Supreme Court Backs No-Knock Police Searches

[usmcecho4]

Oh, I know. I'm less than thrilled at how the Republican party is basically the same as the Democratic party in regards to big gov't now.

I think the only difference now is that the Democrats are more willing to raise taxes to pay for big government while the Republicans are still addicted to their credit cards. I wish there was a viable third option.

Semper Fi,
usmcecho4

 

[A4sForever]

I think the only difference now is that the Democrats are more willing to raise taxes to pay for big government while the Republicans are still addicted to their credit cards. ...

I like that ... that's the smartest thing you've said on this forum. To date .

 

[MasterBates]

I just noticed the main difference between this an most gun forums.

This did not become a debate between .45ACP or 9mm for JBT's! (or 7.62x51 vs 7.62x39 vs 5.56x45, etc)

Unfortunatley, most people have their heads so far buried in the sand, that by the time it affects them to the point they care (cant go to Starbucks and watch American Idle) it will be too late to do anything.

 

[Fly Navy]

Unfortunatley, most people have their heads so far buried in the sand, that by the time it affects them to the point they care (cant go to Starbucks and watch American Idle) it will be too late to do anything.

Yup. I say the same thing. So long as Joe Blow can get his Starbucks, he won't do anything about the erosion of the Constitution.

 

[A4sForever]

.... as Joe Blow can get his Starbucks, he won't do anything ...

Hear, hear !!! And guess where I'm heading in @ 15 minutes ...

 

[usmcecho4]

I like that ... that's the smartest thing you've said on this forum. To date .

I think it might be the Stockholm Syndrome talking but that actually makes me feel good. And a "" as well! Will wonders never cease?

Semper Fi,
usmcecho4

 

[metro]

Unfortunatley, most people have their heads so far buried in the sand, that by the time it affects them to the point they care (cant go to Starbucks and watch American Idle) it will be too late to do anything.

Agreed. On EVERY significant issue facing our nation or world today.

I personally think one of the best things that could happen to our nation would be for everyone's cable to go out. Not phones, not Internet, or other forms of (at least) two-way communication, but the pure entertainment sources (which it has pretty much become, or else umpteen different news channels putting a different spin on the same event/situation) such as television.

Why?

If Joe Sixpack sits down in front of his TV and his Friends and Seinfeld are on, he thinks "Well, things can't be THAT bad, or they wouldn't be showing Friends and Seinfeld!"

Take away his television programs, replace them with nothing, or with some sort of public service message, and suddenly he's going to pay attention.

Just my two cents/rambling thoughts about this phenomenon.

For the record, or for anyone who wonders, I don't and won't have cable television in the forseeable future. There's too much other **** for me to do...I don't have time to watch other people do what they/I want to do.

 

[Steve Wilkins]

So you support no-knock warrants?

Yes, in situations that warrant them.

This case is NOT about whether no-knock warrants are ok or not, though. It is about whether the evidence collected as a result of serving a LEGAL warrant should be excluded because the police failed to knock on the guy's door. The police in this case did announce their presence before entering the home, btw.

Yes, this is absolutely a conservative decision. Had Justice O'Connor been on the bench still, this case would most likely have gone the other direction. And that would have been bad. To say that the police are now going to use this decision as a basis to abuse their powers is a bit far fetched IMO. The police know full well that entering a home in such a manner as in this case is dangerous and typically not in their best interest if it can be avoided. However, no-knock warrants do become necessary when the element of surprise is necessary to help ensure criminals don't have enough time to destroy evidence or get to their weapons while the cops wait outside at the door.

IMO, evidence should not be suppressed simply because the police didn't knock on the door before entering the home when serving a LEGAL warrant. Yes, I've bolded and underlined that word twice now because it's important. If the warrant is not legal, then by all means any and all evidence collected should be suppressed. Note though, that not knocking on the door doesn't make serving the warrant an illegal search.

 

[Cate]

I've posted on this before. The "right to privacy" is a made-up, catch-all "right" which was a springboard by the Warren Court (a left-wing institution if there ever was one) to assert themselves on a wide variety of legislative issues.

It turned from "evidence obtained by illegal means is inadmissible" to "killing anyone who isn't born is legal"... all under the guise of "privacy".

Newsflash, folks: the Founding Fathers believing in logic through exclusion, not through blanket inclusion. Anyone every wonder why the Bill of Rights were "Amendments"?!?

There is no such thing as "right to privacy". It's a bullsh!t leftist concept. What exists is the right to illegal search and seizure, and guess what? The idea that evidence obtained under a legal 4th Amendment warrant should be thrown out because the cops didn't knock is nothing more than another effort to protect criminals a la Gideon v Wainwright and Miranda v Arizona.

This crap has to be put to a stop. Thank goodness the Supreme Court has a clue, unlike Judge "can't go to jail because he's too short"

Quick argument - Don't really know what you meant by logic through exclusion vs. inclusion, but the point of the Constitution was to outline the rights of the government as given to them by the people. Government by the consent of the governed, and all that. That's actually something that sets us apart from other countries that have similar constitutions; most of them outline rights granted to the people by the government.

The Bill of Rights was drafted to clarify many of the rights that the people enjoy, but, per contemporary papers by the framers of the Constitution, the point was never to say that those were the only rights the people had. Alexander Hamilton, in fact, initially objected to a bill of rights, because he was afraid that by outlining some rights of the people, it would be assumed that those would be the only rights guaranteed to the people.

That's why the right to privacy is such a big question mark. No, there is no amendment declaring that Americans have a right to do their own thing in their own homes, but it's been argued that a) the Fourth Amendment allows for such privacy and b) we have a right to privacy until an amendment is passed saying that we don't have one.

 

[Dalamara]

Unfortunatley, most people have their heads so far buried in the sand, that by the time it affects them to the point they care (cant go to Starbucks and watch American Idle) it will be too late to do anything.

Totally agree.

The one that gets me the most riled up is gas prices and SUVs...

Department of Energy estimates that if everyone drove a 40mpg vehicle then we would completely eliminate the need for oil from the Middle East.

Yet people won't stop wasting fuel until gas gets too high to afford... and then like you said it's too late.

 

[Brett327]

Totally agree.

The one that gets me the most riled up is gas prices and SUVs...

Department of Energy estimates that if everyone drove a 40mpg vehicle then we would completely eliminate the need for oil from the Middle East.

Yet people won't stop wasting fuel until gas gets too high to afford... and then like you said it's too late.

Ahh yes. If only the environmentalist wackos could impose their will against the rest of us inconsiderate wasters, we'd all be able to enjoy a blissful Utopian existence. Give me a break. My vehicle gets 10 MPG - how do you like me now? Gas prices aren't high because of SUVs. Why don't you go harp on the Chinese and the Indians for growing their economies?

Brett

 

[Dalamara]

So, cutting our fuel consumption down to the point where we wouldn't have to rely on importing oil from the Middle East wouldn't help things a bit? Please explain the logic in this.

Like you said China and India are rapidly upping their demand for oil. So does it make sense for us to also continue to drive up the market when we have alternatives?

Basically you're saying "It's okay for us to waste oil because China and India waste more". Come on dude.

If you can afford and SUV, you can afford a hybrid.

 

[DanMa1156]

Dalamara, if we still rely on oil, it doesn't matter where you get it. It is a fungible product, meaning wherever you get it from, it's basically the same product, and the market price is the same. If we were to buy soley Canadian oil, it wouldn't make a lick of difference... all it would mean is China wouldn't be able to buy Canada's oil, and would just import it from somewhere else.

As a result, you can't just get off "middle eastern" oil dependency.

Point: Brett.

However, if you meant we look for alternative energy that we could produce in North America, then by all means, I agree with you. The fact is though that oil is going to be consumed by others, if not us, and it will come from the middle east.

 

[Dalamara]

... My point isn't about Middle Eastern Depedency.

My point is that it saves a huge assed amount of oil.

 

[MasterBates]

Use Biodiesel, if you have a dielsel vehicle.

It works, its proven. Not a total fix, but I would rather have some american farmland grow soybeans for use as fuel, than collect some USDA subsidy to sit idle.

Been using it when I can since 1997. My old lab is working on a Jet-A replacement that uses it.

T-Gil fuels in P-Cola has it.

T-Gill Fuels, 2103 W. Herman St., off Pace Boulevard, 3 blocks north of Texar

There are also Tax-Writeoff of 1 cent per gallon per percent of Biodiesel for your federal income taxes. Alternative fuels credit.