Is No Knock Unreasonable? - Page 2 - U2 Feedback

Go Back   U2 Feedback > Lypton Village > Free Your Mind > Free Your Mind Archive
Click Here to Login
 
 
Thread Tools Search this Thread Display Modes
 
Old 06-16-2006, 12:33 PM   #16
Blue Crack Addict
 
nbcrusader's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2002
Location: Southern California
Posts: 22,071
Local Time: 12:55 AM
Quote:
Originally posted by LivLuvAndBootlegMusic


Yeah, you're making a good point.

Where does the Constutition factor in here? - Say Phil committed some awful crime. Since he stays at my house a lot, police want to search my place for something they think he left at my house. Meanwhile, Phil hasn't confided to me about the crime he committed, so I have no reason to suspect anything in my place of residence has anything to do with a crime. The police have a search warrant to search my home for a specific thing. I'm at home and I just got out of the shower so I'm naked, looking for some clothes. The police just barge in without any indication or identification. Now if they'd identified themselves as police officers, I would've put a towel on and let them in to search for the item. I would be VERY VERY pissed off and feel VERY VERY violated. Now, I don't like thinking of these weird hypotheticals, but if we're talking Constitutional rights, I've got to believe that my rights are somehow being violated by a bunch of unidentified men barging into my home while I, as someone who is not involved in any crime, am standing there naked.
Frankly, these are great examples of unintended consequences of Phil's hypothetical criminal behavior. In balancing the benefit to society of swift criminal investigation against personal emotional trauma or inconvenience, the benefit to society may win in that analysis. No one acts in a vacuum - a person's criminal acts will have an impact on others.

I would think that the use of no knock would be driven by the quick disposability of the evidence. Flushable drugs or computer files would drive the need for faster entry.

As for Irvine's examples, I'm not sure the evidence of illegal activity unassociated with a warrant is admissible. Or at least there are strong arguments to exclude the evidence.
__________________

__________________
nbcrusader is offline  
Old 06-16-2006, 12:34 PM   #17
ONE
love, blood, life
 
A_Wanderer's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2004
Location: The Wild West
Posts: 12,518
Local Time: 06:55 PM
And the anti-terror raid after the Madrid bombings in which the terrorists blew up the raiding special operations squad would be a good reason not to knock in those situations.
__________________

__________________
A_Wanderer is offline  
Old 06-16-2006, 12:37 PM   #18
Blue Crack Supplier
 
Irvine511's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2003
Location: Washington, DC
Posts: 30,492
Local Time: 03:55 AM
so what is our concern?

the rights of individuals, or notions of "benefits to society"?
__________________
Irvine511 is offline  
Old 06-16-2006, 12:45 PM   #19
Blue Crack Addict
 
nbcrusader's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2002
Location: Southern California
Posts: 22,071
Local Time: 12:55 AM
That's the balancing question that takes place in all Constitutional analysis. The government exists for the benefit to society. The Constitution exists for the rights of the individual.
__________________
nbcrusader is offline  
Old 06-16-2006, 12:47 PM   #20
ONE
love, blood, life
 
A_Wanderer's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2004
Location: The Wild West
Posts: 12,518
Local Time: 06:55 PM
I believe that anti-terrorism raids do sit outside the prosciptions of regular search warrant and do not involve knocking on the door and politely asking if the police can enter, they should be planned meticulously and executed effectively with full oversight. The raids in the UK seem like an intelligence failure more than anything else, incidently the brother was at the Al Gharuba march to protest the Jyllands-Posten cartoons which should have hit a few red flags.

Individuals do not have the right to blow up other people, the magnitude of a specific threat is a factor in response (somebody wanted for a hit and run is different than a chemical weapons bomber) - how the police respond to the threat and make arrests has to be done in a way that will prevent or minimise loss of life and not put people at undue risk including the police. If the action is unwarranted then the victim of the absuse can seek large compensation for what was done to them.
__________________
A_Wanderer is offline  
Old 06-16-2006, 01:19 PM   #21
Blue Crack Addict
 
Liesje's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2002
Location: In the dog house
Posts: 19,557
Local Time: 03:55 AM
Quote:
Originally posted by nbcrusader


In balancing the benefit to society of swift criminal investigation against personal emotional trauma or inconvenience, the benefit to society may win in that analysis. No one acts in a vacuum - a person's criminal acts will have an impact on others.

Then I hope they're ok with getting maced! Seriously, someone came in the house yesterday and I was home alone, just getting out of the shower. I had a spray bottle of tile cleaner in my hand. But, it was just Phil.

Having grown up in the shitty part of town during a period of gang war, if someone comes into my house with no warning or identification, I assume the worse.
__________________
Liesje is offline  
Old 06-17-2006, 08:37 AM   #22
Rock n' Roll Doggie
Band-aid
 
Macfistowannabe's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2003
Location: Ohio
Posts: 4,129
Local Time: 04:55 AM
Quote:
Originally posted by Irvine511
so what is our concern?

the rights of individuals, or notions of "benefits to society"?
The rights of individuals? Are you kidding?

Why support policies that fall in favor of criminals?
__________________
Macfistowannabe is offline  
Old 06-17-2006, 10:33 AM   #23
Blue Crack Addict
 
nbcrusader's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2002
Location: Southern California
Posts: 22,071
Local Time: 12:55 AM
Quote:
Originally posted by Macfistowannabe
The rights of individuals? Are you kidding?

Why support policies that fall in favor of criminals?
I think Irvine is referencing policies that favor all individuals (applying to suspects, not convicts).

That is why a balancing test is used.
__________________
nbcrusader is offline  
Old 06-18-2006, 12:21 PM   #24
Blue Crack Supplier
 
Irvine511's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2003
Location: Washington, DC
Posts: 30,492
Local Time: 03:55 AM
Quote:
Originally posted by Macfistowannabe
The rights of individuals? Are you kidding?

Why support policies that fall in favor of criminals?


the only reason you have any rights is becasue we have a system that protects the rights of everybody, even the guilty.
__________________
Irvine511 is offline  
Old 06-20-2006, 10:19 PM   #25
Rock n' Roll Doggie
 
the iron horse's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2004
Location: in a glass of CheerWine
Posts: 3,251
Local Time: 03:55 AM
It's amazing how easy we welcome back the Gestapo.
__________________
the iron horse is offline  
Old 06-21-2006, 11:19 AM   #26
Blue Crack Addict
 
nbcrusader's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2002
Location: Southern California
Posts: 22,071
Local Time: 12:55 AM
The Gestapo used warrants issued and signed by judges??
__________________

__________________
nbcrusader is offline  
 

Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Trackbacks are Off
Pingbacks are Off
Refbacks are Off



All times are GMT -5. The time now is 03:55 AM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.8 Beta 1
Copyright ©2000 - 2017, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.
Design, images and all things inclusive copyright © Interference.com