Nov 2023 Mod notice:
There may be other, more specific, threads about some aspects of US politics, but this one tends to act as a hub for all sorts of related news and information, so it's usually one of the busiest OTC threads.
If you're new to OTC, it's worth reading the Introduction to On-Topic Conversations
and the On-Topic Conversations debate guidelines
before posting here.
Rumor-based, fear-mongering and/or inflammatory statements that damage the quality of the thread will be thumped. Off-topic posts will also be thumped. Repeat offenders may be suspended.
If time spent moderating this thread remains a distraction from moderation of the wiki itself, the thread will need to be locked. We want to avoid that, so please follow the forum rules
when posting here.
In line with the general forum rules, 'gravedancing' is prohibited here. If you're celebrating someone's death or hoping that they die, your post will get thumped. This rule applies regardless of what the person you're discussing has said or done.
Edited by Mrph1 on Nov 30th 2023 at 11:03:59 AM
CIA: 'Zero Dark Thirty' is 'not a documentary'
@ Kostya: They look into people's backgrounds, and they get warrants based on what they legally own and have access to. They get warrants to search the homes and storage facilities that those people have their names attached to by way of ownership/lease/rent. This doesn't apply to family members or friends unless those family members are directly implicated as well. So unless those people whose home has been invaded were somehow directly involved or believed to be directly involved based on some form of evidence (a "tip" is only circumstantial at best), the warrant would not have been served. Proper procedure, and all that.
You can suspect someone of having ties all you want, without evidence, suspicion is not enough.
edited 22nd Dec '12 3:06:09 PM by DevilTakeMe
Glove and Boots is good for Blog!What @Kostya said.
Sorry, but I just can't take 'FBI raid wrong house in drugs bust' seriously as an example of major invasion of civil rights by the FBI.
If you'd picked it to show FBI incompetence, you might have a point.
edited 22nd Dec '12 3:10:28 PM by Bluesqueak
It ain't over 'till the ring hits the lava.
I'm against most Hearsay
and any action based around an unsubstantiated rumor. Without direct evidence, or at least a confirmation of eyewitness testimony.
![]()
I don't think anyone really said anything about civil rights there.
It's an example of why you can't always trust the government to do their job perfectly. They're human, too, and make mistakes. I just don't want to have to be the person to pay for someone else's mistake.
edited 22nd Dec '12 3:15:25 PM by DevilTakeMe
Glove and Boots is good for Blog!
He isn't affecting you by buying guns at a gun show. He is only affecting you by going down to the school with them.
Again, you can't punish someone for something he might do. Only for what he does, which includes what he says he's going to do. And unless he said it, he hasn't done that, either.
edited 22nd Dec '12 3:18:43 PM by DevilTakeMe
Glove and Boots is good for Blog!
But you are punishing people (the FBI) for what they might do. Because you're presuming one case of mistaken identity (FBI raid wrong house in drugs bust!) means that all the other agents are going to do this all the time in the future.
And therefore they should have to knock before entering. And get cast-iron evidence before they apply for the warrant. Of course, the reason they're applying for the warrant in the first place is to get the evidence...
edited 22nd Dec '12 3:30:16 PM by Bluesqueak
It ain't over 'till the ring hits the lava.
No, and I would kindly ask that you stop making such such presumptions about what I am saying. I said that the ability of the No-Knock Warrant can be abused, and shouldn't always be deployed.
I'm of the opinion that law enforcement in the US has gone way too far in the direction of militarization, of heavy-handedness, and being careless of their relationship with the public. Serving warrants is no more risky now than it ever was, but when you have an expensive SWAT team you have a tendency to want to give it something to do. Dramatic busts look more impressive and let the cops play with more toys.
There's also the problem that so many warrants are obtained based on information from informers, not all of whom are all that trustworthy.
And no-knock raids (or the effective equivalent) raise the risk to everyone — because they push people to mistakes. Cops shoot people they think have weapons, and don't. The people being raided don't realize it's police and shoot a cop thinking they're being attacked by a criminal gang. People die of shock or bad reactions to smoke grenades or the like.
A brighter future for a darker age.
"Not always" Means "not necessarily be used." Relevant to drug search crimes based on potentially spurious rumor and possible hearsay. Warrants are usually based on something substantial when presented to a Judge, and the warrant is to search for more hard evidence. Maybe the other homes actually did have something substantial, but not that house. That's how it falls through the cracks in -that- system.
But even if they are mistaken, it's usually that it's ruled that it wasn't a mistake at all, and it leaves the home owner with 8 holes in wall. Can't even get the FBI to fix that.
Moving on that way, then.
edited 22nd Dec '12 3:46:34 PM by DevilTakeMe
Glove and Boots is good for Blog!Postal workers continue hunger strike against proposed delivery cuts
CodePink Says It Went to NRA Press Conference to Protest Gun Rights 'Propaganda'
I think I said a while back that this round of gun control debate would get ugly fast.
I wish I wasn't right.
Everything is Possible. But some things are more Probable than others. JEBAGEDDON 2016There's also the problem that so many warrants are obtained based on information from informers, not all of whom are all that trustworthy.
And no-knock raids (or the effective equivalent) raise the risk to everyone — because they push people to mistakes. Cops shoot people they think have weapons, and don't. The people being raided don't realize it's police and shoot a cop thinking they're being attacked by a criminal gang. People die of shock or bad reactions to smoke grenades or the like.
I'm of the opinion that you are right. Especially because this military action seems to be only directed at people the government doesn't like, rather than people who are legitimately dangerous.
If I were to write some of the strange things that come under my eyes they would not be believed. ~Cora M. Strayer~edited 23rd Dec '12 3:36:54 AM by DeviantBraeburn
Everything is Possible. But some things are more Probable than others. JEBAGEDDON 2016@Devil Take Me, the argument that "Cars are not protected by 2nd amendment, weapons are" leads me to this question:
If you were to weld blades on your car and call it a weapon, would you then say it's now protected by the 2nd amendment therefore you no longer require a license to drive it?
"And as long as a sack of shit is not a good thing to be, chivalry will never die."I don't think you need a license to drive a tank on the road. I'm not sure though. There's a number of weapons that don't require licenses because their crime rates are pretty much microscopic fractions of gun homicides (such as flame throwers). Long guns fall into this category, only being used in small fractions of a crime, usually spree shootings (which also make up a small fraction of homicide).
Fight smart, not fair.

How do you think this thing works? Generally they don't know for certain but they have a pretty good idea when someone has broken the law and they respond accordingly. The police can't be 100% certain all the time.
edited 22nd Dec '12 2:42:20 PM by Kostya