[tptacek]

I don't really understand how this is a response to what I said. I pointed out that much of Europe doesn't even have the exclusionary rule: that if the police obtain evidence through misconduct, prosecutors are allowed to use it at trial. You responded with 6 paragraphs about killing babies.

Be specific. What country has better rules regarding warrants than the US? This should be easy, because it seems hard to believe that we could be the best country in the world at this process. Then we can go look at how that country handles things, in specifics, and learn something.

[fountainofage]

Honestly, I've typed out a few replies, and I've got nothing.

Basically, I'm saying I don't trust cops because they kill 1,100 people a year. That's it. That's my whole argument. Just 1,100 lives. Every year.

You're saying that's not relevant to what we're talking about and let's look at how European countries seem fine with their more lax evidentiary protocols, legal systems, and trusting cops. Even though their cops only kill 50 people a year (at equivalent population rates).

I really don't have a "better" warrant system to propose other than an adversarial one because at the end of the day I don't trust cops, and you're advocating for a legal system that intrinsically does. This is me saying "hey, blue is actually yellow" and you saying "no, blue is blue." Our perceived realities are too far apart.

[tptacek]

You haven't proposed an adversarial system. That would involve details, or an example of some country or system that uses one, so we can get the details from there. It's not interesting to simply wish that the warrant process was adversarial, because it doesn't appear realistic to have such a system; you might just as well abolish investigations altogether.

I'm not interested in your feelings about the police killing people, because I share them, and there's nothing for us to discuss about it.

I am interested in the provenance of warrants, because they're central to the actual story we're commenting on.

[aperrien]

I think that you're both arguing a bit past each other. Fountainofage is stating that the situation as it stands is untenable and needs to change, and they've given several good reasons as to why. You are asking for examples of a direction for society's legal systems to change to, to fix the problem.

Basically you both are in violent agreement, I think.

[tptacek]

No, we're not. We agree that police barging into homes with guns drawn and shooting people is a problem. We violently disagree about the solution: I think we should disarm most police, eliminate qualified immunity, have states license police officers, and require police officers to carry insurance. 'Fountainofage wants to eliminate search warrants.

[tatersolid]

> have states license police officers

I’m pretty sure this is the case in most if not all US jurisdictions. You have to pass police Academy and annual or at least somewhat regular proficiency, physical, and written tests to ensure you are competent.

It not like you can just get hired as a cop because you have a cop friend.

[tptacek]

It is absolutely not the case. You generally have to pass a competency test, and, having done that, your retention is a matter for your local police force and governed by its collective bargaining agreement. Some states can "decertify" police officers, mostly for committing a felony, which is a batshit standard.

The point of licensing is to bypass the CBA; the state can revoke a license --- for reasons other than "failed an exam" --- and having done so, the local department cannot retain the officer regardless of the results of labor arbitration.

This is something Illinois is working on right now, at the behest of the Lightfoot administration, though I haven't seen much news on progress. It's a big deal.