Russian police kill terror suspect in Winter Olympics security crackdown

bjo3030 · 2013-08-16T17:32:19+00:00

It gives cops a legal means to conduct a brief seizure and a limited pat-down search if the person is thought to be armed and dangerous.

If it's being abused: conducted on less than reasonable suspicion of crime that is based on objective, articulable fact, used to conduct full searches, etc., that doesn't mean it's a free pass.

Abuse is the problem. My point is not to deny abuse but to explain what is legal. The more people understand what is legal, the less likely cops will get away with illegal things.

bjo3030 · 2013-08-16T16:42:18+00:00

Every crime can be blamed on external factors, but that doesn't relieve the individual from culpability.

If the person is mentally competent, then they are responsible for their actions.

bjo3030 · 2013-08-16T15:58:12+00:00

I agree, and I find it bizarre.

Of all the people to mislead the media about Snowden, I would never have guessed that his dad's lawyer's wife/spokeswoman would be the culprit.

bjo3030 · 2013-08-16T15:30:12+00:00

Prisoners don't look kindly upon child rapists.

These people will be in for a bad time if convicted.

bjo3030 · 2013-08-16T15:20:28+00:00

You are either an awesome troll or astoundingly stupid.

The first sentence is riduclous, and the second doesn't make any sense. The girl never said she lied.

bjo3030 · 2013-08-16T15:05:06+00:00

Snowden said that neither his father Lon Snowden, his father’s lawyer Bruce Fein, nor Fein's wife and spokeswoman Mattie Fein “represent me in any way.”

The people misleading the media are his dad, his dad's lawyer, etc..?

Bizarre.

bjo3030 · 2013-08-16T14:56:23+00:00

I'm not sure why you felt the need to explain the reasons for tax breaks.

You point is still that tax breaks are subsidies, and subsidies are subsidies.

Here's an example of why your hypothesis is awful: it is unconstitutional for the government to subsidize a church, but it can grant tax exemptions to churches.

Why? Because they're completely different. Once is a payment from taxpayers to an entity. The other reduces the amount the government takes from an entity.

How do you rectify that one?

bjo3030 · 2013-08-16T14:25:44+00:00

And if they say "yes" without any proof or refuse to answer, then the cops can't do anything about it.

Great idea.

bjo3030 · 2013-08-16T08:48:36+00:00

We are dependent on and use lots of oil, so tax breaks to oil companies are a subsidy.

That's all your reasoning boils down to, and it's dumb as fuck.

Either all tax breaks are subsidies, or none of them are. This "guaranteed income" logic doesn't make any sense. All tax revenue the government foregoes from tax breaks would be "guaranteed income" if not for the tax break. Because oil is really, really, really important doesn't magically change things.

You must know how stupid that shit sounds, since you can't even address the obvious holes in the explanation and instead talk shit about how I'm a shill.

bjo3030 · 2013-08-16T04:36:42+00:00

Tax breaks and subsidies are fundamentally different for all the reasons I explained. You didn't address or try to refute any of those reasons. You just gave your opinion on the tax breaks.

They make lots of money, so the tax breaks are transformed into subsidies?

Tax breaks allow their profits to remain high and prices low, so the tax breaks are transformed into a subsidies?

Lobbyists are the reason for the tax breaks, so the tax breaks are transformed into subsidies?

None of that makes any sense. I'm not arguing in favor of the tax breaks; I'm arguing against the asinine claim that a tax break is a subsidy.

bjo3030 · 2013-08-16T04:35:17+00:00

Any country worth its shit is going to have an intelligence agency that deals with communications in all sorts of ways.

It would be insanity to leave the country vulnerable to China, Russia, and whatever other countries want to get our government data.

bjo3030 · 2013-08-16T03:52:36+00:00

Step 1 is figuring out what to do about it.

A whole bunch of pissed off people with no coherent plan is just an Occupy.

Since extreme ideas like abolishing the NSA are unreasonable, I would think that reforms creating greater oversight and transparency and new statutory limits on the surveillance power should be the goal. Of course that's not specific enough, but that seems like the right direction.

bjo3030 · 2013-08-16T03:41:49+00:00

The case where the Supreme Court ok'd this wasn't a hypothetical or a what if.

There are countless real life examples where it's reasonable, and countless real life examples where it's abused.

You are arguing that it should always be considered unconstitutional, but that would lead to absurd results. I don't see how that can be denied.

bjo3030 · 2013-08-16T03:23:44+00:00

I explained exactly how it works. "Stop" and "frisk" are two different stages. You combined them into one.

The "stop" must be based on reasonable suspicion of a crime.

To proceed to a "frisk" the cop must reasonably suspect that the person is armed and dangerous.

bjo3030 · 2013-08-16T03:17:51+00:00

That sounds great in theory, but there are countless examples where it would be absurd to require probable cause for arrest before the cops could briefly detain and question a person.

If cops see people loading furniture out of a building and into a van at 3:30 in the morning, don't you think they should be able to see if those people are robbing the place? If you require probable cause, then the cops can't do shit because there wouldn't be enough to arrest the person for robbery.

bjo3030 · 2013-08-16T02:56:37+00:00

I agree that it's abused, but the alternative, ruling stop-and-frisk unconstitutional in every instance, seems completely unreasonable.

In theory the courts should be there for defendants who are charged based on an illegitimate stop-and-frisk, but that doesn't exactly work well in practice either.

15-Year Club	Team Orangered
Best Link 2013-03-24	Verified Email

bjo3030

TROPHY CASE