died he still had the right to refuse medical treatment, and yes, even though it wasn't his necklace he had the right to refuse medical treatment.
Really now? Ugh, criminal rights activists are getting out of hand...
Lunatic Goofballs
22-12-2006, 23:15
Unless he shot himself in the head (which didn't happen, obviously) the bullet is someone else's property and they have a right to get it back
I think shooting someone is a gift, not a loan. :p
I think shooting someone is a gift, not a loan. :p
*loads the taco cannon*
HEY LG!!!
Lunatic Goofballs
22-12-2006, 23:18
*loads the taco cannon*
HEY LG!!!
*opens mouth*
Imperial isa
22-12-2006, 23:19
*loads the taco cannon*
HEY LG!!!
*close eye's and cover ear's*
lalalalalalalalala :p
Really now? Ugh, criminal rights activists are getting out of hand...
Everyone has rights, even criminals.
*opens mouth*
*fires the taco*
The guy who shot him could sue for his bullet back, up the chances of a conviction that way.
Smunkeeville
22-12-2006, 23:32
Really now? Ugh, criminal rights activists are getting out of hand...
innocent until proven guilty