05-03-2021, 02:25 AM
(05-02-2021, 01:54 PM)Dill Wrote: Mr. Toast did not respond to my request for clarification, so I am not confident that I effectively understand the concept of "constructive possession."
Indeed? One must wonder why that is the case.
Quote:In any case, it was not my assumption that if five kilos of heroin were found in a house full of people, it meant that "everyone in the home" would be charged.
I already answered this. Try addressing points already made instead of asking them like they're brand new assertions.
Quote:Rather, my assumption was that someone would be for sure. The police would not simply confiscate the heroin but arrest no one. When all was sorted out out, SOMEONE would eventually be charged for having it.
I already addressed this as well. Please refer to previous posts.
Quote:But I'm not familiar with criminal law and drug busts and the like*; perhaps that does in fact happen. I'm imagining a police report in which police officers with a warrant to search for illegal weapons entered a home and found, not the weapons, but 10 people there and 5 kilos of heroin on the coffee table in the living room where all can see. But no arrests were made. Or arrests were made, but no charges could be filed because no one knew to whom the contraband belonged or where it came from. (These were all "bright" criminals and would not incriminate themselves; surely that must be the case sometimes.)
There are so many variables that your attempt at a clever analysis has failed to cover. What evidence did you use to obtain the warrant? Why are you investigating this particular residence in the first place? Both you and Fred seem to treat these instances as occurring in a vacuum, with no prior evidence prompting them.
Quote:I have not followed this dispute from beginning to end. Perhaps he has indeed provided nothing but "logical fallacies and straw man arguments and appeals to emotion"--previous to his points about registration and constructive possession. But so far as I can tell, the points he made about them don't seem fallacious and the counterarguments don't vitiate them.
Wait, have you followed the argument or have you not? If you haven't then please do so and render this question moot. If you have, then actually ask a question instead of pussyfooting around the topic.
Quote:E.g. the CP argument is not invalidated if ALL in a car or residence are not arrested and all attempt to raise reasonable doubt as to possession. I admit to little experience in such matters. If it is indeed common that NO ONE is charged in when 5 kilos are found in a residence, or to continue the analogy, if a presumed stolen weapon is found on the coffee table, then Fred's argument would indeed be weakened, though not completely refuted, since the police could confiscate an unregistered weapon at the very least.
You admit to little experience, but appear to argue from a position of knowledge. Again, your position appears to spring from a position of ignorance as to how and why warrants are issued in the first place. In the event of a spontaneous search brought on by reasonable suspicion or a probation/parole search, there are already numerous other factors at play to determine this. You appear to want a hard and fast answer to a question with an obscenely large number of variables.
Quote:As far as whether his proposal has any effect on gun violence, the question would be whether adding this tool to law enforcement would result in confiscation of more weapons from criminals. If it does then, then one must explain why reducing the number of guns in criminals' hands would not reduce gun violence. Is there already data on that?
I suggest you ask Fred, as it's his position.
Quote:*Not WHOLLY unfamiliar though. I was busted for possession of illegal drugs in South Dakota in '71. And I spent a week in jail until it was determined that I, in fact, did not possess any illegal drugs.
A very well explained scenario, I know I wouldn't have any follow up questions.
