Police don't have to knock, CNN article

[MaggieL]

Originally Posted by Ibram

When it comes to gun control, I feel protected enough that everyone else has one. The bad guys don't know that I dont. Even if I did, I wouldnt use it.

Absolutely the best reason for you not to have them.

This is worth a read.

[Ibby]

I personally believe in absolute gun control -- I think nobody, NOBODY should have them. In practice, however, that's stupid, for all the reasons you've mentioned time and time again. Therefore, I take the same stance on guns that I take on eating meat; I wish nobody owned or used guns, but since thats not going to happen, I can at least not use one myself.

[MaggieL]

Originally Posted by Ibram

I personally believe in absolute gun control -- I think nobody, NOBODY should have them...I wish nobody owned or used guns...

This is perhaps some new meaning of "beleive in" which which I am not familiar. It appears to be related to "wish for". :-)

So you'd be happy to return to the situation of medevial days where the physically smaller and weaker person was at the mercy of the larger and stronger.

[Ibby]

Well, okay, yeah, that has its flaws too, and you're right, more like wish for than believe in... What can I say? I'm an idealist.

I'll repost all of these here...

To disarm the people is the most effectual way to enslave them." ~George Mason~

"To ban guns because criminals use them is to tell the innocent and law-abiding that their rights and liberties depend not on their own conduct, but on the conduct of the guilty and the lawless, and that the law will permit them to have only such rights and liberties as the lawless will allow... For society does not control crime, ever, by forcing the law-abiding to accommodate themselves to the expected behavior of criminals. Society controls crime by forcing the criminals to accommodate themselves to the expected behavior of the law-abiding." —Jeff Snyder

TJ on Disarming Public
"Laws that forbid the carrying of arms...disarm only those who are neither
inclined nor determined to commit crimes...Such laws make things worse for
the assaulted and better for the assailants; they serve rather to encourage
than to prevent homicides, for an unarmed man may be attacked with greater
confidence than an armed man."
-Thomas Jefferson, quoting Cesare Beccaria

“Guard with jealous attention the public liberty. Suspect every one who approaches that jewel. Unfortunately, nothing will preserve it but downright force. Whenever you give up that force, you are ruined.”
-- Patrick Henry, 3 Elliot, Debates at 45 (Virginia Convention, June 5, 1788).

“God forbid we should ever be 20 years without such a rebellion. The people cannot be all, & always, well informed... what country can preserve it's liberties if their rulers are not warned from time to time that their people preserve the spirit of resistance? Let them take arms... The tree of liberty must be refreshed from time to time with the blood of patriots & tyrants. It is it's natural manure.”
-- Thomas Jefferson to William S. Smith on Nov. 13, 1787. The Papers of Thomas Jefferson, ed. Julian P. Boyd, vol. 12, p. 356 (1955).

“I ask, Who are the militia? They consist now of the whole people, except a few public officers.”
-- George Mason, 3 Elliot, Debates at 425-426, June 16, 1788

“And that the said Constitution be never construed to authorize Congress to infringe the just liberty of the Press, or the rights of Conscience; or to prevent the people of the United States, who are peaceable citizens, from keeping their own arms.”
-- Samuel Adams, Debates & Proceedings in the Convention of the Commonwealth of Massachusetts, 86-87 (February 6, 1788).

“Men feared witches and burnt women. It is the function of speech to free men from the bondage of irrational fears.” - U.S. Supreme Court Justice Louis D. Brandeis (1856-1941), Whitney v. California, 274 U. S. 357 (1927)

“If all mankind minus one were of one opinion, and only one person
were of the contrary opinion, mankind would be no more justified
in silencing that one person, than he, if he had the power, would
be justified in silencing mankind.”- John Stuart Mill, On Liberty

“He that would make his own liberty secure, must guard
even his enemy from opposition: for if he violates this duty he
establishes a precedent that will reach to himself. ”- Thomas Paine,
Dissertation On First Principles Of Government

The Bill of Rights to the U.S. Constitution was ratified on December 15, 1791
“Censorship reflects a society’s lack of confidence in itself. It is a hallmark of an authoritarian regime . . . .” - Supreme Court Justice Potter Stewart, dissenting Ginzberg v. United States, 383 U.S. 463 (1966)

“The very purpose of a Bill of Rights was to withdraw certain subjects from the vicissitudes of political controversy, to place them beyond the reach of majorities and officials and to establish them as legal principles to be applied by the courts. One’s right to life, liberty, and property, to free speech, a free press, freedom of worship and assembly, and other fundamental rights may not be submitted to vote; they depend on the outcome of no elections.” - Supreme Court Justice Robert Jackson, West Virginia State Board of Education v. Barnette, 319 U.S. 624 (1943)

[xoxoxoBruce]

The few times I've been through the "justice mill" (all being non-felony), I was reminded over and over, by lawyers and judges, that I should not apply reason or practical thinking. The law must be followed regardless of whether it makes sense in the particular instance. Their hue and cry is "We are a nation of laws".

OK, but in this instance, the Supremes are saying the law says one thing but practical considerations are more important, so the law comes second. WTF?

[MaggieL]

Originally Posted by xoxoxoBruce

OK, but in this instance, the Supremes are saying the law says one thing but practical considerations are more important, so the law comes second. WTF?

No, the Supremes are *interpreting* the law..that being their job. That's how this issue became "law" in the first place; it is in fact based on precedent itself based on a common law principle.

Originally Posted by http://www.fbi.gov/publications/leb/1997/may976.htm

In Wilson v. Arkansas,1 decided in 1995, a unanimous Supreme Court held for the first time that whether police "knock and announce" their presence before executing valid search warrants is part of the Fourth Amendment inquiry into the reasonableness of a search.

There's no written law that actually says police must knock and announce.

And in the case we're discussing the cops did in fact knock and announce


I'm quite impressed by the ability of folks to project their beliefs onto this with utter disregard for the facts of the case, the law and the decision.

[Griff]

The poorest man may in his cottage bid defiance to all the forces of the Crown. It may be frail – its roof may shake – the wind may blow through it – the storm may enter – the rain may enter – but the King of England cannot enter – all his force dares not cross the threshold of the ruined tenement!
~ William Pitt

[MaggieL]

Originally Posted by Griff

The poorest man may in his cottage bid defiance to all the forces of the Crown. It may be frail – its roof may shake – the wind may blow through it – the storm may enter – the rain may enter – but the King of England cannot enter – all his force dares not cross the threshold of the ruined tenement!
~ William Pitt

Very moving and poetic. And in the absence of a warrant, applicable.

But these cops had a warrant.

[Griff]

Originally Posted by MaggieL

And in the case we're discussing the cops did in fact knock and announce

True. Unfortunately, the exclusionary rule has been gutted so we can expect no-knock next time.

[MaggieL]

Originally Posted by Griff

True. Unfortunately, the exclusionary rule has been gutted so we can expect no-knock next time.

How long after knock and announce do the cops have to wait before entering before you think the exclusionary rule should not apply?

Only long enough to flush? Or do they need thirty days written notice?

[xoxoxoBruce]

Originally Posted by MaggieL

No, the Supremes are *interpreting* the law..that being their job. That's how this issue became "law" in the first place; it is in fact based on precedent itself based on a common law principle.

And the fourth amendment to the Constitution which was written specifically to prevent this shit.

There's no written law that actually says police must knock and announce.

See above. It's been in force for over two hundred years and reinforced by the Supremes numerous times between 1917 and 1997, plus state laws in 34 states & DC, so don't tell me it was not the law of the land.

And in the case we're discussing the cops did in fact knock and announce

WHO THE FUCK ARE YOU TO LIMIT THE DISCUSSION TO HUDSON VS MICHIGAN? If they did "knock and announce" why did it get all the way to the Supremes? Somebody along the way, thought not, including the arresting officers:

(Officer)Good testified at an evidentiary hearing that the officers didn’t knock on the front door and waited three to five seconds after announcing themselves as the police before they entered. The prosecutor in the case acknowledged that three to five seconds wasn’t a reasonable warning for Hudson to answer the door, and conceded the officers violated the knock and announce requirement.

I (and I don't think I'm alone) am discussing how the Supremes took away my right to a reasonable chance to put my pants on and open the door before they knock it down.

I'm quite impressed by the ability of folks to project their beliefs onto this with utter disregard for the facts of the case, the law and the decision.

I'm impressed by your attempt to discuss Hudson vs Michigan, change the facts and totally disregard the orders of magnitude more important change in everyones rights.

Originally Posted by xoxoxoBruce
I (and I don't think I'm alone) am discussing how the Supremes took away my right to a reasonable chance to put my pants on and open the door before they knock it down.

xoB, perhaps this can be prevented if you give your local law enforcement agency a set of keys to your house along with a limited power of attorney authorizing them to use said keys should they ever obtain a search warrant!

@ those who were discussing the ramifications of the human "fight or flight" response to potentially startling situations like the aforementioned: I hold this truth to be self evident that regardless of the legalities of a situation in which I perceive an immediate threat to my life, IT'S BETTER TO BE TRIED BY TWELVE THAN CARRIED BY SIX. I will adjust my real time reaction accordingly. I have no intrinsic fear of law enforcement officers. They would really have to fail in their overall performance before they could provoke me; but, it could happen. If it did, they would simply have a bad day (a good day being any day they make it home at the end of their shift).

[MaggieL]

Originally Posted by xoxoxoBruce

WHO THE FUCK ARE YOU TO LIMIT THE DISCUSSION TO HUDSON VS MICHIGAN?

Because that's the case that was decided and the facts it was decided on.

Originally Posted by xoxoxoBruce

If they did "knock and announce" why did it get all the way to the Supremes? Somebody along the way, thought not, including the arresting officers:

Because the guys with the dope and the gun thought they should get off because the cops opened an unlocked door only three to five seconds after they knocked on it and announced themselves.

I infer that you agree with them. I agree with the Supremes. Did you read the decision? Or just the hysterical AP wire copy?

Originally Posted by xoxoxoBruce

I (and I don't think I'm alone) am discussing how the Supremes took away my right to a reasonable chance to put my pants on and open the door before they knock it down.I'm impressed by your attempt to discuss Hudson vs Michigan, change the facts and totally disregard the orders of magnitude more important change in everyones rights.

You can discuss anything you want. But what you just said isn't what happened in this decision. The excusionary rule wasn't absolute even before this case. The justices made a judgement applying all the rules to the facts of the case; that's their job. You claim your rights have been "changed by orders of magnitude". I don't think your rights have changed at all.

What might possibly actually change by orders of magnitude is your understanding of the law...but only if you also read and understand the descision itself instead of only the bleating of a liberal press intent on raising a panic over the fact that the composition of the Supremes is more conservatve than it used to be.

[Ibby]

My biggest problem is the whole 'who gets to say who is and isn't a terrorist' thing. Am I a terrorist if I... have an automatic weapon? If I... have the equipment to make poisons? If I... want Bush out of office?

Where do they draw the line? Who makes the descisions? If the courts are ignored... nobody. THAT's the problem, for me.