Show Posts

This section allows you to view all posts made by this member. Note that you can only see posts made in areas you currently have access to.

Messages - Flapp_Jackson

Pages: 1 ... 680 681 [682] 683 684 ... 701
So, they are basically telling us:

1.  The legislature makes the laws after the AG offers an opinion on the constitutionality and ability to withstand legal scrutiny.

2.  If we break that law, the AG and prosecutor will prefer charges based upon laws they helped write and/or reviewed.

3.  In order to know how to interpret the laws before or after we break them, we have to hire a professional lawyer -- a lawyer who was never included in the AG's review -- and they have to try to figure out what's legal and what can land us in jail.

4.  Whether we obtain outside legal counsel or not, there is no guarantee a lawyer or "layman" could properly interpret the law based on hypotheticals.  It takes a court to rule on cases which creates the body of knowledge on how the law is being applied.

So, we are paying tax money to the AG to help the legislature pass laws (rules) that we are all responsible for following, but can't get a correct interpretation from the AG's office because they apparently are representing the state's interests, not the interests of the people who pay them.

An analogy would be:  Let's play a game.  I'll make up the rules and give you a list.  The only way you'll know if you understood what I wrote is after you receive a penalty or have a point subtracted as punishment.  Only by making your own fouls, or learning from the fouls of other teams before you, can you figure out a strategy that avoids breaking the rules.  Finally, you write me a check for making up the rules you all have to play by!

Do I have that right?
Firearms and Accessories / Re: What Gun is the Best?
« on: July 13, 2016, 11:45:21 PM »
Hands down, nothing tops a Ghost Gun!

A 30 caliber clip that can disperse 30 bullets in 0.5 second!  It also handles a 30 magazine clip, which equates to 30 calibers x 30 magazines = 900 calibers per clip!

Political Discussion / Re: Where's the tipping point?
« on: July 13, 2016, 09:14:05 AM »
Not gonna feed this troll anymore.

No response to my comment other than deflection.

I'm shocked!

Political Discussion / Re: Domestic drone warfare now legal
« on: July 13, 2016, 12:23:12 AM »
The statutory standards allow an officer to use deadly physical force when the officer reasonably believes it is necessary to

(1) defend himself or herself or a third person from the use or imminent use of deadly physical force or

(2) arrest or prevent the escape of someone the officer reasonably believes has committed or attempted to commit a felony involving the infliction or threat of serious physical injury,
and, if feasible, the officer has given warning of his or her intent to use deadly physical force.


The U.S. Supreme Court has ruled that the Fourth Amendment to the U. S. Constitution prohibits the use of deadly force to effect an arrest or prevent the escape of a suspect unless the police officer reasonably believes that the suspect committed or attempted to commit crimes involving the infliction or threatened infliction of serious physical injury and a warning of the intent to use deadly physical force was given, whenever feasible (Tennessee v. Garner, 471 U.S. 1 (1985)). Thus, our statutory standards for using deadly force seem to parallel the federal constitutional standards.

The Court has said that the test of reasonableness under the Fourth Amendment is not capable of “precise definition” or “mechanical application.” “[T]he reasonableness of a particular use of force must be viewed from the perspective of a reasonable officer at the scene, rather than with 20/20 vision of hindsight….” Moreover, “allowance must be made for the fact that officers are often forced to make split-second judgments in circumstances that are tense, uncertain, and rapidly evolving about the amount of force that is necessary in a particular situation.” The question is whether the officers' actions are “objectively reasonable” in light of the facts and circumstances confronting them “(Graham v. Connor, 490 U.S. 396, 397 (1989)).

To me, nothing has changed other than the possible use of robotic or even aerial unmanned drones to be used as needed. 

Deadly force is deadly force.  It may, and in all likelihood will, end your existence.  What we are debating is whether an explosive device (robotics are not relevant) is "extreme."  If it is, then where does "conventional" and "reasonable" deadly force come into the definition?  What are the thresholds?

Is reasonable deadly force really any different than extreme deadly force?  Both can, and will probably, stop the threat permanently.  Hence the adjective "deadly".  Does there need to be some chance of survival for it to not be extreme?  Have we grown so accustomed to movies that we believe there is such a thing as "humane use of lethal violence"? 

We see beheading videos (if you haven't, you need to watch at least one).  We often call these methods extreme, yet that is a centuries old and extremely low tech method of execution.  In it's day, beheadings were thought more humane than other methods.

I think the issue here is not oversight, or government restraint, or any slippery slope use of drones in a gun confiscation debacle.  It's about how comfortable we are as humans at the thought of certain types of deadly force being used on ourselves!

There are international laws restricting use of chemical, biological and inhumane weapons.  Yet, how many movies and documentary footage from WWII show flame throwers being used against people in bunkers and tanks?  I think fire is a pretty horrible way to die.  I'd almost rather be blown up!

Don't examine WHAT you think should be legal.  Examine WHY you think one form of death should be legal and why another should be either banned or used in only extreme situations.  Of course, the tinfoil hats will always err on the side of "you can't trust any LE agency to avoid calling every incident "extreme."   Let's go with the reasonable and rational definitions for the sake of discussion.  Otherwise, if we start believing Cops always escalate to the highest level of force without sufficient cause, then all traffic stops would end in shootings, and we know that's not happening!
Read ALL of your source posted.

"The Matador Network post, which has been shared more than 190,000 times, is just one of the many online twists on a widely published Associated Press article about Hawaii’s efforts to hire 1,600 public school teachers."

The ad is for real, though it's contents may be skewed.

More Homeless  :wtf: :wtf: :wtf:

Okay, I'll agree with "skewed" or maybe "is based mostly on fact".  Nothing was a lie, but the picture painted is not realistic.   :shaka:
Political Discussion / Re: Domestic drone warfare now legal
« on: July 12, 2016, 09:36:48 AM »
you should read it through again, none of that says due process only counts after you've been arrested.


Due Process of Law

A fundamental, constitutional guarantee that all legal proceedings will be fair and that one will be given notice of the proceedings and an opportunity to be heard before the government acts to take away one's life, liberty, or property. Also, a constitutional guarantee that a law shall not be unreasonable, Arbitrary, or capricious.

The phrase "procedural due process" refers to the aspects of the Due Process Clause that apply to the procedure of arresting and trying persons who have been accused of crimes and to any other government action that deprives an individual of life, liberty, or property. Procedural due process limits the exercise of power by the state and federal governments by requiring that they follow certain procedures in criminal and civil matters. In cases where an individual has claimed a violation of due process rights, courts must determine whether a citizen is being deprived of "life, liberty, or property," and what procedural protections are "due" to that individual.
Legal and Activism / Re: BLM
« on: July 12, 2016, 02:13:56 AM »
sounds a lot like the US govt and it's enforcers are terrorists by those definitions

Yeah, I'm really tired of US Government Terrorists going into Gay night clubs and Special Needs Education Centers randomly killing civilians so our Congress will pass legislation to meet the terrorists' demands.   :wtf:

If you want to characterize what the US does in the Middle East, I think you already went ballistic on other threads about the US not being the world's police force and invading places for oil. 

Political Discussion / Re: Domestic drone warfare now legal
« on: July 12, 2016, 02:07:03 AM »
so warrants and all the other variety of pre-confinement interactions with law enforcement can be predicated on whims and opinions?

Those are part of an investigation.  There are civil liberties and Constitutional rights which protect you during an investigation, but that's not a process. 

Once the investigation gathers enough evidence to charge you (like 50 Cops and 500 marchers seeing you gun down a dozen people), you will be formally arrested and charged.  That's the first step in "due process".

Why would there be "due process" if you are only a suspect?  The evidence might never be sufficient to charge you, so the process never starts.

Law Enforcement = Stopping crimes and investigating crimes

Judicial System = the PROCEDURAL DUE PROCESS followed when the government makes an arrest & brings formal charges against a defendant.  It's the guaranteed right to defend yourself against legal charges. 

Correctional System = Punishment and Rehabilitation phase once defendant is found guilty

Not sure what else to say.  If you don't agree, maybe you can cite some reputable sources that show me where I'm mistaken.

Something other than DailyKOS, MSNBC or RollingStone would be a pleasant break!   :thumbsup:
Political Discussion / Re: Where's the tipping point?
« on: July 12, 2016, 12:45:21 AM »
I appreciate your offer but I think it means more if I spend my own money. I am trying to figure out the difference between HRA and the HDF. Is it redundant to join both? I know HDF offers shooting course.

I wouldn't judge someone's stance on the issue based on whether or not they were part of the HRA or HDF though.

No, but it's redundant to keep posting the same lame excuses rather than get off your butt and join them. 

Join both for one year, then decide to stay with either one or both.  Then you can make that all elusive "informed decision".  It's so much more satisfying than doing nothing for years while you form yet another "researched opinion".
Political Discussion / Re: Domestic drone warfare now legal
« on: July 11, 2016, 10:47:28 PM »
due process applies at all time, not just after you have handcuffs on you.

How can that be in a criminal case?  Due process starts with detainment and arrest.  until then, the Cops don't have you in custody.  No due process rules apply.  No phone call, no bail, no arraignment, etc.
Off Topic / Re: Jokes? Jokes, anyone...
« on: July 11, 2016, 10:02:02 PM »
Political Discussion / Re: Domestic drone warfare now legal
« on: July 11, 2016, 09:55:06 PM »
US foreign policies are overwhelmingly imported back home, this is just the beginning of a trend of how to kill US citizens on US soil with out any form of due process of the law.

Due process DOES NOT APPLY to an in-progress crime.  Stop acting like it does. 

For example, if you rob a bank, and you head for the state line, you are a fugitive.  The law does whatever it can within the law to capture you for trial.  Only then is "due process" afforded to you.  No matter how many times you talk to the cops on the phone, email them, or send smoke signals, you have no right to due process at that point in time.

First priority in law enforcement is to stop the crime/threat.  Once the suspect is detained, THEN due process can commence, starting with his Miranda Warning.
Political Discussion / Re: Domestic drone warfare now legal
« on: July 11, 2016, 08:45:20 PM »
Political Discussion / Re: Concealed carrier murdered by cop
« on: July 11, 2016, 08:24:52 PM »
The problem is when the law turns predatory. I've seen several attempts to imply that black people must be at fault for their own problems because they "commit more crimes" than other groups. But what's happening is the system is set up so that they can be arrested illegally just to make a quota, and then prosecutors can plea-bargain them out on some lesser charge or chose to have a trial they could never hope to afford to fight. The result is massive plea-outs that distort the actual crime rates while the courts, cops, bail bondsmen, prisons, and related services rake in hundreds of millions of dollars a year while keeping surplus labor off the market. If they tried these shakedown scams in affluent neighborhoods with lawyer money there would be outrage and the police station would be shut down.

White-collar criminals usually get off with reduced sentence for crimes that steal billions from taxpayers vs. some homeless guy who pees in an alley and gets locked up as a sex offender, but the Security State will confiscate the assets of Mom & Pop small businesses for making "suspicious deposits" when it's obvious no crime has been committed. Why is there a war on drugs? So they can raise money through price inflation, concentrate it dealer networks, and then take it when the scam is ripe knowing full well someone else in dire straits (who can't get a normal job because of a criminal record) will happily step up to fill the void in demand.

I get labelled anti-cop for pointing this stuff out, but what I'm trying to say is that cops have an impossible job. They are working under the assumption that their employment has something to do with public safety, but in reality they are forced to perform wealth extraction and enacting increasingly totalitarian policies as their efforts to make a safer society fail.

Let's assume everything you just said is 100% true.

Given that, it doesn't justify failing to follow lawful commands of a Cop.  The street is the wrong place to assert your rights and the law's unfairness.  Like the saying goes, "Tell it to the judge."

Follow that simple hint, and I guarantee you won't get shot by a cop during a traffic stop.
Political Discussion / Re: Concealed carrier murdered by cop
« on: July 11, 2016, 06:25:45 PM »
laws aren't indicators of morals of a society. what is the morality of a law that makes people pay the city for driving faster than what is posted on a sign? what is the moral behind making one plant illegal while others are subsidized? what is the moral behind firearms registration? where are the morals in laws that fine the homeless for sleeping on the beach?

using these terrible immoral laws as a basis of saying the police are justified in shooting people that refuse to comply with these laws is the high of immorality. Saying someone is bad simply because they follow law #150872 is i no way a justification to give police the powers to shoot people.

Don't agree with the consequences?  Then work to change the law.  Until then ...

Political Discussion / Re: Concealed carrier murdered by cop
« on: July 11, 2016, 03:55:40 PM »
how many of you drink beer or smoke tobacco in front of your kids? The only difference is that some people genuinely believe that laws are what establish morals in society. These very same stupid over reaches by government in to our lives are what creates the situations that give cops an excuse to pull people over create needless conflicts that end with dead people.

Wrong!  The difference is, weed is illegal (at least federally even if you have a medical marijuana card).  If the message you want to send your kids is "Break the law, just don't get caught", then I have to admit it's not how we raised our kids. 

You can live by your own "morals" in opposition to the law all you want if you are willing to accept the consequences.  By teaching your kids to do that, are you really doing them any favors?  Is recreational weed worth risking a police record and maybe getting fired/not hired from a company with a zero tolerance policy on drug use?

Sometimes when you're right, that's all you get to be.
Political Discussion / Re: Concealed carrier murdered by cop
« on: July 11, 2016, 03:43:12 PM »
how many of you drink beer or smoke tobacco in front of your kids? The only difference is that some people genuinely believe that laws are what establish morals in society. These very same stupid over reaches by government in to our lives are what creates the situations that give cops an excuse to pull people over create needless conflicts that end with dead people.

While it's not directly related to LE interactions, since you went off on the tangent of alcohol and morals ...

Alcohol linked to more homicides in US than any other substance

CHICAGO — Which intoxicating substance is associated with the most lethal violence? Devotees of “The Wire” might presume that cocaine or maybe heroin would top the list, especially if you asked the worst causes of violence in poor, minority communities.

The correct answer, by far, is alcohol. It’s involved in more homicides than pretty much every other substance, combined. Alcohol’s relative importance has grown over the last fifteen years, as aging populations of cocaine users account for a declining proportion of violent crime. Here in Chicago, positive cocaine screens in the Cook County Jail are down by about half when compared with 10 or 20 years ago. The same is true in many other cities.

Surveys of people incarcerated for violent crimes indicate that about 40 percent had been drinking at the time they committed these offenses. Among those who had been drinking, average blood-alcohol levels were estimated to exceed three times the legal limit. Drinking is especially common among perpetrators of specific crimes, including murder, sexual assault, and intimate partner violence.

Correlation does not equal causation, of course. If offenders all stopped drinking, we wouldn’t see a 100-percent reduction in their crimes. Yet alcohol does play a distinctive role. It lowers inhibitions and, among some people, fosters aggressive behavior that ratchets up the risk that violence will somehow occur. In my own career as a public health researcher, I’ve come into close contact with many intoxicated heroin and marijuana users. In these moments, I’ve never had reason to feel that my safety was at risk. I have been present for some scary incidents. Almost every time, alcohol was in the mix, often as things were getting a little late in a tough neighborhood near a liquor store.

Aside from its role among perpetrators of violence, alcohol use is widespread among victims, too. If alcohol makes you more likely to be a perpetrator of violence, almost by definition it makes you more likely to be a victim in the same incident. Downing some liquid courage may impair your judgment, which makes you a little less wary or a little more vulnerable in obvious ways. It may narrow your options and thus create other risks, too. You’re less likely to leave that cutting remark unanswered. If you’re unfit to drive, you’re more willing to accept that ride home from a helpful stranger.
Political Discussion / Re: Why are assault weapons so popular?
« on: July 11, 2016, 12:54:47 PM »
They went to the same shooting school as Storm Troopers.   :rofl:

If there's one thing I hate worse than a liar, it's a robodialer telling the same lies!   :wtf:
Pages: 1 ... 680 681 [682] 683 684 ... 701