Select Page
Poker Forum
Over 1,265,000 Posts!
Poker ForumFTR Community

*** The Official CUCKposting thread ***

Page 9 of 9 FirstFirst ... 789
Results 601 to 654 of 654
  1. #601
    OngBonga's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2010
    Posts
    17,105
    Location
    England
    It's NOT a license to insult, defame, slander, harass, or intimidate other people.
    Right, so how come you have a problem with this silly bitch from Stoke getting a slap on the wrists for harassing paramedics doing their job?

    Anyway, free speech is a buzzword that actually means something close to, but not quite, free speech. I interpret the word "free" to be unambiguous, ie it means without condition. As soon as you place just a single condition, however reasonable that condition is, it ceases to be true freedom. Not saying that's a problem, just saying that free speech is a myth.
    Quote Originally Posted by wufwugy View Post
    ongies gonna ong
  2. #602
    OngBonga's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2010
    Posts
    17,105
    Location
    England
    So change the law.
    Yeah, me and my spliff is gonna change the law. Nah I'll just ignore it, I can't be doing with being a freedom fighter for the herb.
    Quote Originally Posted by wufwugy View Post
    ongies gonna ong
  3. #603
    Quote Originally Posted by OngBonga View Post
    Right, so how come you have a problem with this silly bitch from Stoke getting a slap on the wrists for harassing paramedics doing their job?
    Because the paramedics weren't harassed.

    Quote Originally Posted by OngBonga View Post
    Anyway, free speech is a buzzword that actually means something close to, but not quite, free speech. I interpret the word "free" to be unambiguous, ie it means without condition. As soon as you place just a single condition, however reasonable that condition is, it ceases to be true freedom. Not saying that's a problem, just saying that free speech is a myth.
    It only seems like a myth because you see ambiguity in the word "free". But what's actually ambiguous is the word "speech".
  4. #604
    Quote Originally Posted by OngBonga View Post
    Yeah, me and my spliff is gonna change the law. Nah I'll just ignore it, I can't be doing with being a freedom fighter for the herb.
    ^This is why pot is illegal.
  5. #605
    OngBonga's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2010
    Posts
    17,105
    Location
    England
    Quote Originally Posted by BananaStand View Post
    ^This is why pot is illegal.
    Totally. Because I can't be arsed. The law is in my hands, if only I could be arsed.

    I'm a terrible person.

    Because the paramedics weren't harassed.
    That's a matter of opinion. You'd have to ask them their opinion. Did they feel harassed? Perhaps not, I guess the literal definition of "harass" would be to "repeatedly" interfere with their essential community service. Perhaps the paramedics felt intimidated? I don't give a fuck. Silly bitch deserves to be inconvenienced, shamed and fined. If they have to twist the law to make it happen, it wouldn't be the worst abuse of law I've seen.
    Quote Originally Posted by wufwugy View Post
    ongies gonna ong
  6. #606
    OngBonga's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2010
    Posts
    17,105
    Location
    England
    banana, do you think noone is this country is fighting to make weed legal? I think you overestimate the impact an individual can have. I'd go further and say you overestimate the impact a lot of people can have. If I devoted the rest of my life to fighting the law on weed, when it's finally legalised, it won't be because of me.

    So nah, can't be arsed. It'll happen sooner or later, and my life won't change because I'll just do what I was already doing. Smoking.
    Quote Originally Posted by wufwugy View Post
    ongies gonna ong
  7. #607
    Quote Originally Posted by OngBonga View Post
    I'm a terrible person.
    Ok

    Quote Originally Posted by OngBonga View Post
    That's a matter of opinion.
    No it isn't
  8. #608
    Quote Originally Posted by OngBonga View Post
    banana, do you think noone is this country is fighting to make weed legal? I think you overestimate the impact an individual can have. I'd go further and say you overestimate the impact a lot of people can have. If I devoted the rest of my life to fighting the law on weed, when it's finally legalised, it won't be because of me.
    If everyone who thought like you got off their arse, then weed would already be legal.

    Quote Originally Posted by OngBonga View Post
    So nah, can't be arsed. It'll happen sooner or later, and my life won't change because I'll just do what I was already doing. Smoking.
    That's a problem of skin in the game
  9. #609
    OngBonga's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2010
    Posts
    17,105
    Location
    England
    If everyone who thought like you got off their arse, then weed would already be legal.
    Yeah you overestimate the impact lots of peple can have. What can I do? Lobby? Protest? Create my own political party?

    Ignoring the law does actually have an impact. So many people ignore this law that the police can no longer be bothered with it.
    Quote Originally Posted by wufwugy View Post
    ongies gonna ong
  10. #610
    Quote Originally Posted by OngBonga View Post
    Ignoring the law does actually have an impact. So many people ignore this law that the police can no longer be bothered with it.
  11. #611
    OngBonga's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2010
    Posts
    17,105
    Location
    England
    Yep that guy knows how to deal with oppression.
    Quote Originally Posted by wufwugy View Post
    ongies gonna ong
  12. #612
    Lol at banana actually trying to make an issue out of a ditzy bitch getting a little fine and some public shaming for harassing paramedics trying to save someone's life. "ZOMFG this wouldn't happen in America! Freedom! This woman has a right to act like a twat!"

    Maybe you guys have a little too much freedom if that qualifies as oppression to you.
  13. #613
    OngBonga's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2010
    Posts
    17,105
    Location
    England
    I think he's just bored and trolling, but it's fun so I'm game.
    Quote Originally Posted by wufwugy View Post
    ongies gonna ong
  14. #614
    Quote Originally Posted by Poopadoop View Post
    This woman has a right to act like a twat!"
    She does
  15. #615
    My favorite cabal of cucks, The American Psychological Association, strikes again

    https://www.nytimes.com/2018/02/20/o...-shooters.html

    Basically a 21 year old buys a gun and posts ominous shit online. His parents call the cops. The cops call the shrink.

    What the shrink says....
    What options did I have? It was clear to me that he did not have a psychiatric illness that would justify an involuntary hospitalization
    What the shrink does.....
    I ended up admitting this patient,
    A law abiding citizen was deprived of his freedom for two days, without due process. And why.....???

    So the shrink could cover her own ass
    The only advantage of this version of events would be that the order to release the man who might be the next mass shooter would not be signed with my pen.
    And further deprive a law abiding man of his rights without due process
    The one concrete benefit of officially committing him would be that he could be prohibited from buying a gun from any federally licensed retailer.
    She admits that the first reason is entirely selfish and is nowhere near her assigned scope of work. And she either doesn't know, or doesn't care, that the second is an affront to the Constitution. And SHE COMMITS THE GUY ANYWAY!!!
    Last edited by BananaStand; 02-22-2018 at 01:49 PM.
  16. #616
    OngBonga's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2010
    Posts
    17,105
    Location
    England
    I dunno, it's probably fair to say that people posting "ominous shit" on the internet, depending on what that actually entails, shouldn't be allowed guns. I assume "ominous shit" means stuff relevant to the topic of guns, for example, saying he's going to be the next mass shooter, or posing with guns on a significant anniversary of a school shooting.

    Sure it's wrong to restrict his freedom, but if the only way to legally stop him having guns is to lock him up for a day or two, is that really too heavy a price? If it is, change the law so they can use "ominous shit" as justification to take guns off people without having to institutionalise them.
    Quote Originally Posted by wufwugy View Post
    ongies gonna ong
  17. #617
    Quote Originally Posted by OngBonga View Post
    I dunno, it's probably fair to say that people posting "ominous shit" on the internet, depending on what that actually entails, shouldn't be allowed guns.
    No, it's not fair. Not even close. I've posted on here several times about wanting to punch Poopadoop in the face. Does that mean I shouldn't be allowed to have knuckles??

    I assume "ominous shit" means stuff relevant to the topic of guns, for example, saying he's going to be the next mass shooter, or posing with guns on a significant anniversary of a school shooting.
    Every single one of those things is protected by the first amendment of the constitution.

    Sure it's wrong to restrict his freedom, but if the only way to legally stop him having guns is to lock him up for a day or two, is that really too heavy a price?
    Why do we need to "legally stop him from having guns"?

    If it is, change the law so they can use "ominous shit" as justification to take guns off people without having to institutionalise them.
    People have a right to due process. You have to prove that this person is a danger to themselves, or someone else. And being a dick hole on the internet doesn't prove anything.
  18. #618
    Quote Originally Posted by BananaStand View Post
    No, it's not fair. Not even close. I've posted on here several times about wanting to punch Poopadoop in the face.
    Really? Why would you do that?
  19. #619
    MadMojoMonkey's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2012
    Posts
    7,442
    Location
    St Louis, MO
    Quote Originally Posted by BananaStand View Post
    No, it's not fair. Not even close. I've posted on here several times about wanting to punch Poopadoop in the face. Does that mean I shouldn't be allowed to have knuckles??
    No, it means you're a complaint away from getting a warning and/or temp ban on FTR.
    If the people to whom you are directing your vitriolic, non-sequitur, not-even-really-veiled threats decide they're sick of you, then I'm on their side.

    Quote Originally Posted by BananaStand View Post
    Every single one of those things is protected by the first amendment of the constitution.
    SCOTUS has repeatedly ruled that using "fighting words" is equivalent to fighting.
    I.e. using language which is intended to incite a fight is the same as throwing the first punch.
  20. #620
    Quote Originally Posted by wufwugy View Post
    Really? Why would you do that?
    He knows why
  21. #621
    Quote Originally Posted by MadMojoMonkey View Post
    SCOTUS has repeatedly ruled that using "fighting words" is equivalent to fighting.
    I.e. using language which is intended to incite a fight is the same as throwing the first punch.
    There most definitely has to be more to this. Like the "fighting words" have to have some kind of credibility.

    If it were as simple as you're making it sound, why isn't Madonna in jail for threatening to blow up the White House?
  22. #622
    Quote Originally Posted by BananaStand View Post
    He knows why
    But I don't. Explain.
  23. #623
    Quote Originally Posted by wufwugy View Post
    But I don't. Explain.
    Relax, the threats were hyperbolic and not sincere
  24. #624
    OngBonga's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2010
    Posts
    17,105
    Location
    England
    No, it's not fair. Not even close. I've posted on here several times about wanting to punch Poopadoop in the face. Does that mean I shouldn't be allowed to have knuckles??
    Yeah, and how many other people on the internet beat their chest? Millions. How many people are posting "ominous shit" in the context of school shootings? I'd like to know what he was actually posting, tbh, because if he's just being a dick in the heat of an argument, I'd be inclined to agree with you. But if he's posting links to articles on Columbine, while posing with his guns, that doesn't concern you?

    Every single one of those things is protected by the first amendment of the constitution.
    Fuck me, not so long ago you were saying that the 1st Amendment doesn't give you the right to shout "FIRE" in a crowded theatre. But it's ok to say "I'm gonna shoot kids"? Your idea of free speech is messed up.

    Why do we need to "legally stop him from having guns"?
    I dunno, what is this "ominous shit"?

    People have a right to due process. You have to prove that this person is a danger to themselves, or someone else. And being a dick hole on the internet doesn't prove anything.
    It might prove mental instability, in some cases.
    Quote Originally Posted by wufwugy View Post
    ongies gonna ong
  25. #625
    MadMojoMonkey's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2012
    Posts
    7,442
    Location
    St Louis, MO
    Quote Originally Posted by BananaStand View Post
    There most definitely has to be more to this. Like the "fighting words" have to have some kind of credibility.

    If it were as simple as you're making it sound, why isn't Madonna in jail for threatening to blow up the White House?
    I spent hours digging up this link for you, so I understand why it was so hard for you to figure this out on your own.

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fighti...#United_States
  26. #626
    Quote Originally Posted by BananaStand View Post
    Relax, the threats were hyperbolic and not sincere
    Does he know that.

    I know New Englanders talk that way. Most other people don't.
  27. #627
    Quote Originally Posted by MadMojoMonkey View Post
    I spent hours digging up this link for you, so I understand why it was so hard for you to figure this out on your own.

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fighti...#United_States
    I got three sentences in and can already see this is irrelevant.

    Saying "I wanna shoot a school someday" is not an "immediate breach of the peace"


    Also you still haven't answered my question....if we're gonna lock up this 21 year old for boasting online, why is Madonna a free woman??
  28. #628
    MadMojoMonkey's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2012
    Posts
    7,442
    Location
    St Louis, MO
    Quote Originally Posted by BananaStand View Post
    I got three sentences in and can already see this is irrelevant.

    Saying "I wanna shoot a school someday" is not an "immediate breach of the peace"


    Also you still haven't answered my question....if we're gonna lock up this 21 year old for boasting online, why is Madonna a free woman??
    lol.

    You're adorable, you know.

    The answer to your question is in the reading, but I understand that you needed a lie-down after 3 long sentences.
    Maybe take a nap and come back at it again later. I have faith in you, tiger.
  29. #629
    Quote Originally Posted by MadMojoMonkey View Post
    lol.

    You're adorable, you know.

    The answer to your question is in the reading, but I understand that you needed a lie-down after 3 long sentences.
    Maybe take a nap and come back at it again later. I have faith in you, tiger.
    Dude, the author of the piece even admitted that the law isn't on her side.
  30. #630
    OngBonga's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2010
    Posts
    17,105
    Location
    England
    banana probably has a point that Madonna should be locked up for a day or two though, while they assess her mental health and determine if she's a genuine threat or not.
    Quote Originally Posted by wufwugy View Post
    ongies gonna ong
  31. #631
    MadMojoMonkey's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2012
    Posts
    7,442
    Location
    St Louis, MO
    Quote Originally Posted by BananaStand View Post
    Dude, the author of the piece even admitted that the law isn't on her side.
    You mean the article which I haven't expressed a single thought on, don't you?
    You think I've made some commentary on the stupid topic you brought up and not the stupid things you've said which I've quoted, don't you?

    I get that you can't follow a thread of thought for more than a post or two though, since most people are so rude that they use more than 3 sentences to make a point.
  32. #632
    I love how every argument between Mojo and banana degenerates into a poo flinging contest after about 3 posts.
  33. #633
    OngBonga's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2010
    Posts
    17,105
    Location
    England
    Are you calling me paranoid? Fuck you.
    Quote Originally Posted by wufwugy View Post
    ongies gonna ong
  34. #634
    Quote Originally Posted by MadMojoMonkey View Post
    You mean the article which I haven't expressed a single thought on, don't you?
    You think I've made some commentary on the stupid topic you brought up and not the stupid things you've said which I've quoted, don't you?

    I get that you can't follow a thread of thought for more than a post or two though, since most people are so rude that they use more than 3 sentences to make a point.
    Ok fine. let's play this fucking stupid game.

    You made commentary on some commetns of mine that you quoted.

    My comments were in response to Ong's comments

    Ong's comments echoed exactly what was in the article

    Therefore, by way of the transitive property, my comments on what is protected speech also reference the article, where it was stated definitively that the statements made, which Ong inadvertently quoted/paraphrased, are not illegal.

    Then you chimed in saying "nyah nyah, they are illegal, nyah". Which is obviously wrong, as demonstrated by the statements of someone who's job it is to make these exact determinations.

    Did I follow that thread of thought through enough posts for you?? We on the same page now Polly?
  35. #635
    Quote Originally Posted by Poopadoop View Post
    I love how every argument between Mojo and banana degenerates into a poo flinging contest after about 3 posts.
    It wouldn't happen if he made JUST ONE on-topic post. I would give him credit for being a TREMENDOUS troll if he wasn't actually serious about splitting hairs over stupid irrelevant nonsense.
  36. #636
    MadMojoMonkey's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2012
    Posts
    7,442
    Location
    St Louis, MO
    You're not wrong about the article, you're wrong about how anything you've said in FTR is protected by the first amendment.

    If you can't recognize that a bad argument does more to undermine your position than support it, then it is what it is.

    If you think that someone pointing out that one argument you've made is incorrect means they think your greater point is incorrect, then I'm not surprised that you're always on the defensive.
  37. #637
    Quote Originally Posted by MadMojoMonkey View Post
    You're not wrong about the article, you're wrong about how anything you've said in FTR is protected by the first amendment.
    I didn't say that. If this is the crux of your argument, you're hallucinating and delusional.
  38. #638
    MadMojoMonkey's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2012
    Posts
    7,442
    Location
    St Louis, MO
    Quote Originally Posted by BananaStand View Post
    I didn't say that. If this is the crux of your argument, you're hallucinating and delusional.
    Adorable.

    Quote Originally Posted by BananaStand View Post
    I've posted on here several times about wanting to punch Poopadoop in the face. Does that mean I shouldn't be allowed to have knuckles??
  39. #639
    I didn't mention the first amendment, or it's protections, anywhere in that quote. Are you on LSD??

    here's the actual exchange.. Check it out once you sober up.

    Ong
    I assume "ominous shit" means stuff relevant to the topic of guns, for example, saying he's going to be the next mass shooter, or posing with guns on a significant anniversary of a school shooting.
    Me
    Every single one of those things is protected by the first amendment of the constitution
    Last edited by BananaStand; 02-22-2018 at 04:38 PM.
  40. #640
    MadMojoMonkey's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2012
    Posts
    7,442
    Location
    St Louis, MO
    OK, so that line of your quote was meant to be taken completely separately from your assertion that someone saying they're going to be the next mass shooter is protected speech?
    You weren't saying that the person has every right to threaten to shoot up a school because you have the same right to threaten people in public?

    How silly of me to think that your 2 consecutive lines of text in the same post were on the same subject.
  41. #641
    Quote Originally Posted by MadMojoMonkey View Post
    OK, so that line of your quote was meant to be taken completely separately from your assertion that someone saying they're going to be the next mass shooter is protected speech?
    THere were actually 4 separate points in that post. All in response to 4 different points that Ong made. They're all separated neatly so you can follow each exchange easily. Do you need extra help with this?

    You weren't saying that the person has every right to threaten to shoot up a school because you have the same right to threaten people in public?
    The Ong quote, to which I was responding, makes no mention of 'threatening to shoot up a school'. He mentioned posing with guns, celebrating the anniversary of a shooting, and expressing vague aspirations of being a mass shooter. All of those are protected speech. I assume you're laser-focused on the aspirations of being a mass shooter. But that's not "threatening to shoot up a school". It actually doesn't even mention a school. And it's not even a threat. It mentions no specific target, or time, or place, or anything.

    How silly of me to think that your 2 consecutive lines of text in the same post were on the same subject.
    Next time be smarter.
  42. #642
    OngBonga's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2010
    Posts
    17,105
    Location
    England
    All of those are protected speech.
    Ok, but it's ok for gun controls to discriminate against mentally ill people, in the interest of public safety, even though it's obviously unfair to discriminate against people for something they can't help.

    Here you're suggesting gun laws shouldn't discriminate against people who choose to post "ominous shit", which I admit is a phrase I really like, even though this is a conscious choice and can be a caveat of gun control laws... ie, warn people that if they post "ominous shit" (and perhaps they should define this legally), then they lose their guns. Why is that any different to "if you go crazy, you lose your guns" or "if you go blind, you lose your driving license", or "if you lose control of your bladder, you can't sleep in my bed"?
    Quote Originally Posted by wufwugy View Post
    ongies gonna ong
  43. #643
    Quote Originally Posted by OngBonga View Post
    "if you lose control of your bladder, you can't sleep in my bed"?
    This is why people outside America know nothing about freedom. You have a RIGHT to wet someone else's bed! Goddamn it!
  44. #644
    OngBonga's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2010
    Posts
    17,105
    Location
    England
    I just find it hard to imagine how on the one hand you say people shouldn't have an A-15 because there's just no civilian use for it that isn't better served by another gun (fair point), while on the other hand you've got no problem with someone posting on twitter an image of them posing with guns on the anniversary of Sandy Hook with the caption "next mass killer", or at least not enough of a problem to take his guns away and, dare I say it, his freedom for a day or two while he's looked into.

    Quote Originally Posted by banana
    It's NOT a license to insult, defame, slander, harass, or intimidate other people.
    But it is a license to say "ima shoot kids yo" while posing with guns.

    You need to reasses your free speech ideals.
    Quote Originally Posted by wufwugy View Post
    ongies gonna ong
  45. #645
    Quote Originally Posted by OngBonga View Post
    I just find it hard to imagine how on the one hand you say people shouldn't have an A-15 because there's just no civilian use for it that isn't better served by another gun (fair point),
    Let me be abundantly clear. In a vacuum, I am wholeheartedly against this. However, in the real world, I understand that congress is going to do *something*. This is merely the least offensive of all proposed remedies. Don't confuse that opinion with support for the measure.

    I actually thought I expressed that quite clearly

    while on the other hand you've got no problem with someone posting on twitter an image of them posing with guns on the anniversary of Sandy Hook with the caption "next mass killer",
    That's right, I have no problem with it. Free speech isn't always pleasant. I have no legal objection to the KKK celebrating the holocaust.

    or at least not enough of a problem to take his guns away and, dare I say it, his freedom for a day or two while he's looked into
    .
    This sounds like the defeated submissive easily oppressed attitude of a country that's spent the last 250 years getting its imperial ass kicked. Here in winner-town, people have rights that are "INALIENABLE". Not for two days, not for two fucking minutes. And DEFINITELY not without due process.


    But it is a license to say "ima shoot kids yo" while posing with guns
    MadMojoPolly already posted the link to the SCOTUS decision that would explain when and how this would be a credible, and therefore illegal, form of intimidation.
  46. #646
    Trump ain't stupid. He keeps using a word that no one else seems to be, but it's really important.

    Coward

    He keeps emphasizing the obvious common thread that all mass murderers are cowards.

    It's a compelling case for deterrence
  47. #647
    Quote Originally Posted by OngBonga View Post


    It might prove mental instability, in some cases.
    Please tell me the double meaning was intentional.
  48. #648
    OngBonga's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2010
    Posts
    17,105
    Location
    England
    Quote Originally Posted by banana
    I actually thought I expressed that quite clearly
    You did, I'm a stoner with a terrible memory. Cut me some slack.

    That's right, I have no problem with it. Free speech isn't always pleasant. I have no legal objection to the KKK celebrating the holocaust.
    Nor do I, in fairness. I'm not actually arguing for a law that says they can't post "ominous shit" on twitter. I'm arguing these people shouldn't have guns.

    This sounds like the defeated submissive easily oppressed attitude of a country that's spent the last 250 years getting its imperial ass kicked.
    Um cmon, it's not even a century since we really lost it. Suez crisis, that's probably the point where the British Empire was finally over.

    Here in winner-town, people have rights that are "INALIENABLE". Not for two days, not for two fucking minutes. And DEFINITELY not without due process.
    Same here. Is that the actual real world though? Are you suggesting that not a single person in USA has had their "inalienable" rights violated? Behind the smoke and mirrors, unconstitutional shit is going on all the time. Our countries really aren't that different to one another. On the surface it's all hell yeah, winner winner chicken dinner. Deep down it's corrupt and oppressive. The difference is I know it, whereas you don't seem to. You see it in UK, but not your beloved USFA.
    Quote Originally Posted by wufwugy View Post
    ongies gonna ong
  49. #649
    OngBonga's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2010
    Posts
    17,105
    Location
    England
    Quote Originally Posted by boost View Post
    Please tell me the double meaning was intentional.
    I smiled to myself when I read it back, but then thought "well I could be the crazy one".
    So perhaps it's a triple meaning.
    Quote Originally Posted by wufwugy View Post
    ongies gonna ong
  50. #650
    MadMojoMonkey's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2012
    Posts
    7,442
    Location
    St Louis, MO
    In America, certain rights are suspended pending due process, as well.
    I.e. the police officer who arrests you is well within his rights to cuff you, search you, put you in a holding cell, etc. even though the trial hasn't happened yet.

    In Missouri, the police have the right to arrest and detain anyone and they have up to 20 hours to file charges.
  51. #651
    Quote Originally Posted by MadMojoMonkey View Post
    In America, certain rights are suspended pending due process, as well.
    I.e. the police officer who arrests you is well within his rights to cuff you, search you, put you in a holding cell, etc. even though the trial hasn't happened yet.
    "due process" means more than a trial. The cop can't do any of that shit to you without a warrant or probable cause. Both of those things are part of due process.

    In the article I linked, the shrink ADMITS she did not have probable cause to involuntarily hospitalie this man, and she did anyway. She did so because SHE (not a judge, or a jury) decided that it would be cool if he wasn't allowed to buy a gun, and because it eased her own conscience in case she was wrong.

    If you think that's a fair application of due process, please move to Canada.

    Quote Originally Posted by MadMojoMonkey View Post
    In Missouri, the police have the right to arrest and detain anyone anyone named in a warrant, or who has given the police probable cause to arrest them, and they have up to 20 hours to file charges.
    FYP
  52. #652
    MadMojoMonkey's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2012
    Posts
    7,442
    Location
    St Louis, MO
    It's a good fix, but not the whole story. It's common in many places ('round here, anyways) for police to pick up known teenage hoodlums on a Fri or Sat and hold them for 20 hours, knowing they have no charge to file.

    I suspect this is because teenagers are minors, and these particular teenagers have shit parents who don't give a crap that their kid's rights are being violated because it means they don't have to deal with the kid for a day. (pure conjecture, I admit)

    E.g. they (police) recognize a vehicle, pull it over, despite no traffic violations, find nothing to write a ticket about and arrest and detain the person for 20 hours anyway.
    This is legal, despite the obvious open door to police harassment, because a police officer's probable cause is 100% subjective.

    I think it should be 100% subjective, because we need to trust our police to use their best judgement and to notice subtle things and take them seriously... that's going to lead to some false flags, and most of the time, that's fine.
  53. #653
    Quote Originally Posted by MadMojoMonkey View Post
    It's a good fix, but not the whole story. It's common in many places ('round here, anyways) for police to pick up known teenage hoodlums on a Fri or Sat and hold them for 20 hours, knowing they have no charge to file.

    I suspect this is because teenagers are minors, and these particular teenagers have shit parents who don't give a crap that their kid's rights are being violated because it means they don't have to deal with the kid for a day. (pure conjecture, I admit)

    E.g. they (police) recognize a vehicle, pull it over, despite no traffic violations, find nothing to write a ticket about and arrest and detain the person for 20 hours anyway.
    This is legal, despite the obvious open door to police harassment, because a police officer's probable cause is 100% subjective.

    I think it should be 100% subjective, because we need to trust our police to use their best judgement and to notice subtle things and take them seriously... that's going to lead to some false flags, and most of the time, that's fine.
    I find everything in this post extremely hard to believe.
  54. #654
    Quote Originally Posted by OngBonga View Post
    I smiled to myself when I read it back, but then thought "well I could be the crazy one".
    So perhaps it's a triple meaning.
    Ha, the addition of the self deprecating option makes it even better.

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •