Silicon Investor (SI) -- The First Internet Community

STOCKTALK

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor. We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community. If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.

Politics : View from the Center and Left -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: Ilaine who wrote (21306)	6/17/2006 6:15:54 AM
From: Lane3	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 541695

It's very hard for me to accept that anybody that the cops "like" for a crime is automatically a scumbag, worthy of no protection. I didn't say that. Not even close. My point is that cops have a role to play which is to identify a suspect and build a case against him. You can't do that if you have first and foremost in your mind that the suspect is innocent. That's a total contradiction. You have to think you've identified the guilty party. That doesn't mean that the guilty party has no protections or that you treat him like a scumbag. I'm just recognizing roles. The role of cops supports the notion of presumption of innocence, which plays out in the courtroom requirement that the cops gather enough evidence to prove guilt beyond a reasonable doubt. Their mindset that the suspect is probably guilty is a role in the system supports the presumption of innocence.

To: Ilaine who wrote (21306)	6/19/2006 12:44:05 PM
From: TimF	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 541695

Leaving politics to the side, many crimes were "victimless," The answer to that it to change the law to make the actions legal. I don't see how tossing out evidence if the police announce themselves but don't knock when serving a warrant helps people like Lenny Bruce or the publishes or Eros magazine much. They can be pushed around by law enforcement or rigidly controlled by laws after the police knock. The case in front of the court wasn't even a case of the police being forbidden to enter without knocking, they won't be tried for criminal trespass if they serve a warrant without knocking, but the evidence gets tossed. If the contents of a published magazine or a well known comic are considered a crime than tossing out the evidence the cops find at the scene won't make a lot of difference. Sufficient evidence is already quite public. I really don't see how these cases are a relevant factor when considering no knock warrants.