9 ms·

Between this example and “no knock” warrants (where people get killed, including police) I think it seems obvious that people have forgotten what the point of a

Between this example and “no knock” warrants (where people get killed, including police) I think it seems obvious that people have forgotten what the point of a warrant is. A warrant is suppose to prevent either of the two cases from resulting in lengthy court battles or death from confusion, and it’s very simple: YOU SHOW THE PERSON BEING SEARCHED THE WARRANT IN ADVANCE! That is how you gain authorization... somehow people are being searched and the warrant is either kept secret entirely or not shown to them prior to the search! That’s literally the fundamental purpose of a constitutional warrant! Things are so backwards now, search then warrant, shoot first then ask questions, execution before trial...

AndrewKemendo 7y ago
I'm not sure where you are getting this definition of the purpose for warrants, but it's not based on any historical fact that I'm aware of. The way I'm aware of history, a warrant simply allows for an individual or group to take an action on behalf of the state, specifically by statement from a judge, which would have otherwise been illegal. For some individuals and groups, specifically sworn Law Enforcement officers, they fall within warrant exceptions or broad granted "warrant authorities." It has no relation to a suspect being notified of a warrant and there is no legal mandate to notify the suspect as far as I am aware.
- aspaceman 7y ago
  The definition they use follows from the definition you use, but is dependent on the times. If you are given authority to act on a warrant by the state, then you show that to the person you're investigating so they don't shoot you for being on their property. Without the warrant, they have every right to shoot a strange person walking through their property without permission. Since this was before the concept of Law Enforcement officers (I feel like people forget cops haven't always been a thing in the U.S.), people wouldn't just accept some nobody in a uniform as a person of authority. There weren't cops, so the warrant was the only way to show you had the authority of the state.
  - cecilpl2 7y ago
    > Without the warrant, they have every right to shoot a strange person walking through their property without permission. What kind of hellish "right" is that? You should not have the right to shoot someone for merely walking on your property. That is preposterous!
    - kick 7y ago
      I don't agree with it, but: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Castle_doctrine https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Castle_doctrine
    - DuskStar 7y ago
      You sure as hell should have the right to shoot someone who's armed and trying to get into your house, though.
    - whiddershins 7y ago
      So I am sitting in my living room at 12:25 in the middle of the night in Brooklyn right now. If I look up from my phone and I see someone standing unexpectedly in my kitchen, I should give them the benefit of the doubt and not assume I am in mortal danger? I mean, what would you think?
      - oblio 7y ago
        In most of the world, yes, you don't assume you're in mortal danger. This is the kind of logic that makes US police officers shoot everyone on sight. An intruder most likely wants to steal your stuff, which hardly requires a death sentence, as you seem to want to offer.
        jack_h 7y ago
        What if the intruder isn't perpetrating this "most likely" case of theft? The other possibilities aren't exactly great alternatives for the occupant. That seems like a very risky gamble to me.
        7y ago
- luxuryballs 7y ago
  Well if you’re not suppose to search me without the warrant, the difference between following that rule and not following it is producing the warrant... otherwise I must assume the duty to defend my family/children and my property for I am being waylaid... the risk the risk of not making that assumption may be very dire circumstances.
  - delusional 7y ago
    Do you live in Afghanistan? How often do you get mugged that your default assumption is that you are being threatened.
JumpCrisscross 7y ago
> That’s literally the fundamental purpose of a constitutional warrant! This sounds revisionist. Bounties, paid on warrants calling for the suspect dead or alive, were common and legal through American history.
soulofmischief 7y ago
Shoot first and ask questions later goes both ways, if an armed assailant in all black breaks into my house in the middle of the night without properly identifying themselves at my door. Someone tried breaking into my apartment just a few months ago in the middle of the night. I fear for my safety. Surely that's something these people can relate to.

AndrewKemendo 7y ago

I'm not sure where you are getting this definition of the purpose for warrants, but it's not based on any historical fact that I'm aware of. The way I'm aware of history, a warrant simply allows for an individual or group to take an action on behalf of the state, specifically by statement from a judge, which would have otherwise been illegal. For some individuals and groups, specifically sworn Law Enforcement officers, they fall within warrant exceptions or broad granted "warrant authorities." It has no relation to a suspect being notified of a warrant and there is no legal mandate to notify the suspect as far as I am aware.

aspaceman 7y ago
The definition they use follows from the definition you use, but is dependent on the times. If you are given authority to act on a warrant by the state, then you show that to the person you're investigating so they don't shoot you for being on their property. Without the warrant, they have every right to shoot a strange person walking through their property without permission. Since this was before the concept of Law Enforcement officers (I feel like people forget cops haven't always been a thing in the U.S.), people wouldn't just accept some nobody in a uniform as a person of authority. There weren't cops, so the warrant was the only way to show you had the authority of the state.
- cecilpl2 7y ago
  > Without the warrant, they have every right to shoot a strange person walking through their property without permission. What kind of hellish "right" is that? You should not have the right to shoot someone for merely walking on your property. That is preposterous!
  - kick 7y ago
    I don't agree with it, but: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Castle_doctrine https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Castle_doctrine
  - DuskStar 7y ago
    You sure as hell should have the right to shoot someone who's armed and trying to get into your house, though.
  - whiddershins 7y ago
    So I am sitting in my living room at 12:25 in the middle of the night in Brooklyn right now. If I look up from my phone and I see someone standing unexpectedly in my kitchen, I should give them the benefit of the doubt and not assume I am in mortal danger? I mean, what would you think?
    - oblio 7y ago
      In most of the world, yes, you don't assume you're in mortal danger. This is the kind of logic that makes US police officers shoot everyone on sight. An intruder most likely wants to steal your stuff, which hardly requires a death sentence, as you seem to want to offer.
      - jack_h 7y ago
        What if the intruder isn't perpetrating this "most likely" case of theft? The other possibilities aren't exactly great alternatives for the occupant. That seems like a very risky gamble to me.
      - 7y ago
luxuryballs 7y ago
Well if you’re not suppose to search me without the warrant, the difference between following that rule and not following it is producing the warrant... otherwise I must assume the duty to defend my family/children and my property for I am being waylaid... the risk the risk of not making that assumption may be very dire circumstances.
- delusional 7y ago
  Do you live in Afghanistan? How often do you get mugged that your default assumption is that you are being threatened.

JumpCrisscross 7y ago

> That’s literally the fundamental purpose of a constitutional warrant! This sounds revisionist. Bounties, paid on warrants calling for the suspect dead or alive, were common and legal through American history.

soulofmischief 7y ago

Shoot first and ask questions later goes both ways, if an armed assailant in all black breaks into my house in the middle of the night without properly identifying themselves at my door. Someone tried breaking into my apartment just a few months ago in the middle of the night. I fear for my safety. Surely that's something these people can relate to.