|
|
Welcome to the Exploding Garrmondo Weiner Interactive Swiss Army Penis. |
GFF is a community of gaming and music enthusiasts. We have a team of dedicated moderators, constant member-organized activities, and plenty of custom features, including our unique journal system. If this is your first visit, be sure to check out the FAQ or our GFWiki. You will have to register before you can post. Membership is completely free (and gets rid of the pesky advertisement unit underneath this message).
|
|
Thread Tools |
"Tough Shit" for Innocent Raid Victims
Jam it back in, in the dark. |
If the warrant is valid, how is it the fault of the police? Go after the judge that issued the warrant if anything.
There's nowhere I can't reach. |
Don't you think it could be both their fault? Besides, how is the judge supposed to know that the original suspects moved out of the house if it wasn't investigated by the cops?
This thing is sticky, and I don't like it. I don't appreciate it. |
It's not the judge's job to do all the leg work, is it? I thought that was the cops' job. I am a dolphin, do you want me on your body? |
That's my POINT. If the warrant was issued there was either (A) enough evidence for it to not be the Cop's fault or (B) it's the judge's fault for not demanding more evidence.
Most amazing jew boots |
I guess it was just a matter of time before it happened. Just wondering what would happen if the home owner had shot one of the police officer thinking he was been robbed?
What kind of toxic man-thing is happening now? Check out this neat Media Player that I programmed Jason's Media Player Version: 4.21 Looking for MP3's check out my site Metavian's FTP |
If he had done so he would've been charged with cop-killing.
FELIPE NO |
Except that the Supreme Court didn't rule on the validity of the warrant. They ruled that given a valid warrant, the police are allowed to execute it. So your conclusion that cops have carte blanche to ignore who lives at places is faulty. The judge just has to wake up and demand a reasonable amount of evidence.
What, you don't want my bikini-clad body? |
Which he apparently didn't. What defines a legitimate warrant? When the judge declares it so?
Scratch all of that, we're losing sight of what this case was actually about, which is that the police conducted the search wrongly and that the victims are entitled to compensation. Both sides went into the case under the assumption that the warrant was proper. Most amazing jew boots
Last edited by Bradylama; May 22, 2007 at 11:42 AM.
|
People have been locked up for years and years while being innocent of a crime they were convicted of. After being determined as innocent, they were set free, with no compensation (that I read about) for the years of life the authorities claimed from them. Why would the authorities be obligated to pay compensation over a much smaller issue? Besides, I thought that the police are "immune" to having to pay damages or whatever in cases like these. I could be wrong, since, you know, I'm not an expert. There's nowhere I can't reach. |
This thing is sticky, and I don't like it. I don't appreciate it. |
What the cops did was thuggish overkill, and they should be held accountable for their idiocy.
Recently a man convicted of rape and imprisoned for decades was found to be innocent with DNA evidence and has been entitled to 5 million dollars compensation. Because it's possible for police to get away with negligent behavior without having to give compensation to their victims doesn't mean that they should. I am a dolphin, do you want me on your body? |
I say that the term "victim" is contentious in this context because it can easily be argued that if the proper procedure has been followed in this case, there is no wrongdoing for the subject of such as search to be the victim of. The term "victim" clearly implies wrong doing or ill treatment according to my dictionary. With that said, I personally sympathise with Brady's use of the term here. I believe that the family in this case were indeed treated badly by the police. I merely wish to point out that if the court has stated that proper procedure has been followed, then that is the legal fact of the matter.
However, the warrant was not valid. The reason for that is there was no probable cause to implicate the current owners of the house in question. No real attempt had apparently been made to verify such important details before the search was conducted. The warrant was effectively no longer valid or necessary. The failiure to confirm these details is negligence, pure and simple. That's why some compensation should be due to these people. A search usually entails some degree of property damage, not to mention fear and distress for the innocent. Can you really say it was a reasonable search, when the people who were actually being investigated had moved away? If not, then it should properly fall under the protection of the Fourth Amendment. Not because they were innocent, but because the warrant wasn't truly valid, in the absense of probable cause. I was speaking idiomatically. |
The reason both sides in the case presumed that the warrant was based on probable cause, is because the nature of identity theft means that everything is up for grabs. Even with a different race for the inhabitants, that doesn't exclude the possibility of an identity theft ring.
What kind of toxic man-thing is happening now? |
I've got to admit, that's a point that eluded me. I suppose that does tend to invalidate my argument. FELIPE NO |
So, if I'm entitled to compensation when the cops screw up, does that mean if I contest a traffic ticket and win the state should pay for my emotional trauma?
What, you don't want my bikini-clad body? |
Don't be stupid.
Jam it back in, in the dark. |
Knock-and-announce isn't a necessarily guaranteed by the 4th Amendment, the text hardly defines it as necessary. And knock-and-announce doesn't have anything to do with the validity of the warrant itself. While the Arkansas case in 1995 did hold that the exclusionary principle could apply in cases where knock-and-announce was violated, it was not a steadfast rule.
How ya doing, buddy?
and Brandy does her best to understand
Last edited by BlueMikey; May 23, 2007 at 09:23 AM.
|
This thing is sticky, and I don't like it. I don't appreciate it. |
Sounds reasonable.
How ya doing, buddy? |
Chocobo |
I believe the fault lies with the police in the scenario from the article. Either they got the warrant a while ago and didn't execute the raid or they just got the warrant but failed to accurately trail their suspects. Did they just forget about these guys for a couple of months and then decided to go grab them? Yeah, it takes a while to get warrants, but you still have to make sure they don't run away.
I just found it interesting how the arresting officers didn't seem to even know what their suspects looked like. I was speaking idiomatically. |
It doesn't necessarily matter what the suspects look like.
Like Brady said, just because they're not the same people doesn't rule out the possibility of an identity theft ring. For example if you raid a drug house and come across people besides the suspects it doesn't mean they're immediately innocent. They could be just as involved and guilty as the intended suspects - maybe pushers or dealers themselves. Note: This is in response to BlueEdge's post and NOT the rest of the thread. What kind of toxic man-thing is happening now?
Last edited by Divest; Jun 7, 2007 at 05:47 AM.
|
Chocobo |
True, but I still think the cops should have kept a better eye on the suspects and their actions.
FELIPE NO |
Can we just get rid of the government and the police, yet?
BRB GONNA KILL ME SOME COPS. What, you don't want my bikini-clad body? |