I can't believe I'm pointing this out on HN of all places, but if making a song about weed gets your house raided and is considered probable cause, then the government is infringing your first amendment rights.

If you confess to a murder, the fact that your confession was protected First Amendment speech doesn't mean you shouldn't be convicted of murder. What's the difference between that and your example?

Proportionality, I would say, but I'm not from the US and don't know US (case) law so I might be way off here.

If a playwrite playing the lead character in their own production stands on stage and confesses to murder, surely that should be seen as part of the work and not a confession of the playwrite. When it comes to musicians doing the same thing, the US has a long history of selectively prosecuting black artists.

Producing art about a character committing a crime is different from admitting that you’d committed a crime. One is art, one is (hypothetically) an admission of guilt. That’s the difference.

Warrant picture shows 'trafficking in drugs', not making a song about weed. I am not sure about full context.

Don't forget the kidnapping!

I’m not sure if you’ve had much experience with American police, but having an accusation written on a warrant is rarely proof a crime actually occurred.

It's definitely a deterrent to saying certain things.

I read a commenter say he had two rolls of weed or something which is legal in most states now (I don't know where he is). But not just narcotics but even kidnapping or just about any charge really, are you saying destroying property, needlessly traumatizing children, going in armed like it's world war three or they were hunting for bin laden, stealing his money and disconnecting cameras so their actions won't be recorded. Are you saying that should be expected under any scenario?

Please don't feel insulted but I feel like your comment is a result of poor civic education in America. I say that because everyone should know that guilty or not you are afforded the benefit of doubt and you should be treated like an innocent person, even if you are caught red-handed in a crime until the due process of a lawful judicial proceeding finds you guilty. This means, cops have the responsibility to behave professionally, respectfully and freaking knock on doors, avoid the display and use of military weapons, holster their weapons until there is an actual threat. Again, the lack of education in these matters is widespread, most don't know their basic rights (not just you). If you see the condtions of Jails (not prisons) in america, it is appalling, really, my takeaway is the rule of law or the constitutional rights of people are absolute jokes, rendered that way because of lack of education. To think that an innocent person with no due process or legal proceeding could be locked in solitary for months or be in an environment where they are sleep deprived and sleeping on concrete, getting raped and beat up, medical procedures against their will, losing their jobs,healthcare and housing all because the public tolerates this type of bullshit or the type of bullshit you see here where act like they're in afghanistan, because "big strong man with guns and badge good guy,can do whatever he want".

So, no, what I have seen in the video is unacceptable whoever the target is, short of an active shooter, terrorist or dangerous fugitive.

First of all, all information I had was from the video. Author specifically circled "trafficking in drugs", not "possession" in warrant picture as a thing he clearly shows intent of admitting (at least in the song video). I don't know the full story, but its not linked here, so I went with the information I had.

>are you saying destroying property, needlessly traumatizing children, going in armed like it's world war three or they were hunting for bin laden, stealing his money and disconnecting cameras so their actions won't be recorded

I am not saying anything, just trying to understand people's reaction with the limited information. It seems conflicting to me.

>Please don't feel insulted but I feel like your comment is a result of poor civic education in America

I am not from USA, I am from EU. In EU, in quite a few places at least, police does not even need a warrant. If they think you are doing a crime (using drugs, possessing drugs) - they can just bust in to your house and arrest you. So compared to that, USA judge granting warrants system sounds great to me. Then again, I don't know everything, maybe you have similar laws as well.

>Regarding busting in instead of respectful knocking

From one side I do agree that innocent people shouldn't get swatted. But, from another perspective: If you don't break in fast - criminals will one hundred percent destroy the evidence needed to put them away.

> I am not saying anything, just trying to understand people's reaction with the limited information. It seems conflicting to me.

I'm not sure how anyone could explain it to you if you have no automatic reaction to what happens in the video. The amount of force used seems to me to be obviously excessive for the crime Afroman is accused of (that is, selling weed), to the point where I don't see how I could possibly clarify further.

Perhaps one thing may help clarify: whether he's guilty or not is mostly irrelevant to my reaction to this footage. Even if he's guilty, that's excessive force for arresting a weed dealer. The only thing that could change my mind is if the police could produce believable evidence that they had good reason to think he would be violent (such as a record of violent incidents, or membership of a violent gang; the warrant at least does not specify any of this).

The cops refuse to show evidence that they had reason to believe he is a violent criminal (and as the aggressors here, it's on them to provide this), but they barge in as if he's a terrorist with plans to blow up a primary school. If that doesn't provoke any sort of "this is deeply unjust and a massive abuse of power" reaction in you, I don't expect any amount of explaining will result in you understanding people's reaction.

>If that doesn't provoke any sort of "this is deeply unjust and a massive abuse of power" reaction in you, I don't expect any amount of explaining will result in you understanding people's reaction.

In most of the world trafficking drugs is a serious crime with jail. Maybe in USA it is different, I admit I don't know. My original comment was that it is highly irresponsible to be doing that with a family. My first automatic reaction was how can someone with kids do that, not how police responds.

It's a serious crime; it's not a violent crime. You don't see the cops busting down doors and charging in with riot shields and shotguns to catch your average white-collar fraudster, even though fraud is also a serious crime. This level of violent entry can only be justified by a reasonable belief, founded on evidence (which the police refuses to produce), that the suspect will be violent.

(As an aside, there's no evidence that Afroman is guilty of selling drugs; that makes it even harder for me to understand why your first gut response is to think "how can someone with kids do that". There's no reason to think he's guilty, apart from blind trust in the police's word.)

> There's no reason to think he's guilty, apart from blind trust in the police's word.

In my experience there’s a very deeply ingrained sense that police are the good guys lingering in average suburban Americans of a certain age. (I’m sure in others too that’s just my background.) It’s really hard to discuss these kinds of topics with someone that by default accepts that police action implies necessity.

First,pardon my ignorance, I became one of those people who thinks everyone on the internet is an american.

> From one side I do agree that innocent people shouldn't get swatted. But, from another perspective: If you don't break in fast - criminals will one hundred percent destroy the evidence needed to put them away.

This isn't an american thing, it's a basic principle of justice all humans know. It is better for the guilty to get away with their crimes than for the innocent to be punished wrongly. One reason among many for that is, you can compensate financially but you can't unpunish someone. You can't remove the trauma, lost time and suffering. But for the guilty, if they get away today you can cartch them another day. And there will always be guilty people who get away with wrongs. But it is easy to prevent innocent people getting punished, simply have a good standard of evidence and trial and the presumption of innocence.

Another thing to consider is cops are being lazy when this happens. Any idiot can take a gun and break through a door. It is the responsibility of cops and the government to stay a step ahead of the bad guys and use their money and resources to build a case. In this case for example, if they suspect the evidence will be destroyed then monitor who goes in and out of the place and arrest people as they leave or intercept sewage if they discard something. Monitor all entrances and communications. The warrant allows them to search which includes surveillance. They can use undercover cops. If they absolutley have no choice they can send an unarmed person who doesn't look like a cop to knock and get a repsonse. Then send armed (gun holstered) cops to ideentify themselves and within 10sec of no response break the door and politely but respectfully make sure everyone leaves so they can search and even then they must have a very good probable cause! And lastly, if the person is innocent they should pay them for the damages and provide counseling and any other support or treatment, especially for children.

Your initial post didn't seem like a question as someone who doesn't live in the US, it seemed to me more like an accusation.

As someone from south america living in the EU it seems to me fairly strange that it's not immediately apparent that the sort of violence depicted from the police is completely unwarranted - I've seen police raids in both south america and in the EU, and this level of going in fully armed with military-grade gear is only reserved for the most extreme of cases and /always/ supported by a court order. There's no argument whatsoever in that search warrants with no body of evidence should involve SWAT-team levels of response, which clearly was not the case as there's enough evidence to go around that the search warrant is literally a piece of paper that anyone can invent without need to provide supporting evidence for their claims.