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

91–100 of 155 posts

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

#91

Post by aspaceman »

michaelmrose wrote: post #72
aspaceman wrote: post #57

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I don't agree with the castle doctrine in a modern context but I'm talking about the 1700s, chill. Back then it made a lot of sense. Nowadays we have cops instead. You gave that power to the cops who shoot the person on your property instead. I'm simply explaining the reasoning behind warrants back then. They were a lot more important because you had to explain "What the hell are you doing here, and what gives you th…

The cops will arrive when they feel like it. It is well established that they have no legal obligation to respond in a timely fashion even where they in theory could do so. Response time in an emergency in major cities ranges from 5-10 minutes. Longer the further out from the city.

What does any of this have to do with anything I said?

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

#92

Post by bryanrasmussen »

whiddershins wrote: post #56
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!

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?

drunk person confused wandered in house via open door unexpectedly?

Is New York a state where you are allowed to shoot someone for just being on your property or do they have show some hostile behavior. You should probably find out the relevant law before you tell someone he was standing in my kitchen unexpectedly and I shot them, it's self-defense because it might not pass the test.

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

#93

Post by toxik »

nickthemagicman wrote: post #78
BurningFrog wrote: post #58

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I used to donate to ACLU when they were a pure civil liberties organization. Now that they're a leftist/social justice group I have nowhere to donate.

Gay Marriage, Citizens United, Whistleblower protections, Encryption, Net Neutrality, warrantless surveillance... It's actually hard to think of an issue where Republicans have been on the right side of protecting Civil liberties in recent history other than gun control. Are the ACLU leftists or are leftists the ones protecting civil liberties? Sort of a chicken and the egg situation.

How about actually standing up to China and not just talking about it?

Let go of the partisanship please.

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

#94

Post by SamReidHughes »

aspaceman wrote: post #89
MaxBarraclough wrote: post #88

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> 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…

Generally speaking you never had the right to shoot people walking on your property in America. You could tell them to get lost. Home invasion is a different matter.

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

#95

Post by ct520 »

oblio wrote: post #62
whiddershins wrote: post #56

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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?

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.

you must not have kids.

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

#96

Post by iso947 »

nothingtos33 wrote: post #60
BurningFrog wrote: post #58

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I used to donate to ACLU when they were a pure civil liberties organization. Now that they're a leftist/social justice group I have nowhere to donate.

Same here. Last I checked the 2nd amendment was still a right.

Which militia are you in?

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

#97

Post by SamReidHughes »

nickthemagicman wrote: post #78
BurningFrog wrote: post #58

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I used to donate to ACLU when they were a pure civil liberties organization. Now that they're a leftist/social justice group I have nowhere to donate.

Gay Marriage, Citizens United, Whistleblower protections, Encryption, Net Neutrality, warrantless surveillance... It's actually hard to think of an issue where Republicans have been on the right side of protecting Civil liberties in recent history other than gun control. Are the ACLU leftists or are leftists the ones protecting civil liberties? Sort of a chicken and the egg situation.

The ACLU and "Republicans" were on the same side of Citizens United.

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

#98

Post by celticmusic »

oblio wrote: post #62
whiddershins wrote: post #56

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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?

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.

an univited intruder in your home shouldn't be considered dangerous?

We have a word for this, it's called naive.

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

#99

Post by celticmusic »

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, but I'm going to fall on the side of the law abiding citizen here.

If you can't know the intent (and you can't), then you must assume the worst intent and act accordingly. Anything else is naive.

Because I promise you one thing, I look up and see a stranger in my house, I'm attacking them immediately with no thought towards anything except protecting myself and everyone in the house. There will be no questions until it's over with.

If they were just looking to steal something for drugs, that can be sorted out once I've subdued them.

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

#100

Post by giancarlostoro »

saagarjha wrote: post #74
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…

> If someone breaks into your home and you shoot them to death they have zero chance of harming your family. Shooting at a burglar sounds like a great way to turn them into a robber or murderer.

Only if you miss.
Post reply on HN