Are you concerned about police "no knock" warrants?
- Thread starter MikeGoob
- Start date
No, Bob, but its not honest as some here are suggesting that this is a concerted effort on the part of police as a whole to violate are rights. That simply isnt true. If we are going to fix a problem, we have to look at it realistically rather than believe the hype.
This is the same thing antis do. Lets not make the same mistakes.
This is the same thing antis do. Lets not make the same mistakes.
BreacherUp!
New member
Nor can any LEO. But the fact is, LE is made of people, enforcing the laws made by and voted on by people. Somewhere along the system, something will break down. Nothing's perfect. Hell, you have priests molesting boys at the cyclic rate, teachers sleeping with their grade school students, judges caught with child porn, etc. No one is perfect (except, of course, the posters on these forums).
So what makes you think that we aren't already at that standard? SCOTUS has already discussed no knocks and to some extent ruled them constitutional, which makes sense. If you have a warrant that is been properly issued upon probable cause, what does it matter how you serve it? The police WILL go inside the house no matter what.
Make no mistake, there are certianly practical considerations with no knock warrants, and personally I'm undecided if their advantages outweigh their disadvantages. That said, however, none of this affects their constitutionality. And I find it difficult to immediately fault police for using a tactic that has passed constitutional muster.
Back to your specific point, we will always have bad cops, just as we will always have bad people. There will always be good cops that make mistakes. Such is human nature.
But what makes you think that given the hundreds or even thousands of warants served every single day that you NEVER hear about, that we aren't already at the level of perfection which can be reached given human error.
Osborn F. Enready
Moderator
I don't see, how by any stretch of the imagination, one could arrive at "no-knocks" as being constitutional unless life was in immediate danger.
What if the person in the house is hard of hearing?
What if the person in the house has the headphones on?
What if the person in the house has a heart condition?
It used to be thought that if one innocent man were imprisoned, it should be obvious the law needs reformed.
When did this change?
Since when is self-defense of life and property negated by a "split-second" ability to identify uniform, and automaticly accept uniform as "no-shoot, ever, no matter what"?!?!?
This is warped logic to me, perverting the idea that created this nation, and was ratified into law.
These laws exist, and haven't been challenged, so they are allowed to exist.
Its time the sheeple start challenging.
Here is a man who made a critical choice to do what he thought was right....... is this what it has to come to?
http://www.filecabi.net/video/pedkillcop.html
This man chose his line in the sand at the government being able to tell him he had to wear some nylon across his chest to protect himself in a car he owned and operated on roads he pays for. Is his reaction extreme? Obviously. Is it beyond understanding? Obviously not, when you look at voting records, legislative intitatives, corporate lobbying, special intrests, bi-partisan laws that limit 3rd parties from even DEBATE!
The police are the front line between law and citizen.
They are militarizing in response to increased violence being directed at them, instead of looking at the lawmakers and saying "HEY, can you not see how this violates rights morons?!?"
The American people seriously need to wake up and understand what authoritarianism is.
Bush said "you are with us, or against us".
Its about time the American people say that to the bi-partisan scham that has become our government.
“The ideal tyranny is that which is ignorantly self-administered by its victims. The most perfect slaves are, therefore, those which blissfully and unawaredly enslave themselves.”
-Dresden James
“Liberty lies in the hearts of men and women; when it dies there, no Constitution, no Law, no Court can save it...Where do you stand Citizen?”
-Judge Learned Hand (1961)
What if the person in the house is hard of hearing?
What if the person in the house has the headphones on?
What if the person in the house has a heart condition?
It used to be thought that if one innocent man were imprisoned, it should be obvious the law needs reformed.
When did this change?
Since when is self-defense of life and property negated by a "split-second" ability to identify uniform, and automaticly accept uniform as "no-shoot, ever, no matter what"?!?!?
This is warped logic to me, perverting the idea that created this nation, and was ratified into law.
These laws exist, and haven't been challenged, so they are allowed to exist.
Its time the sheeple start challenging.
Here is a man who made a critical choice to do what he thought was right....... is this what it has to come to?
http://www.filecabi.net/video/pedkillcop.html
This man chose his line in the sand at the government being able to tell him he had to wear some nylon across his chest to protect himself in a car he owned and operated on roads he pays for. Is his reaction extreme? Obviously. Is it beyond understanding? Obviously not, when you look at voting records, legislative intitatives, corporate lobbying, special intrests, bi-partisan laws that limit 3rd parties from even DEBATE!
The police are the front line between law and citizen.
They are militarizing in response to increased violence being directed at them, instead of looking at the lawmakers and saying "HEY, can you not see how this violates rights morons?!?"
The American people seriously need to wake up and understand what authoritarianism is.
Bush said "you are with us, or against us".
Its about time the American people say that to the bi-partisan scham that has become our government.
“The ideal tyranny is that which is ignorantly self-administered by its victims. The most perfect slaves are, therefore, those which blissfully and unawaredly enslave themselves.”
-Dresden James
“Liberty lies in the hearts of men and women; when it dies there, no Constitution, no Law, no Court can save it...Where do you stand Citizen?”
-Judge Learned Hand (1961)
WeedWacker
New member
I remember some scenarios on recognizing uniform alone to determine who was friend and who was foe. It's very difficult at first and
takes a while before you begin to recognizecertain features like how high the uniform rises or the style trousers or vest, camo etc. etc.
For someone who has no idea what to look for it would look like some psycho waltzingin the front door, especially if it's dark or the
subject has cataracts/failing eyesight in the case of old people.
takes a while before you begin to recognizecertain features like how high the uniform rises or the style trousers or vest, camo etc. etc.
For someone who has no idea what to look for it would look like some psycho waltzingin the front door, especially if it's dark or the
subject has cataracts/failing eyesight in the case of old people.
Its quite simple. The constitution only requires that a proper search cannot be conducted unless a warrant has been issued based upon probable cause. Thats it.
It gives NO mention of how to serve the warrant. If the police have properly obtained a warrant, then they have satisfied the constitution.
Add to this the fact that SCOTUS has already ruled on this practice and I don't see how you can think otherwise.
But since you're so adamant osborn, kindly show me where the constitution says officers have to knock, or anything about serving the warrant for that matter.
Well, if they repealed the 2nd by valid process I would be angry but would have nothing to complain about. If not then I would have a valid legal stand.
But none of this addresses the specific point. It doesn't matter WHAT the cops are busting in for. All the constitution requires is a warrant based on PC. It is SILENT on how the warrant is served.
You may not like no knocks, and thats fine. I myself am unsure if they are worth it. However, there isn't a single person anywhere that can show where the constitution prohibits them, or where the supreme court has deemed them improper.
This is what matters.
Well I don't think the legality of the issue is what we're discussing.I think it's more important that we focus on whether or not it's right as opposed to what the courts have deemed is legal.
Why? If its legal, then you have no complaints if its used. Again, we don't enforce "right" we enforce legal.
You can't complain that your rights are being violated on one hand, and on the other had say legality doesn't matter.
Seems like prohibition was legal until enough people said "No".
No wonder a cop laughed at me when I was reading my pocket Constitution. Legal and Constitutional aren't the same thing, unless of course, you believe what the folks in black dresses said in Marbury vs. Madison.
badbob
Prohibition was enacted and repealed by the proper process. Its the way the system should have and was designed to work.
Without getting into a huge philosophical debate, what exactly is the purpose of a supreme court if not to determine the constitutionality of things.
Its been this way long before our grandfathers were born, so there's no sense in arguing about it.