No Knock raids

[Winchester]

Let's have a discussion between sensible people and the people who worship politicians.

[Didacus]

6 minutes ago, Winchester said:

Let's have a discussion between sensible people and the people who worship politicians.

Trump 2024!!!

[Winchester]

44 minutes ago, Didacus said:

Trump 2024!!!

He definitely believed in no-knock raids.

[Mercedes]

Why do you put "crime" in quotes?  People participating in vice are criminals.

[Winchester]

1 hour ago, Mercedes said:

Why do you put "crime" in quotes?  People participating in vice are criminals.

Because vices are not crimes.

[Mercedes]

34 minutes ago, Winchester said:

Because vices are not crimes.

The vices that are the subject of no knock raids are.

[ardillacid]

If you don’t have anything to hide, you have nothing to worry about 

[Winchester]

18 hours ago, Mercedes said:

The vices that are the subject of no knock raids are.

No they're not. Malum prohibitum "crimes" aren't really crimes. They're just violations of arbitrary edicts issued by violent terrorist organizations.

[Machine_Washable]

13 hours ago, Winchester said:

No they're not. Malum prohibitum "crimes" aren't really crimes. They're just violations of arbitrary edicts issued by violent terrorist organizations.

I googled malum probibitum crimes. These are crimes that aren’t evil in themselves but only because they’ve been made a crime? To me that sounds like jaywalking or parking crimes. Not things like drugs or prostitution. 

[Winchester]

1 hour ago, Machine_Washable said:

I googled malum probibitum crimes. These are crimes that aren’t evil in themselves but only because they’ve been made a crime? To me that sounds like jaywalking or parking crimes. Not things like drugs or prostitution. 

Who is the victim in drug use or prostitution?

[Machine_Washable]

1 hour ago, Winchester said:

Who is the victim in drug use or prostitution?

Why does there have to be a victim for something to be evil? Blasphemy doesn’t have a victim but it is evil. I’m not supporting no knock raids. I just don’t understand the classification.
 

my opinion is that they are generally bad. There are extreme circumstances where  I understand the need for them ( if you have a kidnapping victim who you think the kidnapper might harm if he knew the police were coming). But they have been greatly abused. Here in Canada we had a scandal involving no knock raids. Right after the mayor was caught using drugs on video the police conducted a huge raid of nearby community housing towers. A lot of boys/young men who were involved in some illegal activity were arrested. The police didn’t manufacture the physical evidence. A lot of them really were dealing or holding onto weapons. But they claimed that there were all part of this huge gang that supposedly ran the towers. There was no evidence of this and everybody there said it was just fabricated. They took a bunch of boys involved in (mostly) small crimes and yoked them with charges as if they were mafioso or something. The burden of these crimes falls mostly on the poor and the immigrants. People who don’t want to bring a lot of attention on themselves by suing the city because the police kicked down their door and ruined their homes for no good reason. Maybe a member of their family is put of status. Or maybe they just are intimidated because they don’t speak English very well and don’t know their rights. Whatever the reason they get abused by this tactic a lot. Meanwhile the rich get to negotiate their surrender to the police. 
 

I don’t know what the sharia would say on this. Generally speaking the sharia is concerned with regulating public behavior not tracking down private vices. Things like adulatory are punishable under the sharia. And the punishment for it is very harsh. But the evidential standard for the punishment is also very high. The reason for this is because, traditionally, the focus was on stopping the normalization of vice. Not tracking down every adulterer or drunkard who covered up their sin. Additionally, traditional fiqh has a lot of respect for property rights and privacy. But a lot of this fiqh was written for a very different society so I don’t know what the scholars would say about the issue in modern times. 

[Winchester]

15 minutes ago, Machine_Washable said:

Why does there have to be a victim for something to be evil? Blasphemy doesn’t have a victim but it is evil. I’m not supporting no knock raids. I just don’t understand the classification.
 

my opinion is that they are generally bad. There are extreme circumstances where  I understand the need for them ( if you have a kidnapping victim who you think the kidnapper might harm if he knew the police were coming). But they have been greatly abused. Here in Canada we had a scandal involving no knock raids. Right after the mayor was caught using drugs on video the police conducted a huge raid of nearby community housing towers. A lot of boys/young men who were involved in some illegal activity were arrested. The police didn’t manufacture the physical evidence. A lot of them really were dealing or holding onto weapons. But they claimed that there were all part of this huge gang that supposedly ran the towers. There was no evidence of this and everybody there said it was just fabricated. They took a bunch of boys involved in (mostly) small crimes and yoked them with charges as if they were mafioso or something. The burden of these crimes falls mostly on the poor and the immigrants. People who don’t want to bring a lot of attention on themselves by suing the city because the police kicked down their door and ruined their homes for no good reason. Maybe a member of their family is put of status. Or maybe they just are intimidated because they don’t speak English very well and don’t know their rights. Whatever the reason they get abused by this tactic a lot. Meanwhile the rich get to negotiate their surrender to the police. 
 

I don’t know what the sharia would say on this. Generally speaking the sharia is concerned with regulating public behavior not tracking down private vices. Things like adulatory are punishable under the sharia. And the punishment for it is very harsh. But the evidential standard for the punishment is also very high. The reason for this is because, traditionally, the focus was on stopping the normalization of vice. Not tracking down every adulterer or drunkard who covered up their sin. Additionally, traditional fiqh has a lot of respect for property rights and privacy. But a lot of this fiqh was written for a very different society so I don’t know what the scholars would say about the issue in modern times. 

I'm not saying it's not evil. These are legal distinctions between an act that is criminal by its nature or criminal merely by prohibition. I should have caught that you were transliterating.

Prostitution isn't criminal by its nature, but only because politicians have deemed it a crime. Theft is criminal by its nature. Even when the state legalizes it.

 

No knock raids aren't worth the risk. The state has conflated no knock raids with hostage rescue in a clear attempt to create a gray area where there isn't one. No one ever disputed the occasional need to forcefully enter a building in order to save people being held captive by criminals.

[Peace]

25 minutes ago, Winchester said:

Prostitution isn't criminal by its nature, but only because politicians have deemed it a crime. Theft is criminal by its nature. Even when the state legalizes it.

Well prostitution is not a good example of conduct that is "malum prohibitum". The Church defines prostitution as an activity that is gravely evil. It is not wrong merely because the state defines it as a crime.

Something like jaywalking when there is no traffic would be an example of malum prohibitum.

 

[Winchester]

11 hours ago, Peace said:

Well prostitution is not a good example of conduct that is "malum prohibitum". The Church defines prostitution as an activity that is gravely evil. It is not wrong merely because the state defines it as a crime.

Something like jaywalking when there is no traffic would be an example of malum prohibitum.

 

I didn't mention the Church. We're talking about the state, and the terms apply in this context.

[Peace]

2 hours ago, Winchester said:

I didn't mention the Church. We're talking about the state, and the terms apply in this context.

No, even if we leave the Church out of it (which would be a ridiculous thing for a Catholic to do when defining actions as moral or immoral by the way) prostitution is not malum prohibitum.

Here is the definition:

https://www.merriam-webster.com/legal/malum prohibitum

: an offense prohibited by statute but not inherently evil or wrong

Prostitution is inherently evil and wrong, so it is not malum prohibitum.

[Machine_Washable]

On 9/26/2021 at 4:45 PM, Winchester said:

I'm not saying it's not evil. These are legal distinctions between an act that is criminal by its nature or criminal merely by prohibition. I should have caught that you were transliterating.

Prostitution isn't criminal by its nature, but only because politicians have deemed it a crime. Theft is criminal by its nature. Even when the state legalizes it.

 

No knock raids aren't worth the risk. The state has conflated no knock raids with hostage rescue in a clear attempt to create a gray area where there isn't one. No one ever disputed the occasional need to forcefully enter a building in order to save people being held captive by criminals.

I agree with you about them not being worth the risk. How do you differentiate between crimes that are criminal by their nature and crimes that are criminal by prohibition?

[Winchester]

On 9/29/2021 at 4:07 AM, Machine_Washable said:

I agree with you about them not being worth the risk. How do you differentiate between crimes that are criminal by their nature and crimes that are criminal by prohibition?

Do they violate an involved party's consent? If there is a victim, then it's a crime or a tort.

[Winchester]

On 9/26/2021 at 10:43 PM, Peace said:

No, even if we leave the Church out of it (which would be a ridiculous thing for a Catholic to do when defining actions as moral or immoral by the way) prostitution is not malum prohibitum.

Here is the definition:

https://www.merriam-webster.com/legal/malum prohibitum

: an offense prohibited by statute but not inherently evil or wrong

Prostitution is inherently evil and wrong, so it is not malum prohibitum.

I didn't say anything about moral and immoral. I said crime or not. I gave context. We're not going to argue about other uses of the words.

[Peace]

13 hours ago, Winchester said:

I didn't say anything about moral and immoral. I said crime or not. I gave context. We're not going to argue about other uses of the words.

Nonsense. You said "malum prohibitum". The definition of "malum prohibitum" requires that an action not be "inherently evil or wrong" (i.e. not immoral). And that is the definition taught in every law school across the country.

If you don't even know what words mean then you should stop using them.

[Winchester]

11 hours ago, Peace said:

Nonsense. You said "malum prohibitum". The definition of "malum prohibitum" requires that an action not be "inherently evil or wrong" (i.e. not immoral). And that is the definition taught in every law school across the country.

If you don't even know what words mean then you should stop using them.

Those terms aren't from Catholic theology. They're used quite commonly to distinguish between crime and vice.  I'm not making a theological argument. I would hope you wouldn't want every sin codified into the penal code (not that we should have a penal system, in the first place).

Look up a few lists of "crimes" commonly thought to be malum prohibitum. You'll find prostitution on some of them.