Rand Paul introduces Justice for Breonna Taylor Act to ban "no-knock" warrants

[@thewheels]

Not a single one of them was the result of the drugs. Every criminal act was the responsibility of the criminal who commited it, nobody and nothing else.

You are attempting to absolve the criminal of responsibility by blaming an inanimate object.

If we just got rid of guns...

 

[Marine Cpl]

So what is being said here? That if you ban drugs, drug related crimes that involve victims will stop?

 

[spat]

So what is being said here? That if you ban drugs, drug related crimes that involve victims will stop?

Since drugs are banned and have been for a very long time, i'm not sure what their argument is.

Do they honestly think things will get *worse* than they are now ?

Legalize the drugs, and stop the catch and release for the crimes and things will get *a lot* better.

 

[Marine Cpl]

Since drugs are banned and have been for a very long time, i'm not sure what their argument is.

Do they honestly think things will get *worse* than they are now ?

Legalize the drugs, and stop the catch and release for the crimes and things will get *a lot* better.

Yep. If you legalize drugs and guns, the only crimes related to drugs would be robbery, burglary, assault, and murder. Put harsh sentences on those along with stand your ground laws and those crimes will whither away.

 

[Shadow2]

You clearly use allot of sugar in order to swallow your coolaid. Out of an estimated 50,000 raids a year show me the number of busts that you claim we don't see. I would expect such heinous crimes would be front page news. Sorry the use of SWAT has been abused and the privilege should be taken away. Grant the FBI the privilege and if local PD needs the help for such serious infractions they can call the Feds.

No knock warrants are necessary for both to save lives and the evidence they seek. It’s that simple.
It goes beyond drugs. Imagine a recording of an incident is in the house. You don’t want to give them time to wipe it. That evidence might keep an innocent person from going to jail.
Or that drug that could be flushed down the toilet was used murder some one.
more evidence of a child porn ring that could lead to where the children are.

And let’s add terror cells to a need for a no knock.
It’s a long list of actual examples that the general public never sees.

No knock warrants are necessary for both to save lives and the evidence they seek. It’s that simple.
It goes beyond drugs. Imagine a recording of an incident is in the house. You don’t want to give them time to wipe it. That evidence might keep an innocent person from going to jail.
Or that drug that could be flushed down the toilet was used murder some one.
more evidence of a child porn ring that could lead to where the children are.

And let’s add terror cells to a need for a no knock.
It’s a long list of actual examples that the general public never sees.

 

[Mr. terzmo]

Can’t go wrong with Rand, gotta love him!

Rand Paul introduces Justice for Breonna Taylor Act to ban "no-knock" warrants

There's now a bipartisan consensus in Congress that police reform is necessary.

www.axios.com

why not enforce that a messenger be sent,in advance, to explain to the suspect that the police are in the building...

 

[Truebeliever]

You clearly use allot of sugar in order to swallow your coolaid. Out of an estimated 50,000 raids a year show me the number of busts that you claim we don't see. I would expect such heinous crimes would be front page news. Sorry the use of SWAT has been abused and the privilege should be taken away. Grant the FBI the privilege and if local PD needs the help for such serious infractions they can call the Feds.

Show me where do you get that number of 50,000 before you accuse me of drinking the cool aid. I think maybe you have in the anti warrant crusade.
Tell us the source and their methodology. One source( Newsmax , says 20,000 but doesn’t tell its methodology.
Other sources complain that they don’t track them well enough or make enough of them public

Search warrants are powerful. Yet few N.C. courts track how often they’re kept secret

Making the warrant public acts as a check on the incredible authority of the state. It's a testament to the value we put on our right to unreasonable search.

www.wect.com

As far as the FBI. The FBI rarely works well with others including other fed agencies. And they have had their share of mistakes on warrants

 

[Shadow2]

Show me where do you get that number of 50,000 before you accuse me of drinking the cool aid. I think maybe you have in the anti warrant crusade.
Tell us the source and their methodology. One source( Newsmax , says 20,000 but doesn’t tell its methodology.
Other sources complain that they don’t track them well enough or make enough of them public

Search warrants are powerful. Yet few N.C. courts track how often they’re kept secret

Making the warrant public acts as a check on the incredible authority of the state. It's a testament to the value we put on our right to unreasonable search.

www.wect.com

As far as the FBI. The FBI rarely works well with others including other fed agencies. And they have had their share of mistakes on warrants

My numbers? Based on Wiki their are 17,985 police agencies in the US based on that alone 50,000 is a low ball estimate at an average of 3 per agency. I don't care what number you choose to use even an average of 1 per agency your at 17985. Newsmax rounding up to 20K is more then reasonable.

You NC article is about sealing search warrants from public view which means the number are even higher. And your right about the FBI Swatting could become a federal crime and it looks like its an estimated 600 "swatting" reports from 2011-2020 based on the article Is that just FBI it doesn't specify. SWATING are false reports from online geeks. Never mind all other incidents.

 

[Truebeliever]

My numbers? Based on Wiki their are 17,985 police agencies in the US based on that alone 50,000 is a low ball estimate at an average of 3 per agency. I don't care what number you choose to use even an average of 1 per agency your at 17985. Newsmax rounding up to 20K is more then reasonable.

You NC article is about sealing search warrants from public view which means the number are even higher. And your right about the FBI Swatting could become a federal crime and it looks like its an estimated 600 "swatting" reports from 2011-2020 based on the article Is that just FBI it doesn't specify. SWATING are false reports from online geeks. Never mind all other incidents.

Yes. And another article says the estimated amount is 20,000. So that 50,000 is a guess but incorrect. Many LE departments don’t do search warrants and especially don’t do no knock warrants . Some only do search warrants on items already seized like a locked briefcase. That is a big difference than doing a search of someone’s home.

Most don’t do search warrants for years. Years at a time. The smaller departments leave it for the other larger agencies to do. A village department will often refer the case to the county police.

Your figures are a guess at best.

 

[Acer-m14]

just saying ..

Justices Rule Police Do Not Have a Constitutional Duty to Protect Someone (Published 2005)

Supreme Court rules that police do not have constitutional duty to protect person from harm, even woman who obtained court-issued protective order against violent husband which made arrest mandatory for violation; decision overturns ruling by federal appeals court in Colorado; it had permitted...

www.nytimes.com

 

[Criticalt]

Not a single one of them was the result of the drugs. Every criminal act was the responsibility of the criminal who commited it, nobody and nothing else.

You are attempting to absolve the criminal of responsibility by blaming an inanimate object.

Not even close.
For the record, I more than despise junkies. In my opinion I wish all would die.
Instead of the dozens of stories I could tell to prove you are incorrect, ill do just one.
My friends wife was a great person. She had a daughter who she adored and took very good care of.
One day she was broadsided by a truck.
She had several bad injuries that healed but she had chronic pain in her back. She was put on 4 10mg Percocet a day. Yada, yada, yada....she was abruptly cut off from her meds due to NYS doctors hate of the opiate problem.
She ended up using heroin. Completely, 100% her fault.
One day she fadded out at a street light and when she woke up from people pounding on her window, she slammed the gas hitting a car that had stopped to help. The lady in the passenger seat was seriously injured. This lady was a victim. My friends wife would not have fell asleep at a light if not for heroin.
Therefore, the lady in the car was a victim. The lady had zero fault in this "accident".
Then, a couple years later my friends wife overdosed and died, leaving her daughter with no mother.....the daughter was 3 years old.
The daughter had no involvement with drugs but because her mother ODed, she is a victim.

I completely understand where you are coming from but its not an all or nothing issue.
A dude buying an eighth of weed and smoking it in his own home is 100% victimless.
Or the guy who buys a gram of coke to have fun on a night out....victimless.....of course you need to ignore the cartel members who die over drug deals.
But, a 3 year old girl whos otherwise healthy 25 year old mother dies from a heroin overdose IS a victim.

I have many other stories of waves of victims left in the wake of others drug addicts choices.
For the record.....for over 30 years my parents hired and mentored many hundreds of drug addicts.
They were not involved with getting people off drugs. They employed former drug addicts and taught them life skills to survive off drugs.
Ive heard thpusands of stories and most had victims.....parents, children, brothers, sisters and the victims of the crimes they commited while on drugs or getting money for drugs.
The victims are NOT the junkies themselves but are the people around them.

How about the guy who had his face eaten in Florida by a guy high on Flakka.
I guess he wasnt a victim.
The guy would have probably eaten his face if he were sober.

 

[Marine Cpl]

Not even close.
For the record, I more than despise junkies. In my opinion I wish all would die.
Instead of the dozens of stories I could tell to prove you are incorrect, ill do just one.
My friends wife was a great person. She had a daughter who she adored and took very good care of.
One day she was broadsided by a truck.
She had several bad injuries that healed but she had chronic pain in her back. She was put on 4 10mg Percocet a day. Yada, yada, yada....she was abruptly cut off from her meds due to NYS doctors hate of the opiate problem.
She ended up using heroin. Completely, 100% her fault.
One day she fadded out at a street light and when she woke up from people pounding on her window, she slammed the gas hitting a car that had stopped to help. The lady in the passenger seat was seriously injured. This lady was a victim. My friends wife would not have fell asleep at a light if not for heroin.
Therefore, the lady in the car was a victim. The lady had zero fault in this "accident".
Then, a couple years later my friends wife overdosed and died, leaving her daughter with no mother.....the daughter was 3 years old.
The daughter had no involvement with drugs but because her mother ODed, she is a victim.

I completely understand where you are coming from but its not an all or nothing issue.
A dude buying an eighth of weed and smoking it in his own home is 100% victimless.
Or the guy who buys a gram of coke to have fun on a night out....victimless.....of course you need to ignore the cartel members who die over drug deals.
But, a 3 year old girl whos otherwise healthy 25 year old mother dies from a heroin overdose IS a victim.

I have many other stories of waves of victims left in the wake of others drug addicts choices.
For the record.....for over 30 years my parents hired and mentored many hundreds of drug addicts.
They were not involved with getting people off drugs. They employed former drug addicts and taught them life skills to survive off drugs.
Ive heard thpusands of stories and most had victims.....parents, children, brothers, sisters and the victims of the crimes they commited while on drugs or getting money for drugs.
The victims are NOT the junkies themselves but are the people around them.

How about the guy who had his face eaten in Florida by a guy high on Flakka.
I guess he wasnt a victim.
The guy would have probably eaten his face if he were sober.

Now replace drugs with guns. If the same logic is used, guns should be gone after because there will always be victims due to violence by some in possession of guns.

 

[Criticalt]

Now replace drugs with guns. If the same logic is used, guns should be gone after because there will always be victims due to violence by some in possession of guns.

First, yes, there a victims of gun violence......just like victims of knife violence...etc.
I guess you assume I give a shit about legalizing drugs......but I dont.
I dont care eithet way, drugs have no bearing on my life.
But if you cause me or my loved ones to become VICTIMS to your drug use, then you should be penalized. The same with guns, baseball bats, knives....etc.
My point is that saying drugs are a victimless crime is just wrong.

 

[Marine Cpl]

But if you cause me or my loved ones to become VICTIMS to your drug use, then you should be penalized. The same with guns, baseball bats, knives....etc.

That’s what we are trying to say. If you use a gun to commit robbery, you should be penalized for the robbery and the unlawful use of the gun. If you rob someone for money for drugs, then you should be penalized for the robbery. Whether drugs are legal tomorrow or illegal today, those robbery crimes will still happen. The cartel and gang crimes will be greatly reduced due to drug legalization just the same as mafia crime has been greatly reduced due to the end of alcohol prohibition. There’s no money in alcohol so the mafia has turned to drugs.

 

[spat]

Not even close.
For the record, I more than despise junkies. In my opinion I wish all would die.
Instead of the dozens of stories I could tell to prove you are incorrect, ill do just one.
My friends wife was a great person. She had a daughter who she adored and took very good care of.
One day she was broadsided by a truck.
She had several bad injuries that healed but she had chronic pain in her back. She was put on 4 10mg Percocet a day. Yada, yada, yada....she was abruptly cut off from her meds due to NYS doctors hate of the opiate problem.
She ended up using heroin. Completely, 100% her fault.
One day she fadded out at a street light and when she woke up from people pounding on her window, she slammed the gas hitting a car that had stopped to help. The lady in the passenger seat was seriously injured. This lady was a victim. My friends wife would not have fell asleep at a light if not for heroin.
Therefore, the lady in the car was a victim. The lady had zero fault in this "accident".
Then, a couple years later my friends wife overdosed and died, leaving her daughter with no mother.....the daughter was 3 years old.
The daughter had no involvement with drugs but because her mother ODed, she is a victim.

I completely understand where you are coming from but its not an all or nothing issue.
A dude buying an eighth of weed and smoking it in his own home is 100% victimless.
Or the guy who buys a gram of coke to have fun on a night out....victimless.....of course you need to ignore the cartel members who die over drug deals.
But, a 3 year old girl whos otherwise healthy 25 year old mother dies from a heroin overdose IS a victim.

I have many other stories of waves of victims left in the wake of others drug addicts choices.
For the record.....for over 30 years my parents hired and mentored many hundreds of drug addicts.
They were not involved with getting people off drugs. They employed former drug addicts and taught them life skills to survive off drugs.
Ive heard thpusands of stories and most had victims.....parents, children, brothers, sisters and the victims of the crimes they commited while on drugs or getting money for drugs.
The victims are NOT the junkies themselves but are the people around them.

How about the guy who had his face eaten in Florida by a guy high on Flakka.
I guess he wasnt a victim.
The guy would have probably eaten his face if he were sober.

There are plenty of victims of drug addicts. Nobody disputes that.

But those people are victims of the addicts, not the drugs. The drugs are inanimate objects, they are incapable of victimizing anyone.

How many of those addicts were forced to take their first hit ?

The people you list are no more "drug victims" than the kid in the inner city who's shot by a gang banger is a "gun victim".

Are the victims of drunk drivers "alcohol victims" ?

 

[Criticalt]

That’s what we are trying to say. If you use a gun to commit robbery, you should be penalized for the robbery and the unlawful use of the gun. If you rob someone for money for drugs, then you should be penalized for the robbery. Whether drugs are legal tomorrow or illegal today, those robbery crimes will still happen. The cartel and gang crimes will be greatly reduced due to drug legalization just the same as mafia crime has been greatly reduced due to the end of alcohol prohibition. There’s no money in alcohol so the mafia has turned to drugs.

Exactly
Wheres the problem?
Again....and again....and again......
Saying drugs are a victimless crime is incorrect.
Also, even if drugs are legalized, cartels will still be producing sub par drugs to sell cheaper.

And again.....and again....
Im all for legalizing drugs, prostitution, fireworks.....but to say drugs are victimless is preposterous.
My friends daughter lost her mom due 100% to heroin. It probably would have still happened if she bought the hetoin legally. But the 3 year old is a victim, not the mother, the 3 year old daughter is a victim.
The mother may have been struck by lightning or hit by a car but thats not what happened. Due to her mother injecting heroin, she is now a victim.
Mother didnt inject air, or tar, or cigarettes, or a pony.....she injected heroin....causing her to die.
Legal or not she died from drugs, leaving a child without a mother.

 

[GOPerfect]

Not even close.
For the record, I more than despise junkies. In my opinion I wish all would die.
Instead of the dozens of stories I could tell to prove you are incorrect, ill do just one.
My friends wife was a great person. She had a daughter who she adored and took very good care of.
One day she was broadsided by a truck.
She had several bad injuries that healed but she had chronic pain in her back. She was put on 4 10mg Percocet a day. Yada, yada, yada....she was abruptly cut off from her meds due to NYS doctors hate of the opiate problem.
She ended up using heroin. Completely, 100% her fault.
One day she fadded out at a street light and when she woke up from people pounding on her window, she slammed the gas hitting a car that had stopped to help. The lady in the passenger seat was seriously injured. This lady was a victim. My friends wife would not have fell asleep at a light if not for heroin.
Therefore, the lady in the car was a victim. The lady had zero fault in this "accident".
Then, a couple years later my friends wife overdosed and died, leaving her daughter with no mother.....the daughter was 3 years old.
The daughter had no involvement with drugs but because her mother ODed, she is a victim.

I completely understand where you are coming from but its not an all or nothing issue.
A dude buying an eighth of weed and smoking it in his own home is 100% victimless.
Or the guy who buys a gram of coke to have fun on a night out....victimless.....of course you need to ignore the cartel members who die over drug deals.
But, a 3 year old girl whos otherwise healthy 25 year old mother dies from a heroin overdose IS a victim.

I have many other stories of waves of victims left in the wake of others drug addicts choices.
For the record.....for over 30 years my parents hired and mentored many hundreds of drug addicts.
They were not involved with getting people off drugs. They employed former drug addicts and taught them life skills to survive off drugs.
Ive heard thpusands of stories and most had victims.....parents, children, brothers, sisters and the victims of the crimes they commited while on drugs or getting money for drugs.
The victims are NOT the junkies themselves but are the people around them.

How about the guy who had his face eaten in Florida by a guy high on Flakka.
I guess he wasnt a victim.
The guy would have probably eaten his face if he were sober.

Could not have had told a truer story. I will not waste my time, the amount of ignorance on the subject of drug use is astounding. These drugs are NOT victimless. Not at all. But, there are so many who want to believe the myth of victimless.



As for this Bill, what a joke. It will not stand up to the Court system of passed. This is a State issue. Not a Federal issue. This is up to the individual States to decide. Nothing but a waste of time, money and other resources.

 

[Criticalt]

There are plenty of victims of drug addicts. Nobody disputes that.

But those people are victims of the addicts, not the drugs. The drugs are inanimate objects, they are incapable of victimizing anyone.

How many of those addicts were forced to take their first hit ?

The people you list are no more "drug victims" than the kid in the inner city who's shot by a gang banger is a "gun victim".

Are the victims of drunk drivers "alcohol victims" ?

You are obviously trolling so im done here.
You are incorrect.
You say there are victim of drug addicts.....so not a victimless crime.
Without the drugs, the crime would not have happened.
Later troll.

 

[GOPerfect]

You are obviously trolling so im done here.
You are incorrect.
You say there are victim of drug addicts.....so not a victimless crime.
Without the drugs, the crime would not have happened.
Later troll.

This right here is spot on. I see this each and everyday that I go to work.

 

[Criticalt]

This right here is spot on. I see this each and everyday that I go to work.

Nooooo
A guy eating someones face has nothing to do with the drugs hes on.
Must be gun violence.

 

[Marine Cpl]

Exactly
Wheres the problem?
Again....and again....and again......
Saying drugs are a victimless crime is incorrect.
Also, even if drugs are legalized, cartels will still be producing sub par drugs to sell cheaper.

And again.....and again....
Im all for legalizing drugs, prostitution, fireworks.....but to say drugs are victimless is preposterous.
My friends daughter lost her mom due 100% to heroin. It probably would have still happened if she bought the hetoin legally. But the 3 year old is a victim, not the mother, the 3 year old daughter is a victim.
The mother may have been struck by lightning or hit by a car but thats not what happened. Due to her mother injecting heroin, she is now a victim.
Mother didnt inject air, or tar, or cigarettes, or a pony.....she injected heroin....causing her to die.
Legal or not she died from drugs, leaving a child without a mother.

Agreed 100 percent. The point of victimless crimes should stop right after this post. Not sure why anyone would continue to argue semantics regarding it.

 

[spat]

You are obviously trolling so im done here.
You are incorrect.
You say there are victim of drug addicts.....so not a victimless crime.
Without the drugs, the crime would not have happened.
Later troll.

Not trolling.

I think you don't understand what I'm saying.

You are talking about how terrible the consequences of drug addiction are. Nobody disputes that. Drug addicts do may terrible things and the people who are around them suffer profoundly because of it.

The drugs do nothing. Crack cocaine has never robbed a 7-11. Alcohol has never driven an automobile. Nobody has ever been assaulted by heroine.

You hate what people on drugs do. You think banning the drugs will help. It won't. All that has done is created a black market and an made the crime related to drug abuse worse.

Answer honestly, what do you think the consequences for society would be if they legalized drugs ? How many more junkies would we have ? I think 0. If there aren't any more junkies, how is the problem going to get worse ?

They can't make drugs much more illegal, and they can't even keep them out of prisons. Clearly prohibition is a failed strategy.

It doesn't matter how bad the devastation is, prohibition makes the problem worse. It's like throwing gasoline on a fire. It doesn't matter how bad the fire is, gasoline is never the right solution.

 

[Darth]

But, a 3 year old girl whos otherwise healthy 25 year old mother dies from a heroin overdose IS a victim.

Negative.

If that same mother offed herself with a gun, the kid isn't a victim of gun crime.

Drugs are a complerly victimless crime.

Provide even a single example of this not being true, without conflating other actual crimes, and we'll talk.

 

[Darth]

You are obviously trolling so im done here.
You are incorrect.
You say there are victim of drug addicts.....so not a victimless crime.
Without the drugs, the crime would not have happened.
Later troll.

Right, because people only murder and rob for drugs. Without them there would be no murder or robbery.

And please drop the "I work with these people every day" nonsense. I do as well and not one crime that they committed ever was where the drugs jumped into their arms and forced them to pull the trigger.

 

[DoD1776]

Could not have had told a truer story. I will not waste my time, the amount of ignorance on the subject of drug use is astounding. These drugs are NOT victimless. Not at all. But, there are so many who want to believe the myth of victimless.

As for this Bill, what a joke. It will not stand up to the Court system of passed. This is a State issue. Not a Federal issue. This is up to the individual States to decide. Nothing but a waste of time, money and other resources.

You are obviously trolling so im done here.
You are incorrect.
You say there are victim of drug addicts.....so not a victimless crime.
Without the drugs, the crime would not have happened.
Later troll.

I actually had to write an essay last year for criminal justice on whether or not a I think a "non-violent offender" is a legit thing or if it isn't and also ended up writing about victimless crimes as well. You guys are 100% correct and I couldn't agree more. It really did change my prospective.

 

[Darth]

Nooooo
A guy eating someones face has nothing to do with the drugs hes on.
Must be gun violence.

Your mind is going to be blown when you find out eating a face off of already a crime, drug or no.

 

[Darth]

I actually had to write an essay last year for criminal justice on whether or not a I think a "non-violent offender" is a legit thing or if it isn't and also ended up writing about victimless crimes as well. You guys are 100% correct and I couldn't agree more. It really did change my prospective.

Woah, our criminal justice system wants to turn out people ripe in believing that victimless crimes are a thing?

I'm stunned.

 

[DoD1776]

Your mind is going to be blown when you find out eating a face off of already a crime, drug or no.

But he wouldn't have eaten the face off if he wasn't on drugs... Darth, they're telling you 2+2=4 and you're saying it equals 5...

 

[Darth]

But he wouldn't have eaten the face off if he wasn't on drugs... Darth, they're telling you 2+2=4 and you're saying it equals 5...

Can you tell me what drugs Dahmer was on?

Just stand and screech at the required 2 minutes hate.

 

[E the massive]

Can you tell me what drugs Dahmer was on?

Just stand and screech at the required 2 minutes hate.

Alcohol.