patrick.net
An Antidote to Corporate Media
1,192,892 comments by 13,872 users - porkchopXpress, richwicks online now
Man may be jailed for not paying child support for son who isn't his
invite response
2015 Jan 25, 8:35pm 26,709 views 64 comments
« First « Previous Comments 41 - 64 of 64 Search these comments
Dan8267
2015 Jan 27, 9:58pm
If it was really designed for any literate man to understand it, why do we have so many court cases regarding the constitution. Why even have attorneys who specialize in the constitution?
Because those in law and politics do not care about Constitutional rights or right and wrong. What they care about is power and money. The Supreme Court today almost always comes down to a 5-4 decision split along party lines. Do you really think Scalia honestly believes that anally penetrating a man against his will simply over a traffic stop is what the founding fathers considered a "reasonable search"? Yet 5-4 the police can anally penetrate you, Strategist, or your son if they claim you ran a red light or were speeding.
Oh, and Strategist please challenge me on the fact that police strip search people during traffic stops or that the Supreme Court said it was OK to conduct anal cavity searches for people arrested on alleged (and later dropped since they were trumped up charges) traffic violations and misdemeanors. PLEASE challenge me on this. I love to humiliate you with evidence.
Strategist
2015 Jan 27, 10:18pm
Oh, and Strategist please challenge me on the fact that police strip search people during traffic stops
Police do not strip search people during traffic stops. They strip search people if there is a reasonable cause to do so.
or that the Supreme Court said it was OK to conduct anal cavity searches for people arrested on alleged (and later dropped since they were trumped up charges) traffic violations and misdemeanors.
Did the Supreme Court say they police could never strip search people on traffic violations?
PLEASE challenge me on this. I love to humiliate you with evidence.
Go ahead. It's a challenge.
Dan8267
2015 Jan 28, 8:58am
Police do not strip search people during traffic stops. They strip search people if there is a reasonable cause to do so.
Georgia Police Strip Search Drivers During Minor Traffic Stops
While sitting in the passenger seat after his wife was pulled over for a suspended registration, Phillips was unexpectedly ordered to exit the vehicle by Forest Park police. Coming up empty on a vehicle search, police suddenly turned their attention back towards Phillips, demanding he submit to a search as well.
Expecting a legal, outside the clothes pat down, Phillips consented to the officer’s requests, only to have the officer demand he pull down his pants on the side of the road.
“That’s illegal, man, you can’t do that. You can’t do that,” Phillips told the officer.
Noting that Phillips was aware of his rights, the officer suddenly claimed to smell marijuana, demanding Phillips remain still as he continued his illegal search.
Although officers are allowed to pat down the outside of clothing to check for weapons, the officer clearly violated Phillips’ rights by demanding he remove his clothing. Unsurprisingly, no marijuana was found on Phillips or in the vehicle.
Internal records obtained by Channel 2 revealed that a police captain had already reported a “unit-wide” issue regarding searches six months prior. Following the discovery of Phillips encounter, several others came forward as well, revealing the same invasive searches during minor traffic stops.
Another passenger, Ben Kassars, was subjected to a similar search after his roommate was pulled over for allegedly following a vehicle to closely. Claiming the men had drugs and threatening them with jail if they refused, officers went inside Kassars’ pants as he leaned on the back of his vehicle.
Another man, Alphonzo Eleby, was approached by DeKalb county police while talking to a friend at a local gas station as he waited for his tank to fill. Having nothing to hide, Eleby consented to an officer’s search request like the others, assuming a normal pat down would take place.
“He went inside my underwear and searched my genital area,” Eleby said. ”It’s just embarrassing. I’ve got everybody seeing me exposed.”
Despite having no drugs, officers claimed Eleby threw “something” to the ground, charging him with possession of marijuana. After the gas station’s surveillance video of the altercation was released, it was revealed that Eleby never threw anything at all, with the officer instead appearing to throw something.
Charges were quickly dropped.
In December 2012, two Texas women in yet another minor traffic stop were forced to submit to roadside body cavity searches. Claiming to smell marijuana, an officer searched the vagina and anus of both women with the same pair of latex gloves.
No marijuana was found by officers.
So here we have cops who have no suspicion, reasonable or otherwise, that people are carrying drugs and are using the violence of the state to molest and rape -- yes, rape is the accurate legal term for penetrating a person's ass or genitals with your fingers against their will -- for their own sick either sexual pleasure or power-trip pleasure.
These are people who are not carrying any drugs or weapons and the cops knew that. The cops chose to commit crimes, felonies, against these persons and then compound those crimes with others such as false arrests and perjury. Video evidence have confirmed that these cops were lying on record in criminal reports.
It’s worth noting that the US Department of Justice defines rape as:
“The penetration, no matter how slight, of the vagina or anus with any body part or object, or oral penetration by a sex organ of another person, without the consent of the victim.”
Despite this official definition, it appears that if you happen to be wearing a badge and a uniform when you perpetrate rape, it isn’t frowned upon by the courts quite as strongly as it is if you are just a regular garden variety rapist that hasn’t gone to cop school. Anal probing seems to be a popular hobby among some of the boys in blue.
Despite dozens of victims who came forth, Milwaukee police officer Michael Vagnini got the extraordinarily light sentence of only two years in prison, despite the fact that he was charged with sexual assault (not rape???) which could have carried a maximum penalty of 25 years in prison and 15 years on supervision.
Between 2010-2012, a gang of uniformed thugs in the Milwaukee PD played the fun game of demanding that “suspects” produce drugs, and then forcibly performing road side cavity searches on them, in some cases causing rectal bleeding. All of the victims who have come forward publicly are men, as are all of the officers involved.
Put simply, your statements are lies and they are empirically disproved.
Go ahead. It's a challenge.
Only the stupid challenge an INTJ on evidence after he asks them to. I love demonstrating to the world how much of an idiot you are.
or that the Supreme Court said it was OK to conduct anal cavity searches for people arrested on alleged (and later dropped since they were trumped up charges) traffic violations and misdemeanors.
Did the Supreme Court say they police could never strip search people on traffic violations?
Your reading comprehension skills suck. I say my car is red and you sarcastically ask the rhetorical question, "Is your car a pickle?", which has nothing to do with the statement I just made.
The Supreme Court rules that police can strip search a person after traffic stops. There is no way that is a reasonable interpretation, by any standards, of the Constitution and what the writers intended to allow the state to do.
The evil conservatives -- well, ok, that's redundant -- simply decided they didn't give a fuck about human rights because they and their family and friends are in the "elite" class that isn't subject to the same laws as us. No cop is going to strip search Scalia and if it did happen, Scalia would change his position immediately. Such indignities are only to be inflicted on the peasants.
Strategist
2015 Jan 28, 10:08am
So here we have cops who have no suspicion, reasonable or otherwise, that people are carrying drugs and are using the violence of the state to molest and rape
Bullshit. You may say they had no suspicion, not the police officer in question.
yes, rape is the accurate legal term for penetrating a person's ass or genitals with your fingers against their will -- for their own sick either sexual pleasure or power-trip pleasure.
Bullshit. Another of your bizarre interpretations. Criminals who get arrested are regularly strip searched, that is not rape. 6 months ago a doctor shoved two fingers up my ass. I was willing, so according to you that was not rape, but it would be sex by your reasoning.
These are people who are not carrying any drugs or weapons and the cops knew that.
Not finding drugs does not indicate the cops knew there were no drugs.
The cops chose to commit crimes, felonies, against these persons and then compound those crimes with others such as false arrests and perjury.
LOL. Your interpretation of felonies is funny. :)
Video evidence have confirmed that these cops were lying on record in criminal reports.
Again, your interpretation of a video.
Go ahead. It's a challenge.
Only the stupid challenge an INTJ on evidence after he asks them to. I love demonstrating to the world how much of an idiot you are.
What's INTJ? You demonstrated I don't know that, but nothing else.
The Supreme Court rules that police can strip search a person after traffic stops. There is no way that is a reasonable interpretation, by any standards, of the Constitution and what the writers intended to allow the state to do.
Ha ha ha. You know more than the Supreme Court? Now who's the idiot?
Dan8267
2015 Jan 28, 12:34pm
Bullshit. You may say they had no suspicion, not the police officer in question.
Did you even read the evidence, moron?
Noting that Phillips was aware of his rights, the officer suddenly claimed to smell marijuana, demanding Phillips remain still as he continued his illegal search.
Despite having no drugs, officers claimed Eleby threw “something” to the ground, charging him with possession of marijuana. After the gas station’s surveillance video of the altercation was released, it was revealed that Eleby never threw anything at all, with the officer instead appearing to throw something.
The police lie about there being any indication whatsoever of a crime. They even lie about the actions of the victims and their own actions. We know they lie because the video evidence, which does not lie, directly contradict the statement of the police.
Your premise that no cop would abuse his power and commit verifiable crimes is simply empirically false. The fact that you choose to ignore indisputable proof like video recordings of the police crimes shows that you are essentially a religious nut whose religion is cop worship. You are no different from a Jihadist who thinks that Islamists can do no wrong no matter who the Islamists kill, rape, or torture. Replace Islam with police and that's your religion.
Dan8267
2015 Jan 28, 12:52pm
yes, rape is the accurate legal term for penetrating a person's ass or genitals with your fingers against their will -- for their own sick either sexual pleasure or power-trip pleasure.
Bullshit. Another of your bizarre interpretations.
It's not even my interpretation as you would know if you actually read the evidence. Your laziness is no excuse for your ignorance.
The definition comes directly from the Department of Justice
The new definition of rape is: “The penetration, no matter how slight, of the vagina or anus with any body part or object, or oral penetration by a sex organ of another person, without the consent of the victim.” The definition is used by the FBI to collect information from local law enforcement agencies about reported rapes.
So call bullshit on the FBI and the Department of Justice if you like, but it's the definition used by our legal system and quite frankly, it's a damn good improvement over the old, limited definition that meant a man could not rape a man and a woman could not rape a woman.
6 months ago a doctor shoved two fingers up my ass. I was willing, so according to you that was not rape, but it would be sex by your reasoning.
We all know that the only consensual sex you have is with farm animals.
But there is a huge difference between a man letting his doctor perform a check for prostate cancer and a man being forced at gunpoint to let a cop finger his ass. And yes, the threat of the gun is there even if the cop does not pull it out because everyone knows the cops will pull out the gun if he doesn't get his way.
I'm just waiting for the day a pervert cop pulls over your son and grandson and fingerfucks them both on "suspicion" that they are transporting drugs. I suspect you'll change your opinion damn fast when that happens.
These are people who are not carrying any drugs or weapons and the cops knew that.
Not finding drugs does not indicate the cops knew there were no drugs.
There is this branch of mathematics called statistics. When cops repeatedly don't find drugs where they "suspect" drugs are, either the cops' suspicions are so inaccurate they are worthless or the cops are lying about being suspicious. Either way, it is not reasonable to let the cops violate all rights under the 4th Amendment because of their so-called suspicions.
In fact, the cops should have no legal right to search your body or property based on their suspicion than any private citizen should have to do the same based on his suspicion . The 14th Amendment says that we all have the same damn rights. Our entire country if founded on the notion that the government derives its power from the people. The people cannot give what they don't possess to the government. So if the people don't have the right to stick their fingers up your ass when they are suspicious of you, then the government can't have this right either because the people couldn't give this right to the government.
LOL. Your interpretation of felonies is funny. :)
How the hell is it an interpretation to state that rape is a felony? That is a fact, not an opinion.
Strategist says
Again, your interpretation of a video.
Whether or not a person throws something on the ground is not an interpretation of a video. It's a verifiable fact. You don't get to treat video evidence like it's a vision from a psychic. We literally put people to death based on video evidence.
The Supreme Court rules that police can strip search a person after traffic stops. There is no way that is a reasonable interpretation, by any standards, of the Constitution and what the writers intended to allow the state to do.
Ha ha ha. You know more than the Supreme Court? Now who's the idiot?
You pick your conclusions out of your ass. What I'm saying is that the Supreme Court is obviously basing it's decisions on political agendas, not on the law. Anyone who denies this is either an unskilled liar or a moron, in your case both.
tatupu70
2015 Jan 28, 1:45pm
Do you really think Scalia honestly believes that anally penetrating a man against his will simply over a traffic stop is what the founding fathers considered a "reasonable search"? Yet 5-4 the police can anally penetrate you, Strategist, or your son if they claim you ran a red light or were speeding.
Did you actually prove this? You showed that police will lie in order to do strip searches, but I don't see where you proved that it is legal for them to anally penetrate you for simply running a red light.
Those are two different situations.
Dan8267
2015 Jan 28, 3:07pm
You showed that police will lie in order to do strip searches, but I don't see where you proved that it is legal for them to anally penetrate you for simply running a red light.
Then you have not read the evidence. Read it. It refers to anal penetration. Particular read the parts that go like
In December 2012, two Texas women in yet another minor traffic stop were forced to submit to roadside body cavity searches. Claiming to smell marijuana, an officer searched the vagina and anus of both women with the same pair of latex gloves.
I can't dumb it down more for you. You just have to read. In fact, it's evident that you not only didn't read the evidence, you didn't even read the executive summary of the evidence.
tatupu70
2015 Jan 28, 3:37pm
I can't dumb it down more for you. You just have to read. In fact, it's evident that you not only didn't read the evidence, you didn't even read the executive summary of the evidence.
You're not paying attention. The quote you just provided also says that the cop claimed to smell marijuana. I agree that it's wrong for the cops to be able to force a strip search based on a marijuana smell, but that's completely different than your original claim:
Do you really think Scalia honestly believes that anally penetrating a man against his will simply over a traffic stop is what the founding fathers considered a "reasonable search"? Yet 5-4 the police can anally penetrate you, Strategist, or your son if they claim you ran a red light or were speeding.
As far as I can tell--nobody was searched for running a red light. They were searched for suspicion of drugs.
Strategist
2015 Jan 28, 4:03pm
The fact that you choose to ignore indisputable proof like video recordings of the police crimes shows that you are essentially a religious nut whose religion is cop worship. You are no different from a Jihadist who thinks that Islamists can do no wrong no matter who the Islamists kill, rape, or torture. Replace Islam with police and that's your religion.
Ouch! That's gonna leave a mark.
It sure did leave a Mark. All this time I thought I did not have a religion. Now I know I'm going to heaven. :)
Thanks Dan, I owe you a pint.
Strategist
2015 Jan 28, 4:05pm
Do you really think Scalia honestly believes that anally penetrating a man against his will simply over a traffic stop is what the founding fathers considered a "reasonable search"? Yet 5-4 the police can anally penetrate you, Strategist, or your son if they claim you ran a red light or were speeding.
As far as I can tell--nobody was searched for running a red light. They were searched for suspicion of drugs.
I told you Dan has weird interpretations .
Dan8267
2015 Jan 28, 6:52pm
The quote you just provided also says that the cop claimed to smell marijuana.
The claim was clearly false as the article demonstrates. The cop LIED when he said the smelled marijuana. It is utterly physically impossible to smell marijuana when none is present. You don't just go around life smelling pot when it's not around.
Guess what cops lie all the time. They also commit perjury as the articles and the videos show.
As far as I cast provided also says thwas searched for running a red light. They were searched for suspicion of drugs
No, they were searched because the cops wanted to search them. Since the courts do not protect Constitutional rights, effectively cops can trump up any lie and use it as a justification for literally raping a person. And those searches were rape by the very definition of the law. Rape is about power. It's no different for a criminal cop than for any other scumbag bad guy.
Now I know I'm going to heaven.
You're religion is as false as any other.
Strategist
2015 Jan 28, 7:23pm
The quote you just provided also says that the cop claimed to smell marijuana.
The claim was clearly false as the article demonstrates. The cop LIED when he said the smelled marijuana. It is utterly physically impossible to smell marijuana when none is present. You don't just go around life smelling pot when it's not around.
Guess what cops lie all the time. They also commit perjury as the articles and the videos show.
Look...If I was a cop, the last thing I would want to do is shove my fingers up someone's asshole. It is disgusting, sickening, and stinky. You could not pay me enough to do it.
Strategist
2015 Jan 28, 7:33pm
Still think so????
Everything goes right over your low brow. Under every bridge in America are pigeons with more brains than you. Let me put it in such a way you would understand: they are more smarterer than you.
uhhh SBH....how do you spell "smarter" cough cough cough.
Strategist
2015 Jan 28, 7:45pm
uhhh SBH....how do you spell "smarter" cough cough cough.
C'mon, my man, do you not recognize ridicule when you see it? It is my method to pilfer from the lunatics and re-introduce their manner as a specious recapitulation of their lunacy. Every fucking thing I type is deliberate. I thought you knew that.
I did not know that. I'm not smart like Dan :(
Strategist
2015 Jan 28, 8:17pm
I did not know that. I'm not smart like Dan :(
I forgive you. Neither of us and few of any are as intelligent as Dan. You get a pass this one time. You know, Colbert is gone, but you can still learn from his milieu.
OK, just don't tell Dan what we said. You know how he is, he will actually believe he is smarter. :)
Dan8267
2015 Jan 28, 10:49pm
If I was a cop, the last thing I would want to do is shove my fingers up someone's asshole.
Well guess what. Not every cop behaves like you say you would. And not every cop obeys the law.
Vicente
2015 Jan 28, 11:38pm
The reason for the preponderance of the justice system weighing this way, is history that all predates the ability to DNA match biological fathers.
Until all the laws are changed to reflect this new reality, the justice system will plow on as usual. The system is weighted to protect children and if that means drafting a likely Dad for the purpose, so be it. Sorry Dad, just like you are potential disposable meat for the military grinder, society can designate you for child support as needed. Get over it.
I expect laws on this to be overhauled long, long after the GOP gets done with all the high-priority items like classifying abortion as murder, and turning "religious freedom" into the new trump card to overturn anything else they want to.
tatupu70
2015 Jan 29, 5:09am
The claim was clearly false as the article demonstrates. The cop LIED when he said the smelled marijuana. It is utterly physically impossible to smell marijuana when none is present. You don't just go around life smelling pot when it's not around.
Guess what cops lie all the time. They also commit perjury as the articles and the videos show.
Obviously I agree with that. The point is that it is not legal for a cop to strip search or rape someone for blowing a red light. That is why the cop has to LIE in order to justify it.
Y
2015 Jan 29, 6:14am
Marijuana odor remains on the clothes and breath of the user for 1 to 4 hours after it is used.
I think your noses are shot due to extended use of such.
The claim was clearly false as the article demonstrates. The cop LIED when he said the smelled marijuana.
Obviously I agree with that
Dan8267
2015 Jan 29, 7:36am
The point is that it is not legal for a cop to strip search or rape someone for blowing a red light.
The point is that cops break the law all the time, far more often than John Q. Public. And they break much more serious laws than the vast majority of people ever will.
tatupu70
2015 Jan 29, 7:37am
The point is that cops break the law all the time, far more often than John Q. Public. And they break much more serious laws than the vast majority of people ever will.
That's a different point, but a valid one.
Dan8267
2015 Jan 29, 7:37am
Marijuana odor remains on the clothes and breath of the user for 1 to 4 hours after it is used.
None of the victims were drug users.
The fact that cops lie and use the excuse of the War on Drugs to commit crimes including rape, sexual assault, physical assault, theft, extortion, and kidnapping is more than enough reason to end the War on Drugs and repeal all laws abused by the state.
« First « Previous Comments 41 - 64 of 64 Search these comments
http://6abc.com/news/man-may-be-jailed-for-not-paying-child-support-for-son-who-isnt-his/490355/
https://nationalparentsorganization.org/blog/22037-carnell-alexander-update-as-predicted-an-attorney-appears
Enforcing such a ridiculous law should be grounds for incarceration. It's an obvious violation of due process well as the prohibition on debtor prisons.