BigDave
Opt-Out Members
100% Positive, you can't?
-
We are now running on a new, and hopefully much-improved, server. In addition we are also on new forum software. Any move entails a lot of technical details and I suspect we will encounter a few issues as the new server goes live. Please be patient with us. It will be worth it! :) Please help by posting all issues here.
-
If you are having trouble seeing the forum then you may need to clear your browser's DNS cache. Click here for instructions on how to do that
-
Please review the Forum Rules frequently as we are constantly trying to improve the forum for our members and visitors.
A little ot Just got my house searched
- Thread starter briehl12
- Start date
100% Positive, you can't?
sudden valley gunner
Regular Member
IF they outlaw firearms this year who is giving up all theirs?
Metalhead47
Regular Member
Ooooh me me me! But they're getting the bullets first!
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
BigDave
Opt-Out Members
Last edited:
sudden valley gunner
Regular Member
Notice the refusal to answer by some who are positivists and worship the "authority" of the state?
I have no doubt that positivist will have little problem with the state when they come knocking at their door, they will willingly comply. After all they worship the state and it's authority, willingly partake in it, make their livelihood from it. Any discussion at all about standing up against intrusion must mean you are paranoid or a crook. Tyrannical regimes throughout history have always used this disturbing demagogic tactic throughout time. the 20th century stock full of them. Communist Russia, Nazi Germany, Democratic China (communist), Castro's regime in Cuba, etc.
They rationalize that it's for safety (over liberty?) they rationalize that they do it thousands of times and most the innocents don't go to jail. (so I guess the ones that do don't matter) They rationalize that you should have known better, they rationalize outlawing things because they were simply voted in (regardless of the constitution and human fundamental rights), they label and demonize all others who would resist tyranny, they evade the fundamental principles and make it an issue of something else.
Positivism must be fought, after all by positivist thinking the Nazi regime was legitimately elected so all the laws the enacted must have been just and right. And during that regime Nazi's and supporters and those who didn't resist where pretty much left alone. (They Thought They Were Free, Milton Mayer).
An observation on my part, positivist of the fake 'conservative' mode will loudly and fervently condemn laws and actions tell others never let a 'liberal' in power....
Positivist of the fake 'liberal' mode do the same of 'conservatives' yet they can't even see the hypocrisy of their own actions, they are so busy pulling the straw out of someone else's eye they can't see the rafter in their own.
I am using this definition of positivism
2. (Law) Also called legal positivism the jurisprudential doctrine that the legitimacy of a law depends on its being enacted in proper form, rather than on its content
An example of this is a new law making it illegal to text and drive. On the face of it, this sounds like a 'good idea'. But when you think about it, it's an amorphous 'reason' allowing a LEO to pull you over 'for looking down' momentarily. They can't prove it, nor can you contest it (how do you show you weren't texting?).
To prove that you WERE texting they now want to allow LEOs to go through your cell phone and get your password to do so. Slippery slope.
I HATE that people text and drive, but I hate losing ground to intrusive methods more.
To prove that you WERE texting they now want to allow LEOs to go through your cell phone and get your password to do so. Slippery slope.
I HATE that people text and drive, but I hate losing ground to intrusive methods more.
BigDave
Opt-Out Members
Definition of Paranoia [ˌpar.rəˈnoɪ.ə] (adjective: paranoid [ˈpar.rə.noɪd]) is a thought process believed to be heavily influenced by anxiety or fear, often to the point of irrationality and delusion. Paranoid thinking typically includes persecutory beliefs, or beliefs of conspiracy concerning a perceived threat towards oneself. Making false accusations and the general distrust of others also frequently accompany paranoia. For example, an incident most people would view as an accident, a paranoid person might make an accusation that it was intentional.
sudden valley gunner
Regular Member
Yea texting and driving is bad, they drive worse than some drunks should it be illegal yes, should it give cops a pretext for intrusion no. But after all what do you have to hide if you weren't doing the crime (sarcasm). Never mind the fact that we have the right to feel safe in our person and affects.
sudden valley gunner
Regular Member
I vote this thread gets moved to Social Lounge or General Discussion.
I guess our founders were just paranoid, anarchist, extremist crooks, living in the past.
I guess our founders were just paranoid, anarchist, extremist crooks, living in the past.
Last edited:
Vitaeus
Regular Member
I really wish we had a subforum for this stuff in the WA one, I prefer to be state specific when having these discussions, they get wooly fast enough just talking about our state, add in 50 different ones and the discussion gets derailed even faster.
sudden valley gunner
Regular Member
I think its why the moderators give some leeway in these discussion. But this one has moved beyond that scope and this is an issue that is of national interests.
oneeyeross
Regular Member
Well, I personally have never met a bad cop. I readily admit that. But, I do know that they exist. If I could trust the police to "police" themselves properly, instead of sweeping things under the rug, we wouldn't be having this discussion.
I could mention all the cases in the Rampart division of LA that were overturned because the cops admitted to lying on the stand and framing people....or the cops in New Orleans...or Seattle....but it would only the "those few".....but the problem I have is that I never know which cop is one of the "bad" ones out there, and the amount of authority that police have (the literal power of life and death over everyone on the street) is such that I avoid contact with police officers in an official capacity at all costs.
That means I avoid even the very appearance of wrong doing. But even with that, I would never readily allow an officer into my home without a warrant....
Metalhead47
Regular Member
The biggest problem with not knowing who the bad cops are... but the time you realize it, it's often too late. Just ask the feller with the not-unlawful knife wandering around Seattle minding his own business...
Citizen
Founder's Club Member
Or just ask this guy:
http://www.theagitator.com/2012/02/08/stop-resisting-************/
Or, you could ask this guy, but he's dead now:
http://reason.com/blog/2012/02/06/surveillance-footage-shows-nypd-breaking
Simple fact: you have no way to know until a point that may be too late.
Last edited:
Metalhead47
Regular Member
And there are far too many clips like this. The laughing cop at the end made my guinea pig warble with irritation. Even she can tell a bad cop. Too late for the poor diabetic with the broken ribs of course.
BigDave
Opt-Out Members
Just a reminder what we have been talking about, well the ones that are trying to stay on topic anyways.
sudden valley gunner
Regular Member
Some one edited out the topic of the thread
A little ot Just got my house searched
A little ot Just got my house searched
Last edited:
OC for ME
Regular Member
The occupant consented to the search by letting the cops in. The OP'er stated in his OP that it was 'their' house "our house is being searched". Whether or not anyone else thinks she was authorized to allow the cops in is a moot point, AND what you think is irrelevant. He has told his GF to not allow the cops in next time (his second post for this thread)....if there is a next time.
Hypothetically: A judge will take these facts, the biggest AND most glaring fact, the GF consenting, and rule in favor of the cops IF a law suit is pursued. Apparently the cops were 'in and out', no harm, no foul. Hard to prove the cops trampled any rights when they were invited in. I would think most folks around here would know and accept that fact.
Defending the 'principal of the thing' is moot because the OP'er has taken corrective action, he told his GF to not let the cops in next time.
It is easy to criticize the GF, by projecting onto the OP'er, when we were not there. Displaying our angst at what his GF did, what the vast majority of our fellow citizens would do, rightly or wrongly (Luke 23:34), does a disservice to all of us.
It appears from the information provided that the cops were respecting her rights, and by extension the OP'ers rights, as best they could given the circumstances. The Op'er and his GF did what they did, learned from it. I suspect that this thread has resulted in the expenditure of more time and energy than was expended during the legal search.
Hypothetically: A judge will take these facts, the biggest AND most glaring fact, the GF consenting, and rule in favor of the cops IF a law suit is pursued. Apparently the cops were 'in and out', no harm, no foul. Hard to prove the cops trampled any rights when they were invited in. I would think most folks around here would know and accept that fact.
Defending the 'principal of the thing' is moot because the OP'er has taken corrective action, he told his GF to not let the cops in next time.
It is easy to criticize the GF, by projecting onto the OP'er, when we were not there. Displaying our angst at what his GF did, what the vast majority of our fellow citizens would do, rightly or wrongly (Luke 23:34), does a disservice to all of us.
It appears from the information provided that the cops were respecting her rights, and by extension the OP'ers rights, as best they could given the circumstances. The Op'er and his GF did what they did, learned from it. I suspect that this thread has resulted in the expenditure of more time and energy than was expended during the legal search.
sudden valley gunner
Regular Member
Yep agreed, but the discussion has progressed to whether you or I or some others would allow them in as we have the some rights protected by the fourth and even strong state protections. Some have tried to make the topic that you should unless you have something to hide, which is a false argument designed to entrap people into arguing something that has nothing to do with our fundamental rights.
Yes it is moot for them but this doesn't mean we on an open forum may not continue to discuss the principle of the matter because who knows maybe someday it may happen to us.
Personally I am not criticizing the girlfriend that's between the boyfriend and her, like you said what is done is done.. If they take it as criticism than I apologize but that doesn't change my personal stance and belief and I don't understand your view point that us using it as a talking point for a discussion of our our rights does a disservice?
OC for ME
Regular Member
I can't argue any of your points. We can discuss the underlying issue anytime and should. But, the reality of the OP and giving a nod to staying OT, the OP'er has learned all he needed to learn from this thread considering his last post was five days ago. The remainder of the thread is us folks, apparently not able to help ourselves, by keeping this thread alive....for some strange reason. I guess it is our natural propensity to debate, where everyone involved in the debate, likely holds the same position but have differing ways to articulate our positions.
It is fun though....
It is fun though....