[2012-Feb-02] Internet Rights

Post a reply


This question is a means of preventing automated form submissions by spambots.
Smilies
:D :) :( :o :shock: :? 8) :lol: :x :P :oops: :cry: :evil: :twisted: :roll: :wink: :?: :idea: :| (o~o) :geek: :[] :geek2: :][>:=~+:
BBCode is ON
[img] is ON
[flash] is OFF
[url] is ON
Smilies are ON
Topic review
   

Expand view Topic review: [2012-Feb-02] Internet Rights

Re: [2012-Feb-2] Internet Rights

by smiley_cow » Mon Feb 06, 2012 6:36 pm

Yeah, Canadian laws are still applicable to students here. When I was (briefly) in Education we had to go over the Charter of Rights and Freedoms so we knew enough not to violate them. I strongly suspect this is why we don't have detention here like they do in the United States.

Re: [2012-Feb-2] Internet Rights

by DonRetrasado » Mon Feb 06, 2012 3:37 pm

It was definitely an illegal search. The undercover cop never identified himself as one or produced a badge or anything like that.

Re: [2012-Feb-2] Internet Rights

by Kaharz » Mon Feb 06, 2012 3:00 pm

Gest1 wrote:If something like this had happened to me I would have sued the cop and the country until I made them completely broke.
In the US, the 4th and 14th amendment protections of students in elementary and secondary school are severely reduced. The general rule is that there has to be "reasonable"* (not probable) cause to search the student's possessions. They still require some good reason to conduct the search, but they don't need a warrant or probable cause. I don't know why the cop suspected DR's friend, but something as simple as another student saying DR's friend had fireworks could have possibly been enough. It is still a bit of a gray area though. The officer definitely should have identified himself or had a school administrator conduct the search instead. In a legal sense, that was possibly the greater violation. It is ridiculous that students are not equally protected, but that is the way it is.

There have been cases in Baltimore of cops being shot or shot at when improperly conducting a search. Usually they had the wrong address, did not have a warrant yet, or were just flat trying to conduct an illegal search. Most those people went through serious hassle, but all the ones I know were cleared of any charges provided the gun was legal.

*New Jersey vs T.L.O (1985)

Re: [2012-Feb-2] Internet Rights

by Gest1 » Mon Feb 06, 2012 10:19 am

DonRetrasado wrote:Yes it was insane, that's why he never got charged. But they still kicked him out of school for god knows what reason.
If something like this had happened to me I would have sued the cop and the country until I made them completely broke.

Re: [2012-Feb-2] Internet Rights

by Funny Analyser » Mon Feb 06, 2012 10:06 am

This thread is not meeting the funny quota.

Come on girls! We need the funny!

Re: [2012-Feb-2] Internet Rights

by DonRetrasado » Sun Feb 05, 2012 10:03 pm

Yes it was insane, that's why he never got charged. But they still kicked him out of school for god knows what reason.

Re: [2012-Feb-2] Internet Rights

by Lethal Interjection » Sun Feb 05, 2012 2:56 pm

DonRetrasado wrote:A friend of mine in high school actually got attacked by an undercover cop, some guy came up to him out of nowhere and asked to search his bag and got pissed when he couldn't. Dude ended up in supreme trouble for fighting back against the cop. In the end he got off easy, but he had to transfer to another school. From what I understand it was all about some fireworks that were supposedly in his bag.
That's dumb. He was well within his rights to refuse, if he didn't know it was a cop. And the cop screwed up as he neither identified himself nor give probably cause for a warrant-less search. Which is not to mention that I doubt carrying a handbag with some fireworks would constitute probable cause.

Re: [2012-Feb-2] Internet Rights

by DonRetrasado » Sun Feb 05, 2012 7:22 am

A friend of mine in high school actually got attacked by an undercover cop, some guy came up to him out of nowhere and asked to search his bag and got pissed when he couldn't. Dude ended up in supreme trouble for fighting back against the cop. In the end he got off easy, but he had to transfer to another school. From what I understand it was all about some fireworks that were supposedly in his bag.

Re: [2012-Feb-2] Internet Rights

by Spaceguy5 » Sun Feb 05, 2012 7:15 am

GUTCHUCKER wrote:So everyone in that list was an innocent person who got fucked up by people acting under this warrant while trying to defend their home... And nobody was held accountable for the blunders?
But they are guilty! They defended their homes against people with guns (who just happened to really be police officers)! Everyone knows it's illegal to even think about shooting a police officer, even if you don't know it's a cop and they're invading your home with a gun!

Re: [2012-Feb-2] Internet Rights

by GUTCHUCKER » Fri Feb 03, 2012 12:59 pm

So everyone in that list was an innocent person who got fucked up by people acting under this warrant while trying to defend their home... And nobody was held accountable for the blunders?

Re: [2012-Feb-2] Internet Rights

by Eisbreaker » Fri Feb 03, 2012 10:05 am

I just dropped by again to interject:
R.W - Ron Weasley?

Re: [2012-Feb-2] Internet Rights

by smiley_cow » Fri Feb 03, 2012 9:10 am

Guest wrote:
smiley_cow wrote:
R.W. wrote: Would a viable solution then be to allow laws that infringe on rights, but simultaneously provide that they can only be used in special circumstances? For instance, the government could keep everyone's email, but only look at it if they think someone is a criminal. Kind of like how they can search your house, but only if they think someone is a criminal (and get a warrant based off of that suspicion).
I would rather a government that never infringed on people's rights. What you describe (with the exception of the government keeping everyone's emails) sounds like the warrant system that's already in place. Which has always seems sufficient enough to me. I don't think the government ever needs access to citizen's emails. And police only if it's warranted as part of a serious investigation.
I think I can... generally... agree with that. The warrant system is pretty good. I would definitely say that police should include organizations like the FBI if they're investigating something out of the local PD's jurisdiction, though.

Out of curiosity, based on your preference for a government that never infringed on people's rights, would you support a repeal of the warrant system to just say that cops NEVER have the right to search a person?
I think I see what you're getting at. I said rights should never be violated, but I should have also said 'unless there is probable sufficient evidence that says that they may be a serious danger to themselves and others and searching them is necessary. But there still needs to be a strong system in place to prevent abuse. For example, if you have reasonable evidence that somebody walking inside a public building has a bomb, yes, I think it would be OK to search them. But you can't do random searches on people on the off-chance one of them might have a bomb.

I do think the warrant system goes too far in some cases. And I don't think people know enough about it to properly protect themselves when police investigate. But I also think that a person's rights end where another's begin. Free speech is a right but I don't think that should include things like what William Francis Melchert-Dinkel did when he encouraged people to commit suicide while he watched on a webcam for example.

Re: [2012-Feb-2] Internet Rights

by DonRetrasado » Fri Feb 03, 2012 7:15 am

First off, I'm Canadian, so I'm not aware of an equivalent to a no-knock warrant that we have. With that out of the way, I feel like if the possibility of evidence in my home were established, in a court of law, and a judge grants a warrant, that should be acceptable enough. The problem is that judges will grant warrants too often, and often times that possibility of evidence was not really valid in the first place. I can't think of a solution to such a deep problem, honestly; I grant that in theory, it works fine. Because of this I honestly feel like it's better to err on the side of caution, and say that the proof required to search my house must be much more definitive than it is now. Law enforcement will complain that they require these warrants "to do their job" but I feel like we are putting innocent people in jeopardy at the moment, which is not a risk I am comfortable with.

Re: [2012-Feb-2] Internet Rights

by R.W. » Fri Feb 03, 2012 7:02 am

DonRetrasado wrote:Frankly, the warrant system already goes too far sometimes. Not that this is the same thing but it goes to show that people's rights are already infringed upon, even in spite of lethal consequences. A government cannot be trusted to violate people's rights "only when necessary".
Interesting... I didn't know about these no-knock warrants. They certainly seem very bad, but I'd probably have to do more research before I can come to a definitive conclusion. 50,000 in 2005 alone does seem excessive, though.

DonRestrado, if things like no-knock warrants and other egregiously bad things were removed, would the warrant system be more palatable? Under what circumstances should the government be permitted to search your house?

Re: [2012-Feb-2] Internet Rights

by Guest » Fri Feb 03, 2012 6:58 am

smiley_cow wrote:
R.W. wrote: Would a viable solution then be to allow laws that infringe on rights, but simultaneously provide that they can only be used in special circumstances? For instance, the government could keep everyone's email, but only look at it if they think someone is a criminal. Kind of like how they can search your house, but only if they think someone is a criminal (and get a warrant based off of that suspicion).
I would rather a government that never infringed on people's rights. What you describe (with the exception of the government keeping everyone's emails) sounds like the warrant system that's already in place. Which has always seems sufficient enough to me. I don't think the government ever needs access to citizen's emails. And police only if it's warranted as part of a serious investigation.
I think I can... generally... agree with that. The warrant system is pretty good. I would definitely say that police should include organizations like the FBI if they're investigating something out of the local PD's jurisdiction, though.

Out of curiosity, based on your preference for a government that never infringed on people's rights, would you support a repeal of the warrant system to just say that cops NEVER have the right to search a person?

Top