Those people were not black. Yes, blacks get killed in “no knock” operations. So do whites. Claiming that it is a race thing is stupid and counterfactual.
Mr Young was not saying it only happens to black people, he was saying the media was more sympathetic when it happened to white people.
Terr, I must say that it is refreshing and surprising to find a thread where I agree with you 100%. It is really nice to find common ground with someone you disagree with on most other political issues.
The militarization of police and increasing use of swat teams, no knock raids, and other paramilitary tactics used against drug users and small time dealers is only going to end in more tragedies like this and more alienation and distrust of police by the common citizen. This trend, the privatization of prisons, and the introduction of perverse financial incentives to incarcerate people is the number one problem in this country in my opinion. There should never be a financial incentive for one person to take away the freedom of another, because if there is people will lose freedom so others can prosper. Full stop.
I agree. I know there is a contingent of people on the “right” who are stupidly locked into the “give police more powers, war on drugs” kind of thing. Those are not my kind of right wingers. When I say less government and less regulations, I include decriminalization of innocuous and victimless crimes, and subsequently less police and police powers.
Unfortunately, there are enough people on your side of the fence who support more police powers/more regulations/more laws and, subsequently, more criminals. Enough that politicians on the left are afraid to be voted out if they don’t support such policies. It’s probably (IMO) a consequence of the “big daddy” view of the government that your side tends to have.
I must disagree about privatization of prisons. People who run the prisons are not the people who put people in prisons. So there are no financial incentives there to take away freedom of others. But our stupid politicians (your side as well) passed quite a few laws that give financial incentives to law enforcement and government to take away freedom of others. That is definitely a problem.
If there is money involved, there are financial incentives. Don’t be ridiculous. It’s already happened at least once.
Couldn’t agree more. But I also don’t see broad support for removing those incentives, nor do I see a clear path to such support; the police are, as a concept if not in actual person, practically worshipped in the US at the moment and it seems unlikely that anything will change that attitude any time soon.
To be more precise: the police are worshipped by the sort of people who will turn out on Election Day and vote for candidates who are “tough on crime”. On the other hand, the people terrorised by the police generally do not turn up to vote on Election Day. If they did, politics might be a little different in the US.
I think it’s more than just the majority of the voting public, tho. I think the general public’s over-arching deference to the police borders on worship: they obey because they believe retribution will follow anything but abject cooperation and/or because it’s the right thing to do.
SO while I think you have some fair point, Giles, I also think much of our society and culture is built around the concept of the successful/powerful accruing more success/power, so I repeat that I don’t see the situation changing anytime soon.
Coming through a window suggests sneaking to me. One guy goes in and opens the door for the rest of the team. When they’re in position, shock and awe. Announcing yourself before you’re in the house doesn’t seem like best practice on a no-knock raid.
This is not true. Groups like Alec and the large corporations in the prison industry have sponsored laws for mandatory drug sentences and three strikes laws, spending millions on campaigns and effecting referendums. Even if this was not the case, even if they were like Caesar’s wife and above reproach, I, like you think regulations are bad. You should never regulate anything because history has shown again and again that it just does not work. What you need to do is control incentives. There should never be a financial incentive to lock up another human being and private prisons are an abomination in this regard. They have zero interest in reforming prisoners, zero interest controlling recidivism, and zero interest in limiting the cost of incarceration to taxpayers. They, at least if they are doing their job, want to maximize the number of prisoners and minimize the amount spent on each prisoner. This is what a corporation does and there is nothing that is immoral about it. So rather than regulate it, remove the incentive. Get rid of privatized prisons and remove the incentive to profit from incarceration. The drug war would die withing a decade and we would cut billions in spending and lower all of our tax/debt burden.
The Constitution prohibits unreasonable searches. I feel that one of the standards that should be applied in determining whether a search is reasonable is the subject of the search should have the opportunity to become aware that the legal standards are being met. I don’t think it’s enough that just the searchers are aware these standards have been met.
Anyone know why this isn’t a thing?
Once it’s flushed, the claim could be made that it was flushed there an unknown time ago by someone else.
Not a strong claim, unless the person can demonstrate that they just moved in.
More true than not, unfortunately.
Cocaine, which was the Big Evil when this no-knock nonsense started, is water soluble. Good, pure coke will dissolve completely and immediately. Don’t know about heroin or meth. Flushing pot has never been much of an issue.
It looks like an open-and-shut case to me. The cops never identified themselves and never served a warrant. The homeowner acted in clear self-defense and the surviving cops should be fired. But of course it won’t work that way.
And no, shouting “POLICE!” does not constitute identifying themselves. Turn the situation around: If a cop stopped me and asked me to identify myself, would he be satisfied with me shouting “PROFESSOR!” and charging him?
Agreed. Once the cops yell “POLICE” may I respond by yelling “LAW ABIDING CITIZEN” and since I identified myself as not committing any crimes, must they stop their search?
If this is the new legal standard, then burglars will start yelling “POLICE” when they enter homes to gain an advantage. Seems to be textbook self-defense.
I don’t think it works that way. The police have special powers enacted by law. Professors do not.
But as I’ve said, the police should be required to identify themselves as police in order to invoke their special legal powers. A citizen should not be subject to any action that is only legal for the police to do unless he is aware that it is a police officer doing it.
That’s already happened on a number of occasions.
Has it?
Not challenging, just asking.