The Current Events, News, and Politics Thread
07-10-2015, 10:26 AM
#5381
Boost Czar
Thread Starter
iTrader: (62)
Join Date: May 2005
Location: Chantilly, VA
Posts: 79,493
Total Cats: 4,080
They will read the law what you're accused of, yes. I guess all I was getting at is that:
The entire law is large: Statutes & Constitution :View Statutes : Online Sunshine
he was accused of this specific part:
it's possible that's all they were instructed on.
BUT the judge also didn't allow the defense to argue that he was on public property during the trail. (from what I'm gathering)
He had every right to be on the part of land, he was literally walking along the road TO the airport when he was stopped. In fact, he was arrested for trespassing on private property initially. Then they CHANGED the charge after they admitted that was in fact public property and instead went after the 810.09 2(b) "failure to obey order to leave" charge in court.
So if you were given a law that says: if an officer tells you to leave, and you don't that's breaking the law. And you weren't allowed to hear arguments that said he was actually legally allowed to be there. And you had an IQ of 4. Then yes, you may convict someone, because that's technically what happened.
To top it all off, the juror in the video said that he gave a guilty verdict because the guy didn't tell police where he was going, and he should have. that's it.
Now in Jacksonville FL, you need to fear walking on a public sidewalk. Because an officer can tell you to leave, and if you refuse, you can go to jail...even though you have every right to be on a public sidewalk and the officer has no authority/reason/right to tell you to move in the first place, only that he doesn't like you.
A cop could have walked into the courtroom, asked him to leave, and if he refused, gotten charged with trespassing.
A cop could walk into your house, ask you to leave, and if you refuse, get charged with trespassing.
A could could walk into your place of buisness, ask you to stop working and leave, and if you refuse, get charged with tresspassing.
It doesn't matter now if you're actually allowed to be someplace or not, just that you defied an unlawful order, and if you defy unlawful orders, that's trespassing.
Just like the SC ruled in the obamacare case, words actually have no meaning--even when they are defined in the glossary of the law itself.
The entire law is large: Statutes & Constitution :View Statutes : Online Sunshine
he was accused of this specific part:
(b) If the offender defies an order to leave, personally communicated to the offender by the owner of the premises or by an authorized person, or if the offender willfully opens any door, fence, or gate or does any act that exposes animals, crops, or other property to waste, destruction, or freedom; unlawfully dumps litter on property; or trespasses on property other than a structure or conveyance, the offender commits a misdemeanor of the first degree, punishable as provided in s. 775.082 or s. 775.083.
BUT the judge also didn't allow the defense to argue that he was on public property during the trail. (from what I'm gathering)
He had every right to be on the part of land, he was literally walking along the road TO the airport when he was stopped. In fact, he was arrested for trespassing on private property initially. Then they CHANGED the charge after they admitted that was in fact public property and instead went after the 810.09 2(b) "failure to obey order to leave" charge in court.
So if you were given a law that says: if an officer tells you to leave, and you don't that's breaking the law. And you weren't allowed to hear arguments that said he was actually legally allowed to be there. And you had an IQ of 4. Then yes, you may convict someone, because that's technically what happened.
To top it all off, the juror in the video said that he gave a guilty verdict because the guy didn't tell police where he was going, and he should have. that's it.
Now in Jacksonville FL, you need to fear walking on a public sidewalk. Because an officer can tell you to leave, and if you refuse, you can go to jail...even though you have every right to be on a public sidewalk and the officer has no authority/reason/right to tell you to move in the first place, only that he doesn't like you.
A cop could have walked into the courtroom, asked him to leave, and if he refused, gotten charged with trespassing.
A cop could walk into your house, ask you to leave, and if you refuse, get charged with trespassing.
A could could walk into your place of buisness, ask you to stop working and leave, and if you refuse, get charged with tresspassing.
It doesn't matter now if you're actually allowed to be someplace or not, just that you defied an unlawful order, and if you defy unlawful orders, that's trespassing.
Just like the SC ruled in the obamacare case, words actually have no meaning--even when they are defined in the glossary of the law itself.
Reply
0
0
07-24-2015, 10:38 AM
#5384
Boost Czar
Thread Starter
iTrader: (62)
Join Date: May 2005
Location: Chantilly, VA
Posts: 79,493
Total Cats: 4,080
During Thursday’s Senate Foreign Relations Committee hearing on the Iran nuclear agreement, Secretary of State John Kerry said the goal of the negotiations was never to dismantle Iran’s entire nuclear program but rather to prevent them from obtaining nuclear weapons, despite saying in 2013 the “whole point” of sanctions was to get Iran to “dismantle its nuclear program.”
“When we began our negotiations, Iran had enough fissile material for 10 to 12 bombs. They had 19,000 centrifuges, up from the 163 that they had back in 2003 when the prior administration was engaged in them on this very topic,” Kerry said Thursday. “So this isn’t a question of giving them what they want. It’s a question of how do you hold their program back. How do you dismantle their weapons program? Not their whole program.
“Let’s understand what was really on the table here. We set out to dismantle their ability to be able to build a nuclear weapon, and we’ve achieved that. Nobody has ever talked about actually dismantling their entire program, because when that was being talked about, that’s when they went from 163 centrifuges to 19,000.”
In 2013, while testifying before the House Foreign Affairs Committee, Kerry said the purpose of the sanctions against the rogue regime was to “help Iran dismantle its nuclear program.”
“I don’t think any of us thought we were just imposing these sanctions for the sake of imposing them,” he said. “We did because we knew that it would hopefully help Iran dismantle its nuclear program. That was the whole point of the regime.”
“When we began our negotiations, Iran had enough fissile material for 10 to 12 bombs. They had 19,000 centrifuges, up from the 163 that they had back in 2003 when the prior administration was engaged in them on this very topic,” Kerry said Thursday. “So this isn’t a question of giving them what they want. It’s a question of how do you hold their program back. How do you dismantle their weapons program? Not their whole program.
“Let’s understand what was really on the table here. We set out to dismantle their ability to be able to build a nuclear weapon, and we’ve achieved that. Nobody has ever talked about actually dismantling their entire program, because when that was being talked about, that’s when they went from 163 centrifuges to 19,000.”
In 2013, while testifying before the House Foreign Affairs Committee, Kerry said the purpose of the sanctions against the rogue regime was to “help Iran dismantle its nuclear program.”
“I don’t think any of us thought we were just imposing these sanctions for the sake of imposing them,” he said. “We did because we knew that it would hopefully help Iran dismantle its nuclear program. That was the whole point of the regime.”
Reply
0
0
08-12-2015, 09:57 AM
#5386
Boost Czar
Thread Starter
iTrader: (62)
Join Date: May 2005
Location: Chantilly, VA
Posts: 79,493
Total Cats: 4,080
all flags are racist.
So Now the POW/MIA Flag Is Under Fire ? as a Symbol of 'Racist Hate' | National Review Online
So Now the POW/MIA Flag Is Under Fire ? as a Symbol of 'Racist Hate' | National Review Online
Another day, another argument that a flag must come down. Today’s target is a bit surprising — the POW/MIA flag that flies from government buildings, honoring the hundreds of Americans still missing and unaccounted for in Vietnam. Writing in the pages of Newsweek, a very angry Rick Perlstein is simply not having it, declaring, “That damned flag: It’s a shroud. It smothers the complexity, the reality, of what really happened in Vietnam.” In fact, he claims the entire emphasis on American missing and POW’s was nothing but a political trick designed to detract from alleged American deceptions and war crimes:
Read more at: So Now the POW/MIA Flag Is Under Fire ? as a Symbol of 'Racist Hate' | National Review Online
Read more at: So Now the POW/MIA Flag Is Under Fire ? as a Symbol of 'Racist Hate' | National Review Online
Reply
0
0
08-26-2015, 12:55 PM
#5389
Boost Czar
Thread Starter
iTrader: (62)
Join Date: May 2005
Location: Chantilly, VA
Posts: 79,493
Total Cats: 4,080
ESPN pulls Curt Schilling from Little League World Series after tweet | Fox News
ESPN is telling Curt Schilling to put a bloody sock in it.
The sports network announced Tuesday it was pulling the analyst and former major league pitcher from its Little League World Series broadcast team over a tweet by Schilling that compared Muslims to ****-era Germans.
Schilling, 48, retweeted a post Tuesday morning that said, "Only 5-10% of Muslims are extremists. In 1940, only 7% of Germans were *****. How'd that go?" Schilling later deleted the post from his Twitter feed. He retired from baseball following the 2007 season and joined ESPN's "Sunday Night Baseball" broadcast for the 2014 season.
The network said the tweet was unacceptable and that it "made that point very strongly to Curt." ESPN said Schilling was removed from the Little League World Series assignment "pending further consideration."
For his part, Schilling accepted his suspension in another Twitter post Tuesday afternoon.
The sports network announced Tuesday it was pulling the analyst and former major league pitcher from its Little League World Series broadcast team over a tweet by Schilling that compared Muslims to ****-era Germans.
Schilling, 48, retweeted a post Tuesday morning that said, "Only 5-10% of Muslims are extremists. In 1940, only 7% of Germans were *****. How'd that go?" Schilling later deleted the post from his Twitter feed. He retired from baseball following the 2007 season and joined ESPN's "Sunday Night Baseball" broadcast for the 2014 season.
The network said the tweet was unacceptable and that it "made that point very strongly to Curt." ESPN said Schilling was removed from the Little League World Series assignment "pending further consideration."
For his part, Schilling accepted his suspension in another Twitter post Tuesday afternoon.
Reply
0
0
09-05-2015, 02:13 PM
#5393
unintended consequences
Posted on September 4, 2015 by Scott Johnson in 2016 presidential election, Clinton emails, Hillary Clinton
The incalculable damage done
A knowledgeable reader writes to comment on my post this morning noting the Clinton email talking points. Our reader raises an angle on the damage done that I have not seen explored elsewhere. I want to pass it on without further comment at this point:
I saw your note on Clinton emails. You and everyone else are missing the real problem and scandal. It is not the emails she saved and turned over to the State Department. It is the erased server, but not for the reasons most people are talking about.
A Secretary of State has broad SCI clearances which means she has access to sources and methods. We know now that HC had classified information on her email server because of what she turned over. What we don’t know is what she didn’t turn over. This creates a massive Counter-Intelligence (CI) problem.
The CI community knows she managed to jump the “air gap” on some information but because she erased the server they do not know the full extend of the jump. If she had turned over the server to the proper authorities the CI community could calibrate the extent of the potential damage. Now, barring a recovery of server data, they cannot. This means that CI has to treat all sources and methods to which the Secretary of State (and others potentially) was exposed as compromised.
Its even worse. By not turning over the server she prevented a forensic examine from determining if she was hacked and by what methods. She undermined any ability to exploit that knowledge to limit damage to US national security or to undermine and prevent a future use of similar hacking tools.
No matter what she says, this action has done irreparable damage to US national security. By not turning over the server she deserves at a minimum to lose her security clearance. Anyone with the level of clearance she had would be attached to a polygraph and debriefed by CI.
The Secretary chose to protect her political viability over the security of the country. Let’s hope for the country’s sake that the FBI can reconstruct her server.
The incalculable damage done
A knowledgeable reader writes to comment on my post this morning noting the Clinton email talking points. Our reader raises an angle on the damage done that I have not seen explored elsewhere. I want to pass it on without further comment at this point:
I saw your note on Clinton emails. You and everyone else are missing the real problem and scandal. It is not the emails she saved and turned over to the State Department. It is the erased server, but not for the reasons most people are talking about.
A Secretary of State has broad SCI clearances which means she has access to sources and methods. We know now that HC had classified information on her email server because of what she turned over. What we don’t know is what she didn’t turn over. This creates a massive Counter-Intelligence (CI) problem.
The CI community knows she managed to jump the “air gap” on some information but because she erased the server they do not know the full extend of the jump. If she had turned over the server to the proper authorities the CI community could calibrate the extent of the potential damage. Now, barring a recovery of server data, they cannot. This means that CI has to treat all sources and methods to which the Secretary of State (and others potentially) was exposed as compromised.
Its even worse. By not turning over the server she prevented a forensic examine from determining if she was hacked and by what methods. She undermined any ability to exploit that knowledge to limit damage to US national security or to undermine and prevent a future use of similar hacking tools.
No matter what she says, this action has done irreparable damage to US national security. By not turning over the server she deserves at a minimum to lose her security clearance. Anyone with the level of clearance she had would be attached to a polygraph and debriefed by CI.
The Secretary chose to protect her political viability over the security of the country. Let’s hope for the country’s sake that the FBI can reconstruct her server.
Reply
0
0
09-09-2015, 06:45 PM
#5395
Elite Member
iTrader: (5)
Join Date: Oct 2011
Location: Detroit (the part with no rules or laws)
Posts: 5,677
Total Cats: 800
The flag pole the company flag was flying mysteriously "broke" one night. Since i'm in charge of getting things fixed, it's last on my priority list.
******.
Reply
0
0
09-15-2015, 01:30 PM
#5398
Boost Czar
Thread Starter
iTrader: (62)
Join Date: May 2005
Location: Chantilly, VA
Posts: 79,493
Total Cats: 4,080
no, but it was funny.
Kim Davis is wrong on so many levels it's hard to even list them. All the candidates that stood with her on her release should be absolutely shamed for standing there and should immediately withdraw consideration for their nomination.
she and they represent the most ***-backwards, un-american, "conservative" of ideals.
Defying court orders and using the power of the gov't to deny the rights of others is NOTHING to be proud of and it's incredibly hypocritical and ironic.
Rand Paul is wrong to suggest she was arrested for "exercising her religious beliefs"; she wasn't -- that's basically supporting terrorism.
Ted Cruze is wrong to suggest it was "tryanny" to arrest kim davis; it wasn't
Huckabee is wrong to suggest that state laws trump federal laws; they don't.
Jindal is wrong to suggest you should be able to keep your job if you refuse to perform your job; you shouldn't -- this isn't France.
Santorm is wrong to suggest Kim Davis was heroic; she's a horrible human being that couldn't give a flying **** about the sanctity of marriage.
Kim Davis is wrong on so many levels it's hard to even list them. All the candidates that stood with her on her release should be absolutely shamed for standing there and should immediately withdraw consideration for their nomination.
she and they represent the most ***-backwards, un-american, "conservative" of ideals.
Defying court orders and using the power of the gov't to deny the rights of others is NOTHING to be proud of and it's incredibly hypocritical and ironic.
Rand Paul is wrong to suggest she was arrested for "exercising her religious beliefs"; she wasn't -- that's basically supporting terrorism.
Ted Cruze is wrong to suggest it was "tryanny" to arrest kim davis; it wasn't
Huckabee is wrong to suggest that state laws trump federal laws; they don't.
Jindal is wrong to suggest you should be able to keep your job if you refuse to perform your job; you shouldn't -- this isn't France.
Santorm is wrong to suggest Kim Davis was heroic; she's a horrible human being that couldn't give a flying **** about the sanctity of marriage.
Reply
0
0
09-15-2015, 01:40 PM
#5400
Boost Czar
Thread Starter
iTrader: (62)
Join Date: May 2005
Location: Chantilly, VA
Posts: 79,493
Total Cats: 4,080
yes.
apparently "establishment and free exercise of religion" actually means "**** you. im right, you're wrong. im going to defy everything (including the duties of my job and lawful orders to perform my public duties) and do what i want regardless of anything. suck a dick. eat a *****. let me strap this bomb on my chest and blow up some children all in the name of god because my hypocritical fairyland bullshit feelings mean more to me than your basic human rights".
apparently "establishment and free exercise of religion" actually means "**** you. im right, you're wrong. im going to defy everything (including the duties of my job and lawful orders to perform my public duties) and do what i want regardless of anything. suck a dick. eat a *****. let me strap this bomb on my chest and blow up some children all in the name of god because my hypocritical fairyland bullshit feelings mean more to me than your basic human rights".
Reply
0
0
