printI have very ambivalent feelings about drug legalization, though I can certainly understand the arguments that have been advanced for it in libertarian circles. The thing I oppose here is the destruction of the fourth amendment that this type of thing represents and the gross abuse of such ‘no-knock’ warrants by prosecutors, judges, and police.
Such warrants are routinely sought by careerist DA’s, rubber-stamped by moronic judges, and carried out with blind stupidity by police. The list of innocent victims of such abuse grows every day. While there might be a rare in extremis instance where such a raid might possibly be justified (against a cell of jihadis preparing an terrorist attack, for example), that’s not what’s going on day after day in city after city.
Instead, we end up with innocent victims of prosecutorial, judicial, and police misconduct and incompetence, for whom there is zero recourse. Yes, there will no doubt be an official investigation and yes, no doubt the shooting of the 92-year-old woman will be ruled “justified.” It’s as predictable as the sun rising in the east. I think a more appropriate response for this type of wanton stupidity would be: 1) the summary dismissal with prejudice of the officers involved (meaning they will never wear a badge again); 2) the removal of the prosecutor who sought the warrant; 3) the summary removal of the jurist who signed the warrant. In all, the guilty parties should have their careers ruined for good.
If a doctor screws up and kills a patient, the odds are high that he will be carved up like a Thanksgiving turkey by hungry trial lawyers via malpractice suits. If prosecutors, judges, and police screw up and an innocent person dies, they are all quite immune from lawsuits since they are acting in official capacity as government employees.
–CAROLUS
As I mentioned here http://rantsand.blogspot.com/2006/11/libertarians-emerge-as-spoilers.html
one practical reason for the legalization of drugs, and other victimless crimes, is that if we do have to take in extremis measures to catch terrorists, it’s going to be a lot more palatable to our people if they’re not terrified of what the guvmint might find out about our private vices.
Some years ago here in Oklahoma, a mistaken no knock raid resulted in the (thankfully non-fatal) shooting of a man who attempted to defend himself with an antique firearm. They then tried to charge him with assaulting a police officer.
An old-fashioned Okie judge ruled something to the effect that, “If someone busted down my door and charged in I’d damn sure try and shoot him.”
I’d like to think there are still some like him around…
[WorlNetDaily is covering a related story originating in the newspaper that was my first employer in Canada. WND had an expose of the death of private property in its magazine.]
I sure hope that coverage of this story doesn’t stop until every fact is ferreted out and analyzed to the fullest extent. I can’t stand the fact that qualified immunity exists in these cases. It is so antithetical to justice. It places the minions of the government above the law instead of under it.
In my opinion, the government should have a higher standard of care than ordinary citizens in such instances. I believe that civil government should be considered to have a fiduciary duty to its citizens in its enforcement of law, and the attendent duty of care that a fiduciary relationship requires.
A system which gives immunity for wrongdoing and the bearing of false witness is a system designed to, even if unintentionally, foster criminality, in my opinion.
Any study of the criminal justice system will reveal a strong and ever changing oversight of the local police force by the juduciary and a free rein given to the federal alphabet agencies with police power. I have a friend who routinely searches trash for evidence of probable cause to obtain a warrant. He has also routinely entered domains where heavily armed felons reside and peddle their merchandise. To describe this trade as victimless is a farce. To knock on the door and inform the occupant that you have a warrant would be an invitation for them to shoot you.My concern is the practice of the feds to deputize local law enforcment officers giving them expanded jurisdiction and less accountability to the local community.I am concerned about the incidents where the feds go after law abiding citizens involved in trades the fed doesn’t approve such as gun dealers,collecters and smiths. There is a long line of abuses in this category, the most famous being David Koresh of Waco Texas and the many victims that perished at the hands of the fed who had a warrant for which they had no jurisdiction to serve.
Don,
How many heavily armed felons are there peddling moonshine these days?
Did you notice that Koresh was treated the same way a drug dealer would be? Didn’t they claim there was a meth lab there to justify bringing in military assets?
Is the machine of state worthy of trust with the tools of violence to be used against its citizens state of mind?
i give up John, how many? The warrant the BATF had for Mt. Carmel compound did not mention a meth lab. There was no probable cause for getting the warrant for local law enforcement had already investigated the allegations and found no laws were violated. BATF had no jurisdiction to investigate child abuse.The weapons at Mt. Carmel were confiscated by the county sherrif and returned. Ask Kaye Bailey Hutchinson and Janet Reno or Billy Bob Clinton why military hardware was used. It wasn’t because they suspected a meth lab. The machine of state must have the tools of violence in order to enforce the law. It cannot be trusted to do so but must be supervised and held accountable by the citizenry who themselves are sufficiently armed to check tyranical abuses.