Current Events. No debates! — Page 6

Ah the old race card. Pull that one out and it butters many parsnips nowadays.

Mrebo said:

Similar story is Paula Deen being fired by everybody, her next cookbook canceled. I'm less exercised about story since people are fired for all manner of silly reasons that might reflect poorly on a company, plus its not a government prosecution.

In this case, she was ostensibly fired for her admission that she used the n-word some number of years ago in describing someone (black) who robbed her. It came out in the course of an ongoing harassment lawsuit against her by an employee. I don't think using a racial slur years ago should count for that much. I don't think using it yesterday should necessarily count for that much if the person is sufficiently apologetic.

Perhaps it was worse because when asked if she used it, she said "of course"?  I haven't seen the clip, but that doesn't sound great out of context.

yeah, it does need to be considered that maybe the Paula Dean that said that 30 years ago has changed.   Even racists can have a change of heart.    Of course she also said she had wanted a plantation style wedding, with black people as servants.    That is not good.

Warbler said:

Of course she also said she had wanted a plantation style wedding, we black people as servants.    That is not good.

Silly Warbler, you're not black.

typo corrected.

Warbler said:

yeah, it does need to be considered that maybe the Paula Dean that said that 30 years ago has changed.   Even racists can have a change of heart.    Of course she also said she had wanted a plantation style wedding, with black people as servants.    That is not good.

That's a bad faux pas on her part. Shit, what WAS she thinking saying that? Oh boy

Mrebo said:

First, video making the rounds showing police abusing their authority. And if something illegal had been found in the car and there was no video, the kid would be in jail. How many people have gone to jail, particularly on plea bargains, based on such illegal searches?

It sure seems like those officers are jerks who don't care about peoples rights, constitutional or otherwise.    But maybe we need to see the other side of this.   The guy says he never had drugs in the car, but he could be lying.   He could have been doing stuff off camera to intentionally piss off the cops in order to try get them to do something bad,  I have seen multiple videos on youtube of people trying to do that.   Also we have no idea if what he described the officers doing and saying off camera actually happened.    I would love to hear from experts on whether or not the dog sniffing of the car was done properly, and legal experts on the whole stop.

Mrebo said:

And not to beat up on police, but I agree with this article concerning training police to not shoot dogs.

I agree completely with the article.   I am afraid that the cops might come to my door someday for some reason and my miniature poodle might bark at them and they might shoot it.   Shooting a dog should be the last resort, not the first option.   Many of the incidents listed in the article seem to be a complete disgrace to me.   Some of those officers probably deserve to lose their badges.  C3PS, what do you think of the article?

I love to hear from ferris on any of the above.

Hey, it's me. said:

Warbler said:

yeah, it does need to be considered that maybe the Paula Dean that said that 30 years ago has changed.   Even racists can have a change of heart.    Of course she also said she had wanted a plantation style wedding, with black people as servants.    That is not good.

That's a bad faux pas on her part. Shit, what WAS she thinking saying that? Oh boy

Maybe she is just a racist?

Something very similar in the news in the UK recently. 

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-23228019

Mrebo said:

Warbler said:

Mrebo said:

First, video making the rounds showing police abusing their authority. And if something illegal had been found in the car and there was no video, the kid would be in jail. How many people have gone to jail, particularly on plea bargains, based on such illegal searches?

It sure seems like those officers are jerks who don't care about peoples rights, constitutional or otherwise.    But maybe we need to see the other side of this.   The guy says he never had drugs in the car, but he could be lying.

Did you see the part where the dog apparently "indicated" because the officer told the dog to do so? (ie when the dog jumped up to the window and promptly back down). Maybe the dog did something else off camera at another part of the car, but even at the open window, the dog promptly moved on, after being told to jump up at the window.

that is why I would like to hear from some sort of expert on dog searches.   I would like to know if indeed the officer's actions would prompt the dog to act like it smelled drugs. 

Mrebo said:

He could have been doing stuff off camera to intentionally piss off the cops in order to try get them to do something bad, I have seen multiple videos on youtube of people trying to do that.

Point is that being non-accommodating/non-submissive should not mean cops feel they can "do something bad."

of course not.  

Mrebo said:

Also we have no idea if what he described the officers doing and saying off camera actually happened.    I would love to hear from experts on whether or not the dog sniffing of the car was done properly, and legal experts on the whole stop.

ferris should chime in!

 I wish he would.  

Mrebo said:

But it is pretty obvious the stop and bringing in the dog was based on the guy being a overly assertive (ie not a crime).

seems that way.  

Mrebo said:

Mrebo said:

And not to beat up on police, but I agree with this article concerning training police to not shoot dogs.

I agree completely with the article.   I am afraid that the cops might come to my door someday for some reason and my miniature poodle might bark at them and they might shoot it.   Shooting a dog should be the last resort, not the first option.   Many of the incidents listed in the article seem to be a complete disgrace to me.   Some of those officers probably deserve to lose their badges.  C3PS, what do you think of the article?

I love to hear from ferris on any of the above.

If you recall, ferris said no self-respecting cop would want to deal with the embarrassment of claiming s/he felt threatened by your poodle. But I do feel the standard for shooting a dog is overly subjective/easy to justify. And I think a huge part is less feeling threatened per se, than wanting to risk losing any control over a situation. And that is a common thread with the traffic stop article...

true.  

Mrebo said:

There is also this "3rd Amendment" case. I don't think the 3rd Amendment claim will fly, but breaking into someone's home and arresting them for non-cooperation with a surveillance operation is certainly illegal. More about police seeking control.

I think the 3rd amendment claim could fly.    I think one can argue police are soldiers of a sort.   I think one can argue that if the police of today existed when the amendment was written, that the founders would have included them as well as soldiers.   I am surprised they are also not making a 4th amendment  claim.    Seems like their rights to privacy were violated.    Did the cops have a search warrant before they broke in?   It certainly seems like the cops took things too far.

Mrebo said:

I promise I'm not trying to bait ferris to come back.... ;)

please do bait him to come back!   He drove me crazy sometimes, but I miss him and his prospective on things.

btw, Zimmerman said he will not testify.   Darn, I wanted the listen to prosecution grill him on why he suspected Trayvon of anything.  

Mrebo said:

Warbler said:

Mrebo said:

There is also this "3rd Amendment" case. I don't think the 3rd Amendment claim will fly, but breaking into someone's home and arresting them for non-cooperation with a surveillance operation is certainly illegal. More about police seeking control.

I think the 3rd amendment claim could fly.    I think one can argue police are soldiers of a sort.   I think one can argue that if the police of today existed when the amendment was written, that the founders would have included them as well as soldiers.   I am surprised they are also not making a 4th amendment  claim.    Seems like their rights to privacy were violated.    Did the cops have a search warrant before they broke in?   It certainly seems like the cops took things too far.

Well they'd have to argue that cops = soldiers...which I don't buy.

what about arguing that if modern day cops had existed back when the Constitution was written, that the founds would have added cops to the amendment. 

Mrebo said:

They'd have to argue that the occupation = quartering.

adds up to the same thing, cops inside the house for a prolonged period of time.

Mrebo said:

They'd have to have the Supreme Court declare that the 3rd Amendment applies to the states (via the 14th - that is not automatic and never been decided).

I won't go there,  I agree to disagree here.

Mrebo said:

I've read they are making a 4th Amendment claim, which one could say is not applicable since there is no search or seizure (aside from the arrest).

they entered the house without permission, if they did not have a warrant, I think that violates the 4th amendment. 

Mrebo said:

Good old-fashioned trespass, property damage, assault, false arrest, and other such legal claims are the most straightforward route, I'd wager.

cops committing trespass doesn't violate the 4th amendment?

Mrebo said:

Mrebo said:

I promise I'm not trying to bait ferris to come back.... ;)

please do bait him to come back!   He drove me crazy sometimes, but I miss him and his prospective on things.

Okay :P

Well this one time, on a Sunday years ago, my lady friend was driving on the highway with me as a passenger. There was very little traffic. Perhaps one or two other cars on the highway in sight. She was driving like an old lady, at 50 in a 65. Just because she felt like driving casual or something. I didn't even notice. Cop pulls us over. Gives her a ticket for "impeding traffic." Again, no notable traffic. I think the cop probably had a quota to meet.

does sound like it.  

Mrebo said:

Warbler said:

btw, Zimmerman said he will not testify.   Darn, I wanted the listen to prosecution grill him on why he suspected Trayvon of anything.  

Well since the burden is on the prosecution and the prosecution hasn't provided a case convincing beyond a reasonable doubt,

maybe they didn't, but will the jury see it that way is the question. 

Mrebo said:

 We want to see Zimmerman squirm! Meh.

I just want to know what, in Zimmerman's mind, made Trayvon look suspicious.  

Mrebo said:

Even the US DOJ (!) spent thousands of dollars related to rallies related to the case against Zimmerman. I have no principled objection to Zimmerman being tried for something...but trying him for such baldly political reasons with murder on such sparse evidence is disgusting.

I agree there has been too much outside/political pressure on this case.    Such pressure does usually help justice get done.

Mrebo said:

 

"If you think it's 60 percent likely or 70 percent or even 80 percent likely that Zimmerman is guilty and doesn’t deserve self-defense, you have to acquit," Dershowitz said.

well 80% does get close to what is needed to convict.   You don't need to erase all doubt, just all reasonable doubt.

Mrebo said:

"I might not want to be friendly with George Zimmerman at the end of the case … I certainly would not declare him innocent. There's a big difference between declaring him innocent and declaring him not guilty," he said.

I think there is reason to worry about what an actual vigilante might do.

yeah, I am worried about what might happen if Zimmerman is acquitted.   Think L.A. riots.   There will be a lot of people who will be very pissed if Zimmerman is found not guilty.   

Current Events.  No politics.  If the scenario turns political, take it to the politics thread, and put a link in here for others to follow if interested.

Back and forth, back and forth they go

Mrebo, I have replied to you in the political thread:

http://originaltrilogy.com/forum/topic.cfm/Politics/post/649242/#TopicPost649242

Mrebo said:

And finally, modern science catches up to reality on salt.

I thought consuming a high amount of salt increased the risk of high blood pressure.