no right to resist unlawful police entry into their homes

[Brian Pfleuger]

Originally Posted by hogdogs

Those willing to give up a bit of freedom for a little security deserve none of either!

Brent

Ah. The oft-quoted, and completely silly, quote of our illustrious Ben Franklin.

If this quote rings true, none of us deserve either... Including Franklin and all the other founders.

All of them, and all of us, have given up some measure of freedom in order to obtain security.

That's what laws are. That's what government does. They strip small portions of freedom to, at least ostensibly, increase safety and security.

I really hate that quote. It's ridiculous. Just because one of the Founders said it doesn't make it Gospel Truth. They were wrong too.

(No offense, Brent )

[hogdogs]

But when it comes to our constitutional rights... They shant even nibble at them.

Brent

[Aguila Blanca]

Originally Posted by hogdogs

But when it comes to our constitutional rights... They shant even nibble at them.

Ummm ... let's think about that for a moment.

The 2nd Amendment clearly says, "shall not be infringed." Period. That's a blanket prohibition against "nibbling" (despite the fact that judges and legislators today don't appear to be able to read plain English any more). But ...

The 4th Amendment says, "The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, ..." Thus, "reasonable" searches and seizures were contemplated. The Founders expected some "nibbling," on this one, but they also expected limitations on the degree to which nibbling would be allowed. And that's what we're dealing with on this warrant and no-knock question. If we begin (as we should) with the premise that we SHOULD be secure in our homes, except against "reasonable" searches and seizures, the next question would have to be ... is a gang of men wearing black cammies and face masks and carrying automatic weapons bashing in my door at oh-dark-thirty in any way what the Founders had in mind as something that might be "reasonable" and thus permitted under the 4th Amendment?

I never met any of the Founders in person, but nonetheless I respectfully submit that IMHO the answer would be "No."

[hogdogs]

But to me... "reasonable" would be to knock and announce before barging in...

I am no legal scholar so I can't really get into it much... Many here got me beat hands down in that dept...

Brent

[Brian Pfleuger]

I think the question would be more appropriately asked if the founders would have been ok with those masked men bashing the doors of those who are known to produce and distribute dangerous, deadly, illegal substances and who are willing and able to murder those masked men under other circumstances.

Of course they wouldn't be ok with it if it were your door or mine... We're not known criminals.

You have to remember, after all, that these no knock warrants are issued only under extreme circumstances, or at least should be and generally are. It's not like they do it for tax audits.

I don't think we can say much about what the founders would think of our modern world.

Remember, these are men who created the amendment that reads "Congress shall make no law establishing a state religion or prohibiting the free exercise thereof.", and yet, there were several states which had and continued to have official state religions for years afterword... But we think a teacher praying in school violates the amendment.

Much of what they found acceptable, and rightly so, would be "appalling" in today's world, much of what we find acceptable would have been, I think, appalling to them.

[zxcvbob]

I think the question would be more appropriately asked if the founders would have been ok with those masked men bashing the doors of those who are known to produce and distribute dangerous, deadly, illegal substances and who are willing and able to murder those masked men under other circumstances.

Of course they wouldn't be ok with it if it were your door or mine... We're not known criminals.

You have to remember, after all, that these no knock warrants are issued only under extreme circumstances, or at least should be and generally are. It's not like they do it for tax audits. [emphasis added]

Whatever happened to the presumption of innocence? The only known criminals would be escaped fugitives. Or have we done away with the 6th Amendment now too? (imagine the cost savings)

[Brian Pfleuger]

Presumption of innocence is for judges and juries during the trial phase.

Is the street cop supposed to presume innocence when someone is shooting at him, since the shooter has never been convicted?

Law enforcement does and must make presumptions of guilt all day, every day. They have to. They couldn't do their jobs without it.

[Al Norris]

Freedom v. Security. It's an age old question that can be rephrased as Anarchism v. Society.

Throughout the history of mankind, as we moved from Family to Clan to Tribe to City-State to Nation, society has imposed restrictions upon personal liberty. The more complex the society, the more personal freedom is traded for the benefits of living in that society.

Knowing this as a fundamental truth, we can then understand what Franklin actually said: "Those who would give up Essential Liberty to purchase a little Temporary Safety, deserve neither Liberty nor Safety." (a motto on the title page of An Historical Review of the Constitution and Government of Pennsylvania. (1759))

Safety and security are not necessarily the same. In the context of the time, it (the saying above) did not mean what we today think it means.

Regardless, there needs to be a balance between the two concepts of Liberty and Safety. Tilted too far in one direction and we face chaos. The other? Slavery.

[secret_agent_man]

I never met any of the Founders in person

I knew the lot of 'em back in the day. Bunch of drunken tankards, you know. They could never write the Second Amendment the same way twice. God's wonder they ever passed anything before they passed out.

[Glenn E. Meyer]

It was the discussion of high capacity muskets that drove them to drink, IIRC.

My comment is that rights are a social construct and not the laws of physics or constants like the speed of light in a given material. Of course, they are reinterpreted. Look at voting. Free Speech, Etc.

Arguing for absolutism gets us nowhere. Reason is our friend.

[Brian Pfleuger]

And I say the interpretations are social constructs and the rights are universal.

[BlueTrain]

Some of the admendments seem to have infringed on our constitutional rights, come to think of it.

[Musketeer]

It's not just evidence collection we are talking about. Guns are everywhere that drugs are. You don't bang on a door and stand politely outside in a suit and tie while gang members or drugs trafficers grab the Mac-10 and shoot you through the wall. And yes, destruction of evidence is a real possibilty. I have seen buckets of bleach in every room of a crack house to throw dope into.

And, if the crack house was next door to your house, or across the street from your kids school, would you want the police to crack down on it? make an arrest that sticks bcause the evidence didn't get destroyed?

The guns are there because of the value of the illegal trade. The purpose of those guns is more for the defense against other criminals than cops although they would readily use them against cops.

The purpose of most of these raids is to gain evidence for drug prosecutions.

Would I want a crack house next door gone? Certainly.

Even better I would rather it never existed by decriminalizing what people choose to do to themselves and thereby removing the profit margin which has created the drug trade, violence which accompanies it, prison overcrowding (see CA being forced to release tens of thousands by SCOTUS decision), and the whole nonsensical war on drugs with no knock warrants, widespread expansion of tactical teams in local police forces, expansion of Federal police forces, and misappropriation of said police resources for drugs when we should be concerned about borders and terrorists.

[hogdogs]

Musketeer... Decriminalizing "hard" drugs such as cocaine/crack, meth or heroin will not significantly reduce the retail value.

Once it is legal, the "makers" will be required to meet stringent regulations. Once lantern fuel is banned and they must use more expensive ingredients and processes... the money is a "wash"...

Brent

[Musketeer]

Hogdogs,

We will have to agree to disagree. History I believe supports my view as prohibition shows. Making it legal may not in the long run drop the price to the user but it will reduce the profitability to the criminals and with that reduce the violent crime which accompanies it.

[hogdogs]

Musket... switching to PM...

Brent

[Conn. Trooper]

I think in the last 15 years that I have been on the job the number of burglaries, larceny, muggings, ID theft, and fraud, that were not to buy drugs of one kind or another, was maybe 5%. Total. It's not just drugs and who uses them, it's how they get the money to buy them.

My last burglary case was a heroin addict who kicked in the front door of a house on my patrol. I cover 2 towns, and over a hundred square miles, sadly I didn't stop him before he broke in. He took a mother of pearl decorated jewelry box, another plain box, and a whole bunch of other stuff. Threw the boxes in a dumpster, and pawned the stuff. He got $180 for over $4,000 worth of jewelry. The owner was a 89 year old man who brought the mother of pearl box back from India during WWII. He literally broke down and cried when he saw the box was taken. He had owned it for 65 years. I didn't have the heart to tell him we should legalize drugs.

Not really directly related to the topic at hand, it just drives me nuts when people give me the old legalize it line. Good luck with that.

[MLeake]

Conn. Trooper, out of curiousity, do you have comparable stats for the reasons crimes are committed in the Netherlands? It would be interesting to see a direct comparison of rates between the US and a legalized-but-regulated country.

[Conn. Trooper]

Nope, I can only speak from my first hand knowledge. I can see no benefit to making "hard" drugs legal. When a junkie spends hundereds of dollars a day, they have to steal to buy it.

[youngunz4life]

I believe I am in the minority in general that I think drugs should be legalized. Drugs being illegal will not stop the use, abuse, and trafficking of drugs. Also, a large, large number of people have died because of the illegal nature of the drugs: cartels, home invasions, etc, etc. Conn Trooper you are evidence(and this isn't bad) that people usually stick to their guns on this topic/debate.

Just because a drug is legal doesn't mean more and more people are going to be going to stores to buy said drugs. In fact nothing says just because something is legal it has to be regulated - it just means that someone doesn't have to worry about prosecution if they decide to buy crack as one example. Obviously and usually some form of regulation will occur eventually. We as a people will not win a drug war.

As for other countries, there is a reason why America is a binge drinking country. An the old saying goes, "The definition of insanity is doing the same thing over and over again expecting different results."

[blume357]

So, we will all agree (I suppose) that if the druggy kicking in the door had been shot and killed by the 89 year old home owner this was justified...

but if Conneticut trooper is wrong by one house over and kicks in the same door and that old geezer takes him out then he is guilty of murder?

I'm trying to figure out how because we have drug crazed fends kicking in peoples doors it's okay for the government to do the same?

[ConlawBloganon]

So much for the 5th (and 14th) amendment.

[Aguila Blanca]

Originally Posted by BlueTrain

Some of the admendments seem to have infringed on our constitutional rights, come to think of it.

How?

The amendments are part of the Constitution. The Constitution establishes limits on the power of the government, it doesn't in any way limit the People. In fact, it says that the powers not authorized to the (Federal) government are reserved to the states, or to the People.

[BlueTrain]

My comment was mostly tongue-in-cheek but I was think of prohibition, of course. It should go without saying that there was more than a little controversy when the constitution was adopted but nevertheless, it was. And it was admendmended almost right away and continues to be. Now the funny thing is, many today apparently don't like the constitution in the way it gives so much power to the federal government. It just seems like they would like to go back to what we had before, the articles of confederation. The Confederate States, in spite of their name, adopted a constitution almost the same as the US constitution, with certain not unexpected difference.

I guess you can't please all the people all the time.

[Nitesites]

Very interesting thread...

I would hope that the three Justices that voted for this decision would find themselves without appointments next go-round. This decision is too indiscriminate, too vulnerable to abuse. Generally it seems more like a careless attempt at creating a path to curb future civil cases against city and state. I find the ideal contemptuous and the decision reflecting a complete disregard for the general populace.

It is a terrible state of affairs when the citizenry would be given reason to fear the intruding Officer more than the boogieman.

Maybe I should have just remained silent...