No officers directly charged with Breonna Taylor's death

[Mountain Man]

That's what he claims but there are countless incidents in which they are used against innocent citizens, either through going to the wrong address, or falsehoods told by an 'informant', or falsehoods told by an officer, or some combination of the three.

Those incidents have resulted in loss of life of the people in those homes, loss of life of officers when they are fired on by people defending their homes, and loss of freedom of people defending their homes when they are charged with murder, etc., simply for protecting their home from invaders who did not announce themselves.

As myth pointed out, without some sort of statistical context, saying that something has happened "countless times" isn't a meaningful objection. Pick anything performed by human agencies and you will also find "countless times" when it has resulted in something undesirable, either inadvertently or deliberately. Even things done with the very best intentions can have negative consequences. Is there reason to think that "no knock" warrants are inherently more prone to negative outcomes than any other procedural tool available to the police?

[Gondwanaland]

As myth pointed out, without some sort of statistical context, saying that something has happened "countless times" isn't a meaningful objection. Pick anything performed by human agencies and you will also find "countless times" when it has resulted in something undesirable, either inadvertently or deliberately. Even things done with the very best intentions can have negative consequences. Is there reason to think that "no knock" warrants are inherently more prone to negative outcomes than any other procedural tool available to the police?

Even a single instance is a direct violation of constitutional rights. And there are countless instances where it has happened. Sorry, but anyone that supports no-knock warrants is an enemy of the Constitution and the 2nd Amendment.

[Mountain Man]

Even a single instance is a direct violation of constitutional rights.

You have not come anywhere close to establishing this as a fact. In general, if police are able to get a judge to sign off on a warrant (not just "no knock", but any warrant) then it means they have cleared every legal hurdle necessary to execute it without violating the Constitution.

(I assume by this new tack in your argument that you have abandoned your position that the exception should be used to establish the rule.)

[Leonhard]

myth has said that no-knock warrants are only used against drug dealers, not drug users. Really, the US does not come down especially hard on drugs users in comparison, and there are a lot of programs run by many different organizations to help addicts, but the problem with addiction is that you can't force someone to kick the habit. It's up to the addict to want to change.

True, though if the addicts can access the drugs at a safe dispenser with clean needless, then first of all the you deny these criminal elements a source of income and the drug addicts can be exposed to opportunities to quit. Typically analogs of the drugs are found, for instance heroin is replaced with particular morphine analogues which prevent the abstinence. This limits the income for organized crime, which tends to dry out the problem at the source.

As for being in possession of small amounts of controlled substances, I don't think that should be punishable. I don't think the punishment does society any service or prevents the problem from ocuring.

[myth]

I don't think you can deal with the problem effectively by shooting the drug dealers. The first step would be to not further punish addicts, by decriminalizing their possessions. That way they can come forward, be transparent about their problem and get help. After that, for some drugs like meth or heroin, the addicts should get a legal and medically controlled access to those drugs. The Danish healthcare system allows addicts to get their drugs for free as part of a program to wean them out of it. This has caused a significant though not total reduction in gang related crimes involving these drugs.

It remains illegal to sell such drugs in Denmark, and since there's still a market for them, organized crime still to some extent traffics and sells it.

I believe a nation-wide program like this. Especially in the big cities of the US, would be infinitely preferable to locking up addicts into prisons or engaging in no-knock raids.

I haven't suggested we fix the drug problem by shooting drug dealers, that's not the goal at all. The goal is to take drug dealers to prison for profiting from an enterprise that destroys lives, families, and neighborhoods and indeed often outright ends people's lives prematurely. I also don't think decriminalization is the answer, BUT -- I do think we should have better opportunities to offer drug addicts resources to curb their addiction, and there's no reason to punish people for simple possession if they're willing to try to kick their habit. However, if they're not willing to try to stop using, then there should still be an disincentive to keep doing drugs. That's where punishment should come in, IMO. Only after drug users have refused to try to get clean -- and they need to be provided the resources to attempt it.

[myth]

I'm not debating anything. I'm correcting a falsehood someone said.


Irrelevant to anything I said.

Then ignore it, since I haven't addressed anything directly to you. I did use a generalized statement "you all" to refer to the thread participants in general, but that was out of sheer laziness. My argument here has mostly been with Gondwanaland. I don't even recall what you were arguing about.

[myth]

You have not come anywhere close to establishing this as a fact. In general, if police are able to get a judge to sign off on a warrant (not just "no knock", but any warrant) then it means they have cleared every legal hurdle necessary to execute it without violating the Constitution.

(I assume by this new tack in your argument that you have abandoned your position that the exception should be used to establish the rule.)

Yeah, but Gondwanaland isn't particularly interested in things like statistics or facts. He's busy pushing his own narrative and ignoring all evidence to the contrary, then side stepping the issues raised and flinging backhanded insults when he gets backed into a corner. Really, it's a stark reminder of how terrible our K-12 education system is....that we have high school graduates with Gondwanaland's level of misunderstanding about the Constitution, court processes, and legal issues. To claim that he has a LEGAL right to shoot at the police if they enter his house with a search warrant is sheer buffoonery.

[Electric Skeptic]

https://www.wlky.com/article/hear-ke...died/32645491#.

Ta.

It is DIRECTLY relevant to what you said.

It's not at all relevant to what I said.

Now answer the question:

No; it's irrelevant to what I said.

[Electric Skeptic]

Then ignore it, since I haven't addressed anything directly to you. I did use a generalized statement "you all" to refer to the thread participants in general, but that was out of sheer laziness. My argument here has mostly been with Gondwanaland. I don't even recall what you were arguing about.

Thanks, but I'll comment on what I choose to.

[Gondwanaland]

Ta.

you're welcome.

It's not at all relevant to what I said.



No; it's irrelevant to what I said.

It is, whether you like it or not.

[Bill the Cat]

True, though if the addicts can access the drugs at a safe dispenser with clean needless, then first of all the you deny these criminal elements a source of income and the drug addicts can be exposed to opportunities to quit. Typically analogs of the drugs are found, for instance heroin is replaced with particular morphine analogues which prevent the abstinence. This limits the income for organized crime, which tends to dry out the problem at the source.

As for being in possession of small amounts of controlled substances, I don't think that should be punishable. I don't think the punishment does society any service or prevents the problem from ocuring.

They tried this sort of thing in San Francisco. It has failed EPICALLY

[Mountain Man]

Yeah, but Gondwanaland isn't particularly interested in things like statistics or facts. He's busy pushing his own narrative and ignoring all evidence to the contrary, then side stepping the issues raised and flinging backhanded insults when he gets backed into a corner. Really, it's a stark reminder of how terrible our K-12 education system is....that we have high school graduates with Gondwanaland's level of misunderstanding about the Constitution, court processes, and legal issues. To claim that he has a LEGAL right to shoot at the police if they enter his house with a search warrant is sheer buffoonery.

The way I see it, anyone who has broken the law has voluntarily ceded their basic rights. Otherwise, you wouldn't even be able to do much as arrest them.

[Electric Skeptic]

It is, whether you like it or not.

No, it's not, whether you like it or not.

[Electric Skeptic]

The way I see it, anyone who has broken the law has voluntarily ceded their basic rights. Otherwise, you wouldn't even be able to do much as arrest them.

Then you see it wrongly, as that is plainly false.

[Mountain Man]

Then you see it wrongly, as that is plainly false.

So you think arresting someone who has broken the law is unconstitutional? What do you propose instead, patiently wait for criminals to voluntarily turn themselves in?