Politics' Official Eighteenth Thread

[Guard Dog]

Both the thief and car owner are black. I head the story on the news but I believe the driver's fingerprints are on the bag. However  as I think about it the search was related to the car theft so there is no probable cause to search the car other than it being stolen. Meaning n probable cause insofar as the owner is concerned. However, TN has a "find law" meaning any illegal item found during a legal search is admissible against any potential defendant connected to the item. It is a horrifyingly broad law that is exactly the kind of blanket power governments love to give themselves.

[Guard Dog]

And if you've ever had guests in your house, then nothing inside your house can be pinned on you!

A compelling argument at trial but that won't keep you from being charged.

[Blarghagh]

I feel strangely insulted by all these criticisms of TN.

[Guard Dog]

If I was on this guy's jury there is no way in hell I'd convict. But the wa the SA works here is to go heavy on charges and try to bully people into a  plea bargain.If his lawyer holds firm ther is a real good chance charges will be dropped before a trial.

[Gromnir]

Both the thief and car owner are black. I head the story on the news but I believe the driver's fingerprints are on the bag. However  as I think about it the search was related to the car theft so there is no probable cause to search the car other than it being stolen. Meaning n probable cause insofar as the owner is concerned. However, TN has a "find law" meaning any illegal item found during a legal search is admissible against any potential defendant connected to the item. It is a horrifyingly broad law that is exactly the kind of blanket power governments love to give themselves.

 

tn is no different than most states.  exclusion is an almost uniquely American concept: evidence becomes tainted because o' police mistake or malfeasance.  is a curious notion to allow admitted guilty people to escape justice 'cause o' cop failure, but such is how we read the Constitution.  however, because exclusion is an oddball notion o' justice, it is tending to be given justifiably limited scope.

 

the purpose o' exclusion is to prevent inappropriate actions by law enforcement.  don't want cops barging into homes on a hunch or ransacking cars 'cause the driver fits a profile.  however, if law enforcement is acting lawfully (and sometimes not need be lawful but need only show good faith) then what is the rationale for excluding evidence which tends to prove the guilt o' a defendant? while lawful searching Bob's home the police find evidence which leads to charges being filed 'gainst Dave.  good.  Dave lends his car to Bob and the car is subsequent limited searched lawful incident to an arrest of Bob and during the arrest and search, evidence is found which leads to conviction o' Dave.  good.

 

exclusion is quirky and American and often a bit illogical.  however, the result o' exclusion is guilty people go free.  as such, exclusion is tending to be applied narrowly and with recognition o' the purpose o' exclusion-- is a limit on the excess o' law enforcement. if law enforcement acted appropriate, then is no good reason to exclude.

 

law enforcement is always pushing boundaries.  other than your personal home wherein you current reside, there is few place wherein you got a reasonable expectation o' privacy which would bar police searches... and your personal expectation o' privacy is not transferrable. even so, lazy cops and bad cops is constant pushing limits o' the kinda searches which is requiring warrants.  am not in favor o' decreasing a person's zone o' privacy to accommodate bad or lazy cops.  however, the tn situation ain't representing police excess.  routine and perfect legal search made incident to arrest uncovers evidence which is eventual used 'gainst car owner.  good. is no reason to exclude such evidence.  is no police excess which need be blunted.  the tn law is not unusual broad.  is Constitutional.  

 

HA! Good Fun!

Edited June 13, 2018 by Gromnir

[Bartimaeus]

It's probably a reasonable assumption that it's the car owner's, but I'm not going to send anybody to prison for personal use-related drug charges, so jury nullification it is.

[Chilloutman]

creepy, hope is fake

 

[Volourn]

"It's probably a reasonable assumption that it's the car owner's"

 

Why? I find it  a lot more reasonable assumption the bag of 'illegal' drugs belongs to the crook already breaking a crime. For allw e know, the reason he stole the car in the first place is that he was high and was seeking  a joy ride. *shrug*

 

So much reasonable doubt .... unless the owner's fingerprints are actually on the bag. Then they got him BIGLY.

[injurai]

creepy, hope is fake

 

 

Didn't watch, but I looked it up and read a description of the premise. Having "ghost profiles" that basically convey the wisdom and lifestyle of others who have been successful or lived healthy would be indispensable to many who come from broken homes or didn't have great role-models.

 

Information is imperative for people to operate well and life well. Especially in a world where the social environment evolves so rapidly, tons of people cling to traditional advice which is counter-productive.

 

The next question is how ethically this is all being pulled off.

[Bartimaeus]

"It's probably a reasonable assumption that it's the car owner's"

 

Why? I find it  a lot more reasonable assumption the bag of 'illegal' drugs belongs to the crook already breaking a crime. For allw e know, the reason he stole the car in the first place is that he was high and was seeking  a joy ride. *shrug*

 

So much reasonable doubt .... unless the owner's fingerprints are actually on the bag. Then they got him BIGLY.

Yeah, I was responding to Guard Dog, who did say that they apparently found his prints on the bag. Theoretically, the perp could've re-used a ziplock bag already in the car for the drugs - about the only explanation I can think of. So...possible, but not exactly what I'd consider probable - I definitely would not send a man to prison for it either way, though, especially seeing the nature of the crime. He could've literally written "(his name)'s ILLEGAL DRUGS" with his social security # on it and I still would say not guilty.

[aluminiumtrioxid]

creepy, hope is fake

 

 

Yeah I've been linked to this a few months ago, didn't find anything creepy about it then, nor am I doing it now.

[Agiel]

 

Along with allowing the Stars and Stripes to fly alongside the DPRK flag his claim to love the American flag like no other rings especially hollow.

[Guard Dog]

Just having a little fun with this one. The headline distorts the story a little bit (say it ain't so!) by suggesting the solution to overpopulation is euthanizing people to "thin the herd"

 

 

Berkeley declares 'climate emergency' worse than World War II, demands 'humane' population control

 

Once you actually READ what they said well... not quite the same thing. http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2018/06/13/berkeley-declares-climate-emergency-worse-than-world-war-ii-demands-humane-population-control.html

 

But, suppose we DID want to "thin the herd". How could we do that? Well, in 1998 the state of Florida legalized alligator hunting because the gator population was getting out of control. Nah... we don't want to go that way. There is another idea though:

 

 

We take an island and fill it full of cloned dinosaurs. Then we tell every one there is a treasure hidden on the island. Say $100M check or something. Then send volunteers there to look for it and sell the camera footage on PPV to pay for it all! Not only do we make a fortune, but we get rid of excess pops and anyone who'd take that bet we probably don't want breeding anyway. It's a win all around. And the best part is the twist... there is no treasure!

[HoonDing]

We've seen how well population control worked in China.

Of course increasing third world education and living standards which would solve the problem, is against vested interests.

Edited June 14, 2018 by HoonDing

[pmp10]

We've seen how well population control worked in China.

 

Of course increasing third world education and living standards which would solve the problem, is against vested interests.

Third world is not a problem.

The problem is pretending they are to absolve us.

[Volourn]

Aaron Rupar should not be accusing  anyone of ignorance. The Korean War did not 'end' in 1953. Why lie?

[Guard Dog]

Aaron Rupar should not be accusing  anyone of ignorance. The Korean War did not 'end' in 1953. Why lie?

  Yep, still hasn't ended

[Malcador]

Aaron Rupar should not be accusing  anyone of ignorance. The Korean War did not 'end' in 1953. Why lie?

 

Pretty sure no veterans of it were created after 1953.

[Volourn]

Your spam doesn't change the simple fact that the Korean war did not end in 1953 so why did you bother writing some spam to counter what I wrote when it doesn't dispute what I wrote.

[smjjames]

It never formally ended with a peace treaty. They signed an armistice/truce and the shooting at each other has basically ended. Heres a bunch of examples that would be similar to this where the fighting stopped, but a diplomatic truce wasn't signed for whatever reason: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_wars_extended_by_diplomatic_irregularity

 

Though it's probably more similar to the Kuril Islands dispute mentioned in the article, it's in that same limbo where the fighting ended, but there's no peace treaty.

Edited June 14, 2018 by smjjames

[Malcador]

Your spam doesn't change the simple fact that the Korean war did not end in 1953 so why did you bother writing some spam to counter what I wrote when it doesn't dispute what I wrote.

 

Because the guy's point still holds regardless of the war technically ending or not and for most people consider that conflict to have ended.

 

Thought I did forget about - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Korean_DMZ_Conflict , which people call the Second Korean War.

[HoonDing]

 

are you tired of winning yet??

[Malcador]

Apparently that was a screw up as the DPRK officer saluted, Trump went to shake hands and then they switched approaches.   Well either that or a DPRK scheme to dupe Trump

[smjjames]

It's not impossible for one or two parents of a Korean War soldier to have talked to Trump, they'd just have to be over 100 years old. It's far more likely he'd have met with the living descendants or kin of those soldiers.

 

That or he's confusing the Korean war with the Vietnam war.

[Agiel]

Your spam doesn't change the simple fact that the Korean war did not end in 1953 so why did you bother writing some spam to counter what I wrote when it doesn't dispute what I wrote.

 

Well if you'd like to be pedantic the commonly accepted "end" to the Great War was 11 November 1918, or the day the armistice went into effect. The actual peace treaty would be signed in June of 1919, and fully put into effect the following year.