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: TimF who wrote (21469)	6/19/2006 6:48:27 PM
From: JohnM	Respond to of 541544

Tim, I think I've typed my fingers sore over this one with Karen. Let me see if I can summarize my conclusions quickly. 1) I thought the Arkansas case took care of the immediate issues that come to mind with the no knock rules. 2) I thought the knock rule was part and parcel of a larger picture of permitting citizens to feel safe and secure in their homes from unwarranted police action. 3) I wouldn't get worked up over the loss of the knock provision itself if it were an isolated matter. 4) But it does seem tied up with a lot of other protections, including Miranda, which, if the exclusionary rule is threatened, are also threatened. Them's my thoughts.