tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-32869165.post6304742495658842229..comments2024-03-08T07:09:46.527-07:00Comments on Pro Libertate: "Punking" The Fourth AmendmentWilliam N. Grigghttp://www.blogger.com/profile/14368220509514750246noreply@blogger.comBlogger4125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-32869165.post-66567402878323686092007-06-13T10:23:00.000-06:002007-06-13T10:23:00.000-06:00I thought Will's implication was that they did pla...I thought Will's implication was that they did plant those drugs.JTLhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/03822812154321082569noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-32869165.post-16804500270270743742007-06-12T12:29:00.000-06:002007-06-12T12:29:00.000-06:00The car is taken out of the eyesight of the owner ...<I>The car is taken out of the eyesight of the owner and other law enforcement and the video camera on the cop's car and searched. To find a clean car would be a huge screwup and there would be huge incentive to "make sure" something is found to justify such extreme measures.</I><BR/><BR/>Yes indeed, but I go further than simply say an "incentive" is a danger. After all, what significant and relevant moral difference is there between a "before the fact" plant and an "after the fact" plant? Not a damn thing, especially since they're pulling these elaborate deceptive ruses in the first place to nab folk. It means the coppers already are thuggish minded.<BR/><BR/>Ergo, why wait for a "mistake" in this complex act to lie and set the folk up, as Grigg's speculation that they would likely have planted the stash "after the fact" clearly indicates they would anyway?<BR/><BR/>To hell with the IF it goes bad component, just plant it and CYA from the start.<BR/><BR/>Grigg, ya gotta think like a thug from the getgo to comprehend a given thug's probable action in a given scenario.dixiedoghttps://www.blogger.com/profile/09845646940134894119noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-32869165.post-3681113836083008122007-06-12T11:40:00.000-06:002007-06-12T11:40:00.000-06:00"For instance, how do we know that the county moun..."For instance, how do we know that the county mounty and/or his DEA collaborators in this "play" didn't plant the drugs to start with?"<BR/><BR/>I was thinking the same exact thing. Such procedures are certainly an invitation to abuse. The car is taken out of the eyesight of the owner and other law enforcement and the video camera on the cop's car and searched. To find a clean car would be a huge screwup and there would be huge incentive to "make sure" something is found to justify such extreme measures.<BR/><BR/>Boy, our judges are turning into real wussies.Jerri Lynn Ward, J.D.https://www.blogger.com/profile/10097381893555114911noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-32869165.post-4566416181523508082007-06-12T10:24:00.000-06:002007-06-12T10:24:00.000-06:00You know, Grigg, perhaps even YOU think more highl...You know, Grigg, perhaps even YOU think more highly of LE in general than I do. For instance, how do we know that the county mounty and/or his DEA collaborators in this "play" didn't plant the drugs to start with?<BR/><BR/>Yes, you did mention that that likely would have happened if the skit went awry, like if these two people had had an empty vehicle. However, in my view, with the culture we have churning out morally rudderless and constitutionally ignorant cretins, many of which, naturally, hitch themselves to law enforcement, I have serious doubts.<BR/><BR/>I'm so sick of folk looking upon law enforcement officers at any level as if they wore halos. Nobody looks at the average joe in such manner, but a police(wo)man is "holy" and the "authoritah" (legitimate? Bah, nobody <I>thinks</I> about that) figure, simply because of the badge they carry and/or State-issued costume they're attired in (or not in the case of undercovers), and, of course, their always close-at-hand sidearm.<BR/><BR/>I'm intolerant of druggies, whether junkies themselves or small time dealers, precisely because of the asinine and blatantly unconstitutional forfeiture laws. They suck in and penalize EVERYBODY in the vicinity of the drugs in question, especially someone in the vicinity with assets. It doesn't matter who actually OWNS them, or who actually USES them, etc. If they were "found" or "planted" in your house, car, boat, you lose.<BR/><BR/>This is what helps to make mundane folk ever more suspicious of other mundane folk you come in contact with precisely because of the fear of all-inclusive asset forfeiture. Needless to say, that was probably an intended consequence, if not the primary purpose, of those laws.dixiedoghttps://www.blogger.com/profile/09845646940134894119noreply@blogger.com