You are viewing a single comment's thread from:
RE: How the War on Drugs is Fundamentally Flawed
To be honest, I stopped reading halfway through. I think there is some conflation here. For instance, there are NOT 40,000 "no knock" warrants per year. I'd like to see the source for that statistic. It's wrong.
Also, it is not breaking and entering, nor is it invasion when the government conducts a lawful search under the fourth amendment. The constitution sets out the rules and the government, for the most part, follows the rule of law.
There may be some truth here, but the conflation and use of hyperbole obfuscate that truth.
Thank you for the comment and feedback @coldsteem. :c)
I truly wish that I was over-stating things...
Ok... maybe not (as I'd be pandering to a lie) but I wish that the data that I have to work on was less dire.
Like I said, all information is within those three links (I
suspectconfirm that its in the drugpolicy.org one) but I just searched for "40,000 no knock" on Google - just to see if I would have a hard time finding another source.There are 'a few', including the following quote in Wikipedia.
"The number of no-knock raids has increased from 3,000 in 1981 to more than 50,000 in 2005, according to Peter Kraska, a criminologist at Eastern Kentucky University in Richmond."
Granted - its Wikipedia...
But its far from a unique source - and the only reason I don't present a better one right now is that I'd have to link to media outlets like nbc and npr (you may verify with a quick Google search).
That being said, I'd sincerely appreciate any source suggesting a more conservative estimate.
Also - I know its a handful to read (I considered splitting the post but decided against it as it'd seem like milking a topic that needs exposition, not milking) - and you stopped reading just in time as the facts were going to end and my questions on the matter were going to begin. ^_^
Thank you again for your comment @coldsteem!
I have seen several sources significantly lower at 20000 which I still believe is inflated.
There is a lot of manipulation of data on both sides of this debate. As someone on the LE side, who has done exactly one no knock in over thirty years on the job, I find those numbers to be a bit difficult to swallow.
I'll admit that you have me wondering - and I am trying to find some hard data, not just estimates of such. No luck just yet.
Thank you anyway for raising a flag on the figure.
Greetings @coldsteem.
So far this article is the best source that I've come across.
"There has been more than a 1,400% increase in the total number of police paramilitary deployments, or callouts, between 1980 and 2000. Today, an estimated 45,000 SWAT-team deployments are conducted yearly among those departments
surveyed;..." (pg 6)
"...more than 80% of these deployments were for proactive drug raids, specifically no-knock and quick-knock dynamic entries into private residences, searching for contraband." (pg6-7)
This does leave room for interpretation - i.e. what % of that figure is actually a "quick-knock" rather than a "no-knock" - and the information seems to be based upon the surveying of "departments" - but I think that there is enough information here to strongly suggest that there is at least a seed of truth and that the degree of conflation, if any, is likely modest.
Quick knock makes more sense. It is not the same thing. I think we have some agreement in here on some points and some things we are not likely to agree with. But that's all good.
Quite agreed. Disagreements are where the greatest potential for advancement and/ or learning exists - even if the disagreement should remain.
Are there any other points of disagreement besids the no-knock arrests figure?
One point that I will need to push back on is the "breaking and entering" point.
Just because the individuals doing so are paid by taxpayers' money, just because a central authority would provide a veneer of legitimacy - lawfulness...
...such does not change that they physically break into and intrude upon a property against the will of the occupant(s). Rightfully? Wrongfully? It may depend on who one asks - or what level of scrutiny one places such under.
It is a breach in consistency. It is a breach in ethics. Law exists in service to, or at odds with, both the former.
I suspect that our perspectives on this point may not end up convergant - and thats OK.
I appreciate that you are willing to engage in respectful dialogue. So much social media is filled with trollish foolishness.
In regards to "breaking and entering..." that term has a legal defintion. And any legal definition contains "elements of an offense." If a search warrant is conducted in compliance with the Fourth Amendment, then it cannot be "breaking and entering." By definition.
Respectful dialogue should be the default. Such is as much about self-respect as the respect of others and the process of meaningful dialogue.
I appreciate that you have been referring to "breaking and entering" from a legal standpoint - and as such accept that (again from such standpoint) you are correct in stating that a no-knock warrant is thus set apart from breaking and entry.
Thank you kindly for your input.