|
|
Post by ironbite on May 25, 2011 14:18:04 GMT -5
While you're all on this appeal to authority kick, maybe you could explain to Justice Ginsberg that she doesn't really know anything about law. Was she wrong? Or know nothing about law?/ Fuck no. She just wasn't in the majority. There's a reason there's multiple judges on the bench for SCOTUS. So they have two different opinions. Ironbite-Seriously dude....just cause she wasn't right in this case doesn't invalidate every opinion anyone's ever had. |
|
|
|
Post by Shane for Wax on May 25, 2011 14:24:28 GMT -5
We never said Ginsberg knows nothing about law. Lots of people quabble over the meaning of the law and have their own opinions on how cases should go. But when the MAJORITY states something I think it has a bit more of an impact than a couple of people.
Unless you want to start a revolution.
|
|
|
|
Post by Napoleon the Clown on May 25, 2011 15:32:30 GMT -5
While you're all on this appeal to authority kick, maybe you could explain to Justice Ginsberg that she doesn't really know anything about law. They have education in the relevant field. Would it be an appeal to authority if I were to take the input of an astronomer over a layman with regards to the nature of the universe? No? Okay then. Learn what an appeal to authority is instead of getting in a huff because we disagree with you. |
|
|
|
Post by Haseen on May 26, 2011 4:50:12 GMT -5
There's a difference between disagreement and condescension, spamming of facepalm macros, etc. If it was "oh so obvious", it would be a unanimous decision. For that matter, it wouldn't have made it to the Supreme Court in the first place.
Fine. If someone could explain where exactly I'm wrong about the 4th amendment, I'll shut up about the whole thing, because I'm honestly curious:
Your private property can't be searched or intruded upon without a damn good reason...
...and a warrant or probable cause with the identity of suspects and nature of the crime is necessary. In the case, they enter a private apartment believing person A is committing crime A, but actually find person B committing crime B. How would that be any different (and legally, is it?) from obtaining a search warrant, but searching the wrong house and stumbling upon a different crime?
(Note that I'm not questioning the judgement of the cops entering the wrong apartment, which they did based on the best of their knowledge, just the validity of the evidence gathered, which is normally thrown out when the search warrant requirement is not met.)
|
|
|
|
Post by Shane for Wax on May 26, 2011 4:55:51 GMT -5
There's a difference between disagreement and condescension, spamming of facepalm macros, etc. If it was "oh so obvious", it would be a unanimous decision. For that matter, it wouldn't have made it to the Supreme Court in the first place. Fine. If someone could explain where exactly I'm wrong about the 4th amendment, I'll shut up about the whole thing, because I'm honestly curious: Your private property can't be searched or intruded upon without a damn good reason... ...and a warrant or probable cause with the identity of suspects and nature of the crime is necessary. In the case, they enter a private apartment believing person A is committing crime A, but actually find person B committing crime B. How would that be any different (and legally, is it?) from obtaining a search warrant, but searching the wrong house and stumbling upon a different crime? (Note that I'm not questioning the judgement of the cops entering the wrong apartment, which they did based on the best of their knowledge, just the validity of the evidence gathered, which is normally thrown out when the search warrant requirement is not met.) You said it twice. Probable cause. Please to be learning English, the Constitution, and what your rights actually are. Also, plain view. Which I mentioned. Multiple times. You've lost. Please find another hill or commit seppuku now. |
|
|
|
Post by m52nickerson on May 26, 2011 8:30:20 GMT -5
Fine. If someone could explain where exactly I'm wrong about the 4th amendment, I'll shut up about the whole thing, because I'm honestly curious: Your wrong because the Supreme Court of the United States says you are wrong. The Supreme Court, as an institution, has the final say on the laws in the United States. Your interpretation of the Constitution does not matter. If your interpretation does not match the Supreme Court's you are wrong. |
|
|
|
Post by dasfuchs on May 26, 2011 9:13:46 GMT -5
"There's a difference between disagreement and condescension, spamming of facepalm macros, etc." Wow, one image....that's spamming? "If it was "oh so obvious", it would be a unanimous decision. For that matter, it wouldn't have made it to the Supreme Court in the first place." Because nothing viewed as "obvious" has ever reached the SC before, ever. Even the right to bear arms has been taken to the SC. Hell, most every law that's come out of DC has because someone somewhere disagreed Go have a read en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fourth_Amendment_to_the_United_States_Constitution"The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated," Your rights of privacy will not be violated "and no Warrants shall issue," And warrants to violate it will not be issued "but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized." Unless there is probable cause, etc. As was said before, lrn 2 englsh |
|
|
|
Post by Napoleon the Clown on May 26, 2011 16:07:40 GMT -5
Would you be saying the same thing if they had instead busted in to find a rape or murder in progress? I notice this has yet to be answered... |
|
|
|
Post by wmdkitty on May 26, 2011 18:42:41 GMT -5
Would you be saying the same thing if they had instead busted in to find a rape or murder in progress? I notice this has yet to be answered... Oh, sod it. I'll tackle this. Drug use is, arguably, a victimless crime. The act of ingesting a drug only harms the one ingesting it. Murder and rape, on the other hand, have actual victims, the person who is killed or violated. Thus, it could be argued that the police should go after the crime that does the greater harm. I'm not arguing either way, just trying to flesh out the idea. |
|
|
|
Post by ironbite on May 26, 2011 18:58:17 GMT -5
Crime is still a crime is still a crime. Just so you know. Police can't pick and choose what crimes they go after.
Ironbite-pot use is still a crime in this country Kitty.
|
|
|
|
Post by Shane for Wax on May 26, 2011 19:50:20 GMT -5
People kill each other over drugs and because of drugs.
And as ironbite said, you can't really see a cop picking and choosing. It may seem like they are...
|
|
|
|
Post by wmdkitty on May 26, 2011 20:32:13 GMT -5
People kill each other over drugs and because of drugs. That's a direct result of prohibitionist policies. If drugs were legal, people wouldn't be killing other people over them. Just look at Prohibition-era America! People weren't killing other people over alcohol until the government decided to make alcohol illegal. The government literally created the first drug-runners. |
|
|
|
Post by Shane for Wax on May 26, 2011 20:34:56 GMT -5
*headdesk*
|
|
|
|
Post by ironbite on May 26, 2011 20:45:58 GMT -5
Move over Shane.
Ironbite-I need that desk for headbutting myself.
|
|
Neith
Junior Member
Posts: 80
|
Post by Neith on May 26, 2011 20:48:22 GMT -5
Reading this thread is frustrating. Anyone who thinks the cops didn't have "probable cause" to go into that apartment, and any "search and seizure" was "unreasonable" is being about as paranoid as some of the people who get quoted on the main page. Those cops acted appropriately, and the court was correct to make that ruling. You have said " probably cause" so many times, I know it can't be a typo. Do you even know what " probable cause" means? It doesn't mean, "Well, maybe they had a reason to, but then again, maybe didn't. Hell, I don't know. Let's flip a coin."  I mean, if we are going to talk about "reasonable" how reasonable is it to think that someone running from the police is going to toke up and create an aroma of weed in the few seconds he was out of their sight? That seems an unreasonable assumption. Picture this scenario. A drug dealer, being chased by the cops, runs into his apartment that is saturated with the smell of pot because he and his buddies always smoke in there. He thinks he got away, but then there's a knock on the door. "Shit, man, the pigs are here! We gotta hide this shit!"But then again, who would ever expect a drug dealer, of all people, to have friends who smoke pot? That's just ridiculous!  |
|
