|
dalstrs posted:I'm speaking in general terms for it being PC, not this specific case. If you're saying the search wasn't justified then you're saying the woman was wrong. It is procedurally appropriate to attempt a search, as happened here, precisely because such a threat is frequently all the warning that law enforcement gets. If they hadn't found something which they had, she may have faced repercussions. The police clearly were in posession of enough suspicion that they felt compelled to search the guy's place twice. Discendo Vox fucked around with this message at 21:41 on Mar 9, 2014 |
#
?
Mar 9, 2014 21:37
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 14, 2024 00:34 |
|
|
The woman is very obviously right in this case, but should the allegation of a crime or a threat be enough for police to get a warrant to search a house? In this case it doesn't even seem like it since the police had no warrant, but were let into the house. Can you stop calling me an MRA because I have concerns about police powers?
|
|
#
?
Mar 9, 2014 22:13
|
|
|
prom candy posted:The woman is very obviously right in this case, but should the allegation of a crime or a threat be enough for police to get a warrant to search a house? In this case it doesn't even seem like it since the police had no warrant, but were let into the house. If police ask to come in the house, and someone says yes, it's legal. You can tell them to fuckoff and then they go get a warrant. They ask first plenty of times because plenty of people say yes. I don't see what the issue is here.
|
|
#
?
Mar 9, 2014 22:27
|
|
|
prom candy posted:The woman is very obviously right in this case, but should the allegation of a crime or a threat be enough for police to get a warrant to search a house? In this case it doesn't even seem like it since the police had no warrant, but were let into the house. The reason we're calling you an MRA is because you support MRA positions. Quit laying with the dogs and you won't get fleas anymore. The issue with you position is that it basically means the abusive ex can threaten all he wants out of the public eye (most of them are smart enough to do this, otherwise they'd already be convicted) and nothing can really be done about it. Think about what's really actually being discussed for second, rather than using the broken "mah rights" framework for stuff.
|
|
#
?
Mar 9, 2014 22:28
|
|
|
rkajdi posted:The reason we're calling you an MRA is because you support MRA positions. Quit laying with the dogs and you won't get fleas anymore. Oh gently caress off, wanting the police to have to establish considerable evidence for a search warrant isn't an MRA position. You seem to think that an allegation should be enough for the police to freely waltz into someone's house. You don't think that could be abused, either by police or by people who have a beef with someone? 13Pandora13 posted:If police ask to come in the house, and someone says yes, it's legal. You can tell them to fuckoff and then they go get a warrant. They ask first plenty of times because plenty of people say yes. I don't see what the issue is here. Agreed, in this case the police did the right thing, but it seems like some people think that an allegation of a crime should be enough for a warrant, and I disagree with that.
|
|
#
?
Mar 9, 2014 22:43
|
|
|
prom candy posted:The woman is very obviously right in this case, but should the allegation of a crime or a threat be enough for police to get a warrant to search a house? In this case it doesn't even seem like it since the police had no warrant, but were let into the house. It has literally always been acceptable for cops to come in and look when you let them in, this is especially important in domestic abuse cases for reasons that should be obvious.
|
|
#
?
Mar 9, 2014 22:43
|
|
|
I'm starting to get the feeling that I might be arguing against a position that no one actually took.
|
|
#
?
Mar 9, 2014 22:44
|
|
|
I legitimately don't know what you were arguing beyond 'but what if a woman lies about abuse to get revenge????' which is like, the most standard MRA hysterics on the internet, hence people calling you one.
|
|
#
?
Mar 9, 2014 22:48
|
|
|
prom candy posted:but should the allegation of a crime or a threat be enough for police to get a warrant to search a house? Yes. That's how it works.
|
|
#
?
Mar 9, 2014 23:06
|
|
|
prom candy posted:I'm starting to get the feeling that I might be arguing against a position that no one actually took. I think a lot of people were thinking we were arguing something we weren't in this case. Tatum Girlparts posted:I legitimately don't know what you were arguing beyond 'but what if a woman lies about abuse to get revenge????' which is like, the most standard MRA hysterics on the internet, hence people calling you one. The argument has nothing to do with women. The argument I was making is that one person claiming something does not give probable cause for a police search. The moment we cross the line that it does we are pretty much in a police state. In this case the problem I had was the police showing up with 30 officers and having the underage daughter let them in. A minor cannot consent to anything else, how can they consent to having their parents house searched.
|
|
#
?
Mar 9, 2014 23:08
|
|
|
I was arguing that the allegation of a crime shouldn't be enough evidence for a search warrant (something I said a number of times), which I'm realizing isn't something that anyone here disagrees with. I am not an MRA, I don't agree with MRA talking points, and I'm sorry that I shoehorned my views about law enforcement into a discussion about domestic violence. Can we get back to talking about gun control now? Or, wait, which thread is this again?
|
|
#
?
Mar 9, 2014 23:09
|
|
|
prom candy posted:I was arguing that the allegation of a crime shouldn't be enough evidence for a search warrant (something I said a number of times), which I'm realizing isn't something that anyone here disagrees with. I am not an MRA, I don't agree with MRA talking points, and I'm sorry that I shoehorned my views about law enforcement into a discussion about domestic violence. Yeah some people here do disagree with this apparently. duz posted:Yes. That's how it works.
|
|
#
?
Mar 9, 2014 23:11
|
|
|
Guilty Spork posted:What is it with conservatives completely and utterly failing to understand any hint of context?
|
|
#
?
Mar 9, 2014 23:37
|
|
|
Just so we can all be clear: Although the police had Witaschek's consent, the first search was not conducted with a warrant. In other words, the allegation of a threat was not sufficient probable cause for the police to perform a unconsented-to search or obtain a warrant. The warrant was eventually obtained based not on the estranged wife's allegations, but on the results of the first search (at least according to all the reports I've seen). The wife's allegations were enough for the police to show up and ask the dude some questions. Everything else was done either with Witaschek's approval or based on evidence that had actually been found.
|
|
#
?
Mar 10, 2014 00:14
|
|
|
Holy poo poo
|
|
#
?
Mar 10, 2014 00:50
|
|
|
hamster_style posted:Holy poo poo direct link: https://twitter.com/PatGarofalo/status/442805513697628160
|
|
#
?
Mar 10, 2014 00:53
|
|
|
^^^Thanks, I wasn't sure how to go about linking the tweet. I'm bad at Twitter.
|
|
#
?
Mar 10, 2014 00:54
|
|
|
Why would people not care if 70% of the NBA shut down?
|
|
#
?
Mar 10, 2014 01:06
|
|
|
MisterBadIdea posted:Why would people not care if 70% of the NBA shut down? Blacks.
|
|
#
?
Mar 10, 2014 01:14
|
|
|
hamster_style posted:Holy poo poo Look at this dumb cracker's ugly albino spawn on his twitter page and tell me he's not on stormfront... you can practically see the FOURTEEN WORDS on that hideous fuckin pic
|
|
#
?
Mar 10, 2014 01:19
|
|
|
MisterBadIdea posted:Why would people not care if 70% of the NBA shut down? I'm going to completely ignore the guys racism, and post this from a sports fans perspective. The NBA, for the lack of a better word, lacks any sort of parity. Historically there's been two teams that have dominated the league in terms of Championships, and NBA Finals appearances. There's been two other "Dynasties" that have popped up in the 90's and late 90's/early 2000's respectfully, and those were the Chicago Bulls (because MJ) and the San Antonio Spurs (Because Timmy D. and "The Admiral"). Those 4 teams since 1946, have about 64% of the titles won by an NBA team, and have been in the NBA finals since 94% OF THE TIME. So in that aspect, there's A LOT of people really don't develop loyalties towards a franchise per say, but more so towards an actual player. There are people for example, who are "LeBron fans", and didn't care that he switched teams, they just enjoyed watching him play basketball. Theoretically, the NBA could toss out a league that would feature 12-16 teams and people would still watch. It'd have to rely on those aforementioned fans, and the loyalties of say, LA Laker fans, but it could work. You'd risk though, turning off the rest of "Flyover" country though via doing that. I think the league severely underestimated Sonics fans for example. My proposal is to use Relegation, but that's a topic for SAS to debate. In terms of the guys overt racism? He's a loving idiot and an rear end in a top hat. I've been critical of the association, and of David Stern, but I think the players themselves are not within the mold the guy is discussing in the least bit! It's just an excuse for him to bitch about "Niggers" again. (I hate typing that word btw).
|
|
#
?
Mar 10, 2014 01:36
|
|
|
Such a bizarre tweet. Not even part of an ongoing chat, just a racist idiot. Got me to check ESPN tables of NBA pay out of curiosity. Total player count is 564. There are fewer than 25 players earning <$100K. About 80 players earning <$500K. More than 65% of players are paid ≥$1M yearly. Of course they'd immediately start stealing hubcaps and sticking up liquor stores - it is the nature of THOSE WHO PLAY HOOP
|
|
#
?
Mar 10, 2014 01:59
|
|
|
hamster_style posted:Holy poo poo The increased unemployment from the shut down of 70% of a major spectator sport would be significant. In the already dismal economy many of the unemployed would remain that way and, increasingly desperate, some of them would, rather unfortunately, no doubt turn to crime. A Good Cartoon. sweart gliwere posted:Of course they'd immediately start stealing hubcaps and sticking up liquor stores - it is the nature of THOSE WHO PLAY HOOP In a way I like how this one isn't even a dog whistle. It's just so flat out, overtly, blatantly racist. It's right out there. The next tweet might as well just be "in case you forgot I hate black people." How long until we see tweets about feral urban youths? On the other hand it distresses me that somebody that overtly racist can, you know, be a Congressman.
|
|
#
?
Mar 10, 2014 02:10
|
|
|
ToxicSlurpee posted:The increased unemployment from the shut down of 70% of a major spectator sport would be significant. In the already dismal economy many of the unemployed would remain that way and, increasingly desperate, some of them would, rather unfortunately, no doubt turn to crime. A Good Cartoon. He's a Minnesota State Representative, I believe. Still elected, but hardly on the same level.
|
|
#
?
Mar 10, 2014 02:14
|
|
|
ToxicSlurpee posted:In a way I like how this one isn't even a dog whistle. It's just so flat out, overtly, blatantly racist. It's right out there. The next tweet might as well just be "in case you forgot I hate black people." How long until we see tweets about feral urban youths? This and similar episodes have made me wonder in the past: how long until politically-oriented spyware+malware becomes just another fact of life? Obviously botnet attacks have already been done, and generic malware sent to activists has been a thing, but those were more of a shotgun approach and the apps don't treat partisan opponents differently from an unlucky grandparent. What I'm describing would be an auto-dox which only harms those matching certain patterns. It shouldn't be too hard to install an otherwise benign app which checks browser history, cookies and cache (+live logging for privacy-mode). It'd be interesting to see some hacktivist start dumping info on which congressmen are patrons of stormfront/freep/niggermania/etc.
|
|
#
?
Mar 10, 2014 02:29
|
|
|
vyelkin posted:He's a Minnesota State Representative, I believe. Still elected, but hardly on the same level. A Minnesota State Representative whose office is at 100 Rev. Dr. Martin Luther King Jr. Blvd., which must piss him off every single day he goes to work.
|
|
#
?
Mar 10, 2014 02:39
|
|
|
I guess this goes here: http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2014/03/06/conservative-political-action-conference-_n_4898802.html quote:We spoke to a dozen attendees out in the hall, showing them the Daily Caller’s webpage and asking them for a reaction. One person said she would take Obama over Putin. The majority was ambivalent, while a few talked themselves into the potential benefits of a Putin administration. Here are some of their answers.
|
|
#
?
Mar 10, 2014 04:06
|
|
|
vyelkin posted:He's a Minnesota State Representative, I believe. Still elected, but hardly on the same level. Oh, Christ. Wonder what his district is... Edit: 58B, which is apparently the very fringe of the south Minneapolis metro and adjunct farmlands. Mostly rural, the edge of "Minneapolis" proper is just a ways north of there around Burnsville.
|
|
#
?
Mar 10, 2014 04:12
|
|
|
hamster_style posted:Holy poo poo So someone remind me how it's "real racism" to make the assumption that he's basically saying that black NBA players would quickly go from making millions (or at least 110k+) to street crime if the NBA shut down?
|
|
#
?
Mar 10, 2014 05:02
|
|
|
He didn't say anything about the race of the NBA players in question. Looks like you're the real racist for assuming he meant the black ones. 
|
|
#
?
Mar 10, 2014 05:32
|
|
|
TerminalSaint posted:He didn't say anything about the race of the NBA players in question. Looks like you're the real racist for assuming he meant the black ones. Oh of course, the "You recognized my dog whistle which I'm not going to acknowledge so therefore you have to be a racist" angle.
|
|
#
?
Mar 10, 2014 05:42
|
|
|
AtraMorS posted:Just so we can all be clear: That doesn't follow at all. Asking for consent does not even necessarily imply that they did not have sufficient probable cause to obtain a warrant, yet you're claiming it proves that point. If they have a warrant, they don't need consent. If they have consent, they don't need a warrant. Consent is even easier because it doesn't have to be narrowly-defined - a person able to give consent could allow police to search in a place that a warrant might not cover. So no, gaining consent does not mean what you say it means; it just means that the question of PC in this particular case is moot.
|
|
#
?
Mar 10, 2014 06:54
|
|
|
pd187 posted:I guess this goes here: What part of pushing through (one of the) the largest healthcare reform bill in modern US history and sticking with it through 50 (!!!) attempts at its repeal does not show leadership, gravitas and the ability to "get things done"/"effect change"?  EDIT: There's also the part about Obama being the same as Putin because he would invade a country compared to a guy that has already literally done it. gradenko_2000 fucked around with this message at 07:26 on Mar 10, 2014 |
|
#
?
Mar 10, 2014 07:22
|
|
|
Crain posted:Oh of course, the "You recognized my dog whistle which I'm not going to acknowledge so therefore you have to be a racist" angle.
|
|
#
?
Mar 10, 2014 07:25
|
|
|
FuzzySkinner posted:I'm going to completely ignore the guys racism, and post this from a sports fans perspective. I wanna say, thank you, this is quite helpful, I'm a very casual sports fan for anything but international soccer.
|
|
#
?
Mar 10, 2014 07:49
|
|
|
gradenko_2000 posted:What part of pushing through (one of the) the largest healthcare reform bill in modern US history and sticking with it through 50 (!!!) attempts at its repeal does not show leadership, gravitas and the ability to "get things done"/"effect change"? Putin gets things done that conservatives like. I know it wasn't explicitly stated but that's what they're saying.
|
|
#
?
Mar 10, 2014 08:53
|
|
|
Kugyou no Tenshi posted:...it just means that the question of PC in this particular case is moot.
|
|
#
?
Mar 10, 2014 13:48
|
|
|
Are we still doing dumb emails here?quote:A TEXAS GIRL SOUNDS OFF AS ALL RESPONSIBLE FOLKS FEEL------------I like her attitude!! From work 
|
|
#
?
Mar 10, 2014 14:10
|
|
|
InsanityIsCrazy posted:Are we still doing dumb emails here? That one's a classic. I think the best response we came up with here is, "Yes, I support the expansion of welfare benefits too!" because tons of the poo poo listed in that e-mail is actually much more generous than what's happening right now. You could also pull a kind of pseudo-godwin and add "and sterilizing undesirables..." but it would probably fly over their head.
|
|
#
?
Mar 10, 2014 14:12
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 14, 2024 00:34 |
|
|
InsanityIsCrazy posted:Are we still doing dumb emails here? While much of that email is unironically better than the reality of government aid, this section is what scares/pisses me off. It's the concept of the "Work House". Something that we as a society have tried and come to realize is a failure. Government created jobs, like the TVA, are good and develop into careers. Random menial labor however quickly devolves into slavery and debt prisons. "Why should we pay you more than a few dollars, we supply your housing, food, and clothing. You don't need anything else. You're paying us back for that every day." And then you never get out of the hole. Also the concept of poor people not being allowed to save up money for leisure items is insulting at best and (considering the "examples" given) dog whistle racism at worst. I really wish there was a targeted effort to show the world just what it is like to live on government assistance for an extended period of time to try and counteract the "welfare queen" trope and expose it for the blatant lie it really is. quote:AND While you are on Gov't subsistence, you no longer can VOTE! Yes, that is correct. For you to vote would be a conflict of interest. You will voluntarily remove yourself from voting while you are receiving a Gov't welfare check. If you want to vote, then get a job. I missed this the first time through. What is with these people and the desire to remove peoples right to vote. Of all the rights people have in this country, the right to vote should be first and foremost among them. It'd make more sense to say you can't own guns or something to that effect, since you're living on a military base or whatever, but losing your right to vote? And the conflict of interest line is just so loving asinine since voting, at the most basic level, involves people trying to court your opinion. "Oh but you'll just vote for the guy who gives you free stuff!". Bullshit, everyone votes for the person who gives them what they want. For some, what they want is increased entitlements, for others it's taking away peoples rights or trying to ban certain behaviors, for yet more it's a new war or jobs program. Crain fucked around with this message at 14:50 on Mar 10, 2014 |
|
#
?
Mar 10, 2014 14:43
|
|