Show Comments That Contain...
  • On 16 Sep 2014 in Expensive engagement rings are a scam, Dan8267 said:

    Call it Crazy says

    I'm sure your boyfriend wouldn't appreciate you being such a cheap bastard...

    Leave your son out of this.

  • On 16 Sep 2014 in Expensive engagement rings are a scam, Dan8267 said:

    Palm Beach Jewelry $50

    It doesn't have to be expensive to be beautiful.

  • On 16 Sep 2014 in Don't fuck with America., Dan8267 said:

    Strategist says

    Don't fuck with America.

    Bankers fuck with America all the time and get away with it.

  • On 16 Sep 2014 in Don't fuck with America., Dan8267 said:

    Strategist says

    he rouble fell to a new all-time low against the US dollar amid concerns about the effect of sanctions on the country's economy.

    Well, that will just increase Russia's exports. American economists are always proclaiming that a weak dollar is good for our exports and our economy.

    It's funny how the same economists can call the same phenomenon good or bad depending on what they are selling.

  • On 16 Sep 2014 in Just show the damn ID. This was made for Dan., Dan8267 said:

    CDon says

    You didn't, which is part of the problem. You use the words "reasonable suspicion" that's a very specific term of art under the 4th amendment.

    That term is also used in state law. I was quite clear. See
    Dan8267 says

    LA Times

    Do you have to show an ID whenever an official asks for one?

    No. In California, police cannot arrest someone merely for refusing to provide ID.

    Police can always ask for identification, just like they can ask if you'll step over and answer a few questions, or if they can search your bag or come into your house. But just because they can ask doesn't mean you have to allow them to see your ID.

    If you don't want to provide identification, you can politely say you do not want to do so and ask if you are free to go.

    CDon says

    There was no arrest here.

    Regardless of what you call it, placing a civilian in handcuffs is by definition arrest.

    See

    A seizure or forcible restraint; an exercise of the power to deprive a person of his or her liberty; the taking or keeping of a person in custody by legal authority, especially, in response to a criminal charge.

    Placing a person in handcuffs is the quintessential example of literal "forcible restraint".

    CDon says

    you can audit a law school class in crim pro.

    I'm sure I could, but one doesn't have to attend law school to know the law. It is a fact that in California a person does not have to hand over their identification at the order of a cop. If you think this factual statement is wrong than explain, in detail, why the LA Times article is wrong. It's wording is pretty darn clear.

    CDon says

    legal custodial interrogation.

    The officer may detain a person for question, but that person does not have to answer any questions and does not have to hand over an ID. That's the law in CA. In other states it varies, but this event took place in CA.

    However, placing a person under arrest crosses a line. To place a person under arrest for simply not giving ID, which is indisputably the case in this story, is illegal. Arrest and interrogation is not the same thing.

    Furthermore, a person has the right to have a lawyer present during any police interrogation in any state. If you demand a lawyer and the police continue to interrogate you without one present, they have violated the law.

    Again, one does not have to have a law degree to understand the basics of our legal system. Every citizen should understand these things.

    I stand by my statements, not a one of which is factual inaccurate.

  • On 16 Sep 2014 in We've All Been There: Florida man chokes wife over lack of fried chicken, Dan8267 said:

    Blurtman says

    We've All Been There: Florida man chokes wife over lack of fried chicken

    Why does this shit always happen in Florida?

    Oh yeah,

  • On 16 Sep 2014 in Out of control cop may have attacked wrong kid, Dan8267 said:

    From the article

    However, witnesses describe a different scene. "The cop was like, 'you want to mess with me,' and pulled out his Taser and tased him. I thought he shot him. Then he pulled him out of the car handcuffed him and drug him around the car," witness Michelle Baker said.

    The kid's dad is a cop with the Kansas City Police Department and the Masters' family has asked The Justice Department to step in and lead an investigation of the Independence MO Police Department.

    Yep, and that's the real reason this one criminal cop might face real charges. He broke the prime directive of the police. You can abuse any civilian you want except other cops and their family.

    The lords always protect themselves even from other lords.

  • On 16 Sep 2014 in Out of control cop may have attacked wrong kid, Dan8267 said:

    Call it Crazy says

    How come Dan didn't post this?

    There are tens of thousands of stories every day about criminal cops committing felonies. I can't get to them all. Hell, I don't even look for them. They are so plentiful that I stumble across them while watching cat videos.

  • On 16 Sep 2014 in The young are leaving religion behind, Dan8267 said:

    tovarichpeter says

    The young are leaving religion behind

  • On 16 Sep 2014 in Just show the damn ID. This was made for Dan., Dan8267 said:

    thunderlips11 says

    Your probable cause remark reminded me of this.

    Yes, most cops are crooked and will plant false evidence. But that's an entirely different matter.

    This thread has been a debate about whether or not this woman in California broke the law, and could be legally arrested, by refusing to give her ID. The cold, hard, indisputable fact is that NO, she did not break any laws; the cop did.

  • On 16 Sep 2014 in Just show the damn ID. This was made for Dan., Dan8267 said:

    Strategist says

    So the legal experts are wrong according to you.

    You sound like someone who makes up the law just to suit yourself.

    The law is what it is. I can find plenty of legal experts who know what the law is. Anyone telling you that a person in CA is legally obligated to hand over ID to a cop without probable cause is simply lying or mistaken.

    From the mother-fucking LA Times

    Do you have to show an ID whenever an official asks for one?

    No. In California, police cannot arrest someone merely for refusing to provide ID.

    Police can always ask for identification, just like they can ask if you'll step over and answer a few questions, or if they can search your bag or come into your house. But just because they can ask doesn't mean you have to allow them to see your ID.

    If you don't want to provide identification, you can politely say you do not want to do so and ask if you are free to go.

    Game, set, match

    Again, you may think the law should be changed, but the law is exactly what it is. And in this particular case, the law is not on the side of the officer. It cannot be plainer.

  • On 16 Sep 2014 in Just show the damn ID. This was made for Dan., Dan8267 said:

    CDon says

    4th amendment allows and does not allow.

    When did I mention the 4th Amendment?

    I stated that CA state law does not require citizens to identify themselves at the mere demand of an office. There are some states that require citizens to do so and other states that do not. CA is one that does not. This is a cold, hard fact. Whether or not you like that law, doesn't change what the law is.

    I live in FL, a state that does require identification regardless of the situation. I don't like that law, but I obey it because it is the law. The police also are require to obey the laws even if they don't like it. The fact remains that the cop in this article broke the law by using arrest to force a citizen to give up her ID in a state where that is not allowed.

  • On 16 Sep 2014 in Just show the damn ID. This was made for Dan., Dan8267 said:

    dodgerfanjohn says

    The cop was there on a lewd conduct call. After seeing the couple in the car engaged in intimate behavior, probably cause exits. This is what the law says.

    Now you're just making shit up. Getting an unverified call that a couple in engaging in sex in a car -- which there is no evidence is the truth -- is not probable cause by any standard. By that criteria, if I call the police and tell them I think you're cooking meth in your house, they have probable cause to bust in your door at 2 a.m. with a swat team.

    Oh, and if you think that's a ridiculous example, you're wrong.

    Probable Cause:

    Probable cause is the legal standard by which a police officer has the right to make an arrest, conduct a personal or property search, or obtain a warrant for arrest. While many factors contribute to a police officer’s level of authority in a given situation, probable cause requires facts or evidence that would lead a reasonable person to believe that a suspect has committed a crime.

    Note the phrasing, "has committed" not "might have committed". This standard is not met which is why the police did not file charges. If they had, they would have gotten their asses sued off.

    P.S.

    The Dodgers suck.

  • On 16 Sep 2014 in 10 Worst States To Be a Woman, Dan8267 said:

    FortWayne says

    This is one of the stupidest articles I've ever read. Dan, this article is just mentally retarded.

    Please expand on exactly how it is "retarded", noting that retarded doesn't mean "something you personally disagree with".

  • On 16 Sep 2014 in Just show the damn ID. This was made for Dan., Dan8267 said:

    Strategist says

    Your proposals would result in no cops leading to criminals in control of society. That is asymmetry.

    Pure, unfounded conjecture. We do not have to choose between anarchy and a police state. That is a false dichotomy.

  • On 16 Sep 2014 in Just show the damn ID. This was made for Dan., Dan8267 said:

    The Professor says

    Should we also require travel papers verifying that we have a "legitimate" need to be on the street?

    I agree that "show me your papers" smacks of Nazism and other police states. It's not the kind of country that most Americans want to live in.

    But importantly, the police cannot be allowed to create law on the spot at their whims. There is a reason we separate the legislative branch from the executive branch.

    This cop, like many others, was inventing his own laws on the spot. We should not tolerate this.

  • On 16 Sep 2014 in Just show the damn ID. This was made for Dan., Dan8267 said:

    dodgerfanjohn says

    I'm not sure why you, someone who seems to pride themselves on posting rational thoughts based on factual foundation, continues to object to a cops behavior that is not built on a factually true foundation.

    Just because you say there is no factually true foundation doesn't make it so. According to the article, the cop was called in on a civilian report of alleged prostitution. As you just admitted, the cop had no such suspicion at the scene. You are agreeing with me on the facts.

    According to California law, like it or not, a civilian is not legally obligated to produce ID or identify himself to a cop merely because the cop wants ID. According to the law, the police must have a reasonable suspicion that a crime had been committed. This cop, as you have just admitted, did not.

    My foundations are quite factual. If you think I have misrepresented some truth then specifically state what fact you believe I got wrong.

  • On 16 Sep 2014 in Just show the damn ID. This was made for Dan., Dan8267 said:

    Strategist says

    Rubbish. The cop asked her boyfriend for the ID too. He treated them both equally, but only she had a problem complying.

    What you are saying is irrelevant to what I am saying.

    The cop did not have any suspicion that she was a prostitute. This is obvious from his behavior in the video. He was going on a power trip and that is NOT the intent of the law.

    Strategist says

    As per the article, legal experts have concluded the cop did the right thing.

    Appeal to authority means nothing. Any ethical court would conclude that the police had no authority to place this woman under arrest, which he did when he handcuffed her, for not showing her ID because the law in California states that people do not have to identify themselves if there isn't a reasonable suspicion that they have committed a crime.

    Anonymous hearsay is not reasonable suspicion. Nor is the desire of a cop to demonstrate his authority. Not even you are dumb enough to believe this cop really thought she was a prostitute when he arrested her.

    If you want to make the argument that there should be a national law requiring people to carry ID at all times and to present them to cops at any time including random questioning, then have the balls and the honesty to make that argument. It is disingenuous to argue that in this particular case, the officer had any reasonable reason to believe that this woman might be a prostitute and that he needed her ID to somehow confirm this. That's a bold-face lie.

  • On 16 Sep 2014 in Landmark Fracking Study Finds No Water Pollution, Dan8267 said:

    Dan8267 says

    But leprechaun cum is not real.

    Most likely the first time that sentence has been uttered.

  • On 16 Sep 2014 in Landmark Fracking Study Finds No Water Pollution, Dan8267 said:

    Straw Man says

    Stop grabbing at straws

    article says

    But the DOE report is far from the last word on the subject. The Energy Department monitored six wells at one site, but oil or gas drilling at other locations around the nation could show different results because of variations in geology or drilling practices. Environmentalists and regulators have also documented numerous cases where surface spills of chemicals or wastewater damaged drinking water supplies.

    That's a pretty fucking big straw.

    Straw Man says

    admit that you have been had at least twice: once by RT you touted as legitimate source of information and second time by Gazprom-sponsored "documentaries". :P

    I don't know what you are talking about.

    I've stated that RT News covers real news in America that American media doesn't cover. I stand by that statement. I've also said that RT News can't cover real news on Russia. I stand by that statement as well. I speculated that no news agency can do a truly good job at covering news in its home country because of politics and sponsorship. I haven't heard any counter-arguments to this guess.

    I've stated that the "flaming facets" story was deliberate deception and is worthy of great ridicule. Yes, like most people, I had thought those stories were for real until I heard the reason those facets spewed fire was because of natural deposits of methane and that the fire-spewing facets existed long before fracking.

    I've also stated that no one should tolerate false arguments that support their position. If one's position cannot be sustained on truthful arguments, then one should change his position, not the facts.

    I am married to no idea, policy, or position. I'll gladly do a 180 if, and only if, the evidence or reasoning supports doing so. If there were a magic source of energy, say leprechaun cum, that would solve the world's energy crisis without polluting then I'd be the first to embrace leprechaun cum even if only big corporations profited from it. But leprechaun cum is not real.

    It is ludicrous to believe that we can pump millions of gallons of toxins into the ground and those toxins will never make their way back into our environment. Plate tectonics alone ensures that anything buried eventually comes back.

    The real question is why you are so gun-ho on fracking. At best, it is a stop-gap measure. It's still fossil fuel, which means it takes millions of years to create what we burn in a few years, and therefore is not sustainable. Furthermore, the longer mankind relies on fossil fuels, the greater the dependency and thus the greater the world-wide financial collapse will be when they run out. Fossil fuels make no economic sense. Even if you don't give a shit about the environment -- and only a fool would -- your desire to economic prosperity should be sufficient to want to get mankind off of fossil fuels.

    The only reason I can think of that people who do not stand to profit themselves are so gun-ho about fracking is that they see it as a victory in the culture war of cowboys vs. hippies. Well, that's a stupid reason to be for or against anything.

    And the world isn't divided into cowboys and hippies. I'm neither, and I'm disgusted by both. I'm an engineer, and I think like an engineer. When I ponder an environmental issue, I'm thinking about the science and the real-world consequences, not some stupid culture war.

  • On 16 Sep 2014 in Landmark Fracking Study Finds No Water Pollution, Dan8267 said:

    4 states confirm water pollution from drilling

    Extracting fuel from shale formations requires pumping hundreds of thousands of gallons of water, sand and chemicals into the ground to break apart rock and free the gas. Some of that water, along with large quantities of existing underground water, returns to the surface, and it can contain high levels of salt, drilling chemicals, heavy metals and naturally occurring low-level radiation.

    The bottom line is that if the corporations put heavy metals and other toxins into the ground and don't remove and decompose all of these toxins, then by definition they are polluting. Eventually that pollution will make it's way back into the environment. It doesn't magically disappear because you stop tracking it after three months.

    So, will the corporations remove their toxins from the environment once they have achieved their fracking goals? No. It would be way too damn expensive to do or even develop technology to do this. This is yet another example of corporations STEALING from the rest of us via pollution. Theft should not be tolerated.

  • On 16 Sep 2014 in Landmark Fracking Study Finds No Water Pollution, Dan8267 said:

    Straw Man says

    So much for Gazprom-sponsored bullshit about dangers of fracking which our useful idiots gladly lapped up.

    From article,

    But the DOE report is far from the last word on the subject. The Energy Department monitored six wells at one site, but oil or gas drilling at other locations around the nation could show different results because of variations in geology or drilling practices. Environmentalists and regulators have also documented numerous cases where surface spills of chemicals or wastewater damaged drinking water supplies.

    Why read the article when the title supports your political agenda?

  • On 16 Sep 2014 in Just show the damn ID. This was made for Dan., Dan8267 said:

    Blurtman says

    Actually, the way the story was written, the cop sounded pretty cool and she sounded like an asshole.

    Irrelevant. It's not illegal to be an asshole. If it were, half the people on Patrick.net would be behind bars.

  • On 16 Sep 2014 in Just show the damn ID. This was made for Dan., Dan8267 said:

    Strategist says

    The possibility of a crime taking place was very reasonable.

    A racist calls in saying he sees a black woman with a white man, therefore the black woman must be a prostitute. And that's your criteria for "reasonable suspicion"? If that's the standard then the law should be changed so that cops can't act on reasonable suspicion.

    And you have to be a complete idiot to believe that cop had ANY doubt that this woman wasn't a prostitute after talking to her for a minute. Even the cop with the least detective skills would have figured out that she's not a prostitute when she got upset over her civil rights being abused. Cops know how to read people, and this cop didn't want to see her ID because it would tell her whether or not she is committing prostitution. This cop wanted her ID precisely because she refused to give it. It was a power trip and nothing more. The law is not about stroking the egos of cops.

    Strategist says

    Stop dreaming. You may want every cop and their families to be easy targets of criminals. We don't.

    Asymmetry of power has been the cause of every evil in this world including slavery, torture, and every genocide. What you don't want is accountability in the police.

    Furthermore, prostitution should not be a crime. It is a violation of the First Amendment, freedom of religion, to make it a crime. Also, there is no legal justification for the state to even have the power to make any kind of consensual sex illegal.

    The solution to the problems presented in this thread is to simply declare all anti-prostitution laws Unconstitutional and void. Then there would be no pretext for a stop-and-question.

    The same goes for all anti-drug laws.

    Finally, the broken window theory says that we don't tolerate small crimes so that big ones won't occur. This theory applies to cops as much as it does to the rest of us.

  • On 16 Sep 2014 in Just show the damn ID. This was made for Dan., Dan8267 said:

    Strategist says

    This was made for Dan.

    1. There is no legal requirement in the United States to even carry ID. You are thinking of Nazi Germany -- show me your papers -- not the United States.

    2. California is not a "stop-and-identify" state.

    3. Regardless of your state's law, keep in mind that police can never compel you to identify yourself without reasonable suspicion to believe you're involved in illegal activity. And a phone call by an anonymous citizen is not reasonable suspicion by any sane standard.

    If they had attempted to do so, they know they would lose the subsequent lawsuit for false arrest and false prosecution.

    4. If she had committed a crime by not giving her ID, the officer would have arrested her and the DA would be pressing charges. The fact that neither of this happens demonstrates that even the state is acknowledging that she committed no crime.

    5. This clearly was a power trip for the cop. You can be as much against the politics of the woman, but that doesn't change the fact that the cop had no suspicion that she was a prostitute a mere minute into the conversation. A prostitute would immediately show her ID to appear "lawful". So the only reason the cop didn't back down after realizing that this woman clearly isn't a prostitute is he was playing a power game. That alone should get his ass kicked off the force for ethics violations.

    6. Producing an ID would in no way, shape, or form indicate whether a person is a prostitute or not. Any past behavior is not evidence of current behavior. Thus identification serves no purpose but to allow for fishing expeditions. If such fishing expeditions were legal, we'd all be require to carry ID at all times.

    Of course this whole situation could have been avoided if she was practicing her open carry rights, preferably with an AK-47 (legal in CA with small clips). Then the cop would feel far less need to stroke his ego with a power trip.

    Personally, I'm all for power symmetry. I have no problem with people being required to identify themselves if the police have to give up as much information about themselves as they get. For example, they get your SS # and you get theirs. They get your home address and you get theirs. They get your driver's license and you get theirs. Keep the information exchange even and they'll be far fewer problems as the police won't want to exchange personal data.

    I want an app that displays holographic IDs of mine and whatever cop asks me for ID. There's nothing like information equality to keep everybody honest and lawful.

Home   Tips and Tricks   Questions or suggestions? Mail p@patrick.net   Thank you for your kind donations

Page took 555 milliseconds to create.