The problem with these constitutional arguments against Nick's arrest is that they're all predicated on absence of information. We don't have the search warrant. If the police had particularized accusations from the mandatory reporter, affirmed those through independent investigations, and they related to the presence and use of drugs, child neglect, and use of firearms, then these constitutional arguments would be significantly undercut. They're arguing from the basis of a bare allegation of child neglect from a pastor, when the accusations in the search warrant could be that there were starving kids, drug-induced negligent discharges, and exposure of children to drugs. They might also not relate to any of that, and the warrant could be overbroad or defective. Maybe Nick was targeted by the prosecutor and the police in a way that does not correlate with the particularized assertions in the search warrant.
Nobody knows because the search warrant has not been released, so all of the arguments are mostly hypothetical. Engaging in noseguarding on the basis of hypothetical arguments arising from ignorance is misrepresentative of the circumstances, and it purposefully sweeps away moral criticisms of Nick on the basis of what may or may not be legally appropriate.
A lot of the lawyers covering this are conflating the moral criticisms of Nick with the legal arguments about his arrest. Legally, given that we don't have all the pertinent information, some of these constitutional arguments could be neutrally made. They may even be right, given we don't have all the documents and information yet. Morally, we can watch Nick's behavior degenerate over the past two years, we can see how he treated his family and community, we know he was doing drugs and swinging as his kids were downstairs hungry and unengaged, we know he was engaged in alcoholism, and we have accounts from people like Aaron about what Nick was up to. There's no moral argument in defense of Nick. There may be a legal argument, but even if that legal argument succeeds that does not excuse Nick's behavior.
Lawyers are very good at conflating morality and legality so that everyone focuses on the legal argument—which is what we want when we're in trouble and hire a lawyer. But the castigation of Nick's critics on the basis of complex legal argumentation is purposefully obfuscating and frustrating. When normal people see that—especially people like those on KF or Kino Casino viewers who have followed Nick's behavior for years—they get very angry because they feel like people like Barnes or Legal Mindset or whoever are saying Nick can't be rightfully criticized if there are avenues to his legal vindication. What they fail to understand, or at least what they fail to treat with the gravity it deserves, is the position that even if Nick gets out of everything because the search and arrest were unlawful, it does not change anything about the near-100% certainty that Nick's alcoholism, drug use, and personal conduct created an unforgivable situation for his innocent children.
I think Sean understood these two things the best, and that's probably because he's actually followed Nick's thread over the course of Nick's decline. Legal Mindset demanding legal arguments from Nick's critics on Kiwi Farms is absolutely fucking retarded, because most people here aren't making legal justifications for Nick's arrest. What most people are saying is that Nick is a fucking terrible parent, a bad husband, a spiritual hypocrite, a druggie, and an alcoholic who put his kids' wellbeing at risk, all of which morally justify being separated from his kids and being subject to just desserts. I don't need to justify a search warrant with case law to argue that Nick created a dangerous and neglectful home for his children, and acting like Nick's critics can't speak unless they attach unimpeachable legal justification to his arrest rightfully pisses people off.
