Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

The StingRay Is Why the 4th Amendment Was Written (2017)

fee.org

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

81–90 of 155 posts

Re: The StingRay Is Why the 4th Amendment Was Written (2017)

#81

Post by justinclift »

michaelmrose wrote: post #70
oblio wrote: post #62

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

What do you think happens when someone just wants to steal your stuff and runs into property owners in the process? 1/4 of the time when a person is present for their burglary they are assaulted, robbed, raped, or murdered. If someone breaks into your home and you shoot them to death they have zero chance of harming your family. Decreasing the risk of breaking into people's homes incentivizes human trash to convert y…

> If someone breaks into your home and you shoot them to death they have zero chance of harming your family.

Unless you miss, and take out your family member (or others) yourself.

Also, if you do take out someone in your house... they likely have relatives too. Who may become fairly interested in you and/or your family afterwards. Aka that "violence begets violence" thing. :/

Re: The StingRay Is Why the 4th Amendment Was Written (2017)

#82

Post by delusional »

luxuryballs wrote: post #65
AndrewKemendo wrote: post #42

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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 officer…

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.

Do you live in Afghanistan? How often do you get mugged that your default assumption is that you are being threatened.

Re: The StingRay Is Why the 4th Amendment Was Written (2017)

#83

Post by delusional »

meowface wrote: post #73
oblio wrote: post #62

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

It's not about a death sentence, but about staying alive yourself. If a stranger's inside of your home, there is a significant chance they're going to murder or grievously harm you or others in your house. I think this is true whether or not you're in a country where guns are commonplace. Even if their goal was purely to steal something, things progress very quickly in chaotic situations like those; especially when t…

> Even if their goal was purely to steal something, things progress very quickly in chaotic situations like those

You are perpetuating that danger. Now the would-be thief knows you will attack him if you see him, so he has to be ready to shoot you. By powertrippig and "protecting" your home, you are making a banal situation more dangerous for everyone, including yourself.

If you didn't have a gun you might do the more logical thing. Calm the intruder down, and run away.

Re: The StingRay Is Why the 4th Amendment Was Written (2017)

#84

Post by Asooka »

cecilpl2 wrote: post #51
aspaceman wrote: post #46

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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…

> 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!

A foundational right essential to a free society. It's your home, you have dominion over it - people can't enter uninvited and while you can't just start blasting from nothing, ultimately you have the right to protect yourself at your own home, which can end up in death.

Re: The StingRay Is Why the 4th Amendment Was Written (2017)

#85

Post by kazagistar »

cecilpl2 wrote: post #51
aspaceman wrote: post #46

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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…

> 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!

To expand, the castle principle is what this is called, and it is seen as much as an obvious default in the USA as a horrifyingly violent monstrosity basically everywhere else.

Re: The StingRay Is Why the 4th Amendment Was Written (2017)

#86

Post by acollins1331 »

meowface wrote: post #76
michaelmrose wrote: post #70

Earlier quoted context omitted.

What do you think happens when someone just wants to steal your stuff and runs into property owners in the process? 1/4 of the time when a person is present for their burglary they are assaulted, robbed, raped, or murdered. If someone breaks into your home and you shoot them to death they have zero chance of harming your family. Decreasing the risk of breaking into people's homes incentivizes human trash to convert y…

I agree with you that lethal force is the only reasonable option in that situation, but a human doesn't become "garbage" simply because they fall victim to addiction to a substance which causes them such suffering during withdrawal that they feel like they have no other choice but to try to steal to end the withdrawal. If you were in that same situation after some friends got you hooked, you might steal something to…

Sorry buddy, but there around millions of people around the world that go through very painful withdraws and don't break into people houses. The withdraws don't make them bad people, the criminal neglect for others does.

Re: The StingRay Is Why the 4th Amendment Was Written (2017)

#87

Post by acollins1331 »

oblio wrote: post #79
michaelmrose wrote: post #70

Earlier quoted context omitted.

What do you think happens when someone just wants to steal your stuff and runs into property owners in the process? 1/4 of the time when a person is present for their burglary they are assaulted, robbed, raped, or murdered. If someone breaks into your home and you shoot them to death they have zero chance of harming your family. Decreasing the risk of breaking into people's homes incentivizes human trash to convert y…

> human trash > Being kinder to garbage See, that's where we probably don't think the same way. I consider few people "human trash". Drug addicts I don't count as "human trash", they're just victims of an addiction and in need of help. People who are not drug addicts and are just plain evil, those would be "human trash" in my eyes (think Mengele). The words we choose to frame a situation are important. Your mindset c…

I know plenty of drug addicts that don't break into people's homes putting themselves and others at risk. Hurting other people to benefit yourself is exactly the type of person that is just asking to be categorized as 'human trash'.

Re: The StingRay Is Why the 4th Amendment Was Written (2017)

#88

Post by MaxBarraclough »

aspaceman wrote: post #46
AndrewKemendo wrote: post #42

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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 officer…

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…

> Without the warrant, they have every right to shoot a strange person walking through their property without permission.

Shooting the postman is illegal.

Re: The StingRay Is Why the 4th Amendment Was Written (2017)

#89

Post by aspaceman »

MaxBarraclough wrote: post #88
aspaceman wrote: post #46

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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…

> Without the warrant, they have every right to shoot a strange person walking through their property without permission. Shooting the postman is illegal.

Then in the 1700s you identified yourself as the postman so you didn't get shot. I imagine a uniform and some familiarity had a lot to do with it.

For god's sake I'm not saying this is good, or this is how I want the world to work. I sure as hell don't and I'm not some conspiratorial militiaman.

Historically, i.e. in early America. There were no pigs, so you defended your own property. Typically with a gun. Warrants partly exist to stop someone from doing that, which is what the parent comment is all about.

Re: The StingRay Is Why the 4th Amendment Was Written (2017)

#90

Post by aspaceman »

kazagistar wrote: post #85
cecilpl2 wrote: post #51

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> 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!

To expand, the castle principle is what this is called, and it is seen as much as an obvious default in the USA as a horrifyingly violent monstrosity basically everywhere else.

Yup agreed. It's not good. Made sense in a frontier without any cops. Doesn't make much sense anymore. Don't know why you use that historical fact as a springboard for some weird soapbox though.

FYI. My opinion is you don't shoot people on your property. It's bad.

Post reply on HN