Unarmed teen killed in his home by police

[Archimedes]

They're busting you for cocaine, you flush a white powder. What in the world were you doing other than dumping cocaine??

Dumping heroin. Or dandruff.

Or drain cleaner. Or ground rhino horn.

It's interesting that the drug war is Loren's goto answer for the high gun related homicide rate in the USA, yet wants to double down on the ability for cops to go after drug users and dealers by making it even easier to get 'em into prison by not even requiring finding them to be in possession of drugs.

The drug war is bad because it causes all these homicides, so let's ramp it up a notch!

 

[Jarhyn]

How about not taking quotes out of context??

It wasn't any better with the full context.

Nobody actually addressed it. How would my proposal result in anyone being wrongly convicted? People are going to destroy fake drugs when raided by the cops??

Officer: And that is when we saw Loren flush something down the toilet.
Prosecutor: So clearly a drug deal.
Officer: Yup. We wouldn't make shit up about him flushing.
Prosecutor: Careful there, you barely said that with a straight face.
Loren: Well fuck me.

Video of them dumping the "drugs", not merely a policeman's statement.

They're busting you for cocaine, you flush a white powder. What in the world were you doing other than dumping cocaine??

It doesn't much matter when the 'bust' is literally an illegal home invasion. What? You want to give cops the power to bust down doors without warrants?

It doesn't matter if he was a multiple murderer with 30 corpses chained to his wall, it matters that they had no evidence and invaded his fucking home.

 

[Loren Pechtel]

How about not taking quotes out of context??

It wasn't any better with the full context.

Nobody actually addressed it. How would my proposal result in anyone being wrongly convicted? People are going to destroy fake drugs when raided by the cops??

Officer: And that is when we saw Loren flush something down the toilet.
Prosecutor: So clearly a drug deal.
Officer: Yup. We wouldn't make shit up about him flushing.
Prosecutor: Careful there, you barely said that with a straight face.
Loren: Well fuck me.

Video of them dumping the "drugs", not merely a policeman's statement.

They're busting you for cocaine, you flush a white powder. What in the world were you doing other than dumping cocaine??

It doesn't much matter when the 'bust' is literally an illegal home invasion. What? You want to give cops the power to bust down doors without warrants?

It doesn't matter if he was a multiple murderer with 30 corpses chained to his wall, it matters that they had no evidence and invaded his fucking home.

Where did I say anything about doing it without warrants? I specifically said that the video needs to show the destruction of something that looks like what the warrant says they're searching for.

The objective is to remove the issue of destruction of the drugs as a factor. We have many cases of the hurried destruction of drugs causing actions the cops mistake for violence. (Drawing a bag of drugs vs drawing a gun--if the cop waits long enough to identify the item drawn and it's a gun the cop is dead.) Let the camera provide the evidence, there's no race to destroy them before the cops get them so there is much less in the way of hasty actions that get people shot.

There's also much less reason for the cops to storm in--cameras will do the job.

 

[laughing dog]

How about not taking quotes out of context??

It wasn't any better with the full context.

Nobody actually addressed it. How would my proposal result in anyone being wrongly convicted? People are going to destroy fake drugs when raided by the cops??

Officer: And that is when we saw Loren flush something down the toilet.
Prosecutor: So clearly a drug deal.
Officer: Yup. We wouldn't make shit up about him flushing.
Prosecutor: Careful there, you barely said that with a straight face.
Loren: Well fuck me.

Video of them dumping the "drugs", not merely a policeman's statement.

They're busting you for cocaine, you flush a white powder. What in the world were you doing other than dumping cocaine??

It doesn't much matter when the 'bust' is literally an illegal home invasion. What? You want to give cops the power to bust down doors without warrants?

It doesn't matter if he was a multiple murderer with 30 corpses chained to his wall, it matters that they had no evidence and invaded his fucking home.

Where did I say anything about doing it without warrants? I specifically said that the video needs to show the destruction of something that looks like what the warrant says they're searching for.

The objective is to remove the issue of destruction of the drugs as a factor. We have many cases of the hurried destruction of drugs causing actions the cops mistake for violence. (Drawing a bag of drugs vs drawing a gun--if the cop waits long enough to identify the item drawn and it's a gun the cop is dead.) Let the camera provide the evidence, there's no race to destroy them before the cops get them so there is much less in the way of hasty actions that get people shot.

There's also much less reason for the cops to storm in--cameras will do the job.

Well, who is taking the pictures, and how does one identify the material being dumped?

 

[Shadowy Man]

Well, who is taking the pictures, and how does one identify the material being dumped?

You don't have to identify it. Loren wants to have people arrested simply for having "something that looks like what the warrant says they're searching for."

 

[bilby]

Well, who is taking the pictures, and how does one identify the material being dumped?

You don't have to identify it. Loren wants to have people arrested simply for having "something that looks like what the warrant says they're searching for."

So if someone has a gun, their second amendment rights can be ignored, and the cops can simply confiscate the gun if they claim it looked like a Wii controller?

 

[Jarhyn]

How about not taking quotes out of context??

It wasn't any better with the full context.

Nobody actually addressed it. How would my proposal result in anyone being wrongly convicted? People are going to destroy fake drugs when raided by the cops??

Officer: And that is when we saw Loren flush something down the toilet.
Prosecutor: So clearly a drug deal.
Officer: Yup. We wouldn't make shit up about him flushing.
Prosecutor: Careful there, you barely said that with a straight face.
Loren: Well fuck me.

Video of them dumping the "drugs", not merely a policeman's statement.

They're busting you for cocaine, you flush a white powder. What in the world were you doing other than dumping cocaine??

It doesn't much matter when the 'bust' is literally an illegal home invasion. What? You want to give cops the power to bust down doors without warrants?

It doesn't matter if he was a multiple murderer with 30 corpses chained to his wall, it matters that they had no evidence and invaded his fucking home.

Where did I say anything about doing it without warrants? I specifically said that the video needs to show the destruction of something that looks like what the warrant says they're searching for.

The objective is to remove the issue of destruction of the drugs as a factor. We have many cases of the hurried destruction of drugs causing actions the cops mistake for violence. (Drawing a bag of drugs vs drawing a gun--if the cop waits long enough to identify the item drawn and it's a gun the cop is dead.) Let the camera provide the evidence, there's no race to destroy them before the cops get them so there is much less in the way of hasty actions that get people shot.

There's also much less reason for the cops to storm in--cameras will do the job.

Yes, you did say that you do not care if a warrant is involved: this thread is about a warrant less search. Any defense you render the police in this thread as pertains to the op is then defense of a warrantless illegal home invasion. If there are warrants involved AND ANNOUNCED, then the analogy is not apt, and you are defending cops in a situation that does not apply to the one in question and this derailing and misleading the conversation. So in my attempt to not believe you are intentionally derailing the conversation, I must believe you are attempting to justify warrant less illegal home invasions on a post-facto revelation of criminal behavior.

If you wish to start a conversation on the right to destroy things because they look like something listed in a warrant, I think you should probably put that in its own thread.

 

[Loren Pechtel]

Where did I say anything about doing it without warrants? I specifically said that the video needs to show the destruction of something that looks like what the warrant says they're searching for.

The objective is to remove the issue of destruction of the drugs as a factor. We have many cases of the hurried destruction of drugs causing actions the cops mistake for violence. (Drawing a bag of drugs vs drawing a gun--if the cop waits long enough to identify the item drawn and it's a gun the cop is dead.) Let the camera provide the evidence, there's no race to destroy them before the cops get them so there is much less in the way of hasty actions that get people shot.

There's also much less reason for the cops to storm in--cameras will do the job.

Well, who is taking the pictures, and how does one identify the material being dumped?

I'm talking video cameras. Throwable video cameras already exist.

And what I'm suggesting is that a warrant for <x> combined with a video of you destroying something which appears to be <x> should grant the prosecution a presumption that you had <x>.

 

[Jarhyn]

Well, who is taking the pictures, and how does one identify the material being dumped?

I'm talking video cameras. Throwable video cameras already exist.

And what I'm suggesting is that a warrant for <x> combined with a video of you destroying something which appears to be <x> should grant the prosecution a presumption that you had <x>.

Except that we already have a criminal term for that act, called 'destruction of evidence'. It also has nothing to do with the OP.

 

[laughing dog]

Well, who is taking the pictures, and how does one identify the material being dumped?

I'm talking video cameras. Throwable video cameras already exist.

And what I'm suggesting is that a warrant for <x> combined with a video of you destroying something which appears to be <x> should grant the prosecution a presumption that you had <x>.

That doesn't answer who is taking the pictures. As for the rest, presumption of guilt because something "appears to be" illicit substance, that is a frightening idea.

 

[Mageth]

Aside from the objections to Loren's frightening suggestion that one should be prosecuted based on the presumption that you possessed <x>...

So I'm in the bathroom, door closed, about to flush something down the toilet, and in comes flying a "throwable" video camera...

Yeah, that makes a lot of sense...good plan there, Loren. Presuming it's a high-tech "throwable" camera that can pass through walls, you might catch an occasional person too stupid to toss a towel over the damned thing.

 

[Shadowy Man]

You don't have to identify it. Loren wants to have people arrested simply for having "something that looks like what the warrant says they're searching for."

So if someone has a gun, their second amendment rights can be ignored, and the cops can simply confiscate the gun if they claim it looked like a Wii controller?

Yes, but I believe they shoot you first.