Knock knock...?

Cycloptichorn wrote:

The ability to sue doesn't unbeat one's ass.

Of course not, but the ability to sue doesn't ever reach back and correct the past. It doesn't stop the guy from rearending your car, it doesn't change the fact that the doctor who cut of the wrong limb made a mistake, it can't go back in time and erase the slanderous comments someone made about you at a political rally.

Once again - zero tolerance is absurd. Errors cannot and will not ever be eliminated, not matter what sort of restrictions society places on human activity. In a civilized society, however, there are legal means to recover for damages unjustly caused. This is the best we can ever hope for.

Say that I'm sitting on the couch, cleaning my legally owned rifle. Cops bust in without knocking, see that I have a gun, shoot me dead because I was a 'threat.'

Cops don't announce themselves, burst in, I shoot a cop because I believe he is an intruder.

Cops get the wrong place, burst into the house without knocking, bust up the place, takes a long time to figure out they have the wrong place. In the meantime, a family's peace is shattered.

There are lots of ways that unannounced entry can lead to serious problems.

How would waiting for 15 seconds insure that any of these scenarios not happen?

Your argument is flawed because it is based on the erroneous assumption that more often than not the police are busting in on the innocent.

Since this is not the case, it is far more likely that knocking and waiting 15 seconds will allow the bad guys to arm themselves than any of the scenarios you suggest.
Cycloptichorn

0 Replies

I am the person who brought up the "slippery slope" result, and was not limiting this to cases in which there was a valid search warrant. With the court becoming more conservative, I visualize the elimination of the exclusionary rule to all types of cases in which evidence was secured as the result of police misconduct. Thus, if the location of the body was determined because of the beating of a suspect by the police, a future conservative court would allow this evidence. The court would opine that banning the evidence would only help the criminal and endanger the public (because of the subsequent release of the criminal).

0 Replies

Advocate wrote:

I am the person who brought up the "slippery slope" result, and was not limiting this to cases in which there was a valid search warrant.

Joe Nation was the first in this thread to bring up the "slippery slope" argument in .... THIS POST.

You should have been limiting your argument to cases in which there was a valid search warrant, because those are the limited circumstances upon which Hudson was decided. How can you claim Hudson creates a "slippery slope" if you are extending the rationale in Hudson to circumstances which would obviously have resulted in a different result, had those been the facts in Hudson? This is why I asked you to provide concrete examples, so I could clarify your misunderstanding.

Advocate wrote:

With the court becoming more conservative, I visualize the elimination of the exclusionary rule to all types of cases in which evidence was secured as the result of police misconduct. Thus, if the location of the body was determined because of the beating of a suspect by the police, a future conservative court would allow this evidence. The court would opine that banning the evidence would only help the criminal and endanger the public (because of the subsequent release of the criminal).

I'm sure you can visualize a lot of bizzare things, but there is nothing in the Hudson opinion to substantiate your hysterical fears of conservative thinking on the Court.

You recall the Jessica Lundsford case down in Florida, where John Couey's confession to kidnapping, raping, and killing Jessica Lunsford was thrown out last week because of police misconduct (he wanted to consult a lawyer but wasn't permitted to), but the discovery of the body will be admissible, even though Couey gave the authorities the location in his confession to them? The trial court has ruled the police would have found the body anyway. That is a bedrock foundation of criminal law in this country, and nothing in the Hudson decision should give one pause to think the current Supreme Court will modify it.

Now, the decision I think you, Couey's lawyer, and the ACLU, would like to see is to have the discovery of the body excluded, because there was some police misconduct associated with it, and you think excluding the discovery would teach the police a lesson.

0 Replies

I am sure that prosecutors have viewed the recent SC decision with great interest. They will view the case as an opening for them to introduce all types of evidence gained as a result of police misconduct, and will not feel limited to the circumstances that were before the SC.

0 Replies

Advocate wrote:

I am sure that prosecutors have viewed the recent SC decision with great interest. They will view the case as an opening for them to introduce all types of evidence gained as a result of police misconduct, and will not feel limited to the circumstances that were before the SC.

I hardly think so. Prosecutors will view this case as pertaining to the narrow set of facts it was decided upon. Specifically, if the case involves a "knock and announce," the prosecutor has a case it can cite to when countering defense counsel's efforts to suppress the evidence obtained in the execution of the search warrant due to some claimed technical violation of the "knock and announce" rule. That will be the proper, and limited, application of this case.

If you feel otherwise, and feel you can give a specific example of how you envision a prosecutor using this case in a manner outside what I've described, please advise.

0 Replies

Personally, I believe the police should not need a warrant, not announce their entry, and immediately shoot all individuals located within the home without any questions asked. This whole 'warrant' business seems like a lot of hooey anyway - who came up with this crap?

0 Replies

Fran, I never thought of that. If the police did that, there would be trials, imprisonment, need for lawyers, etc. I just hope that I am not visiting the home when it all hits the fan.

0 Replies

Yeah it would be fantastic for the economy - just think of how much the need for lawyers would go up! And consider the boom in the gun and security systems industries! Wow! Once we've implemented the 'Dirty Harry' police force system, we might also consider importing Chinese and Indian babies for consumption - they've got a huge population boom, and I know it'll be sending 'jobs' overseas... in fact, let's keep it in the U.S. of A! Support America, consume a bum!

0 Replies

Hear, hear! I like the way you think. BTW, I left out a word in my post. I meant to say that "there would be no trials, imprisonment, ..." I gather you had correctly read the "no" into my post.

Wholesale importation of babies would have many benefits. It would help keep your gringa from getting fat, save on doctors and hospitalization, help the economies of third world nations, etc. I think those Asian babies are particularly cute. But what does all this have to do with police raids?

0 Replies

I'm just following in the logical continuation of Doing Whatever It Takes To Make America Better - the warrants went bye-bye first, so that Big Brother could better protect us, thank God! Now, for nutritional, economic, and patriotic value, we should consider consuming the young of our nation's fiercest competitors.

I think this should probably get its own thread. Maybe other people have actual opinions worth voicing. I did initially, but luckily I let it go before I had to engage my brain.

0 Replies

Knock knock...?

Related Topics

Quick Links

My Account

able2know