4 ms·
> You keep switching between legal and normative requirements. If I did so, it was a mistake. My reference to the 4th Amendment, for instance, should have said
by jbapple 11y ago
> You keep switching between legal and normative requirements.
If I did so, it was a mistake. My reference to the 4th Amendment, for instance, should have said "how the 4th Amendment ought to protect us". I did not mean to imply that I am trying to predict what warrants the justice system will or will not grant.
> You have a fringe understanding of it
I think I mentioned the 4th amendment just the once. I have been trying to stick to normative arguments.
> The point of a search is to gather evidence, requiring the evidence that would be the result of a search is obviously a non-starter as a system.
I think this is a point where we truly disagree. I think a system can function in which some evidence that a search will yield results is required before the search is conducted. I do not think that the evidence must be airtight. Note that I am speaking about what I think is possible and just and right, not what the law says now or the justice system does now.
> The only way to read this in light of our previous discussion is that saying "I'm in ISIS!" and then shooting up a bunch of civilians is insufficient to prompt a post-mortem search of the attackers' affairs
Did the shooter say she was "in ISIS", or that she pledged allegiance to the leader? There might be a difference in this case. I have read that there is religious significance to a pledge of allegiance in ISIS's theology that might make a pledge indicative of ideological alignment and a membership "in ISIS" indicative of being in actual conversations with ISIS.
> Bravo sir, I have been well and properly trolled.
Please, let's try to be civil.
- thinkpad20 11y ago> Did the shooter say she was "in ISIS", or that she pledged allegiance to the leader? Either one would seem to constitute probable cause for an association. Of course we don't know if she was actually in ISIS, or just agreed with their beliefs. But how would we know without conducting further investigation? You seem to be demanding a somewhat unreasonably large burden of proof, when all that is needed in this case is probable cause. Frankly, even if she hadn't verbally declared allegiance to ISIS, I don't think it's a stretch to say there's probable cause for connection to other terrorist groups. The fact that she did say that makes it a slam dunk. > I think a system can function in which some evidence that a search will yield results is required before the search is conducted. I do not think that the evidence must be airtight. We do have such a system. The evidence you're describing is called probable cause, and that's the whole point. I'm not sure of any reasonable definition of probable cause that this situation wouldn't satisfy. Moreover, your objections seem to be in the form of vague misgivings rather than concrete arguments. You haven't precisely described what would constitute sufficient evidence for an investigation, but instead seem to just be saying "there's not enough right now." I think this is what's behind GPs frustrations responding to your posts.