If you can read this, either the style sheet didn't load or you have an older browser that doesn't support style sheets. Try clearing your browser cache and refreshing the page.

(Herald Tribune (SW Florida))   Remember those warrantless door to door searches everyone was okay with in Boston because it was a unique circumstance and other police agencies would never try it? Welcome to the new America   (heraldtribune.com) divider line 582
    More: Asinine, Louise Goldsberry, United States Marshals Service, police raid, home invasions  
•       •       •

25531 clicks; posted to Main » on 20 Jul 2013 at 6:02 PM (1 year ago)   |  Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook   more»



582 Comments   (+0 »)
   
View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest

First | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | 11 | 12 | » | Last | Show all
 
2013-07-20 10:25:32 PM  

fnordfocus: davidphogan: I've been detained by police over the years several times, it's never shown up on any background check I've been through related to employment.

I've been told by an Officer that it's recorded every time he looks up my info is recorded, and that "too many" inquiries would be a red flag to employers.  If that's true, I'd imagine being detained or arrested would be a very big red flag, or was he misleading me?


Yes.

The middle part doesn't matter. The worst person to ask about legalities or how the world works is a cop.
 
2013-07-20 10:26:04 PM  

OBBN: Every single tine one of these Jackholes oversees their authority we need to make the press aware of it. Get it in print and maybe one day the public will have enough of this shiat.


How many cops threads have you read on Fark?  They're all in print.

Are we all fed up yet?
 
2013-07-20 10:27:13 PM  

Ennuipoet: Weaver95: I have friends of mine who believe themselves to be fierce conservatives and believe that government should be extremely limited....and yet they blindly support the war on drugs and the war on terror, believing that the bill of rights is an impediment and that we can trust law enforcement not to abuse it's authority over us.  I personally don't understand their mindset but there you go.

This is my entire extended family, and they wonder why I don't visit.  When I tell them, as an ex-cop, that the balance of power is out of control they say it is because I am just a liberal Northerner.

God this country is full of idiots, and I am related to most of them apparently.


Same reason I don't visit my family either. My brother is a cop and to the rest of my family, the sun rises and sets on his ass. Me, I'm just a liberal atheist living on the gubmint dole and I could never hold a candle to him.

And watching him on many occasions using the "cop voice" on his kids just left me shaking my head.
 
2013-07-20 10:27:29 PM  
If I ever find myself in this woman's situation, I will pray for two things: first, that I be given courage enough to die free rather than live in subservience; second, that I be given really good aim.
 
2013-07-20 10:29:25 PM  

DarthBart: And watching him on many occasions using the "cop voice" on his kids...


Shudder.

Also... take a bath and get a farking job hippie.
 
2013-07-20 10:29:27 PM  

fnordfocus: davidphogan: I've been detained by police over the years several times, it's never shown up on any background check I've been through related to employment.

I've been told by an Officer that it's recorded every time he looks up my info is recorded, and that "too many" inquiries would be a red flag to employers.  If that's true, I'd imagine being detained or arrested would be a very big red flag, or was he misleading me?


Your info is almost certainly in the department's FI system, but he was pulling your leg in regards to employers finding out. FI entries are not public record and thus not visible to a background check.

/pretty sure I'm right about this.
 
2013-07-20 10:31:53 PM  

sendtodave: leadmetal: It does have to be this way for americans to have the country they apparently want and vote for. (as if there's a real choice in voting since in most cases the difference isn't worth mentioning) Americans by and large want to tell their neighbors how to live. They support the interventionist foreign policy. They submissively crawl to government in fear of boogiemen. They want collectivist programs. They want the government to keep their children from doing the wrong things (drugs, sex, whatever). They want to safe from 'risk'. So on and so forth. To have all this requires government violence or the threat there of. It requires an occupying force. Government has one tool to accomplish everything, to use it's monopoly on legal violence.

Social contract arguments typically posit that individuals have consented, either explicitly or tacitly, to surrender some of their freedoms and submit to the authority of the ruler or magistrate (or to the decision of a majority), in exchange for protection of their remaining rights.


The so-called social contract is fiction. Valid contracts are usually written and always entered into voluntarily. This  so called social contract is invoked by those people who think they should tell their neighbors how to live, take their stuff, force collectivist policies and so forth and so on. Behind it all is the monopoly on legal violence. It's not even a written contract and entry into it is not voluntary. Ultimately the idea of a social contract is simply a warmer fuzzier way of referring to the monopoly on legal violence claimed by the state.
 
2013-07-20 10:32:26 PM  
The police are starting to use unmarked SUV's on the freeway to pull people over. I am telling you right now I am not going to stop for one because they don't even have the light strips inside as to not give them away while undercover. They use a beeping light flashing thing??? I will be calling 911 first requesting clarity from them and or a marked car. I'm sure I'll be promptly given a talking on a cell while driving ticket along with my speeding ticket!
 
2013-07-20 10:33:43 PM  

Pray 4 Mojo: sendtodave: Penman: If I were her, I would have fired. No questions asked. If I end up dying, then at least it's in the cause of liberty.

Then this would have been a non-story...

Is anyone else concerned that this is already a non-story? Two reasons it's worrying me that, since Thursday, this has not been picked up by any other legit press:

1. The "real" news outlets actually did their investigation and found out that this lady's story is bullshirt.
2. Conspiracy theory.

Seriously... the only thing I can find on the web is low level blog sites and message boards re-hashing the HT story.

Something smells.


Here's the reason it's a non-story: The woman whose home was illegally raided by the cops had to go to the local press herself! I guess "real" news outlets decided that this is not important enough for their readers.
 
2013-07-20 10:35:28 PM  

Pray 4 Mojo: fnordfocus: davidphogan: I've been detained by police over the years several times, it's never shown up on any background check I've been through related to employment.

I've been told by an Officer that it's recorded every time he looks up my info is recorded, and that "too many" inquiries would be a red flag to employers.  If that's true, I'd imagine being detained or arrested would be a very big red flag, or was he misleading me?

Yes.

The middle part doesn't matter. The worst person to ask about legalities or how the world works is a cop.


This is unfortunately true. There is no requirement for the police to know the ins and outs of the law. Worse, the legal system actually incentivises this ignorance. If a cop violates a law or laws, as long as they were "acting in good faith" they are shielded from any consequences. Personally I would consider actually knowing the law(s) to be a requirement of good faith, but what do I know.
 
2013-07-20 10:37:54 PM  

m00: sendtodave: "Why did you shoot me? I was reading a book": The new warrior cop is out of control

from the article: The most volatile night of the convention featured one incident in which Jefferson County, Colorado, deputies unknowingly clashed with and then pepper-sprayed undercover Denver cops posing as violent protesters.

Wait, what?


Happens all the time. Those in government need a reason to crack down on groups that oppose whatever they are doing. They also need to destroy the image of these groups to the public at large. The best way to do this is to infiltrate and promote/commit a violent act or to simply pose as them at a protest and start smashing things and attacking people. Fixes everything. It's been done in the USA since at least the 1960s.

Remember kids, the member of your group who wants to act violently is a cop or a fed. Kick him out or ignore him.
 
2013-07-20 10:38:21 PM  

KimNorth: The police are starting to use unmarked SUV's on the freeway to pull people over. I am telling you right now I am not going to stop for one because they don't even have the light strips inside as to not give them away while undercover. They use a beeping light flashing thing??? I will be calling 911 first requesting clarity from them and or a marked car. I'm sure I'll be promptly given a talking on a cell while driving ticket along with my speeding ticket!


I would check your local laws. I know at least in my state unmarked vehicles cannot make traffic stops. If this is the case, you can rasily get out of the ticket in court, and I'm not even sure you have a duty to stop.
 
2013-07-20 10:39:21 PM  
So can we all finally forget about the whole "gun ownership protecting people from oppressive government" bullshiate now?
 
2013-07-20 10:43:33 PM  

Aristocles: Pray 4 Mojo: sendtodave: Penman: If I were her, I would have fired. No questions asked. If I end up dying, then at least it's in the cause of liberty.

Then this would have been a non-story...

Is anyone else concerned that this is already a non-story? Two reasons it's worrying me that, since Thursday, this has not been picked up by any other legit press:

1. The "real" news outlets actually did their investigation and found out that this lady's story is bullshirt.
2. Conspiracy theory.

Seriously... the only thing I can find on the web is low level blog sites and message boards re-hashing the HT story.

Something smells.

Here's the reason it's a non-story: The woman whose home was illegally raided by the cops had to go to the local press herself! I guess "real" news outlets decided that this is not important enough for their readers.


So... number 2 then?
 
2013-07-20 10:43:52 PM  
59!? That's not a recent picture of her, I'll tell you that much.

Surprised that the police used swear words?  What planet is she from?

/acab
 
2013-07-20 10:45:03 PM  

HotIgneous Intruder: fnordfocus: Except for the biggest corporate employers, they all ask if you have an arrest record.  That leaves a civilian like me two choices. Say "no," and the background check shows a "detention" or "contact" with Officers, or say "yes" and they don't even bother with the background check.  In no case, would the rest of my application even get read.

Well, it is easier to get a gun that get a job, so there's that.


This just in.... alert alert alert....

It is easier to give someone else money than to convince someone to give you money.
 
2013-07-20 10:48:48 PM  
It's amazing how quickly some folks defend fascism - at least, until they're the ones staring down the barrel of a gun.
 
m00
2013-07-20 10:49:37 PM  

OBBN: Please tell me you filed a complaint with internal affairs (yeah I know, probably a waste if time, but at least it would be on the moran's record should he eventually make good on the threat) or better yet contacted the local press.

Every single tine one of these Jackholes oversees their authority we need to make the press aware of it. Get it in print and maybe one day the public will have enough of this shiat.


Yeah, I'm not going to purposely put myself or my family at risk for retaliation. This is when I lived in PG County, Maryland (where I went to college)... which at the time was the 3rd worst county in the United States for police brutality. The police were extremely brutal. I mean, a friend of mine ran a stop sign and he was a guitar player and the police broke his hands after they saw the guitar in his backseat and were like "oh... you play guitar do you?". Once I was at a Denny's with some friends in the middle of the night, and the fact I ordered bacon personally offended a cop who was also at the restaurant (he thought I ordered bacon to taunt him, when I really I just love bacon). I consider myself lucky I merely got verbally berated.

I suppose it's cowardly not to become some sort of anti-police activist, but doing so there would basically be a death sentence. Cops really do plant drugs, and shoot people and lie about it, and beat people up for the lulz. In the departments that tolerate this it's systemic.

I've lived in places in the south and in the pacific northwest where the cops I encountered were really decent people. But the places where it's bad, it's really bad and they could kill you for looking at them wrong. If you get on their radar for going to the press or filing a complaint, you are almost guaranteed to be tortured and then murdered. Unless you are some combination wealthy, famous, or politically connected... which I'm not.

People who have also lived in "certain areas" with brutal police forces know exactly what I'm talking about. While I agree with the outcome of the Zimmerman trial, I absolutely understand why so many black people have an issue with the situation. There are places where the cops really are out to get you, and if they feel like murdering you they'll murder you. It's unfortunate that black people disproportionately live in these places, because it means a large portion of the US can't relate to that.
 
2013-07-20 10:52:21 PM  

Pray 4 Mojo: Aristocles: Pray 4 Mojo: sendtodave: Penman: If I were her, I would have fired. No questions asked. If I end up dying, then at least it's in the cause of liberty.

Then this would have been a non-story...

Is anyone else concerned that this is already a non-story? Two reasons it's worrying me that, since Thursday, this has not been picked up by any other legit press:

1. The "real" news outlets actually did their investigation and found out that this lady's story is bullshirt.
2. Conspiracy theory.

Seriously... the only thing I can find on the web is low level blog sites and message boards re-hashing the HT story.

Something smells.

Here's the reason it's a non-story: The woman whose home was illegally raided by the cops had to go to the local press herself! I guess "real" news outlets decided that this is not important enough for their readers.

So... number 2 then?


Not necessarily. Remember, these are the same cops (or at least cops in the same dept) that caught a child rape suspect. That's the type of feel-good story that most of the news outlets ran with. So, when Ms. Goldsberry came to them with her tale of cop douchebaggery, it didn't fit the narrative. I don't know if that's conspiracy or not.

However, regarding no. 1, if the story is bullshirt, then the cop who is quoted would probably take some action against Mr. Lyons for printing the shirt.
 
2013-07-20 10:53:35 PM  
Get out on the lawn face down ... habitants !      Shut up !

/habs
 
2013-07-20 10:53:43 PM  

Penman: sendtodave: Penman: If I were her, I would have fired. No questions asked. If I end up dying, then at least it's in the cause of liberty.

Then this would have been a non-story, she'd have been a criminal that got what she deserved, and the cops would just be that much more likely to shoot first next time.

This is why every person with a family should own a gun, capable of piercing body armor.


...which would then justify that cop's reaction, hands down. That's what we're getting now - "I just wanna go home to my kids tonight" - when a cop in full tactical gear, holding a shield, faces some scared woman with a .38. Imagine how easy it'll be to have that same cop justify that same reaction, or worse - the cop thinks he was being generous ("going above and beyond") by not shooting her in her own home now - when she pulls out something that can go through body armor.

Later, when he talks about shooting an armed resident who ignored orders from police and grabbed an "assault weapon", no one will blink an eye because, hey, he gave her an order and she didn't comply.

That's the problem with escalation. If it happens, you lose. You want to do something useful? Push for de-militarizing the cops, not militarizing the civilians.
 
2013-07-20 10:57:31 PM  

fnordfocus: Smackledorfer: That's enough to show up in a background check, so you're pretty much farked when it comes to getting a job.

Lying once again?

I'm guessing you've never had to taint yourself by filling out a job application?

Except for the biggest corporate employers, they all ask if you have an arrest record.  That leaves a civilian like me two choices. Say "no," and the background check shows a "detention" or "contact" with Officers, or say "yes" and they don't even bother with the background check.  In no case, would the rest of my application even get read.


There is a lot of ignorance about background checks. I've done lots of them - some quite extensive for work on government contracts. You're an idiot if you think this will show up on a background check. That is all.
 
2013-07-20 10:57:46 PM  

FormlessOne: You want to do something useful? Push for de-militarizing the cops, not militarizing the civilians.


Actually... I would like to see both.
 
2013-07-20 11:00:02 PM  

m00: The police were extremely brutal. I mean, a friend of mine ran a stop sign and he was a guitar player and the police broke his hands after they saw the guitar in his backseat and were like "oh... you play guitar do you?".


Christ.

What is it with DC suburb cops?
 
2013-07-20 11:01:38 PM  

Smackledorfer: fnordfocus: Smackledorfer: That's enough to show up in a background check, so you're pretty much farked when it comes to getting a job.

Lying once again?

I'm guessing you've never had to taint yourself by filling out a job application?

Except for the biggest corporate employers, they all ask if you have an arrest record.  That leaves a civilian like me two choices. Say "no," and the background check shows a "detention" or "contact" with Officers, or say "yes" and they don't even bother with the background check.  In no case, would the rest of my application even get read.

Like I said, you are making shiat up. It is hillarious that you feel you have to. It would be easy enough to fill threads with accurate criticism of law enforcement.

Terry stops and contacts with officers are not arrests, and do not show up on criminal history checks. No one gets booked, given fbi numbers, or entered into databases for any background checkers to access or read.


Ah, good. I was working down the thread and didn't know someone had attended to this. What sort of idiot thinks all contacts with cops are entered into some database that shows up in background checks? Even if you're cuffed... Detained is not arrested. Detained means you're not in a database. It's some strange myth that idiots seem to believe for some reason, I have no idea why.
 
2013-07-20 11:02:55 PM  
Americans are really hung up on this idea that the have complete Freedom.

There are different kinds of freedom:

Political Freedom
Freedom to complain about the governing bodies at any level without fear of reprisal. Freedom to challenge government through accepted channels. Freedom to seek governing roles.

Do we have it? Yes!

Economic Freedom
Freedom to accumulate and utilize resources through any legal means and for any legal purpose.

Do we have it? Yes!

Social Freedom
Freedom to live any lifestyle that does not negatively affect others.

Do we have it? Well...according to the Constitution we do, but since "others" are insufferably sensitive about what affects them, we are in a non-stop shouting match about who should be allowed to do what.

Legislative Freedom
Freedom from burdensome laws and regulations. Freedom from fear of legal action from fellow citizens.

Do we have it?Not really. Because we're all free to pursue Economic Freedom, we've created thick books of laws designed to "even the playing field," making it difficult for others to take "unfair advantage." This pertains not just to commerce laws but labor, vehicular and any other aspect of life. In addition, the ease with which private law suits can be brought has made us fear situations where precedents for law suits exist.

In my experience, traveling around the world, it seems like you can have one or two types of freedom, but at the expense of losing the others.
 
2013-07-20 11:02:57 PM  

FormlessOne: That's the problem with escalation. If it happens, you lose. You want to do something useful? Push for de-militarizing the cops, not militarizing the civilians.


1.bp.blogspot.com
 
2013-07-20 11:03:43 PM  

UnspokenVoice: fnordfocus: Smackledorfer: That's enough to show up in a background check, so you're pretty much farked when it comes to getting a job.

Lying once again?

I'm guessing you've never had to taint yourself by filling out a job application?

Except for the biggest corporate employers, they all ask if you have an arrest record.  That leaves a civilian like me two choices. Say "no," and the background check shows a "detention" or "contact" with Officers, or say "yes" and they don't even bother with the background check.  In no case, would the rest of my application even get read.

There is a lot of ignorance about background checks. I've done lots of them - some quite extensive for work on government contracts. You're an idiot if you think this will show up on a background check. That is all.


I figured it doesn't, because I had to personally get a "no prior arrest" statement from the police station in order to rent an apartment once (I had really shiatty credit).

I figured that if they could view prior arrest records, they wouldn't need me to go get that myself.

Convictions?  I'm not sure about.
 
2013-07-20 11:04:37 PM  

FormlessOne: It's amazing how quickly some folks defend fascism - at least, until they're the ones staring down the barrel of a gun.


Some people want to be ruled. Freedom is a scary unpredictable thing.

So obviously, people insisting on freedom are just trying to scare people.

So therefore freedom == terrorism.
 
2013-07-20 11:05:15 PM  
I'm shocked that fark has a problem with this considering most of fark is lib idiots.
 
2013-07-20 11:06:21 PM  

sendtodave: in order to rent an apartment


Oh, an the underlying message there, of course, is that they wouldn't have rented me an apartment if I had even had an arrest record, let alone a criminal record.

Man, I feel bad for all those poor schmucks whose life is ruined because they were carrying a little bit of weed.
 
2013-07-20 11:09:57 PM  

MurphyMurphy: FormlessOne: It's amazing how quickly some folks defend fascism - at least, until they're the ones staring down the barrel of a gun.

Some people want to be ruled. Freedom is a scary unpredictable thing.

So obviously, people insisting on freedom are just trying to scare people.

So therefore freedom == terrorism.


Our founding fathers were instigators, insurrectionists, some would even say that they were terrorists.  Their rebellion ruined the lives of many honest, hard working, god and king fearing people.

If you were a businessman in the 1760s, doing steady trade with Britain, would you support those that flout the law, even though the law is burdensome?

Most people wouldn't, I don't think.

I got mine, fark your revolution.
 
2013-07-20 11:10:37 PM  

TuteTibiImperes: If I'm understanding the timeline of this correctly:

1. Lady sees a guy in a hunting vest pointing a gun at her while she's washing dishes (I'm assuming she saw him through a window as mysterious hunting-vest-dude apparently disappears from the rest of the story, perhaps it was one of the officers)

2. Lady starts screaming (understandably) and crawls across the floor to get her gun

3. There's a banging on the door and someone identifying themselves as a police officer requests entry (which is understandable considering he just heard screaming coming from inside the apartment)

4. After the door doesn't open, the police force it open, again, which is understandable - warrants aren't needed for exigent circumstances, and he just heard a lady screaming and is apparently aware that there's reported fugitive, possibly armed, in the area

5.  Because he's concerned for her safety and there is a possible armed fugitive, he comes in fully armed, and rightfully tells her to put down her weapon.

6.  The boyfriend asks to come out, he's let out, and immediately handcuffed, appropriately, as the police don't know who he is, if this is a domestic dispute, if he's the fugitive, etc, better safe than sorry - restrain him and then figure out what's going on

7.  The lady is screaming things that aren't related to the situation (being an American citizen does not give you the right to hold a gun on a police officer or to disobey their orders in that type of situation) but is finally calmed down by the boyfriend after he sees the other police outside.

8. Lady puts her gun down, the house is searched (there was a confrontation inside the home, screaming coming from it, it seems reasonable to me)

9. The situation is explained to the lady and her boyfriend, and they're let go

I don't see a police over-reach in this.  If an officer was driving past my house and heard loud screaming in terror I'd want him to come in as I very well could be in mortal danger.  Perhaps the guy was a bit gruff in his language, but he identified himself as a police officer and the couple delayed allowing him entry, and then the lady refused to lower her weapon.  She's frankly lucky that she didn't get shot.


You must have skipped the part where the screaming lady repeatedly asked for proof he was an officer and all he responded with were expletives.

The guy is a douchebag.
Probably needs to be at the gym in 26 minutes.
No slashies for the troll
 
m00
2013-07-20 11:10:45 PM  

sendtodave: Christ.

What is it with DC suburb cops?


Personally I think they get bullied and emasculated by the politicians and diplomats. Who basically treat cops like servants and errand-boys. And like any bullied kid, they turn right around and bully someone even weaker. Which is all of us working nobodies.
 
2013-07-20 11:12:49 PM  
Fark, the place where everyone hates cops but loves jackbooted authority
 
2013-07-20 11:13:33 PM  
Bunch of wannabe "wannabe cops".
 
2013-07-20 11:14:57 PM  

kortex: I'm shocked that fark has a problem with this considering most of fark is lib idiots.


Lolwut?
 
2013-07-20 11:16:48 PM  

KimNorth: The police are starting to use unmarked SUV's on the freeway to pull people over. I am telling you right now I am not going to stop for one because they don't even have the light strips inside as to not give them away while undercover. They use a beeping light flashing thing??? I will be calling 911 first requesting clarity from them and or a marked car. I'm sure I'll be promptly given a talking on a cell while driving ticket along with my speeding ticket!


Do that. You're allowed. In fact, any decent cop or trooper would understand if you are a female that you are wary of pulling over for ANYONE on the freeway. But do this:

1. Turn on your hazard lights. This indicates you've seen the officer and intend to comply with the pull-over signal.
2. Slow down and use your turn signal. Same as above.
3. Exit at the nearest off-ramp.
4. Pull over at the nearest well-lit public location, such as a gas station or supermarket parking lot.
5. Roll down your window, turn on the interior light, and keep your hands on the steering wheel.
6. When the cop yells at you What the F*CK were you doing?!!?!?? explain in a calm, rational voice that you were nervous about pulling off the freeway for an unmarked unit because [insert reasonable excuse here] and you indicated your willingness to comply by your actions.
7. Then obey every command subsequently given as to producing ID, registration, insurance, signing the ticket, etc. Do not get into a debate about the legality of your ticket, and don't argue with the cop over the constitutionality of the unmarked car. Save that for court.
 
2013-07-20 11:17:59 PM  

RINO: I'm about to go through a police academy, but events like this worry me. Articles like this and Radley Balko's new book (which is a great farking read, by the way) make me fear that I might have to take part in bullshiat like this.


No. You don't have to.
 
m00
2013-07-20 11:18:44 PM  

Gyrfalcon: any decent cop or trooper

...

That's kinda the problem, ain't it?
 
2013-07-20 11:20:24 PM  

Gyrfalcon: KimNorth: The police are starting to use unmarked SUV's on the freeway to pull people over. I am telling you right now I am not going to stop for one because they don't even have the light strips inside as to not give them away while undercover. They use a beeping light flashing thing??? I will be calling 911 first requesting clarity from them and or a marked car. I'm sure I'll be promptly given a talking on a cell while driving ticket along with my speeding ticket!

Do that. You're allowed. In fact, any decent cop or trooper would understand if you are a female that you are wary of pulling over for ANYONE on the freeway. But do this:

1. Turn on your hazard lights. This indicates you've seen the officer and intend to comply with the pull-over signal.
2. Slow down and use your turn signal. Same as above.
3. Exit at the nearest off-ramp.
4. Pull over at the nearest well-lit public location, such as a gas station or supermarket parking lot.
5. Roll down your window, turn on the interior light, and keep your hands on the steering wheel.
6. When the cop yells at you What the F*CK were you doing?!!?!?? explain in a calm, rational voice that you were nervous about pulling off the freeway for an unmarked unit because [insert reasonable excuse here] and you indicated your willingness to comply by your actions.
7. Then obey every command subsequently given as to producing ID, registration, insurance, signing the ticket, etc. Do not get into a debate about the legality of your ticket, and don't argue with the cop over the constitutionality of the unmarked car. Save that for court.


8. Cry to get out of the ticket.
 
2013-07-20 11:24:13 PM  

sendtodave: MurphyMurphy: FormlessOne: It's amazing how quickly some folks defend fascism - at least, until they're the ones staring down the barrel of a gun.

Some people want to be ruled. Freedom is a scary unpredictable thing.

So obviously, people insisting on freedom are just trying to scare people.

So therefore freedom == terrorism.

Our founding fathers were instigators, insurrectionists, some would even say that they were terrorists.  Their rebellion ruined the lives of many honest, hard working, god and king fearing people.

If you were a businessman in the 1760s, doing steady trade with Britain, would you support those that flout the law, even though the law is burdensome?

Most people wouldn't, I don't think.

I got mine, fark your revolution.


There comes a point where the regulations become so burdensome that it is literally impossible to make an  honest buck.
Many of King loving businessmen were simply con artists and corruptible bastards that used the system against their competition to the detriment of the public.  Eventually the populace they drained their wealth from got tired of fighting for them and wanted a better deal.

It doesn't take the majority to overthrow a government.
A nation wide sense of ambivalence towards a besieged leadership will serve just as well.

/Its kind of where we're at now.
/The government needs things like Prism because, in a nation where its impossible to keep a secret, no one cares to tell it about the terrorists.
 
2013-07-20 11:24:15 PM  
upload.wikimedia.org
 
2013-07-20 11:26:15 PM  

sendtodave: UnspokenVoice: fnordfocus: Smackledorfer: That's enough to show up in a background check, so you're pretty much farked when it comes to getting a job.

Lying once again?

I'm guessing you've never had to taint yourself by filling out a job application?

Except for the biggest corporate employers, they all ask if you have an arrest record.  That leaves a civilian like me two choices. Say "no," and the background check shows a "detention" or "contact" with Officers, or say "yes" and they don't even bother with the background check.  In no case, would the rest of my application even get read.

There is a lot of ignorance about background checks. I've done lots of them - some quite extensive for work on government contracts. You're an idiot if you think this will show up on a background check. That is all.

I figured it doesn't, because I had to personally get a "no prior arrest" statement from the police station in order to rent an apartment once (I had really shiatty credit).

I figured that if they could view prior arrest records, they wouldn't need me to go get that myself.

Convictions?  I'm not sure about.


Detaining is not arresting. Just so you are aware. If you get a court date, that's on record. Getting stopped and a warning? That doesn't even make the records even if they gave you a warning on paper.
 
2013-07-20 11:26:20 PM  

sendtodave: ...in order to rent an apartment

Oh, an the underlying message there, of course, is that they wouldn't have rented me an apartment if I had even had an arrest record, let alone a criminal record.  Man, I feel bad for all those poor schmucks whose life is ruined because they were carrying a little bit of weed.


Requiring a "no prior arrest" query for prospective tenants is a recipe for the landlord to be sued, and lose.

But like job interview questions, most people are more interested in having employment or a roof over their heads than justice, and so these illegal policies are tolerated.
 
2013-07-20 11:26:34 PM  
LAWSUIT!!!! LAWSUIT!!!!  LAWSUIT!!!!  LAWSUIT!!!!  LAWSUIT!!!!  LAWSUIT!!!!  LAWSUIT!!!!  LAWSUIT!!!!  LAWSUIT!!!!  LAWSUIT!!!!  LAWSUIT!!!!  LAWSUIT!!!!  LAWSUIT!!!!  LAWSUIT!!!!  LAWSUIT!!!!  LAWSUIT!!!!  LAWSUIT!!!!  LAWSUIT!!!!  LAWSUIT!!!!  LAWSUIT!!!!  LAWSUIT!!!!  LAWSUIT!!!!LAWSUIT!!!!  LAWSUIT!!!!  LAWSUIT!!!!  LAWSUIT!!!!  LAWSUIT!!!!  LAWSUIT!!!!  LAWSUIT!!!!  LAWSUIT!!!!  LAWSUIT!!!!  LAWSUIT!!!!  LAWSUIT!!!!  LAWSUIT!!!!  LAWSUIT!!!!LAWSUIT!!!!  LAWSUIT!!!!LAWSUIT!!!!LAWSUIT!!!!  LAWSUIT!!!!LAWSUIT!!!!  LAWSUIT!!!!  LAWSUIT!!!!  LAWSUIT!!!!  LAWSUIT!!!!  LAWSUIT!!!!  LAWSUIT!!!!  LAWSUIT!!!!  LAWSUIT!!!!LAWSUIT!!!!  LAWSUIT!!!!  LAWSUIT!!!!  LAWSUIT!!!!  LAWSUIT!!!!  LAWSUIT!!!!  LAWSUIT!!!!  LAWSUIT!!!!  LAWSUIT!!!!  LAWSUIT!!!!LAWSUIT!!!!  LAWSUIT!!!!  LAWSUIT!!!!  LAWSUIT!!!!
 
2013-07-20 11:28:37 PM  
Benevolent Misanthrope:

Remember friends - Police are not nice.  Never, ever trust them, and never, ever call them unless you have absolutely no alternative.  They are as likely to shoot you as they are to shoot the bad guy.  They are even somewhat likely to think you ARE the bad guy, if you don't cower in awe before them.

Completely and totally off point for the situation at hand. She did not call them. It was not about trusting them. Sometimes it's all about surviving them.
 
2013-07-20 11:28:58 PM  

TuteTibiImperes: Pray 4 Mojo: TuteTibiImperes: Let me clarify with this too - her screaming was the only reason they had legitimate cause to enter the apartment.

If they'd knocked normally, she'd opened the door unarmed, and refused them entry, any further push to enter the apartment would have been wrong.

Here is the problem with that (assuming this is a reasonably accurate description of that the Marshal actually said):

But when the people in Goldsberry's apartment didn't open up, that told Wiggins he had probably found the right door. No one at other units had reacted that way, he said.

"Open up. It's the police" does not give officers free reign to do whatever the fark they want.

Screaming heard from inside the apartment, no one answers when the police identify themselves, to me that's a legitimate reason to open the door to check on the safety of those inside.


Eeeexcept for the part where they'd been searching the  entire complex without warrants and had just  aimed a gun at the woman. 'Fruit of the Poisonous Tree' may not apply here in practice, but it damn well does in theory--if you aim a gun through a window, then hear a scream, no, you don't get to claim someone's life is in danger, because  you can no longer tell if they're screaming because of you or someone else.
 
2013-07-20 11:32:02 PM  
I just realized I've been posting in this thread for over 7 hours.

Screw you guys... I'm going home.
 
m00
2013-07-20 11:35:30 PM  

PsiChick: Eeeexcept for the part where they'd been searching the entire complex without warrants and had just aimed a gun at the woman. 'Fruit of the Poisonous Tree' may not apply here in practice, but it damn well does in theory--if you aim a gun through a window, then hear a scream, no, you don't get to claim someone's life is in danger, because you can no longer tell if they're screaming because of you or someone else.


its exactly the same as planting drugs on someone and then claiming you lawfully searched them because you found drugs. Oh wait, this happens though.
 
Displayed 50 of 582 comments

First | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | 11 | 12 | » | Last | Show all

View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest


This thread is closed to new comments.

Continue Farking
Submit a Link »
On Twitter





In Other Media


  1. Links are submitted by members of the Fark community.

  2. When community members submit a link, they also write a custom headline for the story.

  3. Other Farkers comment on the links. This is the number of comments. Click here to read them.

  4. Click here to submit a link.

Report