Interesting constitution rights dillema

[Majic Walrus]

Actually, I'll rephrase that.

If someone was walking around my area, and they was stopped and searched unfairly, but the cop found a gun on them I wouldn't give a toss that he shouldn't of been searched. I would just be happy that a man walking around my area with a lethal weapon has been nicked.

Another example of the ends justifying the means. How great would you feel if you got pulled over once a week or even every day and searched. The cops take up your time and then find nothing and leave.

Honestly I'd rather there be more drugs and guns on the street than have my freedom constantly jeopardized a la Nazi controlled Germany circa WW2.

 

[November Rain]

wrong people still go to jail regardless but having a system that can be manipulated for to allow guilty parties to get away with things is poor. it's like everyone knows what's going on.

It's like an insurance company trying to wiggle out of giving you a claim based on some smallprint 220 pages in to your contract. It's not on.

 

[Ace of Knaves]

Look, I'm not saying police should be able to stop and search anyone they fancy. But if that does happen, and they do actually find something incriminating, the case shouldn't just get thrown out. The fact is the guy is breaking the law, simple as that.

It's sorta like all the Muslims over here, especially in London, who were complaining about being randomly stopped and searched. Well, tough luck i'm afraid. Not all muslims are terrorists, but at this precise moment in time the most dangerous terroists are Muslims. They will just have to deal with it like the Irish had to deal with it when "The Troubles" were going on.

 

[Eggyman]

wrong people still go to jail regardless but having a system that can be manipulated for to allow guilty parties to get away with things is poor. it's like everyone knows what's going on.

It's like an insurance company trying to wiggle out of giving you a claim based on some smallprint 220 pages in to your contract. It's not on.

I know what you're saying.

'Oh, I'm sorry, this mass murdering bastard gets off completely because someone ticked the wrong box.'

There should be a lil give in the system to allow for the odd mistake and trivialities to be rectified/ignored.

 

[Matt]

I too am torn on this. I would like to read the wording of the decision.

 

[November Rain]

saying the most dangerous terrorists are muslims is somewhat ignorant.

you're letting the media dictate what you should be thinking. That's dangerous ****.

 

[November Rain]

I know what you're saying.

'Oh, I'm sorry, this mass murdering bastard gets off completely because someone ticked the wrong box.'

There should be a lil give in the system to allow for the odd mistake and trivialities to be rectified/ignored.

let common sense prevail.

This is of course presuming all the evidence showing the mass murdering bastard is beyond reasonable doubt actually a mass murdering bastard.

worse case scenario, judge it on a case by case basis

 

[Eggyman]

let common sense prevail.

This is of course presuming all the evidence showing the mass murdering bastard is beyond reasonable doubt actually a mass murdering bastard.

worse case scenario, judge it on a case by case basis

Well obviously, seeing as we ARE talking about common sense.

 

[moraldeficiency]

Guy should be let off scott free, no other decision is right or lawful considering the laws we live under. It sucks he gets off, but cops already have almost god like power and authority, to allow them more is a mistake I cannot stress enough. It sucks that some *******s get away because they use their rights or mistakes by authorities to do it, but that's a million times better then looking over your shoulder thanks to big brother every day.

 

[Ace of Knaves]

So what if he was caught in possession of a nuclear warhead? Should he still be let off just because the cops made a mistake? It's exactly the same principle.

 

[Hotwire]

The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, 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.

This is our law on the matter. Unfortunately, finding a nuclear warhead would still fall under this. But chances are, anyone with a nuclear warhead in their home is breaking some other laws that would have already caught the attention of law enforcement.

 

[Ace of Knaves]

I suppose you are right. But to be honest, some of the laws you have in your country are frickin insane. Isn't there one in Alabama where you can't stroke you cat after 5pm on a sunday or something?

 

[Majic Walrus]

So what if he was caught in possession of a nuclear warhead? Should he still be let off just because the cops made a mistake? It's exactly the same principle.

It's entirely different.

Look, I'm not saying police should be able to stop and search anyone they fancy. But if that does happen, and they do actually find something incriminating, the case shouldn't just get thrown out. The fact is the guy is breaking the law, simple as that.

I see wht you mean, the problem is that if the cops are allowed to use this evidence that they obtained illegally, they might be tempted to continue to obtain evidence outside of the law. That would be bad.

It's sorta like all the Muslims over here, especially in London, who were complaining about being randomly stopped and searched. Well, tough luck i'm afraid. Not all muslims are terrorists, but at this precise moment in time the most dangerous terroists are Muslims. They will just have to deal with it like the Irish had to deal with it when "The Troubles" were going on.

And the fact that they had to "deal" with it sucks.

 

[Ace of Knaves]

Yea it does suck. My whole family is Irish, i'm half Irish. Back in them days, being a Irish family in London was hell. But they all understood why. Was it fair? No. Was it necessary? Yes

 

[moraldeficiency]

I suppose you are right. But to be honest, some of the laws you have in your country are frickin insane. Isn't there one in Alabama where you can't stroke you cat after 5pm on a sunday or something?

that's true about every country in the history of existence though. I'm sure there are all sorts of odd laws out there, but this isn't one of them. Innocent until proven guilty means just that. Cops should actually have to work to catch criminals, but by allowing "mistakes" to work for you you've basically just created a police state. And that's much more scary than some criminals getting off from time to time.

Your muslim comment earlier is the same reasoning behind the japanese encampments in the US during WW2.

 

[wiegeabo]

I suppose you are right. But to be honest, some of the laws you have in your country are frickin insane. Isn't there one in Alabama where you can't stroke you cat after 5pm on a sunday or something?

That argument doesn't hold water. I'm sure there are laws everywhere that are hundreds of years old, but still technically on the books.

In the case of this guy, if the warrant is valid and open-ended, then anything illegal the police find executing the search (guns, drugs, etc...) can be used to prosecute the suspect. But if the warrant is invalid, it becomes an illegal search and seizure. All evidence become 'fruit of the poisoned tree' and is inadmissible. So, the question is, was the warrant still valid even after being recalled?


And the reason the 4th Amendment to the US Constitution exists is to protect the citizenry from the tyranny of a police state. And that's not just to protect the innocent from having their time wasted or lives disrupted from random searches. It protects them from being wrongly convicted from planted evidence and corrupt police work. Without this protection, the police could stop me on the street, or come into my home, plant evidence, and say I did something I didn't.

But the protection from illegal search and seizure would get this case thrown out of court because the police would have to convince a judge to issue a warrant in the first place. Of course, it could still happen, but it adds an extra layer of protection.

Unfortunately, since we can't tell who is guilty or innocent until after a conviction, it must be applied equally to all people. (Which is another part of our Constituion, equal protection under the law.)


And it's not like this is a new thing. Making sure a criminal doesn't have any technicalities to get them off should be a standard part of crime fighting. It's in the job description. If a police officer can't get his **** together and do the proper paperwork, he shouldn't be a police officer because he's not doing his job properly.

 

[Ace of Knaves]

No it isn't, not at all. Why would the police randomly stop and search a white man who clearly isn't a muslim when looking for terrorist activity? Doesn't it make sense that if they are looking for terrorist activity they should stop more muslim people?

 

[Ace of Knaves]

That argument doesn't hold water. I'm sure there are laws everywhere that are hundreds of years old, but still technically on the books.

In the case of this guy, if the warrant is valid and open-ended, then anything illegal the police find executing the search (guns, drugs, etc...) can be used to prosecute the suspect. But if the warrant is invalid, it becomes an illegal search and seizure. All evidence become 'fruit of the poisoned tree' and is inadmissible. So, the question is, was the warrant still valid even after being recalled?


And the reason the 4th Amendment to the US Constitution exists is to protect the citizenry from the tyranny of a police state. And that's not just to protect the innocent from having their time wasted or lives disrupted from random searches. It protects them from being wrongly convicted from planted evidence and corrupt police work. Without this protection, the police could stop me on the street, or come into my home, plant evidence, and say I did something I didn't.

But the protection from illegal search and seizure would get this case thrown out of court because the police would have to convince a judge to issue a warrant in the first place. Of course, it could still happen, but it adds an extra layer of protection.

Unfortunately, since we can't tell who is guilty or innocent until after a conviction, it must be applied equally to all people. (Which is another part of our Constituion, equal protection under the law.)

My tongue was firmly in cheek there, hence the But you guys do have some incredibly stupid laws over there.

But the point i am making is this. The guy broke the law, simple as that. I'm not saying cops should just be able to randomly stop and search people, no at all. I'm saying that if that does happen, and they DO find something that is illegal, then it shouldn't get thrown out of court.

There is a guy walking down the street, he looks a bit shifty but that's it. The police stop him and search him, maybe unfairly but they do it anyway. It just so happens that said guy had a 10inch blade on him. Should he get let off because his civil liberties were ignored? Or should he get arrested because he was carrying a lethal weapon? I know which one i would pick.

 

[Ugfugly]

I too am torn on this. I would like to read the wording of the decision.

http://www.scotuswiki.com/index.php?title=Herring_v._United_States

There's some recap there of the oral argument from some of the Justices.

 

[Majic Walrus]

No it isn't, not at all. Why would the police randomly stop and search a white man who clearly isn't a muslim when looking for terrorist activity? Doesn't it make sense that if they are looking for terrorist activity they should stop more muslim people?

More pedophiles are white. Should they stop all white people? The Muslim group is waaay to broad to profile with any actual accuracy.

 

[moraldeficiency]

No it isn't, not at all. Why would the police randomly stop and search a white man who clearly isn't a muslim when looking for terrorist activity? Doesn't it make sense that if they are looking for terrorist activity they should stop more muslim people?

Right, and when we were at war with Japan we locked up all the Japanese people here. Same basic principle. That was wrong and so is profiling. All you're doing is making sure the honest muslims (the vast majority) have a good reason to feel isolated and mistrusted like the terrorists want them to feel. The thing about freedom (besides costing a buck o' five) is you have to apply it even when it's hard, actually I'd say that's the most important time. You don't get to just stand by your principles when it's easy and convient but then change the rules to make things easier for yourself. If that's true then applying that logic you would agree with the worst dictators in history cause that's what they do.

As far as randomly stopping white people, where I come from all the terrorists are white (Ireland).

 

[Eggyman]

Does no one think this is lunacy? Letting a guy go who has been searched and found in the possession of illegal items? WTF? How many people on here will own up to having their car pulled over and searched? Maybe you were parked at a dodgy spot, smoking a fat one, and a copper came over? People get searched all the time. lol

I've seen people throw bags of drugs out of car windows because they don't want to get caught with it lol. Why would they do that if there wasn't any danger in having them. Police have been known to go into pubs and bars and ask people to empty their pockets.

Within reasonable doubt?

I'm not sure what I actually think about it morally, and I'm not sure on the level of evidence is needed to be able to search someone - although I've heard of cases where the arresting officers just seem to pick people out, randomly searching.

I'm puzzled by this

 

[moraldeficiency]

Does no one think this is lunacy? Letting a guy go who has been searched and found in the possession of illegal items? WTF? How many people on here will own up to having their car pulled over and searched? Maybe you were parked at a dodgy spot, smoking a fat one, and a copper came over? People get searched all the time. lol

I've seen people throw bags of drugs out of car windows because they don't want to get caught with it lol. Why would they do that if there wasn't any danger in having them. Police have been known to go into pubs and bars and ask people to empty their pockets.

Within reasonable doubt?

I'm not sure what I actually think about it morally, and I'm not sure on the level of evidence is needed to be able to search someone - although I've heard of cases where the arresting officers just seem to pick people out, randomly searching.

I'm puzzled by this

A lot of cops are just *****. If a cop really wants to nail you with something, you're getting nailed as they can find plenty of "loopholes" as well. Rights and laws only make the balance somewhat less completely in the cop's favor.

 

[wiegeabo]

My tongue was firmly in cheek there, hence the But you guys do have some incredibly stupid laws over there.

But the point i am making is this. The guy broke the law, simple as that. I'm not saying cops should just be able to randomly stop and search people, no at all. I'm saying that if that does happen, and they DO find something that is illegal, then it shouldn't get thrown out of court.

There is a guy walking down the street, he looks a bit shifty but that's it. The police stop him and search him, maybe unfairly but they do it anyway. It just so happens that said guy had a 10inch blade on him. Should he get let off because his civil liberties were ignored? Or should he get arrested because he was carrying a lethal weapon? I know which one i would pick.

If the guy does indeed looks 'shifty' or as if he's about to do something wrong, then the police can actually stop him. Or at the very least follow him and see if he actually does commit a crime. And it'll actually have a chance of standing up in court because the police can claim it was probable cause.

But if this guy was just minding his own business, and they stopped him without a warrant, it's no good. Because the police had no right to suspect him of anything. So, even if he was doing something illegal, like carrying an unregistered weapon, I don't think the police should be allowed to arrest him.

This is where the validity of that warrant comes in. If it was valid, case closed. If not, then the conviction should be overturned.


And when criminals do get off on technicalities, I think the people need to stop blaming the courts for letting them go. The courts are doing their job. It's the police (and likely prosecutor) who should get the blame for going to court without making sure everything is proper first.

 

[Ace of Knaves]

Right, and when we were at war with Japan we locked up all the Japanese people here. Same basic principle. That was wrong and so is profiling. All you're doing is making sure the honest muslims (the vast majority) have a good reason to feel isolated and mistrusted like the terrorists want them to feel. The thing about freedom (besides costing a buck o' five) is you have to apply it even when it's hard, actually I'd say that's the most important time. You don't get to just stand by your principles when it's easy and convient but then change the rules to make things easier for yourself. If that's true then applying that logic you would agree with the worst dictators in history cause that's what they do.

As far as randomly stopping white people, where I come from all the terrorists are white (Ireland).

Yea but all i'm saying is that at this present time, the most dangerous terrorists are muslims, that is a fact. I'm not saying all muslims are terrorists, not at all. But why should the police ***** foot around at the detriment of our safety? The fact is, in this present climate it is much more likely that a muslim COULD be a terrorist. Not a white man.

My family is from Ireland as well, i'm half Irish. They all didn't like it, but they were living in London, a target for the IRA at the time. They had to put up with it, so should Muslims.