Title : Quickies: Tragedy Begets Sanity
link : Quickies: Tragedy Begets Sanity
Quickies: Tragedy Begets Sanity
Or at least, a halting step toward sanity:
HOUSTON, Texas (KTRK) -- Houston Police Chief Art Acevedo says 'no-knock' warrants will end on his watch after the controversial raid that left a man and his wife dead on the southeast side...."Nobody is as pissed off as me," Acevedo told the crowd. "There's a lot of good work going on. One or two people have taken relationships and taken community relationships back decades, and it pisses me off."
I am unfamiliar with what any court has said about “no-knock” raids. If a federal court has ruled on such things, it would have to contrive some sort of legal exception to the Fourth Amendment:
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.
I can’t see it. How could there be any exception to the plain wording of the amendment without destroying all basis for the stated right? Never mind that there have been so many erroneous “no-knock” raids, that innocent people have been killed, have had their homes and lives destroyed, and have often faced criminal charges for acting to defend themselves against the invasion of their property. Never mind the numerous cases of “SWATting,” in which maliciously inclined persons have used police power to disrupt the lives of those they dislike. And never mind that there is no way to get your reputation back once one’s neighbors have seen the police at your doorstep.
In the case cited here, the Houston police killed two entirely innocent persons. That’s an outrage of the highest degree. But what if those persons had possessed some sort of contraband? The usual excuse for a “no-knock” raid is the presence of drugs that can be easily destroyed should the possessor have any warning that the police are coming. Given the significant probability that a “no-knock” raid on the home of someone who would face felony changes for what he possesses will eventuate in lethal violence, how can anyone rationalize it? Is it reasonable that a man should face the prospect of death by gunfire for such a thing?
I know, I know: I’m a hopeless idealist who thinks people should be free to own whatever they can rightfully acquire without legal consequences. Totally out of step with the hyper-paternalistic ethos of our era. But I leave those of you who are supporters of the War on (Some) Drugs with a question: How many persons, innocent or otherwise, must lose their lives to police-state tactics before you concede that there’s something wrong with the law? Were the law and its enforcers to target something you prize – say, your guns – would you feel the same way as you do about the War on (Some) Drugs and the tactics used to prosecute it?
Thus Article Quickies: Tragedy Begets Sanity
You are now reading the article Quickies: Tragedy Begets Sanity with the link address https://theleknews.blogspot.com/2019/02/quickies-tragedy-begets-sanity.html
0 Response to "Quickies: Tragedy Begets Sanity"
Post a Comment