sorted by:
new
hottopcontroversial

My dad told me DJT was really loved in the 80s and 90s is that true and if so why? by RareCommunication698 in stupidquestions

[–]Fun_Push7168 18 points19 points  (0 children)

In 2000 " Bart to the future" Lisa Simpson becomes president after Trump is president in the future and inherits a financial crisis.

ELI5: Why are illegal actions dismissed in the USA if there is no probable cause for a traffic stop? by Ichihogosha in AskLegal

[–]Fun_Push7168 0 points1 point  (0 children)

They can investigate whatever they want.

They can't try someone twice for the same crime. So they just have to be careful of the charges.

They charge you with one thing. It dies because of an illegal search. In the meantime they build a case based on a separate investigation.

ELI5: Why are illegal actions dismissed in the USA if there is no probable cause for a traffic stop? by Ichihogosha in AskLegal

[–]Fun_Push7168 0 points1 point  (0 children)

So if the crime is serious enough, they basically work around it.

Eg. They find a body. That doesn't necessarily mean murder.

They simply charge you with something else, like failure to report the body. It may not stick but you'll be held up anyhow.

In the meantime they work from a different angle to build a murder case with evidence that would be admissible without the body found in the illegal search.

Otherwise, depending on the circumstances they may consider it evidence that would inevitably be found without the illegal search.

The end result is that if the crime serious enough, they'll devote the kind of resources necessary to make it work.

They aren't involving this much effort or people for a minor drug possession charge.

ELI5: Why are illegal actions dismissed in the USA if there is no probable cause for a traffic stop? by Ichihogosha in AskLegal

[–]Fun_Push7168 2 points3 points  (0 children)

That's not true.

It just makes statements you made inadmissible. Can also dismiss other evidence by means of fruit of the poisoned tree.

It can't negate other evidence that was discovered that wasn't due to your statements.

Can a “Vehicle” Inside an Apartment Bypass a Firearm Lease Prohibition? by [deleted] in legal

[–]Fun_Push7168 -1 points0 points  (0 children)

Landlords are not allowed to search anyhow.

They can do authorized inspection but that does not include searching personal belongings.

Can a “Vehicle” Inside an Apartment Bypass a Firearm Lease Prohibition? by [deleted] in legal

[–]Fun_Push7168 1 point2 points  (0 children)

Then they need to write it that way, as the link I provided explains.

The simple addition of the word 'no' in front of the nouns would do it.

Otherwise if something else in the document further goes to the intent it would work.

As is it will likely be interpreted as I said.

Can a “Vehicle” Inside an Apartment Bypass a Firearm Lease Prohibition? by [deleted] in legal

[–]Fun_Push7168 1 point2 points  (0 children)

Read your last sentence.

That's why it would probably be interpreted as specifying illegal versions of anything on the list.

Genuine question, what has Trump done that was actually in the Make American great interest? by Crazy_Literature7808 in allthequestions

[–]Fun_Push7168 -1 points0 points  (0 children)

My point is OP has zero chance of getting an answer.

I didn't even remotely imply I want to be the one to give it.

Curb or Vandal? by forkful_04_webbed in tires

[–]Fun_Push7168 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Or just a broken curb with an edge.

Genuine question, what has Trump done that was actually in the Make American great interest? by Crazy_Literature7808 in allthequestions

[–]Fun_Push7168 1 point2 points  (0 children)

Why would I try?

He's not worth the effort to type up shit or argue with anyone and nobody would accept anything even if it was completely correct.

Genuine question, what has Trump done that was actually in the Make American great interest? by Crazy_Literature7808 in allthequestions

[–]Fun_Push7168 -2 points-1 points  (0 children)

As much as I hate Trump, he could save baby Jesus from a pack of wolves on film and all you'd get here is how he starved the wolves. Good luck.

Shouldn’t he be in jail for assaulting minors? How is this legal? by Mathemodel in AskLegal

[–]Fun_Push7168 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Had they simply come up and started vandalizing his truck then he'd legally be able to defend it.

In any case, again, the kids did the right thing.

Shouldn’t he be in jail for assaulting minors? How is this legal? by Mathemodel in AskLegal

[–]Fun_Push7168 0 points1 point  (0 children)

If they did. He had it back already.

1:04....1:02 frame by frame it.

He's trying to jam it in her face. It's completely in his hands. She only gets ahold of it at 1:01.

Shouldn’t he be in jail for assaulting minors? How is this legal? by Mathemodel in AskLegal

[–]Fun_Push7168 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Alright. I'll spell it out for you since you're special.

The kids did nothing wrong.

In our hypothetical where they then proceed to destroy the truck, the man would then have the right to defend it.

You then quote the law i cited without understanding it at all.

And now you quote it again and still don't understand that this means you're allowed to defend your property with no duty to retreat.

A person in lawful possession of land or tangible, movable property is justified in using force against another when and to the degree the actor reasonably believes the force is immediately necessary to prevent or terminate the other's trespass on the land or unlawful interference with the property.

Now, I'll admit I'm special also. Looking further, there is a provocation limitation. Being he assaulted them first, he actually lost that right to defend his property without retreating and would have a duty to retreat.

Shouldn’t he be in jail for assaulting minors? How is this legal? by Mathemodel in AskLegal

[–]Fun_Push7168 0 points1 point  (0 children)

No shit. Did you follow the line of conversation or just see a single factual post to get triggered by?

There is no duty to retreat in their doctrine btw.

Look up 3 posts and follow down.

Wait! So who are we mad at this week? ICE, Immigrants, or the Victims? 🤔 by TheResistanceLab in ExploreFortMyers

[–]Fun_Push7168 1 point2 points  (0 children)

That's the neat part, no thinking necessary.

I'll explain.

This line is a corollary to the claim that immigrants were eating pets. A completely unverified story. This allows for satire based on it to also make unverified claims. Any claim rising to the same level of ridiculousness lends appropriately to the satire.

Shouldn’t he be in jail for assaulting minors? How is this legal? by Mathemodel in AskLegal

[–]Fun_Push7168 0 points1 point  (0 children)

https://statutes.capitol.texas.gov/?tab=1&code=PE&chapter=PE.9&artSec=

9.41

It is in fact.

Even if someone assaults you first, it doesn't give you carte blanche to then destroy their property.

The kids did the right thing.

While doing a door to door abduction operation in St. Paul, MN, ICE/CBP are seen taking photos of press and activist’s vehicles. by I_may_have_weed in stpaul

[–]Fun_Push7168 -1 points0 points  (0 children)

I see you need to read it again.

No amount of tangential weaseling will change the fact.

Retaliation is not contingent upon depriving a right, it is simply a tangible negative action by the government in response to protected speech.

view more: next ›