The No-Knock Warrant MUST GO!!

[Maverick9]

As concerns my original post: With the proliferation of some of the more violent gangs (MS13 comes readily to mind) and the fact that many of them are armed as well or better than many police departments, I can see LEAs being permitted, under strict guidelines, to use superior firepower.

Perhaps somewhat off-topic, but the gubmint is NOT SERIOUS about gang violence. You can't convince me that IF they wanted to they couldn't go in and completely destroy these gangs. They WANT some gang activity. It keeps them employed.

It also allows them to say 'see gangs are better armed, we need mo' gunz'. So follow the motivation. Ask any SWAT member 'if you could magically get rid of all gangs and overly armed factions but YOU had to go back to wearing a 1950s cop uniform and carrying a revolver would you agree?'. NOBODY would agree to this. Trust me, they all love their gear too much.

 

[marshaul]

If you really want to decrease the threat of gangs (including MS-13), cut off their funding. Money drives every aspect of gang violence, from immediate motivation to the ability of gangs to recruit and perpetuate themselves beyond the (statistically short) lifetimes of current members.

End prohibition. Create an environment where the demands filled by gangs can instead be filled by legitimate interests operating in the open, under the watchful eye of society at large.

Alcohol suppliers were, at one time, known for their violence and their being very heavily armed. Today, the only guns in that business are found under the counters of liquor stores, for legitimate self-defense. The difference? You already know that.

 

[ron73440]

If you really want to decrease the threat of gangs (including MS-13), cut off their funding. Money drives every aspect of gang violence, from immediate motivation to the ability of gangs to recruit and perpetuate themselves beyond the (statistically short) lifetimes of current members.

End prohibition. Create an environment where the demands filled by gangs can instead be filled by legitimate interests operating in the open, under the watchful eye of society at large.

Alcohol suppliers were, at one time, known for their violence and their being very heavily armed. Today, the only guns in that business are found under the counters of liquor stores, for legitimate self-defense. The difference? You already know that.

^This X 1000

 

[half_life1052]

No, if the process was working, these individuals would have never been convicted in the first place.

A last minute exoneration is not something to rely on. The state will do nothing to ensure you have the ability to pursue exonerating evidence.

For your statement to be valid, we would have to be certain that every innocent man on death row has miraculously found exonerating evidence before execution.

I highly doubt this is the case. But, again, it is nearly impossible to prove either way.

Frankly, I don't see any utility in a death penalty when the risk of government abuse (or plain old ineptness) is real. The cost of housing real, genuine threats to society for life pales in comparison to spending on police toys for enforcing the War on Drugs, court proceedings against millions of non-aggressive, non-criminal individuals, overseas adventurism, Federal bloat, etc etc etc.

I must disagree. Your argument presumes that erroneous convictions are common instead of rare. I will not pursue this further here.

 

[half_life1052]

The historical record can not predict, with absolute certainty, that the last innocent executed by the state was in fact the last innocent to be executed by the state. We must all await for the historical record to be updated with new data.

Translation.....a cite is not needed until after the next innocent is found to have been executed.....by mistake of course.

I am stating flatly that there have been no innocents executed in the modern (post Furman V Georgia)era. Did it happen before that? It looks like it may have happened early on in the 20th century but nothing more recent than 60 years ago. By now we have exhausted most cases that were decided before DNA became a common tool in the courtroom. I don't want to take any more bandnwidth up here. I suppose we will agree to disagree.

 

[half_life1052]

If you really want to decrease the threat of gangs (including MS-13), cut off their funding. Money drives every aspect of gang violence, from immediate motivation to the ability of gangs to recruit and perpetuate themselves beyond the (statistically short) lifetimes of current members.

End prohibition. Create an environment where the demands filled by gangs can instead be filled by legitimate interests operating in the open, under the watchful eye of society at large.

Alcohol suppliers were, at one time, known for their violence and their being very heavily armed. Today, the only guns in that business are found under the counters of liquor stores, for legitimate self-defense. The difference? You already know that.

On this point we mostly see eye to eye. To extend your line of thought a little further, police forces aren't interested in ending gangs for that very reason. Gangs provide a rich source of cash and property that is forfeited to the department after a bust. No, they would much rather ride the horse than kill the horse. Then we move on to the point about the government providing cash and toys to deal with the problem.

 

[marshaul]

I must disagree. Your argument presumes that erroneous convictions are common instead of rare. I will not pursue this further here.

It does not. It states than even a single occurrence is too many, because of the likelihood that the accused will not be able to come by inarguably exonerating evidence after their conviction.

 

[marshaul]

On this point we mostly see eye to eye. To extend your line of thought a little further, police forces aren't interested in ending gangs for that very reason. Gangs provide a rich source of cash and property that is forfeited to the department after a bust. No, they would much rather ride the horse than kill the horse. Then we move on to the point about the government providing cash and toys to deal with the problem.

Yup, this is why police lobbies promote prohibition so heavily. It keeps they money flowing. They must "win" the unwinnable, a fact which has not escaped their notice.

 

[EMNofSeattle]

1. Agreed, the no-knock warrant must go, and the sooner the better.

2. De-militarize all law enforcement agencies. A good start would be banning the use of military rank and rank insignia. It is highly offensive to me, a retired soldier, to see those insignia on men and women who did not, the way I and others did, earn them.

O course they earned them, do you get offended seeing british soldiers being called a sergeant? Do you get offended every time some whiny ass liberal actor plays a lieutenant on TV? The titles existed long before the US Military......

On that note if an honorably discharged army sergeant becomes a police sergeant is it offensive to you if they use e term sergeant?

 

[marshaul]

O course they earned them, do you get offended seeing british soldiers being called a sergeant? Do you get offended every time some whiny ass liberal actor plays a lieutenant on TV? The titles existed long before the US Military......

What on earth are you talking about? The US military absolutely predates the existence of police entirely.

The whole "rank" thing in the context of civilian policing is all really quite masturbatory.

 

[EMNofSeattle]

What on earth are you talking about? The US military absolutely predates the existence of police entirely.

The whole "rank" thing in the context of civilian policing is all really quite masturbatory.

And before professional police forces the military was frequently used for law enforcement...

How old are you? 13?

 

[davidmcbeth]

What on earth are you talking about? The US military absolutely predates the existence of police entirely.

The whole "rank" thing in the context of civilian policing is all really quite masturbatory.

I generally refuse to call policemen "officers", SGT, LT, CAPT, COL, etc. They are not military officers.

 

[marshaul]

And before professional police forces the military was frequently used for law enforcement...

Exactly. A practice highly antithetical to the American tradition.

I mean, duh. Are you trying to make my point, or yours? :lol:

How old are you? 13?

 

[OC for ME]

I am stating flatly that there have been no innocents executed in the modern (post Furman V Georgia)era. Did it happen before that? It looks like it may have happened early on in the 20th century but nothing more recent than 60 years ago. By now we have exhausted most cases that were decided before DNA became a common tool in the courtroom. I don't want to take any more bandnwidth up here. I suppose we will agree to disagree.

Read it again, my post that is. I do not contend that innocent citizens will be executed by the state, I merely contend that we will not know until after a innocent citizen is executed that he in fact was innocent.

When "agree to disagree" is used rational debate is not possible with the citizen who invokes this phrase.

 

[EMNofSeattle]

Read it again, my post that is. I do not contend that innocent citizens will be executed by the state, I merely contend that we will not know until after a innocent citizen is executed that he in fact was innocent.

When "agree to disagree" is used rational debate is not possible with the citizen who invokes this phrase.

The people on death row are given free attorneys who are paid 50 to 100 dollars an hour to review every comma of the transcripts and are given all kinds of appeals that would otherwise never be considered. An innocent man is far more likely to be exonerated on death row then while in life in prison. People sentenced to life are rarely given the same resources, and if they die serving a life sentence no one bothers to find out if they were innocent. So is the guy who serves life in prison after being wrongfully convicted and dies morally inferior to an innocent person executed?

 

[marshaul]

The people on death row are given free attorneys who are paid 50 to 100 dollars an hour to review every comma of the transcripts and are given all kinds of appeals that would otherwise never be considered. An innocent man is far more likely to be exonerated on death row then while in life in prison. People sentenced to life are rarely given the same resources, and if they die serving a life sentence no one bothers to find out if they were innocent. So is the guy who serves life in prison after being wrongfully convicted and dies morally inferior to an innocent person executed?

Fascinating, but irrelevant.

 

[EMNofSeattle]

COMMENTS REMOVED BY ADMINISTRATOR: No misquoting other posters

 

[marshaul]

Fixed it for you

It does nothing of the kind. It's an irrelevant red herring.

All it does is establish that there is an increased likelihood of a person on death row being exonerated. It says nothing about the precise magnitude of the remaining risk. Relative risk is irrelevant.

It is fallacious to imply that it renders the risk of a false execution of no concern merely by decreasing it, when the argument presented is that essentially any risk is too much in this case.

You're going to have to try much harder if you want to make your first compelling argument, StrawmanofSeattle.

 

[OC for ME]

David Zarefsky, author of Lincoln-Douglas Debates literature inter alia, and professor of communications, teaches that a "commitment to concord" is required for effective argumentation, otherwise debate devolves to the bickering that we see here.

My daddy used to call the "agree to disagree" crowd he "debated" with as they sticking to their facts and he sticking to his facts.

http://www.goodreads.com/quotes/63402-you-are-entitled-to-your-opinion-but-you-are-not

Agree to disagree is long on "woulda, shoulda, coulda" arguments and short on "is or is not."

Anyway, facts are facts, citizens who were innocent of the crimes they were wrongly convicted of did perish at the hands of the state, whether by overt methods, or from old age/infirmity, the end result is the same, the state killed them unjustly. It has happened before and it will happen again. A life sentence without parole is a death sentence just as is a death sentence.

BTY, another instance of indoctrination vs. being taught.....not you though.

 

[half_life1052]

My daddy used to call the "agree to disagree" crowd he "debated" with as they sticking to their facts and he sticking to his facts.

http://www.goodreads.com/quotes/63402-you-are-entitled-to-your-opinion-but-you-are-not

Agree to disagree is long on "woulda, shoulda, coulda" arguments and short on "is or is not."

Anyway, facts are facts, citizens who were innocent of the crimes they were wrongly convicted of did perish at the hands of the state, whether by overt methods, or from old age/infirmity, the end result is the same, the state killed them unjustly. It has happened before and it will happen again. A life sentence without parole is a death sentence just as is a death sentence.

BTY, another instance of indoctrination vs. being taught.....not you though.

Let me try short and declarative minus any attempt to be polite:

The death penalty is off topic here. I am not continuing.
"we shall agree to disagree" means " I am done arguing with you".
The correct forum would be prodeathpenalty.com.

That being said , what the police choose to call themselves to identify "who is in charge" matters little to me. They don't need military style equipment any more than I do.