Conversation

Notices

1. Embed this notice
   Trevor Goodchild:verified::pondering_orb: (trevorgoodchild@poa.st)'s status on Tuesday, 02-Apr-2024 13:01:08 JST Trevor Goodchild:verified::pondering_orb:
   :pepeLol:
   • Embed this notice
     ?? Humpleupagus ?? (humpleupagus@eveningzoo.club)'s status on Tuesday, 02-Apr-2024 13:01:08 JST ?? Humpleupagus ??

     in reply to
     Fun fact: If a cop doesn't have a reason to detain you, you don't have to listen to them. You can walk away.
   • Embed this notice
     ?? Humpleupagus ?? (humpleupagus@eveningzoo.club)'s status on Tuesday, 02-Apr-2024 14:22:11 JST ?? Humpleupagus ??

     in reply to

     • reeeeeelman
     Been a long time since I studied criminal law, but my memory is that detainment only requires reasonable suspicion that a crime is being or has been committed, though it can be done for the officers safety in the course of an investigation, reasonable suspicion still required, but the detained person may not be the target if its a safety concern. It's ultimately for the purpose of investigation.
     
     Arrest requires probable cause that a crime has been committed, and the person arrested is the accused.
   • Embed this notice
     reeeeeelman (realman543@annihilation.social)'s status on Tuesday, 02-Apr-2024 14:22:12 JST reeeeeelman

     in reply to

     • ?? Humpleupagus ??
     @Humpleupagus @TrevorGoodchild Detainment is arrest. Don't know why more Americans don't hate this practice. Isn't it against their constitution to arrest someone without a warrant or something?
   • Embed this notice
     ?? Humpleupagus ?? (humpleupagus@eveningzoo.club)'s status on Tuesday, 02-Apr-2024 14:33:28 JST ?? Humpleupagus ??

     in reply to

     • reeeeeelman
     • Dudebro
     The constitution doesn't prohibit detainment though, or investigation per se. The warrant requirement only applies to searches and seizures. It's always been thought to apply to tangible property, not persons, as far as I understand.
     
     Arrests without warrants are legal. They happen every day. Perp breaks in your house. You hog tie him and call the cops. The officer arrests him. There's no need to get a judge involved.
   • Embed this notice
     Dudebro (dudebro@nicecrew.digital)'s status on Tuesday, 02-Apr-2024 14:33:29 JST Dudebro

     in reply to

     • ?? Humpleupagus ??
     • reeeeeelman
     Do you think the majority of us are actually taught what’s inside the United States Constitution? Or for in fact of that matter how to interact with a police officer? Not to sound like a dick, but the easiest way to strip rights is to not teach you that you have any.
   • Embed this notice
     ?? Humpleupagus ?? (humpleupagus@eveningzoo.club)'s status on Tuesday, 02-Apr-2024 14:36:55 JST ?? Humpleupagus ??

     in reply to

     • ?? Humpleupagus ??
     • reeeeeelman
     • Dudebro
     To the extent that the 4th amendment includes persons, that's typically been applied where the crime occurs outside of the presence of a direct witness.
     
     But I'm not a criminal lawyer. This area is largely Greek to me.
     
     You wanna discuss easements or reciprocal servitudes? 😏
   • Embed this notice
     Dudebro (dudebro@nicecrew.digital)'s status on Tuesday, 02-Apr-2024 14:37:35 JST Dudebro

     in reply to

     • ?? Humpleupagus ??
     • reeeeeelman
     Yeah but they have to give verbal reason which that cunt didn’t.
     ?? Humpleupagus ?? likes this.
   • Embed this notice
     ?? Humpleupagus ?? (humpleupagus@eveningzoo.club)'s status on Tuesday, 02-Apr-2024 14:38:46 JST ?? Humpleupagus ??

     in reply to

     • reeeeeelman
     • Dudebro
     I think there's a case that says it doesn't have to the right reason though. Something about probable cause being objective, not subjective, so as long as there was a justification, when of the officer found it afterward, it's legal.
   • Embed this notice
     ?? Humpleupagus ?? (humpleupagus@eveningzoo.club)'s status on Tuesday, 02-Apr-2024 14:44:06 JST ?? Humpleupagus ??

     in reply to

     • reeeeeelman
     • Dudebro
     That's another wrinkle I actually can opine on, unlike the direct criminal rules. People often think the bill of rights applies against the states, but it's not quite the case. It's very nuanced.
     
     They didn't initially. They were incorporated via the incorporation doctrine during the 20th century. It applies them through the 14th amendment. It's still not quite a direct application though. There's typically a balancing test involved, the states interest vs. The federal citizens interest.
     
     Unfortunately, these balancing tests were later backbuilt into cases where the BoR was applied against the fed itself. 🙄
   • Embed this notice
     Dudebro (dudebro@nicecrew.digital)'s status on Tuesday, 02-Apr-2024 14:44:07 JST Dudebro

     in reply to

     • ?? Humpleupagus ??
     • reeeeeelman
     I can guarantee that laws on a state-by-state basis. Anarchotyranny is bullshit.
     ?? Humpleupagus ?? likes this.
   • Embed this notice
     reeeeeelman (realman543@annihilation.social)'s status on Tuesday, 02-Apr-2024 14:46:22 JST reeeeeelman

     in reply to

     • ?? Humpleupagus ??
     • Billy_Hughes
     • Dudebro
     @Billy_Hughes @Humpleupagus @Dudebro @TrevorGoodchild Dude that was like a year ago. What nowadays?
   • Embed this notice
     ?? Humpleupagus ?? (humpleupagus@eveningzoo.club)'s status on Tuesday, 02-Apr-2024 14:46:22 JST ?? Humpleupagus ??

     in reply to

     • Billy_Hughes
     • reeeeeelman
     • Dudebro
     Fun Fact, at common law you could legally kill a fleeing felon. Shoot them in the back. Whatever. The crown didn't fuck around.
   • Embed this notice
     Billy_Hughes (billy_hughes@nicecrew.digital)'s status on Tuesday, 02-Apr-2024 14:46:23 JST Billy_Hughes

     in reply to

     • ?? Humpleupagus ??
     • reeeeeelman
     • Dudebro
     In Australia recently an intruder was raped, then died as a result of their injuries. The gay rapist was acquitted, as I recall.
     Refreshing to see a crim actually getting some justice for once
   • Embed this notice
     Billy_Hughes (billy_hughes@nicecrew.digital)'s status on Tuesday, 02-Apr-2024 14:46:23 JST Billy_Hughes

     in reply to

     • ?? Humpleupagus ??
     • Billy_Hughes
     • reeeeeelman
     • Dudebro
     I already showed this one to Humps. Not acquitted, 4 years in prison. All things considered better result than what you'd expect nowadays
     https://www.9news.com.au/national/melbourne-news-melton-klay-holland-sentenced-for-shane-cox-rape/0e3d5142-3572-4905-9d22-c1c328c6457a
   • Embed this notice
     reeeeeelman (realman543@annihilation.social)'s status on Tuesday, 02-Apr-2024 14:46:31 JST reeeeeelman

     in reply to

     • ?? Humpleupagus ??
     • Dudebro
     @Humpleupagus @Dudebro @TrevorGoodchild The US needs to break the union tbh.
     ?? Humpleupagus ?? likes this.
   • Embed this notice
     ?? Humpleupagus ?? (humpleupagus@eveningzoo.club)'s status on Tuesday, 02-Apr-2024 14:48:14 JST ?? Humpleupagus ??

     in reply to

     • reeeeeelman
     • Dudebro
     Before the 14th, it made a bit more sense. States were more like countries. They couldn't even be sued in federal court by a citizen (after 11Am) and they could have their own state churches, regulate speech, take property without compensation, etc.
   • Embed this notice
     ?? Humpleupagus ?? (humpleupagus@eveningzoo.club)'s status on Tuesday, 02-Apr-2024 14:49:07 JST ?? Humpleupagus ??

     in reply to

     • Billy_Hughes
     • reeeeeelman
     • Dudebro
     Too many black ones. 😏
   • Embed this notice
     reeeeeelman (realman543@annihilation.social)'s status on Tuesday, 02-Apr-2024 14:49:08 JST reeeeeelman

     in reply to

     • ?? Humpleupagus ??
     • Billy_Hughes
     • Dudebro
     @Humpleupagus @Billy_Hughes @Dudebro @TrevorGoodchild Good to know. Why don't we do this anymore?
   • Embed this notice
     ?? Humpleupagus ?? (humpleupagus@eveningzoo.club)'s status on Tuesday, 02-Apr-2024 14:50:11 JST ?? Humpleupagus ??

     in reply to

     • reeeeeelman
     • Dudebro
     13, 14, and 15 were ratified by occupied governments after the Civil War.
   • Embed this notice
     reeeeeelman (realman543@annihilation.social)'s status on Tuesday, 02-Apr-2024 14:50:12 JST reeeeeelman

     in reply to

     • ?? Humpleupagus ??
     • Dudebro
     @Humpleupagus @Dudebro @TrevorGoodchild All the states had to ratify the constitution didn't they? Didn't that happen after the declaration by like years or something?
   • Embed this notice
     Dudebro (dudebro@nicecrew.digital)'s status on Tuesday, 02-Apr-2024 14:50:28 JST Dudebro

     in reply to

     • ?? Humpleupagus ??
     • reeeeeelman
     Honestly, that was before 1860, not even before the 14th amendment. Lincoln looked at the constitution and rubbed his ass all over it. The reason there was no court marshals, for anybody in the south is because Lincoln would’ve had to face it himself along with his cabinet.
     ?? Humpleupagus ?? likes this.