Sign in to follow this  
Gouvernail

Undercover Cops and Constitutionality

Recommended Posts

I brought this up in another thread but only @phillysailor seems to have noticed or considered it.

Certainly under over cops are an effective tool for accomplishing certain things but, are they in any way shape or form legal?  Aren’t  they by their very nature a form of illegal search and seizure? Doesn’t the Constitution demand our government agents identify themselves and bring a warrant when they are doing enforcement stuff? 

* What if an undercover cop is trying to see what guns you own before they come by your house for some kind of enforcement action?

*What if  he is there to figure out what the protestors are planning next?

* Whatbif he is checking up to see if your political campaign is cizyingbuo to the Russians? 

* What if he is trying to find out how old fetuses are when you are aborting them?

——— Have I made it clear enough this could be aimed at anybody on either side of most any issue?

*”but we are going after drug dealers.”

if you already know they are breaking the law, arrest them. If you don’t know they are breaking the law, what is tte justification? 
 

so... I would love to see a discussion about the LEGALITY of undercover.

I know it is effective. Effectiveness is not a justification. 
 

anybody wanna play here?? 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

What does " cizyingbuo " mean?

In my experience, undercover drug work is to see where the organization goes upstairs. Street-level dealers are easy to bust, it's the guy 2, 3, or 4 levels up they are going for.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
32 minutes ago, Ishmael said:

What does " cizyingbuo " mean?

In my experience, undercover drug work is to see where the organization goes upstairs. Street-level dealers are easy to bust, it's the guy 2, 3, or 4 levels up they are going for.

Cozying up to

there are a few other typos but edit time is over 

*** on topic**
Yes. Undercover is effective in getting at certain people. I do not subscribe to “end justify the means.”

I don’t think undercover is legal. 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Oh, I think undercover is legal, and effective, and can be used well to serve society. Blackkklansman is a great story and an effective use of the tool.

But just as a hammer can be used to build stairs, so can it be used to kill.

We need different metrics by which to judge police, ones which align more closely with civilian goals of societal needs and more in accordance with our freedoms as established.

I think we need fundamental changes in leadership re-emphasizing civilian control. LEOs equipment and training should deemphasizing the use of force and improve accountability. Honesty and clarity should be measured.

The goal is not zero crime: the level of policing that would require is far too intrusive into our freedoms. The goal is a society enabled to be mostly free of the destabilizing force of unchecked powerful entities seemingly unaccountable to laws and common sense. On the individual or organizational level, laws should apply equitably. This applies to civilian organizations, businesses, local state & federal agencies, and criminals/criminal organizations alike. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
9 minutes ago, phillysailor said:

Oh, I think undercover is legal, and effective, and can be used well to serve society. Blackkklansman is a great story and an effective use of the tool.

But just as a hammer can be used to build stairs, so can it be used to kill.

We need different metrics by which to judge police, ones which align more closely with civilian goals of societal needs and more in accordance with our freedoms as established.

I think we need fundamental changes in leadership re-emphasizing civilian control. LEOs equipment and training should deemphasizing the use of force and improve accountability. Honesty and clarity should be measured.

The goal is not zero crime: the level of policing that would require is far too intrusive into our freedoms. The goal is a society enabled to be mostly free of the destabilizing force of unchecked powerful entities seemingly unaccountable to laws and common sense. On the individual or organizational level, laws should apply equitably. This applies to civilian organizations, businesses, local state & federal agencies, and criminals/criminal organizations alike. 

Think it through for a sec. The cops can't look around my house or plant a bug in my house without a warrant. The cops very much can pretend to be sailors wanting to grab a beer and report back on everything they see in my house and everything they hear.

Actually by far the bigger problem is informants. Reduced to its essence, informants means paying criminals to catch other criminals or bribing them or blackmailing them. In all cases you end up with a set of criminals that have a lot of freedom to continue criming because the cops don't want their employees in jail. See Whitey Bulger (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Whitey_Bulger)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
17 hours ago, phillysailor said:

The goal is not zero crime: the level of policing that would require is far too intrusive into our freedoms. The goal is a society enabled to be mostly free of the destabilizing force of unchecked powerful entities seemingly unaccountable to laws and common sense. On the individual or organizational level, laws should apply equitably. This applies to civilian organizations, businesses, local state & federal agencies, and criminals/criminal organizations alike. 

You also need to stop legislating someone's take on morality. Those laws cannot ever be properly enforced so lead to cynicism and corruption.

Prostitution and drugs first cabs off of the rank. Porn another though it's a bit of a dead issue now.

Plus making it clear that police are to record *everything* all their working time and lack of a recording automatically invalidates everything they claim. Persistent failure to record gets you taken off of public facing work altogether and loses you the privilege of carrying a firearm.

FKT

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
6 hours ago, Fah Kiew Tu said:
23 hours ago, phillysailor said:

The goal is not zero crime: the level of policing that would require is far too intrusive into our freedoms. The goal is a society enabled to be mostly free of the destabilizing force of unchecked powerful entities seemingly unaccountable to laws and common sense. On the individual or organizational level, laws should apply equitably. This applies to civilian organizations, businesses, local state & federal agencies, and criminals/criminal organizations alike. 

You also need to stop legislating someone's take on morality. Those laws cannot ever be properly enforced so lead to cynicism and corruption.

Prostitution and drugs first cabs off of the rank. Porn another though it's a bit of a dead issue now.

Plus making it clear that police are to record *everything* all their working time and lack of a recording automatically invalidates everything they claim. Persistent failure to record gets you taken off of public facing work altogether and loses you the privilege of carrying a firearm.

Agree with both above

One main, basic, point we need to keep in mind... without 99.9% of people being honest, of good faith and good will, civilization comes apart. That's relatively easy to maintain among a small, culturally (and racially) homogenous (boring) group. When you start throwing "furriners" into the mix, it gets easier to wink at cheating them, up to killing them.

That's the real problem we're having now, is a combination of the erosion of standards (bad enough under normal circumstances) magnified exponentially by the resurgence of the idea that people who don't look like us, talk like us, go to the same church as us, etc etc, are not "US" and do not deserve equal consideration of law. That's what is behind the outrage over Black Lives Matter. "Yes but...." is a way of trying to politely say "no they don't, or not as much" and that is taken as a bedrock axiom of belief by those that say it.

And this is a really really fundamental difference. It's a set-up for genocide. Police cameras would be a big improvement but they aren't going to fix it.

- DSK

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
Sign in to follow this