3 ms·
You're making the argument that the system is broken with an example of the system working? I guess the semantic trick is that you don't reveal that the system
by delusional 1y ago
You're making the argument that the system is broken with an example of the system working? I guess the semantic trick is that you don't reveal that the system actually stopped him until the very end of the comment, and in much less space. About 2/3 of the comment is describing the warrent, only the last 1/3 reveals that it's a nothing burger because it was denied.
Obviously law enforcement are going to cut corners. They're human beings, who are mostly interested in stopping crime. That's exactly why we force them to get warrents, to have a dispassionate believer in "the Law" as an ideal concept check in with their investigation.
- mcny 1y agoThey should be following the law. We want "defense in depth" in everything and not have a single point of failure. > They're human beings So are judges and they will make mistakes. Remember that a judge signed the warrant in Kansas. Previously, on HN: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=41240755 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=41240755
- delusional 1y agoNow you're making a completely different argument centered around structural problems, and you cannot make that argument from a single anecdote.
- saghm 1y agoWell yeah, the person who responded to you isn't the same one who you responded to originally. Sometimes when you disagree with one person, someone else can still have a valid point about your disagreement even if they don't fully agree with the first person you responded to.