In your judgment.

And therein lies a major flaw in your argument. You assume that there are no obvious benefits from keeping (Shall we call them “recreational?”) drugs under control. Yet, this as you call it, a value judgment.

Well then are you in favor of making booze illegal again?

I wondered when you drag that one out. Thank you. It makes my job infinitely easier. The reason it does so is because again you're talking about value judgments; you're a value judgment would have alcohol and equivalent to what I have defined for our discussion purposes, as 'recreational drugs'.

Society, however, feels differently, and always has, which is precisely why prohibition didn't work. To equate the two, is to completely ignore society's judgment in the matter. Convenient for argument's sake, but having little bearing on reality.

What a stupid response, this is a classic false dichotomy, and yes I’ve already indicated I’m not certaint/sure she’d still be alive.

Nothing false about it, Steve. Sorry. But, thank you, for at least admitting that you can not give me any surety on whether not the woman would have survived the encounter, had your prescription been followed.

You see, Stephen, the point i"m making here is this; The biggest weakness in your argument is one that you have thus far ignored; the police officers themselves. If they are as untrustworthy as you describe, no law in existence or possible to write would have protected that woman's life. None. Which, in turn, is precisely why I suggested the real problem here was the corruption of the individual police officers. Not the law.

Really? I’ve been reading in the Duke case about how the prosecutor’s job is to seek justice. You’ve reduced the prosecutor to being the anti-defense–i.e. they are the exact polar opposite of the defense attorneys. In your version Nifong is doing the right thing, prosecuting a case that has absolutely no evidence save a very shify wittness/accuser

.

This response of yours is quite illustrative of my point.

Consider, please; Do the guilty get off on technicalities, posed by their legal mouthpieces? Do the innocent in unfairly convicted? The answer to both, of course, is 'yes'. Indeed, that happens as a matter of routine. That's the reality of the situation. Why would Nifong have done what he did? So that he could present the image, that he was doing his job. Thus, he could retain his position.

The problem, however, with your argument, is that Nifong also, while doing that task, is supposed to play within the rules. Demonstrably, he did not do this. For example, his withholding of evidence doesn't strike me as playing within the rules. Therefore, he wasn't doing his job correctly.

There's a major difference, between doing one's job so that it looks like somethings being done, and doing it correctly, as the police officers under discussion, here, rather aptly demonstrate. Their lack in that area seems very similar, indeed to Nifong.

In your judgement.

And therein lies a major flaw in your argument. You assume that there are no obvious benefits from keeping (Shall we call them “recreational?”) drugs under control. Yet, this as you call it, a value judgement.

Well then are you in favor of making booze illegal again?

Your apparent problem is that society’s value judgments ran opposite of your own, as of the time the laws were being created.

No, that is a vast over-simplifcation. Many people advocate ending the WoD. Many don't and some probably have little or no opinion. And isn't just because society's judgement runs counter to mine, but because I think there are other negatives that outweigh what few positive their are. To reduce the argument to this simplified level is a bit misleading.

And so, you target laws and procedures created to enforce said laws, instead of targeting the real issue; the corrupted people who skirted such procedures, to disastrous effect. You’re willing to call the cops killers, but instead of laying the blame on them, you blame the law? Are we not to asume all cops are liars and killers?

Of course not, and nothing I've written comes even close to calling all cops liars or killers.

What an interesting fantasy world you live in, to be sure.

And I said naught of probability… I asked for the same assuredness you made the statement with… and since the answer doesn’t match the question in the mode I asked it, I’m forced to ask again… would she be alive or not, yes or no? (Hint; if you’re unsure, that’s a completely acceptable answer… indeed, it’s the very point).

What a stupid response, this is a classic false dichotomy, and yes I've already indicated I'm not certaint/sure she'd still be alive. Hence the word probability. Duh.

No, it’s not the case. The prosecutor’s job is to prosecute.

Really? I've been reading in the Duke case about how the prosecutor's job is to seek justice. You've reduced the prosecutor to being the anti-defense--i.e. they are the exact polar opposite of the defense attorneys. In your version Nifong is doing the right thing, prosecuting a case that has absolutely no evidence save a very shify wittness/accuser.

Your premise is gone, which results in the argument made from that premise being gone as well.

Whatever.

If I were truly the unthinking police supporter that Verdon and Balko make me out to be,....

You keep writing this and it is really starting to look like you have some sort of persecution complex or something. Nowhere did I say you are unthinking, that is something you keep making up. Keep it up with the strawman arguments though, funny how they are good enough for you, but anybody else uses them and they are suddenly "clowns".

James, I agree with almost everything you say in your update. We'll have to agree to disagree as to whether my original post went too far in a particular direction by urging people not to speculate. Sometimes the speculators are right (as in the Johnston case) and sometimes they're wrong (such as the folks who speculated that Jamil Hussein did not exist). I urged caution and skepticism in both cases, and I am happy to have done so in both cases, even though the speculation proved right in one of them.

I don't know of your readers are aware of this, but in the aftermath of this shooting, I did a detailed interview with a use of force expert who opposes the war on drugs and generally opposes dynamic entries. If I were truly the unthinking police supporter that Verdon and Balko make me out to be, I don't think I would have published that interview -- nor would I have called for these cops to be prosecuted for murder if it's legally appropriate to do so.

I'd give the link to the interview but I'm on a Treo. Anyone who is interested can type the word "Klinger" in the search box on my site and will find it easily.

I'll leave it up to you whether the tone of this Verdon fellow's posts really suits your site. You know my opinion.

Of course not, the traffic laws have an obvious benefit: keeping people from driving in a dangerous manner. This is very much like an externality or a public good, hence government involvement is justified.

The War on Drugs, WoD, on the other hand doesn’t do the same thing. It is basically using the law to keep one group of people from doing something that another group finds objectionable. Now, having laws that says you can’t drive while under the influence, or do other things is reasonable as it fits with traffic laws.

In your judgement.

And therein lies a major flaw in your argument. You assume that there are no obvious benefits from keeping (Shall we call them “recreational?”) drugs under control. Yet, this as you call it, a value judgement.

Your apparent problem is that society’s value judgments ran opposite of your own, as of the time the laws were being created. And so, you target laws and procedures created to enforce said laws, instead of targeting the real issue; the corrupted people who skirted such procedures, to disastrous effect. You’re willing to call the cops killers, but instead of laying the blame on them, you blame the law? Are we not to asume all cops are liars and killers?

Makes no sense, Steve. You seem far more willing to accept that the cops are telling the truth in the case of our increasingly hypothetical traffic court, but not here? Seems rather conveinient, if nonsensical.

And:

What you mean if they knocked on the door, provided credentials visible to her inside her home (e.g. through a window, peep hole, etc.) and then waited till she opened the door? Yeah, I’d say the probability is higher that she’d still be alive.

What an interesting fantasy world you live in, to be sure.

And I said naught of probability… I asked for the same assuredness you made the statement with… and since the answer doesn’t match the question in the mode I asked it, I’m forced to ask again… would she be alive or not, yes or no? (Hint; if you’re unsure, that’s a completely acceptable answer... indeed, it's the very point).

Finally:

No, Patterico’s statement isn’t “true” it is a value judgement and hence isn’t true or false. The problem is that when approaching such a situation with the idea that the cops are “usually” telling the truth, is that it can stack the deck against the accused in terms of bringing charges and/or believing either side. We hear that the prosecutor’s job is to seek justice. If that is the case, then there should be little harm in setting one’s prior probabilities to being equal.

No, it’s not the case. The prosecutor’s job is to prosecute. It’s the job of the defense to defend. It’s the judge’s job to render Justice… and the jury, if it gets to that.

Your premise is gone, which results in the argument made from that premise being gone as well. Now you are faced with the logical problems involved in denying that most cops work within the law and tell the truth, and criminals are prone to not doing so.

Enjoy.

When the police version conflicts with the defendant’s version, tell the readers what percentage of the time you figure the cops are lying and the defendant is innocent.

Go ahead. Give an estimate.

I thought you were leaving.

Anyhow, why should I give an estimate for your subjective probability. And in any event it doesn't matter because my argument is qualitative in nature, not quantitative. You have already stated you are more likely to believe the cops vs. the accused when the stories diverge, at least initially. So long as that is the case, my argument stands. The only way for it to "fall" is for you to set the probabilities equal. If you do that, then you are contradicting your earlier statement.

You’re like that guy who went to prison and learned that everybody there is innocent. After all, they all said so!

Again, there you go distorting my argument. This is quite ironic considering you were all upset about me doing this to you. In any event, nothing I have written comes even close to the above statement by you of my position.

By the way, there’s a comment from me stuck in moderation. Probably because I cursed at you for having no [expletive deleted]ing idea what you were talking about when you said my commenters were only a “little annoyed” at me.

I have no idea why comments get flagged for moderation. Some of mine have been flagged as well in the past. Was it the language you used? Maybe, but in all honesty I don't know. I'll look to see if it is still there and approve it.

As for this tempest in a teapot about posters being a "little annoyed" if it would really make you feel better about the whole situation, would you like it if I go back and add a comment saying "little annoyed" should be "greatly annoyed"? And if that doesn't work tell me which adjective you'd find acceptable in front of the word annoyed.

So, if we have a corrupt cop in the assigned to traffic law enforcement, and he turns out to be a lying scumbag, does that manea you’re going to argue for the elimination of traffic laws?

Of course not, the traffic laws have an obvious benefit: keeping people from driving in a dangerous manner. This is very much like an externality or a public good, hence government involvement is justified.

The War on Drugs, WoD, on the other hand doesn't do the same thing. It is basically using the law to keep one group of people from doing something that another group finds objectionable. Now, having laws that says you can't drive while under the influence, or do other things is reasonable as it fits with traffic laws.

Basically, your analogy is false.

And consider; Can you honestly say that the woman would be alive today, had the cops lied in the process of obtaining a standard warrant? If not, your argument is flawed.

What you mean if they knocked on the door, provided credentials visible to her inside her home (e.g. through a window, peep hole, etc.) and then waited till she opened the door? Yeah, I'd say the probability is higher that she'd still be alive.

And that’s usually true, because that’s their job. Most cops… and even you will likely agree to this… do their job in an upright manner. It’s the occasional cop that does not. As such Patterico’s statement, is true.

No, Patterico's statement isn't "true" it is a value judgement and hence isn't true or false. The problem is that when approaching such a situation with the idea that the cops are "usually" telling the truth, is that it can stack the deck against the accused in terms of bringing charges and/or believing either side. We hear that the prosecutor's job is to seek justice. If that is the case, then there should be little harm in setting one's prior probabilities to being equal. After all, if the cops are telling the truth and the accused are lying then that should affect the posterior probabilities.

You clearly believe that the police are usually the one telling the truth.

And that's usually true, because that's their job. Most cops... and even you will likely agree to this... do their job in an upright manner. It's the occasional cop that does not. As such Patterico's statement, is true.

Which is also why the issue of corrupted cops is the larger one, here... not the law. How can you blame the law, if the law isn't followed, Steve?

Uhhhmmm, I guess you failed to note that the officers were part of the narcotics unit. They they used what is now alleged to be fake drug buy to justify the warrant. This raid was indeed part-and-parcel of the Drug War

So, if we have a corrupt cop in the assigned to traffic law enforcement, and he turns out to be a lying scumbag, does that manea you're going to argue for the elimination of traffic laws?

Again no, the procedures are flawed in that there is nothing to prevent this kind of abuse from happening

True, but OTOH, there wasn't any under the conditions of the more normal warrant, either, as I indicated.

And consider; Can you honestly say that the woman would be alive today, had the cops lied in the process of obtaining a standard warrant? If not, your argument is flawed.

The issue here, is not a flaw in the law, but corrupted cops.

Go ahead. Give an estimate.

You're like that guy who went to prison and learned that everybody there is innocent. After all, they all said so!

By the way, there's a comment from me stuck in moderation. Probably because I cursed at you for having no [expletive deleted]ing idea what you were talking about when you said my commenters were only a "little annoyed" at me.

You are the epitome of a nitpicker. Seriously, you wrote,

Do I believe that, in most cases where the police version conflicts with a defendant’s version, the police version is more likely true? Not always, but usually.

You clearly believe that the police are usually the one telling the truth. In Bayesian probablity theory these beliefs get transformed into probabilities. In short, you said you think the police are telling the truth with a higher probability (this would be your word "usually") which is precisely what my update claims. Even though you are biased you still look at the evidence, which is also in my update and fits with what you wrote. The bottom line is you are biased and you've got no argument in response save insults.

Fruther you are committing the same error that “Frank N Stein” committed. You seem to expect me to have read all your comments when I respond.

No. I was expecting you not to make assumptions about things you don't know anything about. If you hadn't read my comments, you could have asked me which ones got me upset. Instead, you simply declared that the comments demonstrated only a little annoyance, when in fact you had no fucking clue what they actually demonstrated.

I was expecting you to have some idea what you were talking about, in short, before opening your pie-hole.

Now that I have gotten to know you better, I no longer expect that of you.

In another comment Patterico admits that he gives the cops the benefit of the doubt generally speaking.

That's not what I said.

I'm surprised Joyner wants to let some clown who misquotes people and distorts their positions post on his blog. You truly are a piece of work.

Anyway, I see you took back what you said, sort of, about how I supposedly think it's okay for cops to jump the gun. You don't have the intellectual honesty to admit it, but now that I've called you on it, and pointed out what a stupid and indefensible thing it was for you to say, at least you're not still arguing it.

It's been fun. By which I mean to say, it's been a big fat waste of time.

Fruther you are committing the same error that "Frank N Stein" committed. You seem to expect me to have read all your comments when I respond. Clearly that is a ridiculous standard. All I read was that people became abusive and nasty. I get that here at times (e.g. that I celebrate murders and rapes), but I don't let it change how I blog.