There is no evidence that shows "[an] explosion of crime, disease, and violence" in any statistically widespread manner,
Sure. Walgreens is closing all its stores in San Francisco and abandoning the city on a whim. It's not because thieves brazenly walk in EVERY SINGLE DAY, and sweep entire shelves of merchandise into bins and bags and walk out, safe in the knowledge the cops don't arrest for it and the DA doesn't prosecute any more.
And the fact that there's a "poop app" for San Francisco that keeps track of the piles of human feces around town so you know when to be wary doesn't in any way speak to the fact that unsanitary disease-prone conditions are out of control there.
But you keep waiting for some mythical 'evidence' or 'study' to tell you what the rest of us can see with our own eyes and common sense.
I'd argue the strongest claim would be that of the Treasury
since their agents are explicitly tasked to safeguard POTUS
and his surroundings, including relatives.
This encapsulates perfectly how little you actually know about how these things work.
(1) The Treasury Department has no agents who are tasked with protecting the president. That duty belongs to the Secret Service which falls under the Department of Homeland Security, not the Treasury Department.
(2) The only relatives of the president that the USSS is explicitly tasked to protect are the president's spouse and the president's children. Grandkids are not covered in the explicit mandate in 18 USC 3056.
I will guarantee you that should the relative of POTUS have
something stolen the only agency I'm damn sure won't end up
running the investigation will be the local PD.
Yeah, we've already established above how credible your "damn sure guarantees" are on this subject.
I have several family members who will never shop downtown
without very good reason, on account of the parking meters.
I won't go downtown anymore, either, unless I can park in an off-street garage. Leaving your car on the streets of downtown L.A. now, you're about 100% guaranteed to have it broken into by vagrants looking for things to sell for drugs. Some people I know who live downtown have stopped locking their cars so that when the inevitable robberies occur, the thieves at least don't break their windows to do it.
No, it's actually not. It doesn't work that way outside of Hollywood movies.
There's also the case to make that the relative of a sitting president may have written stuff in that diary which exposes bits and pieces of national security. Hence the FBI would start marching to the tune of "counterespionage" rather than "theft".
(1) If the president's grandkid is writing things in her diary that are classified natsec material, then the FBI should actually be investigating criminal charges against her and whoever gave that information to her. That would be a proper use of their jurisdiction.
(2) Regarding the theft itself, that's clearly a matter of state or local jurisdiction and the FBI can liase with them and monitor the investigation for intel, but it simply has no primary jurisdiction in the matter.
Even if it's 100% true and someone did steal it and give it to Veritas, how in the name of Zeus's butthole is that FBI jurisdiction?
If I go next-door and steal my neighbor's diary and she calls the FBI to complain, you know what they would tell her? "Ma'am, that's not in any way, shape, or form a federal offense or our jurisdiction to investigate."
And no, the fact that the victim's creepy granddad is a government official changes nothing about the jurisdictional nature of the crime or gives the FBI jurisdiction where it otherwise has none.
Not only is what the FBI did a massive overreach with regard to the 1st Amendment, the fact that the FBI is investigating a petty theft over which it has no jurisdiction in the first place indicates the agency is being used as a political cudgel by political officials going after their perceived enemies.
for harmless infractions like missing reflectors or riding on a sidewalk
Harmless, huh? I know you guys like to minimize crime so as to make the actions of cops seem more egregious but it's becoming ridiculous.
My next-door neighbor spent the better part of week in the hospital with a fractured skull when he was hit and slammed into a wall by an asshole riding his bike on the sidewalk which is illegal for a reason and far from harmless. And he's not the only one who has been significantly injured by sidewalk-riding cyclists lately. A woman in Manhattan Beach was left with a broken leg and some cracked ribs by a bike-riding idiot on the sidewalk. And the problem is only getting worse with the proliferation of e-bikes that can reach traffic speeds and which are being ridden by kids and teenagers without the maturity to realize how dangerous their behavior is.
Someone tries to force his way into my house brandishing his copy of a EULA, he'll meet my 12-gauge.
We'll see which one wins that skirmish.
It’s not trespassing for someone to go on your property WITH your permission.
One of the rights in the bundle that comes with owning property is that the owner can rescind permission at any time.
If I give someone permission to come into my home to attend a party and he gets drunk and starts acting like boorish asshole, I don't have to let him remain because I gave him permission to enter when arrived. I can rescind that permission and kick his butt out.
If the cops are really running a gang, then George Gascon, our new pro-gang D.A. should be perfectly cool with it, since he issued new directives his first week in office that stopped gang enhancement charges and he dismantled the Hard Core Gang Unit.
Or is it only non-cop gangs that are cool now? It's so hard keeping up with the double-standards and hypocrisies these days.
Which, if not intended as a rebuttal to that point was a weird thing to be typing.
I was pointing out a distinction to a sweeping generality which might explain the behavior of neighborhood orgs that are considering ALPRs, not a rebuttal. How does this not track with you? Are you really this thick or are you just playing stupid for effect and advantage?
2) Non-government actors, such as media outlets,
have no obligation to be neutral on questions of
fact, and do harm by pretending baseless lies
are on an equal footing with scientifically sound
findings
Which is a claim neither I nor this article made. That was just PaulT trying to change the subject to something he felt more comfortable arguing against because he knows arguing for a Ministry of Truth isn't exactly a good look.
And not just a pandemic — since the law defines a public
health emergency so broadly, I wouldn’t put it past a
science-averse future secretary from attempting to
declare discussions about abortion, birth control,
transgender health or whatever else as "misinformation".
Indeed, with the CDC declaring "gun violence" a public health crisis, they could even punish people who go against the government's official position on gun control.
And 'climate change'. There's another hot button issue that's ripe for censorship against anyone who strays from the party line.
Like, what is chain of evidence of photo matching for things not stored in a secured lab?
Why does there need to be a "chain of evidence" (I assume you're actually referring to "chain of custody")?
We're not talking about a court of law here. We're talking about Macy's deciding who they want on their property and who they don't. There's no requirement for a private property owner to maintain a chain of custody for anything before deciding to PNG someone.
It's curious to me that the same people who constantly rail against anyone who complains about social media censorship with "you don't have the right to dictate to a private business who they must tolerate on their platforms" now want "oversight" over private business' use of facial-rec technology when they decide who they want in their stores.
I've been reliably informed in the most smug and condescending ways possible by the commenters here that a private business can kick you off its internet platform for any reason it likes. Well, so can the convenience store down the street.
Re: "regardless of how much they deserve to be there"
No human being deserves to be in a California prison
So what would you do with Charles Manson, then? Or William Bonin, the "Freeway Killer" who raped and murdered 21 women. Or Richard Ramírez. "the Night Stalker", a Los Angeles serial killer, serial rapist, kidnapper, child molester, and burglar.
Just shake your scolding finger at them and say, "Behave"?
This story was posted eight hours after it became widely known that these people were Democrat staffers attempting to smear Youngkin by tying him to fake white supremacists and that's not mentioned anywhere in this NBC News report.
But only Fox News lies and misinforms. Sure, you keep pretending that's true. I decline to fall for your gaslighting.
What's hilarious is that I haven't watched Fox News (or any other cable news channel for that matter) in years. I know you and your sycophants won't believe that, but it's true nevertheless. You're just as wrapped up in your little bubble as anyone else is but for some reason you think you're the only one immune.
On the post: Colorado Appeals Court Says A Drug Dog That Alerts On Now-Legal Weed Can't Create Probable Cause For A Search
New Dogs
So obviously the solution for this is for the various PDs to retire their current canines and train new ones on various drugs without marijuana.
Problem solved.
On the post: AG Bill Barr Pretends The Nation Was Better Off Being Bullied By Cops, Lies About The Success Of 'Tough On Crime' Policies
Re: Re: Re:
Sure. Walgreens is closing all its stores in San Francisco and abandoning the city on a whim. It's not because thieves brazenly walk in EVERY SINGLE DAY, and sweep entire shelves of merchandise into bins and bags and walk out, safe in the knowledge the cops don't arrest for it and the DA doesn't prosecute any more.
And the fact that there's a "poop app" for San Francisco that keeps track of the piles of human feces around town so you know when to be wary doesn't in any way speak to the fact that unsanitary disease-prone conditions are out of control there.
But you keep waiting for some mythical 'evidence' or 'study' to tell you what the rest of us can see with our own eyes and common sense.
On the post: Yes, Even If You Think Project Veritas Are A Bunch Of Malicious Grifters, FBI Raid Is Concerning
Re: Re: Re: Re: Stealing a Diary
This encapsulates perfectly how little you actually know about how these things work.
(1) The Treasury Department has no agents who are tasked with protecting the president. That duty belongs to the Secret Service which falls under the Department of Homeland Security, not the Treasury Department.
(2) The only relatives of the president that the USSS is explicitly tasked to protect are the president's spouse and the president's children. Grandkids are not covered in the explicit mandate in 18 USC 3056.
Yeah, we've already established above how credible your "damn sure guarantees" are on this subject.
On the post: Company Promises 'Seamless Parking Experience' In Exchange For The Permission To Track App Users All Over The Internet
Re: Re:
I won't go downtown anymore, either, unless I can park in an off-street garage. Leaving your car on the streets of downtown L.A. now, you're about 100% guaranteed to have it broken into by vagrants looking for things to sell for drugs. Some people I know who live downtown have stopped locking their cars so that when the inevitable robberies occur, the thieves at least don't break their windows to do it.
On the post: Company Promises 'Seamless Parking Experience' In Exchange For The Permission To Track App Users All Over The Internet
I've Parked Here
I actually parked in this garage in the past. Had the same experience. Some guy telling me to download an app on my phone to pay.
I told him my phone only makes phone calls and doesn't do apps. He was speechless. Really caught him off guard and didn't seem to know what to say.
I said I have cash and a credit card and he's welcome to either one, but that's the only way I have to pay him.
He took the card.
On the post: Yes, Even If You Think Project Veritas Are A Bunch Of Malicious Grifters, FBI Raid Is Concerning
Re: Re: Stealing a Diary
No, it's actually not. It doesn't work that way outside of Hollywood movies.
(1) If the president's grandkid is writing things in her diary that are classified natsec material, then the FBI should actually be investigating criminal charges against her and whoever gave that information to her. That would be a proper use of their jurisdiction.
(2) Regarding the theft itself, that's clearly a matter of state or local jurisdiction and the FBI can liase with them and monitor the investigation for intel, but it simply has no primary jurisdiction in the matter.
On the post: Yes, Even If You Think Project Veritas Are A Bunch Of Malicious Grifters, FBI Raid Is Concerning
Stealing a Diary
Even if it's 100% true and someone did steal it and give it to Veritas, how in the name of Zeus's butthole is that FBI jurisdiction?
If I go next-door and steal my neighbor's diary and she calls the FBI to complain, you know what they would tell her? "Ma'am, that's not in any way, shape, or form a federal offense or our jurisdiction to investigate."
And no, the fact that the victim's creepy granddad is a government official changes nothing about the jurisdictional nature of the crime or gives the FBI jurisdiction where it otherwise has none.
Not only is what the FBI did a massive overreach with regard to the 1st Amendment, the fact that the FBI is investigating a petty theft over which it has no jurisdiction in the first place indicates the agency is being used as a political cudgel by political officials going after their perceived enemies.
On the post: Data Shows LA Sheriff's Department Is Stopping Tons Of Latino Bicyclists, Rarely Finding Anything Illegal
"Harmless Infractions"
Harmless, huh? I know you guys like to minimize crime so as to make the actions of cops seem more egregious but it's becoming ridiculous.
My next-door neighbor spent the better part of week in the hospital with a fractured skull when he was hit and slammed into a wall by an asshole riding his bike on the sidewalk which is illegal for a reason and far from harmless. And he's not the only one who has been significantly injured by sidewalk-riding cyclists lately. A woman in Manhattan Beach was left with a broken leg and some cracked ribs by a bike-riding idiot on the sidewalk. And the problem is only getting worse with the proliferation of e-bikes that can reach traffic speeds and which are being ridden by kids and teenagers without the maturity to realize how dangerous their behavior is.
On the post: Does Copyright Give Companies The Right To Search Your Home And Computer?
Re: Re:
Someone tries to force his way into my house brandishing his copy of a EULA, he'll meet my 12-gauge.
We'll see which one wins that skirmish.
One of the rights in the bundle that comes with owning property is that the owner can rescind permission at any time.
If I give someone permission to come into my home to attend a party and he gets drunk and starts acting like boorish asshole, I don't have to let him remain because I gave him permission to enter when arrived. I can rescind that permission and kick his butt out.
On the post: Survey Confirms Los Angeles Sheriff's Department Is Still Home To Dangerous Gangs, Has No Solid Plan To Eliminate Them
Re: Police: the largest street gang in America
If the cops are really running a gang, then George Gascon, our new pro-gang D.A. should be perfectly cool with it, since he issued new directives his first week in office that stopped gang enhancement charges and he dismantled the Hard Core Gang Unit.
Or is it only non-cop gangs that are cool now? It's so hard keeping up with the double-standards and hypocrisies these days.
On the post: License Plate Reader Company Continues Expansion Into Private Neighborhoods With The Help Of Some Useful Cops
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
I was pointing out a distinction to a sweeping generality which might explain the behavior of neighborhood orgs that are considering ALPRs, not a rebuttal. How does this not track with you? Are you really this thick or are you just playing stupid for effect and advantage?
On the post: The Internet Is Not Facebook; Regulating It As If It Were Will Fuck Things Up
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
Which is a claim neither I nor this article made. That was just PaulT trying to change the subject to something he felt more comfortable arguing against because he knows arguing for a Ministry of Truth isn't exactly a good look.
On the post: The Internet Is Not Facebook; Regulating It As If It Were Will Fuck Things Up
Re: Re: Re: Re:
Who's suggesting that? We're talking about government regulation of speech by declaration of 'misinformation' here, not equal time.
On the post: The Internet Is Not Facebook; Regulating It As If It Were Will Fuck Things Up
Re: Re:
What you are and are not tired of doesn't trump the 1st Amendment.
It doesn't say, "Congress shall make no law... unless PaulT is tired of hearing about something."
On the post: The Internet Is Not Facebook; Regulating It As If It Were Will Fuck Things Up
Indeed, with the CDC declaring "gun violence" a public health crisis, they could even punish people who go against the government's official position on gun control.
And 'climate change'. There's another hot button issue that's ripe for censorship against anyone who strays from the party line.
On the post: Facial Recognition Tech Now Capable Of Getting You Kicked Out Of The Mall
Re: Re: Re: Until
Why does there need to be a "chain of evidence" (I assume you're actually referring to "chain of custody")?
We're not talking about a court of law here. We're talking about Macy's deciding who they want on their property and who they don't. There's no requirement for a private property owner to maintain a chain of custody for anything before deciding to PNG someone.
It's curious to me that the same people who constantly rail against anyone who complains about social media censorship with "you don't have the right to dictate to a private business who they must tolerate on their platforms" now want "oversight" over private business' use of facial-rec technology when they decide who they want in their stores.
I've been reliably informed in the most smug and condescending ways possible by the commenters here that a private business can kick you off its internet platform for any reason it likes. Well, so can the convenience store down the street.
On the post: Facial Recognition Tech Now Capable Of Getting You Kicked Out Of The Mall
Re: "regardless of how much they deserve to be there"
So what would you do with Charles Manson, then? Or William Bonin, the "Freeway Killer" who raped and murdered 21 women. Or Richard Ramírez. "the Night Stalker", a Los Angeles serial killer, serial rapist, kidnapper, child molester, and burglar.
Just shake your scolding finger at them and say, "Behave"?
On the post: License Plate Reader Company Continues Expansion Into Private Neighborhoods With The Help Of Some Useful Cops
Re: Re: Re: Re:
No, I clearly started my comment with:
"Property crime isn't at an all-time low where I live."
On the post: Thanks To Crappy Cable Channel Bundles, Non-Watchers Hugely Subsidize Tucker Carlson And Fox News
Re:
Here's another one:
https://twitter.com/NBC29/status/1454164919826501634?s=20
This story was posted eight hours after it became widely known that these people were Democrat staffers attempting to smear Youngkin by tying him to fake white supremacists and that's not mentioned anywhere in this NBC News report.
But only Fox News lies and misinforms. Sure, you keep pretending that's true. I decline to fall for your gaslighting.
On the post: Thanks To Crappy Cable Channel Bundles, Non-Watchers Hugely Subsidize Tucker Carlson And Fox News
Re: Re:
What's hilarious is that I haven't watched Fox News (or any other cable news channel for that matter) in years. I know you and your sycophants won't believe that, but it's true nevertheless. You're just as wrapped up in your little bubble as anyone else is but for some reason you think you're the only one immune.
Next >>