The Police No Longer Have to Knock Before Busting Into Your House

This is a great day for law enforcement. Now, if we can only get the disasterous Miranda decision overturned......

 

Curtis, I am not surprised you would make such a comment! I guess you would like living in a police state.



But tell me, why is it a bad idea to require a suspect being arrested of their rights. If they don't know them, any confession can be thrown out of court, along with any conviction. Best they know upfront they have the right to remain silent, to an attorney, that their statements will be used against them. If they speak, then the conviction holds. Seems like a good idea to me.

 

As another case in point against no-knock raids, last year here in Denver, police busted into the wrong house, saw a man laying in bed and noticed him holding something shiny. They shot him to death.

OOPS! They were in the wrong house, and he was just holding a can of Pepsi Cola.

These so-called "exceptions" will happen more and more with this disastrous ruling.

 

And you accuse Republicans of fear-mongering.

I stand by what I said. We're more worried about violating criminal's rights than the lives & well being of their victims.

Shame on us.

 

Curtis, that's the point...the Miranda ruling protects the victims, insuring solid convictions. And remember, at the time of arrest, they are not criminals. Guilt must be proven by evidence beyond a reasonable doubt.



Also, innocent people do get arrested. Yesterday's Houston Chronicle uncovered a case where overly aggressive police convicted a teen of murder and he was executed. Ooops! He was innocent. I fail to understand how anyone wants to give every local cop the right to invade.

 

That's what the left cried about Guliani. People whined that he was violating civil rights, but he cut the city's murder rate more than half. I know Bill Clinton took the credit, and lot's of folks called Guliani a facist. But he sure made a safe city.

If you have a search warrant served, I'll bet the chances are over 90% that you have violated someone else's rights, allready. I'll believe all the left's cries of unfair when they start sticking up for victims as much as the do the criminals.

I stand by what I said. Shame on us.

 

You stand by what you say, but you failed to address why insuring solid convictions and putting criminals away is a bad idea? The Miranda ruling helps insure that happens.


Also, do you have any evidence that 90% of arrests result in convictions? Source please. Do you think innocent people are ever falsely convicted? And, even assuming for a second that you have that figure correct, do you believe in violating the other innocent 10%?

 

Where did I say 90% of arrests lead to convictions ? Nowhere. If you're not going to be honest, how can we debate ?

Look, your method put murderers back on the streets. Are you going to honestly tell me it's a better system ?

You failed to prove miranda rights ensure solid convictions.

 

Curtis, don't accuse me of being dishonest. That is something that I am not. You said 90% of those arrested violated someone's rights. That to me, means they were convicted. So perhaps I didn't understand what you were saying, but I am not dishonest. So, please explain, and tell me where that 90% of whatever you mean, comes from.


What is "my method" you talk about? Give me examples of a massive problem with murderers being released back on the streets. And how does that relate to Miranda?

I already stated that Miranda insures solid convictions by eliminating the appeals based on defendants not knowing their rights before talking to the cops.

 

I didn't say anything like that. I stated an opinion on search warrants, and you have twisted it to say something completely different. Go re-read it, as my third-grade writing skills should be easy enough to understand. I don't feel like explaining it, and really don't care what you take out of it.



You'll have to wait for the stats, but you'll get them. Maybe you'll twist those, as well.

 

So now I am not dishonest, but am twisting what you said? Same thing. To paraphrase someone, "how can we have a debate"? I don't get your point, third-grade skills or not. If you don't feel like explaining it, how can we have a debate. Please clarify, I truly don't have any idea what your point is.

 

Don't sweat it MP the black masked multinational police force will save us all when we're under martial law. Then all these guys that think trashing the constitution is such a great idea will all be going wha wha wha? Most likely they along with you and I will be considered dangerous religious extremists.

 

Now how do those two statements compare ? Does the latter even address the former ? Or did you somehow twist it, intentional or otherwise.

 

Well, let's see.

I agree with you. So does that make you ignorant too? Or were you wrong to call me ignorant.

Yes you do. Which I also agree with. So again, does that make you ignorant? Or were you wrong about me?

You see, no one here (not even the Court) has said you are not free from unreasonable search and seizure. The law has a means to determine "reasonable search and seizure." It is called a search warrant. So, the case at hand relies on a search warrant and therefore has answered the fourth amendment question. How did you not know that, is the question.

That may all be true, but the constitution addresses none of those things. They are really not that dangerous truth be told. You are focused on one case to the exclusions of thousands of contrary cases. In probably cause cases, danger is a part of life. You are not constitutionally protected from that.

To call me part of the problem illustrates that you don't even know what the problem is. EVery single objection you have raise is either already addressed by the constitution and the courts, or not constitutional.

So who's ignorant? It's clearly not me. I wouldn't call your ignorant either. You have simply failed to think about the actual issues.

 

Larry, its obvious you don't see the danger of the ruling, and that is why I think you, along with all other American's who are oblivious to the ever-rapidly shredding of the Constitution, are indeed part of the problem.

As to using the word "ignorance", maybe that was a bit strong. It was in response to you basically telling me the same thing, that I was uneducated on the issue. I assure you, I am not. In any case, please accept my apology for the strong word. In retrospect, I could have phrased myself a bit better.

 

I think you are overestimating the effect of this ruling. It looks very narrowly tailored. The constitution may be being shredded in some cases, but this is certainly not one of them. I do think you have overestimated the issue because of your presumptions that you bring in.

BTW, I wasn't particularly offended by the ignorance comment. Obviously, we disagree and both think it is because the other person is "ignorant" of some issues. But thanks for the apology. We could all phrase ourselves better, myself included.

 

The warrant, which is in hand, is signed by a judge,who gives oversight, to enter and search the premises, even against their will, does not need permission to enter the premises. There are no rights lost here.

 

If the police barge into my house they're going to have to fix my door after they don't find anything. :laugh:

 

I concur.

Joseph Botwinick