Progarchives.com has always (since 2002) relied on banners ads to cover web hosting fees and all. Please consider supporting us by giving monthly PayPal donations and help keep PA fast-loading and ad-free forever.
Joined: August 11 2005
Location: Philly
Status: Offline
Points: 15784
Posted: June 22 2016 at 14:37
JJLehto wrote:
Anyway, sorry for the chain posting but I got distracted. THIS is why I came here for the night
Thoughts on the Supreme Court ruling? I'm reading up on it, but seems it now is OK for the police to use evidence gathered from an illegal search.
Apparently the majority ruling, summed up by Clarence Thomas, was if you are stopped illegally but then a warrant is found, even for a traffic violation, it's then legitimized and thus evidence obtained in said illegal stop can now be used against you.
I am not a lawyer, don't claim to be an expert on law and feel weird saying such a thing about an Ivy League graduate and Supreme Court justice but what kind of sh*t is this? Not only does that logic not follow to me, there are moral and realistic concerns about this.
Justice Sotomayor pretty much laid it out brilliantly. This means someone can be stopped for anything, look for a warrant, if they find one even for not paying a fine, goodbye 4th amendment rights. At first I wondered how realistic this is, but she pointed out that outstanding warrants are pretty common, 16,000 in Ferguson for example out of 21,000 people, she then lays out the clear impacts this will have on minorities.
Even if let go in the end, you will have something on your record.
Very disturbing days. I am not surprised at all the conservative judges backed this ruling, but very sad that Breyer is who tipped it over to 5-3
With some of the issues we've been experiencing in policing, I don't see this as helping the problem
I haven't read the decisions yet, but I just don't see how one could reasonably attempt to justify the discovery of the arrest warrant in the case as an application of the attenuation doctrine. Unless news reports are very wrong the illegal detainment seems to be the proximate cause of the discovery. I can't see what would be argued as an intervening event in this instance. Though reporting on SC decisions is laughably bad, I'm still comfortable enough to feel some outrage even at this stage.
"One had to be a Newton to notice that the moon is falling, when everyone sees that it doesn't fall. "
Anyway, sorry for the chain posting but I got distracted. THIS is why I came here for the night
Thoughts on the Supreme Court ruling? I'm reading up on it, but seems it now is OK for the police to use evidence gathered from an illegal search.
Apparently the majority ruling, summed up by Clarence Thomas, was if you are stopped illegally but then a warrant is found, even for a traffic violation, it's then legitimized and thus evidence obtained in said illegal stop can now be used against you.
I am not a lawyer, don't claim to be an expert on law and feel weird saying such a thing about an Ivy League graduate and Supreme Court justice but what kind of sh*t is this? Not only does that logic not follow to me, there are moral and realistic concerns about this.
Justice Sotomayor pretty much laid it out brilliantly. This means someone can be stopped for anything, look for a warrant, if they find one even for not paying a fine, goodbye 4th amendment rights. At first I wondered how realistic this is, but she pointed out that outstanding warrants are pretty common, 16,000 in Ferguson for example out of 21,000 people, she then lays out the clear impacts this will have on minorities.
Even if let go in the end, you will have something on your record.
Very disturbing days. I am not surprised at all the conservative judges backed this ruling, but very sad that Breyer is who tipped it over to 5-3
With some of the issues we've been experiencing in policing, I don't see this as helping the problem
I haven't read the decisions yet, but I just don't see how one could reasonably attempt to justify the discovery of the arrest warrant in the case as an application of the attenuation doctrine. Unless news reports are very wrong the illegal detainment seems to be the proximate cause of the discovery. I can't see what would be argued as an intervening event in this instance. Though reporting on SC decisions is laughably bad, I'm still comfortable enough to feel some outrage even at this stage.
Same, I waited a few days on this because I've tried to read 1: original source material and form an opinion, then 2: legitimate analysis and I feel safe in saying everything about this reeks to high heaven.
In all fairness, it was odd and frankly dumb that he wasn't gunna run again.
Especially with a very strong chance the Dems retake the senate, with the FL seat being one of the likely pickups, it was pretty stupid of him.
I hope his disasterous run has hurt his image, and perhaps tooo much time spent saying he wont run again (a waffle is worse the longer it goes) but I'd reckon he'd win relection fairly easily.
So, House Democrats led a sit in, basically shutting down the House to try and force a gun vote.
Boy this, protesting moments of silence, 15 hour filibusters. Is this the same impotent Democratic Party that can barely get their moderate/weak bills passed?
If only they applied this amount of energy to economic issues! Or ya know in 2009 when they squandered a rare opportunity
Anyway, while grandstanding and not much more it was an impressive effort to shut down the House, which can't really be done like in the Senate, and it is an important issue and hopefully one that can help fire up the base to win November.
Just since I'm moderate on guns/feels laws are not as critical/not a super important issue weird to see this bravado and forcefulness when it's been so sorely lacking elsewhere for years. Though anything that is a slap to Paul Ryan's smug face is an automatic A+ in my book
Don't get me wrong, I am still a bit disappointed the one time they show guts is on this issue. Makes me lament past failures/squandered opportunities even more.
I just dont know... if someone meets the criteria, (and it's a no brainer there should be universal background checks, mental health screens) I just don't really get why it matters what they want to do.
I said elsewhere, crime seems to be related stronger to population density and especially well being, then gun laws.
As for mass shootings, maybe there can be a crackdown on gun markets? To enforce those who shouldn't have guns at least trying to ensure it's harder. I have no idea how one goes about getting weapons you're not allowed to have so sorry if that idea is nonsense/unrealistic. Terrorist attacks, well sadly a motivated person often can't be stopped no matter how hard we try. Not sure anyone knows of any way that can be realistically stamped out, some gun laws certainly wont do it
Joined: January 25 2015
Location: kentucky
Status: Offline
Points: 2223
Posted: June 23 2016 at 14:11
JJLehto wrote:
and it's a no brainer there should be universal background checks, mental health screens
well, if we had those, no doubt a certain part of the problem would solve itself. However, there are too many people screaming BUT FREEDOM for these measures to be actual no-brainers.
I'd add an IQ test to weed out those morons who think it's okay to leave their loaded guns lying around so their toddlers can shoot themselves/each other.
Joined: January 11 2012
Location: Columbus&NYC
Status: Offline
Points: 3167
Posted: June 23 2016 at 14:34
emigre80 wrote:
JJLehto wrote:
and it's a no brainer there should be universal background checks, mental health screens
well, if we had those, no doubt a certain part of the problem would solve itself. However, there are too many people screaming BUT FREEDOM for these measures to be actual no-brainers.
I'd add an IQ test to weed out those morons who think it's okay to leave their loaded guns lying around so their toddlers can shoot themselves/each other.
If you're going to have an IQ test for gun control, I'd rather have an IQ test for having babies.
Joined: January 25 2015
Location: kentucky
Status: Offline
Points: 2223
Posted: June 23 2016 at 15:08
Smurph wrote:
emigre80 wrote:
JJLehto wrote:
and it's a no brainer there should be universal background checks, mental health screens
well, if we had those, no doubt a certain part of the problem would solve itself. However, there are too many people screaming BUT FREEDOM for these measures to be actual no-brainers.
I'd add an IQ test to weed out those morons who think it's okay to leave their loaded guns lying around so their toddlers can shoot themselves/each other.
If you're going to have an IQ test for gun control, I'd rather have an IQ test for having babies.
considering what I see every day in my job, I wouldn't half mind that. we could have both.
Joined: May 22 2007
Location: Michigan, U.S.
Status: Offline
Points: 66451
Posted: June 23 2016 at 15:14
emigre80 wrote:
Smurph wrote:
emigre80 wrote:
JJLehto wrote:
and it's a no brainer there should be universal background checks, mental health screens
well, if we had those, no doubt a certain part of the problem would solve itself. However, there are too many people screaming BUT FREEDOM for these measures to be actual no-brainers.
I'd add an IQ test to weed out those morons who think it's okay to leave their loaded guns lying around so their toddlers can shoot themselves/each other.
If you're going to have an IQ test for gun control, I'd rather have an IQ test for having babies.
considering what I see every day in my job, I wouldn't half mind that. we could have both.
Joined: May 27 2008
Location: Arizona
Status: Offline
Points: 463
Posted: June 23 2016 at 21:54
Which is the exception to the rule. Random "black market" guns are not so prevalent in their availability as people are led to believe. The term itself connotes some nefarious organization dedicated to getting guns in the hands of the wrong people. That is just more of the usual BS misdirection and misinformation campaign that a group like the NRA pushes into the mainstream so they can support the widespread dealers who sell regularly to straw buyers, because the gun laws in this country are NRAtarded.
"Oh, no! My gun was stolen by a person of indeterminate color and gender and height and weight. Sorry I can't be more help, officer."
A big flaw in the plan is all the dealers, and the lazy laws barely-governing them.
You cannot post new topics in this forum You cannot reply to topics in this forum You cannot delete your posts in this forum You cannot edit your posts in this forum You cannot create polls in this forum You cannot vote in polls in this forum
This page was generated in 0.240 seconds.
Donate monthly and keep PA fast-loading and ad-free forever.
/PAlogo_v2.gif "Progarchives.com Homepage")
American Politics the 2016 edition
Topic Options
JJLehto wrote:
