|
it's legal. stop antagonize police and carrying cash.
|
Originally Posted by Joe Perez
(Post 1163944)
This shows me that you don't really understand how the legal system in the US works. She has a right to trial if she is accused of a criminal offense which may result in her being deprived of life or liberty. (eg: jail, execution, community service, etc.) You don't have the right to trial when you are accused of non-criminal statutory violations for which the punishment is not a deprivation of liberty. As an example, if you ignore a bunch of parking tickets, then your car may be towed, impounded, and auctioned. No trial required. other comments aside, in our modern world, I don't think it would be hard to disagree that depriving people of the tools of their lively hood is a deprivation of liberty and should have a higher standard in the law. IE you have to face a judge or something before they can take your shit because of things you've been accused of. |
Originally Posted by Joe Perez
(Post 1163944)
This shows me that you don't really understand how the legal system in the US works. She has a right to trial if she is accused of a criminal offense which may result in her being deprived of life or liberty. (eg: jail, execution, community service, etc.) You don't have the right to trial when you are accused of non-criminal statutory violations for which the punishment is not a deprivation of liberty.
As an example, if you ignore a bunch of parking tickets, then your car may be towed, impounded, and auctioned. No trial required. I have a hearing before the General District Court, Traffic Division of Arlington County, Virginia for Arlington Country parking citations #4810133A; I was suspected of parking within a restrcited area. This is not a criminal case. I could have paid $50 to have it all go away, or argue my case in court. I will not be arrested, or deprived life or liberty if I'm found guilty. As you mistaking going to court with being arrested? and if you preuse just about any city/town in the entire USA, you'll find a quote similar to this: What happens if I get arrested for violating a City ordinance? A police, animal control or fire department officer will issue you a Notice to Appear. This notice will inform you of the charge against you, the amount of the fine, the pay-by-mail date (if allowed) and the court date if you choose not to pay the fine prior to the pay-by-mail date. If the officer marks the Notice to Appear as a must-appear, you do not have the option of paying the minimum fine and you must appear in Court on the date listed on the Notice to Appear. Although, if we use this as a precedent, a lot of cities have ordinances limit the amount of tenants that can reside in a household. Can we assume that if you're "found" in violation and the city asks residents to move out, that when police show up again and you're still in violation, they are allowed to end the lives of the violators until the restriction is met? That is the logic we are going with right? the rest of my post you gotta do a better job figuring out when im being overally dramatic/ironic/stupid |
Originally Posted by Braineack
(Post 1165180)
As you mistaking going to court with being arrested?
|
Originally Posted by Braineack
(Post 1165180)
Although, if we use this as a precedent, a lot of cities have ordinances limit the amount of tenants that can reside in a household. Can we assume that if you're "found" in violation and the city asks residents to move out, that when police show up again and you're still in violation, they are allowed to end the lives of the violators until the restriction is met?
|
Originally Posted by Joe Perez
(Post 1165187)
No. Are you mistaking an administrative hearing with a trial?
How is it I am going to court over a city violation? Now if I don't agree with the practices of Arlington County parking attendants for say: not stopping from writing the ticket as I was trying to leave my parking spot at 6pm when it turned into a "taxi only" spot--I may end up in an Administrative Hearing if I file a case against the city. But this is NOT what I'm talking about.
Originally Posted by rleete
(Post 1165233)
Only in a perfect world.
And since this is the internet: Kinda like how the SS would enforce the law in Nazi Germany. and since Joe loves the Constitution, the law, and serif fonts: nor shall any state deprive any person of...property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws. police killing chicken = depravation of property a warning = no due process not going to court over it = no due process administrative hearings = no due process or person supossedly violated law without due process = person is a filthy welfare/food stamp collecting criminal with a smartphone that doesn't deserve the equal protections granted in the 14th. |
Federal Appellate Judge Slams Justice Department Over Immigration Checkpoint Detention
The Fifth Circuit US Court of Appeals on Tuesday heard a Justice Department official argue that agents have the right to indefinitely detain "uncooperative" motorists at border roadblocks far from the actual border. US Air Force Major Richard Rynearson was stopped on March 18, 2010 when he came to an immigration checkpoint on Highway 90 in Uvalde, Texas, 67 miles from the border with Mexico. The Justice Department attorney got off to a bad start with the three-judge panel. "To take the position of plaintiff in this case, this court would have to hold that, as plaintiffs and amicus insist, that they have a right to say nothing," Justice Department attorney Steve Frank said. "To just pull up at a checkpoint stop..." At this point, Judge Jennifer Elrod interrupted. "That's not true," Judge Elrod said. "That's just absolutely not true. We would not have to hold anything so broad. We would have to hold if you cooperate you can't be held for thirty minutes in what's supposed to be a quick stop and that everybody should know that if you don't have probable cause you, can't keep holding someone there for lengthy periods of time after you produce your identification." Immigration roadblocks are supposed to be for the sole purpose of establishing US citizenship at the border, but the courts have expanded the definition of "border" to include anything within 100 miles of the border. Although Rynearson offered a military ID, passport and driver's license, Border Patrol agents were peeved that Rynearson did not fully roll down his window and asked if he was being detained. "Basically, for a large part of the time the gentleman was not answering questions," the government lawyer said. Judge Elrod interjected a second time. She had seen exactly what happened during the stop on a video that Rynearson recorded and uploaded to YouTube (view video). "That's not true, counsel," Judge Elrod said. "He never once did not answer a question posed to him, did he counsel? There is not a single incident where he was asked a question and did not respond, is there, sir? ...I don't understand what he did that contributed to the lengthy time that they just sat there." A large part of the delay came while Border Patrol agents called to complain to the decorated combat veteran's commanding officer. "What is the purpose of going to call the commanding officer at the military base?" Judge Elrod asked. "What does that have to do at all with citizenship?" The district court threw out the case, denying a discovery request that would have taken depositions to find out what was said on the phone calls. Rynearson is asking the three-judge panel to send the case back to the district court so a jury can decide whether the Border Patrol agents should pay for violating Rynearson's Fourth Amendment rights. "At one point the officer tells Mr. Rynearson that they don't need probable cause to hold him," Judge Elrod said. "Is that legally correct? ...Could you hold someone overnight at the border stop?" The Justice lawyer argued that because there was no "clearly established precedent" saying a stop longer than five minutes was unconstitutional that the officers could not be held personally liable for their conduct. "There's no law here," Frank said. "There's no law that says how long you can detain someone, what kind of questions you can ask." What I dont understand is why they didn't just kill this guy for not following directions. |
another isloated incodent of local police overratcing to a sucidal man, and then kililng him to save him from himself.
Man Threatens Suicide With Knife, Police Respond With SWAT Team, Snipers and MRAP | The Free Thought Project n the small town of Muhlenberg, PA, a call to the local police about a man threatening suicide with a kitchen knife was met with by a highly militarized police response. ... Residents of the home had already vacated the property when police arrived. According to police, the suicidal man was a frequent houseguest of the homeowners. The police entered and cornered the man into a bedroom. The man then barricaded himself in the room. It was at this point that the Berks County Emergency Response Team was called in to take over. Rather than de-escalate the situation using mental health professionals, the police doubled down on their high-pressure tactics and militarized response. A man threatening to take his own life with a knife was reason enough to put into action a SWAT response, a sniper in a ghillie suit and an MRAP armored personnel carrier. The response was more akin to that of a battlefield in Afghanistan then a mental health crisis in small town America. Sadly, this type of police response is becoming more and more frequent as the police state grows. Later the police confirmed that the man had a history of mental illness. Luckily, the man agreed to come out of the house prior to being killed by officers, such as what happened to Michael Blair in a very similar incident in Fort Bend, Texas earlier this year. Blair was not so fortunate, as he was shot and killed by the officers responding to the call of him threatening suicide with a knife. watch how many times this cop shoots this dude: [ll]c74_1399580183[/ll] good thing he asked for a taser about 38 times... |
cops hate cameras:
|
if you want me to leave your private property you can ask me to leave.
leave! nah. |
Originally Posted by Braineack
(Post 1165404)
and since Joe loves the Constitution, the law, and serif fonts:
But you're quite right in the deprivation of property without due process is a large and fascinating subject, which has been the focus of many cases dating back nearly to the foundation of the present-day US appellate court system, and one which is fodder for many a law-school debate. The issue remains essentially unsettled, as new and interesting arguments continue to be formulated on each side. For instance, is taxation a deprivation of property? Do you expect a day in court each and every time you are required to pay income tax? What about property tax? Or registration fees on your car? Broadly speaking, it is a commonly-held majority opinion that due process is required only when a taking is punitive in nature, such as would be the case when a person is assessed a fine. It is often (but not universally) not required when the property being taken is held illegally, and the taking is remedial in nature. For instance, if you steal my car, and the police discover this, you have no right to contest the police taking it from you and giving it back to me. You could context the question of fact and claim that the car wasn't stolen in the first place, but having admitted that the car is stolen, you have no right to contest the question of law that the police may legally take it from you. The same fundamental issue exists in the matter of Ms. Turnbull's chicken. Having admitted that she knowingly and willfully kept the chicken illegally, and ignored warnings by the police to rectify this situation, she has already forfeited any right to due process in the matter of the disposition of the chicken. |
Originally Posted by Joe Perez
(Post 1165884)
The same fundamental issue exists in the matter of Ms. Turnbull's chicken. Having admitted that she knowingly and willfully kept the chicken illegally, and ignored warnings by the police to rectify this situation, she has already forfeited any right to due process in the matter of the disposition of the chicken.
why does that matter? lets say I was criminally trespassing but an officer gives me a warning to leave and then i dont. will I then be thrown in prision indefinitely, without due process, at the will of the police officer because I knowingly and willfully ignored the law? So this is how law works in the US: first a warning, then if you continue to disobey you lose your rights to due process? I didnt notice that caveat anywhere... For instance, if you steal my car, and the police discover this, you have no right to contest the police taking it from you and giving it back to me. You could context the question of fact and claim that the car wasn't stolen in the first place, but having admitted that the car is stolen, you have no right to contest the question of law that the police may legally take it from you. I have no problem with police removing her chicken and charging her with violation of the livestock ordinance, and then going to court over it to receive her judgement. I have every problem with police issuing a warning, then when checking back, destroying her private property until they determine on a whim she in compliance, without any due process. I violated two fairfax county ordinances with my miata recently. I was given two fines with the option to go to court to contest; they didn't just tow it or destory it on the spot...weird. I guess they do things different in America. |
Originally Posted by Braineack
(Post 1165888)
why does that matter?
lets say I was criminally trespassing but an officer gives me a warning to leave and then i dont. will I then be thrown in prision indefinitely, without due process, at the will of the police officer because I knowingly and willfully ignored the law? So this is how law works in the US: first a warning, then if you continue to disobey you lose your rights to due process? I didnt notice that caveat anywhere... One of the very first things that they teach you in law school is that there's typically no single correct answer. I'm not kidding, I recall clearly that being taught to us on the first day of orientation. The law, as a profession, exists because two parties disagree not merely to questions of fact, but more importantly to questions of law. If you look at the legal system (which, for this purpose, I consider to include the police) through a binary lens as though everything can be either "right" or "wrong," then you are setting yourself up for disappointment and frustration.
Originally Posted by Braineack
(Post 1165888)
Since I was in possession of a stolen car, willingly and knowingly, the police have every discretion to destroy to the property because I wasn't supposed to own a stolen car.
Also, I love the phrase "Ms. Turnbull's chicken." It reminds me of the sort of thing you'd read in a Supreme Court decision from the early 1800s which winds up being cited over and over again in subsequent lower-court cases for centuries to come. |
Originally Posted by Joe Perez
(Post 1165893)
I'm going to have to ask you to cite a case on that one, since I'm pretty sure that it's not correct in any US jurisdiction.
|
1 Attachment(s)
Originally Posted by Braineack
(Post 1165912)
I used "Ms. Turnbull's chicken" as precedent.
A: Precedent is created when a court makes a ruling in a case. This can be a of first instance reaching a decision in a trial, or (more significantly, and much more frequently cited) when an appellate court* rules on the finding of a lower court. In this case, Ms. Turnbull is not being charged with a criminal act, has not been arrested, and will not be tried. If she elects to file suit against the City of Atwater, the Police Chief of Atwater, or another interested party, and the matter is adjudicated, the it will be able to serve as precedent. II: Even if Turnbull v. Atwater was a case that could be cited, it would not be relevant, since it has to do with a law enforcement officer acting to enforce an ordinance against an individual who refuses to comply with it, and not an act of theft perpetuated by one private citizen against another. In Turnbull, no property has been stolen. I do appreciate the use of "Ms. Turnbull's chicken", however you have failed civil procedure. Try again? Y/N https://www.miataturbo.net/attachmen...ine=1410369609 * = An appellate court is where you go when you disagree with the verdict of a lower court, usually because you feel that some error has been made in the proceedings. Appellate courts do not admit new evidence or hear new testimony, they merely examine the evidence presented at the original court, the ruling of the court, the procedures followed, etc., to determine whether the trial was fair and the court acted properly. The US Supreme Court is probably the best-known appellate court, but there are other levels of appellate courts beneath it, such as the US Circuit Courts (which hear appeals in Federal district trials), the State Supreme Courts, and the State District Courts of Appeal. |
1 Attachment(s)
in the cup, out of the cup; it's all semantics.
true story: I used the phrase "Dont jesus fuck me" then I found this article: Teen Could Get Two Years for Facebook Photos with Jesus Statue « KRON4 – San Francisco Bay Area News A Pennsylvania teenager is facing criminal charges after posting pictures to Facebook of him simulating a sex act with a statue of Jesus. The young man posted that he took the pictures in late July at the statue of a kneeling Jesus in front of the “Love in the Name of Christ” Christian organization in his hometown of Everett. The criminal charge, which will be heard in family court, consists of “Desecration of a Venerated Object.” Pennsylvania law defines desecration as “Defacing, damaging, polluting or otherwise, physically mistreating in a way that the actor knows will outrage the sensibilities of persons likely to observe or discover the action.” The teen, whose name has not been released, could face up to two years in a juvenile jail if convicted. https://www.miataturbo.net/attachmen...ine=1410461378 |
2 Attachment(s)
Originally Posted by Braineack
(Post 1166378)
"Congrefs shall make no law..." EDIT: I mean, seriously, I expect shit like this to happen in countries ruled by Islamic law, ie: "somewhere else." We don't normally think about how Protestant Christian law is, in many ways, just as insidious. Facebook user jailed a year for offensive Hari Raya greeting https://www.miataturbo.net/attachmen...ine=1410467446 Facebook user Chow Mun Fai has been sentenced to a year’s jail for using his ‘Chow Jack’ Facebook account on June 12 to post a Hari Raya Aidilfitri greeting that included the words ‘devil’ and ‘bak kut teh’, a dish containing pork that is forbidden to Muslims. ― Picture by Choo Choy May KUALA LUMPUR, Sept 9 ― A 27-year-old Facebook user was sentenced to one year's jail after he pleaded guilty to making remarks disparaging Islam and the Prophet Muhammad. Chow Mun Fai was earlier charged with using his “Chow Jack” Facebook account on June 12 to post a Hari Raya Aidilfitri greeting that included the words “devil” and “bak kut teh”, a dish containing pork that is forbidden to Muslims. The charge was proffered under Section 233 (1)(a) of the Communications and Multimedia Act 1998, for posting an offensive comment with intention to hurt the feelings of others. After hearing arguments from both sides, Sessions Court judge Azman Mustapha ordered Chow to be jailed for one year ― the maximum imprisonment term allowed under Section 233 (3) of the same law. The penalty under Section 233 (3) is a fine of up to RM50,000 or one year jail or both. According to Azman, the sentence should serve as both a lesson for Chow and also a reminder to the public to not hide behind the Internet to write comments that could cause anger and disrupt harmony. Chow's lawyer Ahmad Ridza Mohd Noh had earlier asked for a lighter sentence, pointing out that his client was providing for his parents, both aged 60, with his RM2,000 monthly wage as a site supervisor. Ahmad Ridza also said that his client suffered from severe gastric problems and tuberculosis. Chow also regretted his error and his act would “haunt” him for life, the lawyer said. DPP Suhaimi Ibrahim had argued that “public policy demands a severe sentence to be imposed” in Chow's case. Suhaimi cited the Federal Constitution’s Article 3, which states that Islam is the religion of the federation while other religions may be practiced in peace and harmony. “The accused’s action in disputing or raising sensitive issues about Islam would surely invite response from others,” he said, adding that this would destroy the foundation of a peaceful and respectful society based on Article 3. Suhaimi also said there is a limit to the constitutional right to freedom of expression, and that the court must give a clear message to all social media users that they must be responsible for the consequences of their remarks. Earlier today, Chow pleaded not guilty to the principal charge under Section 4(1)(c) of the Sedition Act, which prescribes a maximum penalty of RM5,000 fine or three years’ jail or both. Since Chow pleaded guilty to the alternative charge under the CMA, the sedition charge against him no longer applies. The charges against him were brought following a June 12 police report by Mohamed Fairuz Mohamed Ariff, a supervisor at the Kuala Lumpur Performing Arts Centre (KLPAC) — where Chow was said to have posted the offensive remark. https://sg.news.yahoo.com/facebook-u...064200370.html |
Originally Posted by Braineack
(Post 1166378)
in the cup, out of the cup; it's all semantics.
true story: I used the phrase "Dont jesus fuck me" then I found this article: Teen Could Get Two Years for Facebook Photos with Jesus Statue « KRON4 – San Francisco Bay Area News Or it could be taken as a symbol or object lesson of such as the proscription in them Commandments against graven image. In my own view the thing makes their god small as something that can be desecrated. My thing is such that desecrators could not touch it. That they will punish someone demonstrates that they give some power to the image. If he had chipped or otherwise damaged the object then he ought be liable for damaging the property. I suppose he is an asshole and needs mommie to spank but he ought to be able to sue for being arrested for such a stupid law. |
1st trumps stupid laws.
I agree with joe. shock. |
for Joe P
|
| All times are GMT -4. The time now is 06:06 AM. |
© 2024 MH Sub I, LLC dba Internet Brands