Supreme Court backs police no-knock searches
- Thread starter bob_arctor
- Start date
- Status
bob_arctor
Tough_Smooth
Papers show 'gloomy' state of insurgency
Oh come on! Are any of you conservatives, realists, whatever, even the slightest bit "Hmm" on the past 2 weeks or so?
Oh come on! Are any of you conservatives, realists, whatever, even the slightest bit "Hmm" on the past 2 weeks or so?
Well I'm glad that the GOP lead congress can take time out away from beating up hippies and gays and tv stations to have a debate about Iraq and when anything gets to Bush about it he'll say, "I'll listen to the generals. There's lots of hard work." and when retired generals come back with recommendations he'll say, "Not those generals. There's lots of hard work." Good for them. I feel much better now.APF said:
bob_arctor
Tough_Smooth
Does he not look gloomy?
bob_arctor
Tough_Smooth
APF said:
Are you saying they are pussies? You'd get no argument from me. Blow up all of Congress, **** it.
I'm saying they're pussies if they clamour for an argument when things aren't going well, but the instant there's a slight "uptick" of a positive development they scurry away as fast as they can, all because they don't actually want to have a coherent, consistent stance re what is doubtless the most important issue this country is involved with at this time.bob_arctor said:
MrSardonic
The nerdiest nerd of all the nerds in nerdland
Christ man, what has happened to the US over the last decade 
would be proud
would be proud
AdmiralViscen
Banned
Raven. said:
Yes, you are.
This was decided in a case where a man was robbed repeatedly by thieves who entered through a skylight. He ran electricity through the bars of the skylight to fry them if they tried to get into the building. Well, they came back to rob him again, got roasted, died. Dude went to jail. Now imagine doing that to a cop, and you are ****ed.
Life is worth more than property in all cases. Using lethal force on someone who is only guilty of breaking and entering is not legal.
BigGreenMat said:
I guess you should have read the article
Big surprise. Scalia punches Originalism in the jaw and throws it out on its ass.
The state actually admitted to the violation (which is pretty bad, because police don't have to do much to make a no-knock search legal), so nobody was arguing the legality. The question was whether the evidence should be excluded.
Scalia's opinion was that even though it was a Constitutional violation, it didn't violate the public interest served by that part of the Constitution, so it wasn't relevant. At least, that's what I think he's saying, and I'm not sure what it means.
The other thing is that they assume that remedies besides the exclusionary rule will serve as deterrents to police. The possibility of a civil damages suit or internal police discipline are brought up.
I think that's silly on a practical level, and disturbing in terms of legal precedent. I've never heard of a civil damages suit winning money in these cases, and internal police discipline? If violating the knock rule doesn't exclude the evidence, why would the police department discipline the officer? It makes no sense.
If other remedies are assumed to be deterrent enough in this case, what keeps the Court from reaching the same conclusions in other instances of the exclusionary rule? All instances of the exclusionary rule?
The knock-rule was really weak to begin with (it's easy to get a no-knock warrant, officers only need to wait 15 seconds, and are allowed to decide on the scene against knocking in lots of different circumstances), so you'd have to screw up pretty bad to cause a violation. Now, while even admitting it was illegal, there are no practical consequences.
PS On the Iraq thing, it's a classic "So why don't you marry it?" bill. Short debate time, straw-man bill, no amendments allowed. Anyone who thinks that was a good spot for focusing debate by the anti-war faction just doesn't know their onions.
The state actually admitted to the violation (which is pretty bad, because police don't have to do much to make a no-knock search legal), so nobody was arguing the legality. The question was whether the evidence should be excluded.
Scalia's opinion was that even though it was a Constitutional violation, it didn't violate the public interest served by that part of the Constitution, so it wasn't relevant. At least, that's what I think he's saying, and I'm not sure what it means.
The other thing is that they assume that remedies besides the exclusionary rule will serve as deterrents to police. The possibility of a civil damages suit or internal police discipline are brought up.
I think that's silly on a practical level, and disturbing in terms of legal precedent. I've never heard of a civil damages suit winning money in these cases, and internal police discipline? If violating the knock rule doesn't exclude the evidence, why would the police department discipline the officer? It makes no sense.
If other remedies are assumed to be deterrent enough in this case, what keeps the Court from reaching the same conclusions in other instances of the exclusionary rule? All instances of the exclusionary rule?
The knock-rule was really weak to begin with (it's easy to get a no-knock warrant, officers only need to wait 15 seconds, and are allowed to decide on the scene against knocking in lots of different circumstances), so you'd have to screw up pretty bad to cause a violation. Now, while even admitting it was illegal, there are no practical consequences.
PS On the Iraq thing, it's a classic "So why don't you marry it?" bill. Short debate time, straw-man bill, no amendments allowed. Anyone who thinks that was a good spot for focusing debate by the anti-war faction just doesn't know their onions.
MrSardonic
The nerdiest nerd of all the nerds in nerdland
Mashing said:
have you been paying attention to what has been happening in the US & UK (in particular) over the last 10 years?
- Status