pageok
pageok
pageok
My Apologies:
Radley's latest post makes clear that my earlier post badly misunderstood his position. My apologies. In its Fourth Amendment cases, the Supreme Court routinely refers to "invasion" of a home to mean any physical access, and I assumed Radley was using the word in the way the Supreme Court does, not to refer only to no-knock paramilitary raids. Radley seems to think my misunderstanding was in bad faith; it wasn't. In any event, I regret the misunderstanding.
John Jenkins (mail):
Bravo, sir, and well done.
11.25.2006 11:57pm
Gopple (mail):
Ha ha...

In its Fourth Amendment cases, the Supreme Court routinely refers to "invasion" of a home to mean any physical access, and I assumed Radley was using the word in the way the Supreme Court does, not to refer only to no-knock paramilitary raids.

An underhanded apology if I ever saw one! Good debate otherwise, though. Plus, I clicked through to TheAgitator for the first time...I appreciate the tip. Keep it up, fellas.

The overarching lessons: Don't live on the same block as any potentially suspected criminals and wear your bullet-proof vests to bed.
11.26.2006 12:27am
Stosh2 (mail):
arrogant f***ing lawyers - jeesh. too rich to be killed by cops? live in a swank neighborhood? wrap yourself in constitutional arguments? let's be delicate and academic. wait till the come for YOU.

[OK Comments: Stosh2, what does this have to do with my apology? I don't follow.]
11.26.2006 12:53am
Mike BUSL07 (mail) (www):

arrogant f***ing lawyers - jeesh. too rich to be killed by cops? live in a swank neighborhood? wrap yourself in constitutional arguments? let's be delicate and academic. wait till the come for YOU.

Well, that's about as balanced a response to an apology one expects to see, I suppose.
11.26.2006 12:57am
33yearprof (mail):
Whoops! They did it again. Didn't kill the old lady (at the wrong house) this time. Should she buy the SWAT team a round in gratitude?
http://www.theagitator.com/archives/027260.php#027260
11.26.2006 1:10am
Patterico (mail) (www):
That's a heck of a lot classier a response than Balko gave me when he mischaracterized my position on a few things recently. When I pointed it out, I got a response that said, essentially, "whatever."
11.26.2006 3:29am
PersonFromPorlock:
Well, 'Alphonse and Gaston' or pissing contest, let's not forget that the real issue's reckless cops and reckless government.
11.26.2006 7:04am
Fub:
Patterico wrote:
That's a heck of a lot classier a response than Balko gave me when he mischaracterized my position on a few things recently. When I pointed it out, I got a response that said, essentially, "whatever."
Sincerely practicing good manners and thoughtfulness produces many classy results that pounding the table never will. Even when one is technically correct. Maybe especially when one is techically correct.
11.26.2006 7:30am
Bruce Hayden (mail) (www):
I agree with Fub about manners. I came here and discovered blogging after Eugene hit me on my manners and tone in a listserve group, and have stayed because of the manners here. The few times I have been called an idiot, it was always done nicely. If only the rest of my blogging experiences could live up to level of the site where I discovered it.
11.26.2006 9:37am
Moth (mail) (www):
Thank you, Prof. Kerr. Your readers appreciate your honesty and like you all the more for it. Or at least this reader does.
11.26.2006 10:22am
Anderson (mail) (www):
FWIW, I took "invasion" the same way that Prof. Kerr did -- he is of course correct about the term's use by the courts.
11.26.2006 2:08pm
josh:
Yet again another classy move by Prof Kerr. Would it were that the rest of the blogosphere would take note of such intellectual honesty.

"I regret the misunderstanding." Words to learn from.
11.26.2006 2:20pm
Christopher Fotos (mail) (www):
Well done, and a good example for the Correct-O-Sphere.
11.26.2006 3:03pm
Patterico (mail) (www):
Sincerely practicing good manners and thoughtfulness produces many classy results that pounding the table never will. Even when one is technically correct. Maybe especially when one is techically correct.

Well, the Balko post I was responding to called me "sleazy" . . .
11.26.2006 3:48pm
Patterico (mail) (www):
Nevertheless, there is a point there. I have just apologized for my lack of politeness in pointing out his factual errors. Doesn't mean I appreciate his calling me "sleazy," or calling my valid complaints about his factual errors "bulls--t."
11.26.2006 4:47pm
Tefnut (mail):
Wow, Patterico, the sincerity of your "apology" is overwhelming.....especially when you come to other sites to air your grievances against Balko in three separate posts in one day.

Here's a hint: no one cares about your apology on this site.

Stop doing your best impression of a blog remora.
11.26.2006 7:08pm
Thorley Winston (mail) (www):
Wow, Patterico, the sincerity of your "apology" is overwhelming.....especially when you come to other sites to air your grievances against Balko in three separate posts in one day.

Here's a hint: no one cares about your apology on this site.


Speak for yourself. Patterico did yeoman's work in correcting some of the misinformation that was being spread by some of the more knee-jerk opponents of the War on Some Drugs. Had he not posted in the comments on this site, I and others might have believed that this was an innocent woman who was gunned down by police officers who went to the wrong house. Instead we now know that she shot three police officers who identified themselves as such, that the police in fact had gone to the right house, and did in fact find illegal drugs in the home. Facts like that may not matter to those who will oppose anything having to do with the War on Some Drugs but they do in fact matter to most people.
11.27.2006 11:34am
33yearprof (mail):

did in fact find illegal drugs in the home.


Yes. According to the police chief a small amount of marijuana. There is probably a "small amount of marijuna" in every other house in America (unbeknownst to Mom and Dad or to Grandma). In my state it's a petty misdemeanor (expressly not a "crime").

Hardly justification for the smash and bang raid.
11.27.2006 12:29pm
David M. Nieporent (www):
Thorley, you seem to have a problem distinguishing between "Facts" and "police claims." What Radley was pointing out was how suspicious it was that the cops weren't touting the large pile of white powder they usually trot out when they make a drug bust. All they would do is say that they found "suspected narcotics."

Nothing Patterico said "corrects" the claim that this was an innocent woman who was gunned down by police officers who went to the wrong house. (In fact, police now admit that they found a "small amount of marijuana," which is not actually "suspected narcotics" at all.)

And I don't know where you get the idea that they identified themselves as such; it was a no-knock warrant.
11.27.2006 12:36pm
Patterico (mail) (www):
It's actually starting to look bad for the Atlanta cops.

What I was saying at first was that we should reserve judgment until the facts came out.

They're starting to come out, and they're not pretty.

I wouldn't pay much attention to Tefnut. He actively tried to get banned at my site, and once he was banned, he came back to insult me under several different names. His IP address is one shared by comment spammers I have fought at my site, leading me to wonder whether he is a professional spammer himself. He certainly does have multiple IP addresses available to him, such that he can switch from one to another in minutes.
11.27.2006 8:51pm
33yearprof (mail):
The latest look very bad for the Atlanta thugs er, police.

"The confidential informant on whose word Atlanta police raided the house of an 88-year-old woman is now saying he never purchased drugs from her house and was told by police to lie and say he did."
11.27.2006 10:17pm
Patterico (mail) (www):
Yup. If what he's saying is true, the cops should go to prison. If what he's saying isn't true, then he doesn't sound very "reliable."
11.27.2006 10:23pm
Patterico (mail) (www):
And I don't know where you get the idea that they identified themselves as such; it was a no-knock warrant.

News reports said they identified themselves before coming in.

But given the numerous contradictions to date, I'm not sure I believe anything this department says anymore.
11.27.2006 10:24pm
David M. Nieporent (www):
Incidentally, in another post we debated how hard it was to get a no-knock warrant, with our two law enforcement representatives here claiming it took extensive work to justify such a warrant, and that police had to demonstrate exigent circumstances. I pointed out that this was true on paper, but in real life, the mere recitation of the word 'drugs' would create exigent circumstances for the right magistrate.

Now that we've seen the affidavits, we know the complete evidence of 'exigent circumstances': an alleged $50 drug buy, and the allegation that the dealer had surveillance cameras at the house. (Note that this doesn't make sense, as a matter of logic. If they knocked-and-announced, the cameras would be superfluous. So, "he'll know we're coming, so we can't knock-and-announce"? Huh?)


Patterico:
News reports said they identified themselves before coming in.

But given the numerous contradictions to date, I'm not sure I believe anything this department says anymore.
Regardless of contradictions, that's obviously an LEO lie -- one of the more common ones, like 'it was a consent search.' It's not credible. Why would they obtain a no-knock and then vitiate the no-knock by announcing themselves in advance? They may have identified themselves as they were entering, but beforehand? Flunks the laugh test.
11.27.2006 10:54pm