A very common myth about the Constitution is that it only protects the rights of citizens - this is where the past rulings that property has no rights, or that foreigners can't have them. It's the basis of the infamous Dred Scott decision.
But that's not what the Constitution actually says, if you actually read it. The Constitution doesn't grant anyone any rights whatsoever, and never has. Instead, it protects rights everyone already had before it was written, by prohibiting the government from ever doing certain things to ANYONE.
It wouldn't matter if property has no rights if a court came at a case from that angle - property may have no rights, but property has an owner, and that owner has the right to not have their property taken without due process of law. Due process that, when it involves the rights of a person, has very well-established meanings.
What astounds me about people like that is they apparently don't realize that when police commit crimes to catch a criminal, they aren't reducing the number of criminals on the streets or the number of unsolved crimes in any way.
Given that almost all of the crimes police commit are felonies due to their possession of a firearm, breaking the law to make a misdemeanor arrest results in a net increase in crime!
On a bit of a tangent, it wouldn’t be hard to imbed that sort of DRM signal into a city or even national power grid. So long as the frequencies used for data are completely different from those used for power, nothing prevents using the same cable for both.
Re: Re: Re: I don't see why they don't bring a 42 USC 1983 actio
Plus, even if the court agrees the seizure violated your rights, under current US supreme court case law, unless a previous court in the same circuit had already ruled the same way on identical circumstances, the case would be dismissed because cops have qualified immunity.
Courts take the view that it does not matter what a plain English reading of a law says, no law is clearly established until a judge rules on it, and police cannot be expected to know what the law is until it is clearly established.
This is why I’ve been saying for years that lawsuits against cops are a rigged game. But any rights violation you could sue for and win under Title 42, Section 1983 is also a federal crime - as in handcuffs, cell and prison time - under Title 18, Sections 241 & 242. And according to the US Supreme Court, a federal citizens arrest is lawful in any state that a state law citizen’s arrest would be, under the same circumstances (US v. Di Re (1948)). A 100% binding citizen’s arrest can be made with words alone.
Re: Highway robbery isn't gone it's just been made official
Personally, I’m waiting for the day when someone robs a convenience store, attempts to file an asset forfeiture claim with the local court clerk (successfully or not doesn’t matter) and then when caught, uses that asset forfeiture claim as a defense at trial, to prove they didn’t commit armed robbery.
After all, about half the states have actual statutes granting police powers to all citizens, and most of the rest do so by common law. Only one state forbids private citizens from exercising police powers at all.
Florida has a 25 acre minimum to be considered a theme park, but other states have different requirements, or none at all.
States are required to recognize the official acts of other states, so if, say, Nevada recognizes a 0.1 acre FacebookLand, wouldn’t that mean Florida must recognize Facebook as operating a theme park?
I am indeed serious. Every time police feared for their lives, they outnumbered those they feared. But watch carefully next time, what happens when the police are outnumbered by those who are just as scary.
I'll ask you a counter question: Where in the Constitution or anywhere else does it say that you cannot exercise or otherwise possess more than one right at a time? That if you try to exercise two or more at once you lose all of your rights?
Because that's what is being said here and elsewhere - because people exercised two unalienable rights at once, they should be treated as having no rights at all.
The thing you and others miss, is that it is not illegal to have guns. Just like it's not illegal to have cars or books or shoes. Being in possession of completely legal things in a completely legal place, time and manner is not proof of wrongdoing. It's not even a little suspicious.
You don't restore order by attacking people who are obeying the law.
Twitter suspends the moderation credentials of any employee who is under threat of illegal retaliation. A suspended employee who cannot login cannot obey the government, and therefore cannot be prosecuted for not obeying.
Eventually there will be no Twitter employees capable of obeying in India, and the only people for the government to go after will be those in other countries, where India has no jurisdiction.
And India won't be able to extradite, because they'd have to cite a lawful reason, such as violating a law - refusing to obey an illegal order is not against the law.
Kinda makes me tempted to sue DeSantis if this law passes and he makes any kind of campaign ad, since I kinda suspect a political campaign virtual town meeting would count as a forum that this law would regulate.
Proving it doesn't would likely cost enough to keep him from being able to afford reelection...
If the defendants are destroying evidence as a matter of policy, the plaintiff simply makes a spoliation motion.
If the judge grants it, the lack of evidence is viewed by the court in the most damning possible light. Where actual evidence might lead to a more balance ruling, the most damning possible interpretation leads to a maximum judgment against the defendant, since the truth must be pretty awful of they had to delete all records of it.
Just imagine how the cops would react if someone reacted to a police warrant or subpoena the way the police react to anyone else's - obstruct, deny, delay, 'lose' paperwork, 'forget' where the files are kept, etc.
It's just as illegal to violate a public records law as it is to ignore a subpoena, so how is it that people sworn and paid to enforce the law can do it, while those who have no special obligation can't?
Re: Like air guitar, if that could get people killed
It’s Louisiana. It’s not ACTUALLY seen as corruption there until Black Panthers or the KKK are riding around in cop cars in their organization’s uniform.
This is still an improvement. Choke holds have been moved from ‘whenever you feel like it’ to the same conditions that would allow the officer to draw and fire his gun.
It’s not a huge improvement, given how rubber stampish police oversight tends to be about gunfire, but it IS an improvement.
On the post: It Happened Again: Antipiracy Outfit Asks Google To Delist 127.0.0.1 On Behalf Of Ukrainian TV Station
Re: Re: Before even reading the article, I am going to guess
Came here to say exactly that!
On the post: Appeals Court Says No Sovereign Immunity For Turkish Security Forces Who Attacked DC Protesters
Re: Re:
It would be quite amusing if he were to try that while visiting a place with constitutional carry - his guards might well lose that battle.
On the post: Oklahoma Deputies Steal $141,500 From Men Trying To Buy Land, Manage To Make $10,000 Of It Disappear
Re: Re: Re:
A very common myth about the Constitution is that it only protects the rights of citizens - this is where the past rulings that property has no rights, or that foreigners can't have them. It's the basis of the infamous Dred Scott decision.
But that's not what the Constitution actually says, if you actually read it. The Constitution doesn't grant anyone any rights whatsoever, and never has. Instead, it protects rights everyone already had before it was written, by prohibiting the government from ever doing certain things to ANYONE.
It wouldn't matter if property has no rights if a court came at a case from that angle - property may have no rights, but property has an owner, and that owner has the right to not have their property taken without due process of law. Due process that, when it involves the rights of a person, has very well-established meanings.
On the post: Oklahoma Deputies Steal $141,500 From Men Trying To Buy Land, Manage To Make $10,000 Of It Disappear
Re: Re: Re: But DRUUUUUGS!
What astounds me about people like that is they apparently don't realize that when police commit crimes to catch a criminal, they aren't reducing the number of criminals on the streets or the number of unsolved crimes in any way.
Given that almost all of the crimes police commit are felonies due to their possession of a firearm, breaking the law to make a misdemeanor arrest results in a net increase in crime!
On the post: Oklahoma Deputies Steal $141,500 From Men Trying To Buy Land, Manage To Make $10,000 Of It Disappear
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: I don't see why they don't bring a 42 USC 19
True, but here's the thing: It's just as legal for you or I to use force on a cop who resists arrest as it is for a cop to do so to anyone.
Initiating an arrest and knowing the guy might react badly means you have an advantage in reaction speed.
On the post: Home Depot Tech Will Brick Power Tools If They're Stolen. What Could Possibly Go Wrong?
Re: Next Dystopian Evolution
On a bit of a tangent, it wouldn’t be hard to imbed that sort of DRM signal into a city or even national power grid. So long as the frequencies used for data are completely different from those used for power, nothing prevents using the same cable for both.
On the post: Oklahoma Deputies Steal $141,500 From Men Trying To Buy Land, Manage To Make $10,000 Of It Disappear
Re: Re: Re: I don't see why they don't bring a 42 USC 1983 actio
Plus, even if the court agrees the seizure violated your rights, under current US supreme court case law, unless a previous court in the same circuit had already ruled the same way on identical circumstances, the case would be dismissed because cops have qualified immunity.
Courts take the view that it does not matter what a plain English reading of a law says, no law is clearly established until a judge rules on it, and police cannot be expected to know what the law is until it is clearly established.
This is why I’ve been saying for years that lawsuits against cops are a rigged game. But any rights violation you could sue for and win under Title 42, Section 1983 is also a federal crime - as in handcuffs, cell and prison time - under Title 18, Sections 241 & 242. And according to the US Supreme Court, a federal citizens arrest is lawful in any state that a state law citizen’s arrest would be, under the same circumstances (US v. Di Re (1948)). A 100% binding citizen’s arrest can be made with words alone.
On the post: Oklahoma Deputies Steal $141,500 From Men Trying To Buy Land, Manage To Make $10,000 Of It Disappear
Re: Highway robbery isn't gone it's just been made official
Personally, I’m waiting for the day when someone robs a convenience store, attempts to file an asset forfeiture claim with the local court clerk (successfully or not doesn’t matter) and then when caught, uses that asset forfeiture claim as a defense at trial, to prove they didn’t commit armed robbery.
After all, about half the states have actual statutes granting police powers to all citizens, and most of the rest do so by common law. Only one state forbids private citizens from exercising police powers at all.
On the post: Disney Got Itself A 'If You Own A Themepark...' Carveout From Florida's Blatantly Unconstitutional Social Media Moderation Bill
What about other states?
Florida has a 25 acre minimum to be considered a theme park, but other states have different requirements, or none at all.
States are required to recognize the official acts of other states, so if, say, Nevada recognizes a 0.1 acre FacebookLand, wouldn’t that mean Florida must recognize Facebook as operating a theme park?
On the post: Let. The Motherfucker. Burn.
Re: Re: Hypocrisy and bias
I am indeed serious. Every time police feared for their lives, they outnumbered those they feared. But watch carefully next time, what happens when the police are outnumbered by those who are just as scary.
I'll ask you a counter question: Where in the Constitution or anywhere else does it say that you cannot exercise or otherwise possess more than one right at a time? That if you try to exercise two or more at once you lose all of your rights?
Because that's what is being said here and elsewhere - because people exercised two unalienable rights at once, they should be treated as having no rights at all.
The thing you and others miss, is that it is not illegal to have guns. Just like it's not illegal to have cars or books or shoes. Being in possession of completely legal things in a completely legal place, time and manner is not proof of wrongdoing. It's not even a little suspicious.
You don't restore order by attacking people who are obeying the law.
On the post: Let. The Motherfucker. Burn.
Re:
Oh boo hoo, a fascist who is too scared to post using his own name does not like me. Whatever will I do?
Thanks for the compliment fascist. Knowing people like you can't stand me really makes my day brighter.
On the post: Annual Reminder: You Can Probably Just Call The Super Bowl The Super Bowl
Re:
It is kinda circling the drain during the pandemic...
On the post: Indian Government Threatens To Jail Twitter Employees For Restoring Accounts The Government Wants Blocked
Re:
If it weren't, then why are core principles of how the US works copied so much?
On the post: Indian Government Threatens To Jail Twitter Employees For Restoring Accounts The Government Wants Blocked
The solution is simple
Twitter suspends the moderation credentials of any employee who is under threat of illegal retaliation. A suspended employee who cannot login cannot obey the government, and therefore cannot be prosecuted for not obeying.
Eventually there will be no Twitter employees capable of obeying in India, and the only people for the government to go after will be those in other countries, where India has no jurisdiction.
And India won't be able to extradite, because they'd have to cite a lawful reason, such as violating a law - refusing to obey an illegal order is not against the law.
On the post: Various States All Pile On To Push Blatantly Unconstitutional Laws That Say Social Media Can't Moderate
Re:
Kinda makes me tempted to sue DeSantis if this law passes and he makes any kind of campaign ad, since I kinda suspect a political campaign virtual town meeting would count as a forum that this law would regulate.
Proving it doesn't would likely cost enough to keep him from being able to afford reelection...
On the post: Various States All Pile On To Push Blatantly Unconstitutional Laws That Say Social Media Can't Moderate
Re: I mean...
Oh lord, I entirely missed that!
On the post: Michigan State Police Officials Are Dodging Public Records Obligations By Using Encrypted Messaging Apps
The solution is simple:
If the defendants are destroying evidence as a matter of policy, the plaintiff simply makes a spoliation motion.
If the judge grants it, the lack of evidence is viewed by the court in the most damning possible light. Where actual evidence might lead to a more balance ruling, the most damning possible interpretation leads to a maximum judgment against the defendant, since the truth must be pretty awful of they had to delete all records of it.
On the post: NYPD Still Blowing The Public's Money To Keep The Public From Seeing The NYPD's Misconduct Records
Just imagine...
Just imagine how the cops would react if someone reacted to a police warrant or subpoena the way the police react to anyone else's - obstruct, deny, delay, 'lose' paperwork, 'forget' where the files are kept, etc.
It's just as illegal to violate a public records law as it is to ignore a subpoena, so how is it that people sworn and paid to enforce the law can do it, while those who have no special obligation can't?
On the post: Louisiana Legislature Approves Tepid Police 'Reforms' That Won't Do Much To Give The State Better Police
Re: Like air guitar, if that could get people killed
It’s Louisiana. It’s not ACTUALLY seen as corruption there until Black Panthers or the KKK are riding around in cop cars in their organization’s uniform.
On the post: Louisiana Legislature Approves Tepid Police 'Reforms' That Won't Do Much To Give The State Better Police
This is still an improvement. Choke holds have been moved from ‘whenever you feel like it’ to the same conditions that would allow the officer to draw and fire his gun.
It’s not a huge improvement, given how rubber stampish police oversight tends to be about gunfire, but it IS an improvement.
Next >>