Are you concerned about police "no knock" warrants?

As I stated in the other thread, I am in a far better position to make judgments of the man than probably anyone else on this board.
Click to expand...

You may be in a better position to evaluate the men who taught you or whom you observed in action, but you definitely not in any position to educate ME on the benefits of jury nullification.

I absolutely positively guarantee you I'll pass voir dire on that issue and, in any 12/12 state or on a 6/6 jury, a simple pot smoker or prostitute user will go free.
 
The whole point of the whole exercise is to punish or deter the commission of crimes that harm others, while safeguarding those who don't, and to do so without consideration of the viewpoints of any special interests.

Jury nullification is an essential element of that exercise.
 
I absolutely positively guarantee you I'll pass voir dire on that issue and, in any 12/12 state or on a 6/6 jury, a simple pot smoker or prostitute user will go free.
Click to expand...

Yeah, by lying. Real Admirable.
 
* Fully informed jurors can better dispense justice, thereby preventing people from being imprisoned wrongly and reducing prison overcrowding.

So much to be said in favor of that last point. How many of us whine about having to defend ourselves against violent criminals? Broadcast the legality of jury nullification and we'll turn mere pot smokers and porn lookers and prostitutes and johns loose and make more room to keep the truly dangerous in jail longer.
Click to expand...


Again, what a load of crap. Because YOU disagree with a valid law passed by a legislature that has the support of a majority of people, you are going to assert your will over that of the majority. Thas FAR from what the framers intended for our democratic republic.

If there is a valid law, a person can't be wrongly imprisoned. They can be convicted by a law that YOU don't agree with, but that has NOTHING to do with the validity of the law.

Finally, the idea that because some pot smoker goes to jail, that we are kicking out a rapist or murderer to have some room is totally false and ridiculous.
 
I hate nonsensical statements like this. If the warrant isn't valid then the case wll be thrown out. Problem solved.
Click to expand...
(Emphasis mine)

The problem is, between the warrant being issued and the case being thrown out, somebody could die, needlessly.

badbob
 
The problem is, between the warrant being issued and the case being thrown out, somebody could die, needlessly.
Click to expand...

Thats very true. But we can't write a law that accounts for every single situation. It just cant be done. The laws we have now are probably the best we can do for both protecting rights and letting police do their job. The answer to prevent tragedies isn't to write new laws but to be dilligent about adhering to those we have.
 
The laws we have now are probably the best we can do for both protecting rights and letting police do their job.
Click to expand...
That's the point. They're not. Protecting the rights and lives of the people takes precedence over the police doing their jobs. The bill of rights are supposed to make it harder for the government to convict people. That's why those particular amendments were written.

You seem to trust Uncle Sam to do the right thing in every situation a lot more than the rest of us. I hope you're right when it comes to the rest of our rights but attitudes like yours are the reason we can't say four letter words on the radio or carry firearms in public.

Trust the government. If it says something is legal then it must be right
 
it seems very clear to me that StAGE 2 has objectively broken down constitutional law in layman terms. However, many here are irritated that their emotional opinions are now in stark contrast to the law, or what they thought was the law. The hypocrasy here is revealing.

STAGE, your approach to this reminds me of another distinguished constitutional law educator, John Hall. Kudos on keeping your cool under fire.
 
Again, the point is not the legality of it. I don't think that's what is being argued. The point is that just because the government - SCOTUS included - has deemed something as appropriate does NOT mean that it's in line with the concepts and ideals of a FREE society. Busting down someone's door because he sold a bag of pot may be perfectly legal but that does not make it right. And it never will.
 
does NOT mean that it's in line with the concepts and ideals of a FREE society.
Click to expand...

We DON't have a free society. If we did I could walk down main street naked eating a cheeseburger.

We are a society of laws and certain liberties. Thats a big difference compared to a free society. The reason we have laws is because people have differing opinions about what is "right". Personally I don't have a problem throwing people who sell drugs in jail. There are many who disagree with me. However a majority of the country doesn't, and through their elected representatives they have enacted valid laws.

You can disagree with it, and if you get a majority of people to elect representatives that will repeal drug laws I will have no beef. Thats the way the system works.

However, as long as a practice does not run afoul of the constitution, you cannot sit here and say that it violates your rights.
 
STAGE, your approach to this reminds me of another distinguished constitutional law educator, John Hall. Kudos on keeping your cool under fire.
Click to expand...

Thanks Breacher. But I'm far from a constitutional educator. Just a regular old attorney who had some fantastic professors once upon a time in a little town in Texas.
 
The reason we have laws is because people have differing opinions about what is "right". Personally I don't have a problem throwing people who sell drugs in jail. There are many who disagree with me. However a majority of the country doesn't, and through their elected representatives they have enacted valid laws.

You can disagree with it, and if you get a majority of people to elect representatives that will repeal drug laws I will have no beef. Thats the way the system works.

However, as long as a practice does not run afoul of the constitution, you cannot sit here and say that it violates your rights.
Click to expand...
But again, if enough people agreed that guns are just not good for the country regardless of what some ratty old piece of paper says you would be singing a different story. You may think it's ok to throw drug dealers in jail and I may think it's ok to throw christians in jail but that doesn't make either one of us in line with the ideas of a free society. You're right, we don't live in a free society but we ought to strive toward it as much as possible, especially if we expect to be imposing that ridiculous notion of freedom on others.

I do disagree with it and what you're suggesting is exactly what I'm trying to do. I try very hard to convince the most hard-headed folk that guns and drugs are not dangerous things but it gets hard with the real old timers that refuse to let go of their preconcieved notions. That's ok, soon they'll expire and a younger generation will alter the laws for the better as has been happening since the creation of this country.
 
But again, if enough people agreed that guns are just not good for the country regardless of what some ratty old piece of paper says you would be singing a different story
Click to expand...

Guns are specifically protected by the constitution. People can argue to what extent this is as much as they want, but the fact remains they are.

Drugs are not, not, not protected anywhere. As a result, they can be regulated as much or as little as we like.

THAT is the difference. For guns I have a legitimate legal stand. For drugs, you don't.
 
Guns are specifically protected by the constitution. People can argue to what extent this is as much as they want, but the fact remains they are.
Click to expand...
And if the majority of the people on day decide that's not good enough? :rolleyes:
Drugs are not, not, not protected anywhere. As a result, they can be regulated as much or as little as we like.

THAT is the difference. For guns I have a legitimate legal stand. For drugs, you don't.
Click to expand...
And THAT is what I disagree with which is why I strive to change the minds of the stubborn that tell me pot is bad while they crack open a beer.

Are you not comprehending what I'm saying? I'm not arguing the legality of the issue, I'm arguing the morality of it. Just because SCOTUS says something is legal does not mean it's the right thing to do.
 
And if the majority of the people on day decide that's not good enough?
Click to expand...

If they actually repeal the 2nd by the process set forth for repealing amendments than I will have no complaint.

Are you not comprehending what I'm saying? I'm not arguing the legality of the issue, I'm arguing the morality of it. Just because SCOTUS says something is legal does not mean it's the right thing to do.
Click to expand...

Fair enough. Maybe I'm getting my arguments crossed here. I just recal someone saying that constitutional rights were being violated because of no knock warrants and thats just not the case.

Like I said before, personally I haven't made up my mind about this tactic. If I were the chief of police it would not be my standard practice, if used at all.
 
If they actually repeal the 2nd by the process set forth for repealing amendments than I will have no complaint.
Click to expand...
Are you serious??!?

Fair enough. Maybe I'm getting my arguments crossed here. I just recal someone saying that constitutional rights were being violated because of no knock warrants and thats just not the case.

Like I said before, personally I haven't made up my mind about this tactic. If I were the chief of police it would not be my standard practice, if used at all.
Click to expand...
SCOTUS says no-knocks are constitutional. I disagree and would like to see that changed. It's legal but it's not right. The Supreme Court has changed its mind in the past about major issues and will undoubtedly do so again. I would like to see this issue as one of them.
 
Are you serious??!?
Click to expand...

As a heart attack. I believe in following the system. Sometimes this might work my way and sometimes it won't. Thats just the way it works when you agree to give up some of your freedoms to live under a government with millions of other people.

I don't ever think that the 2nd or any other amendment will ever be repealed given how hard the process is. But if it were, my only complaint would be against the millions of ignorant morons that let this happen.

If you agree to play by the rules, that doesn't change when things don't go your way.


SCOTUS says no-knocks are constitutional. I disagree and would like to see that changed. It's legal but it's not right.
Click to expand...

Ok. This is the problem I've been having with you. You keep mixing up legal with moral.

In your first sentence you say that no-knocks are constitutional. Then you say that you would like to see that changed, and you use the fact that they aren't "right" as your justification. Unless you plan on writing something into the constitution thats not going to happen. The constitution says nothing about how warrants are served. If you want to pass a law banning them thats fine, but they can never be ruled unconstitutional.

Most importantly, what is "right" isnt and should never be the standard for what is constitutional.
 
But if it were, my only complaint would be against the millions of ignorant morons that let this happen.
Click to expand...
ok that's what I was hoping for :p I was worried that you literally meant you would have no complaint whatsoever :o
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top