patrick.net

Strategist says

Dan8267 says

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.

Strategist says

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.

Strategist says

Dan8267 says

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.

Strategist says

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.

Strategist says

Dan8267 says

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.

Dan8267 says

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.

tatupu70 says

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.

Dan8267 says

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:

Dan8267 says

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.

sbh says

Dan8267 says

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.

tatupu70 says

Dan8267 says

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 .

tatupu70 says

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.

tatupu70 says

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.

Strategist says

Now I know I'm going to heaven.

You're religion is as false as any other.

Dan8267 says

tatupu70 says

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.

sbh says

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.

sbh says

Strategist says

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 :(

sbh says

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. :)

Strategist says

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.

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.

Dan8267 says

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.

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.

tatupu70 says

Dan8267 says

The claim was clearly false as the article demonstrates. The cop LIED when he said the smelled marijuana.

tatupu70 says

Obviously I agree with that

tatupu70 says

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.

Dan8267 says

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.

SoftShell says

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.