Canada Got Better. The United States Got Trump. (coronavirus)

Author: n8nrgmi

Posts

Total: 91
#31
HistoryBuff
HistoryBuff's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 4,222
3
3
3
HistoryBuff's avatar
HistoryBuff
3
3
3
-->
@Greyparrot
I'm totally fine living in a sovereign nation of laws no matter how many times I am called weird funny-sounding names.
OK, but if unmarked government thugs can just rent a van and grab you off the street without having to tell you who they are, what you are charged with, or even that you are being arrested, then you do not live in a nation of laws. You live in an authoritarian regime that can grab you off the street for literally no reason at all. That is the opposite of a nation of laws. That is what trump is bringing to american cities. 
#32
Greyparrot
Greyparrot's avatar
Debates: 4
Posts: 25,993
3
4
10
Greyparrot's avatar
Greyparrot
3
4
10
-->
@ILikePie5

Decreasing the standard of healthcare for some while increasing it for others is definitely moral

I'm actually not terribly worried if somehow the Demorats cram down a 3 trillion dollar a year program through Congress.

It will most certainly end the decades-long American tradition of exempting the poor from taxes and force the poor to pay attention to the government, especially the most powerful branch, the Congress.

win-win
#33
Greyparrot
Greyparrot's avatar
Debates: 4
Posts: 25,993
3
4
10
Greyparrot's avatar
Greyparrot
3
4
10
-->
@HistoryBuff
OK, but if unmarked government thugs can just rent a van and grab you off the street without having to tell you who they are, what you are charged with, or even that you are being arrested, then you do not live in a nation of laws. 

You don't get to arbitrarily decide to resist arrest at the time of an arrest. If you want to resist the police, do it in a courtroom after they do whatever they do to you. That's part of what it means to live in a nation of laws. Your odds of surviving a police encounter goes up dramatically if you do not resist, as well as your chances of getting justice in a courtroom after if the police were to actually abuse you.
#34
HistoryBuff
HistoryBuff's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 4,222
3
3
3
HistoryBuff's avatar
HistoryBuff
3
3
3
-->
@Greyparrot
You don't get to arbitrarily decide to resist arrest at the time of an arrest. If you want to resist the police, do it in a courtroom after they do whatever they do to you
part of the process of being arrested is the police telling you that you are under arrest and for what reason. If unmarked thugs jump out of a rental van and grab you without announcing themselves as police, without telling you what you are being arrested for, or even telling you that you are being arrested, then you have not been arrested. You have kidnapped. That is some of what trump's thugs have been doing. 

Your odds of surviving a police encounter goes up dramatically if you do not resist, as well as your chances of getting justice in a courtroom after if the police were to actually abuse you.
but if the people grabbing you won't tell you they are police, or that you are under arrest, then your odds of survival go down dramatically by allowing yourself to be kidnapped by people who may or may not be secret police. 
#35
HistoryBuff
HistoryBuff's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 4,222
3
3
3
HistoryBuff's avatar
HistoryBuff
3
3
3
-->
@Greyparrot
These events have really highlighted what liars people on the right are. I've listened to these idiots for years say how they are worried about government overreach and that they need their guns to protect them from government overreach. Then when that government overreach comes, they simply do not give a shit. They don't care about the federal government sending unmarked thugs into the streets to grab people without warning and for no reason just because the man ordering it happens to be a republican. 

This is exactly what the right pretends they are preparing to resist, but now that it's hear, they cheer it on. 

#36
Greyparrot
Greyparrot's avatar
Debates: 4
Posts: 25,993
3
4
10
Greyparrot's avatar
Greyparrot
3
4
10
-->
@HistoryBuff
 That is some of what trump's thugs have been doing. 

Who gives a fuck if they are? It doesn't invalidate anything I just said.

You don't get to arbitrarily decide to resist arrest at the time of an arrest. If you want to resist the police, do it in a courtroom after they do whatever they do to you. That's part of what it means to live in a nation of laws. Your odds of surviving a police encounter goes up dramatically if you do not resist, as well as your chances of getting justice in a courtroom after if the police were to actually abuse you.

It is a common misapprehension that police officers are required to tell you why you're being arrested or what offense you've committed when you're being arrested. They are not, and even where there may be local statutes, the exceptions for officer discretion of practicality are in full force.
#37
ILikePie5
ILikePie5's avatar
Debates: 3
Posts: 15,167
3
7
10
ILikePie5's avatar
ILikePie5
3
7
10
-->
@HistoryBuff
part of the process of being arrested is the police telling you that you are under arrest and for what reason.
I’m pretty sure the person being arrested knows they’re being arrested. And no, the police don’t have to tell you why you’re being arrested according to Devenpeck v. Alford.

If unmarked thugs jump out of a rental van and grab you without announcing themselves as police, without telling you what you are being arrested for, or even telling you that you are being arrested, then you have not been arrested. You have kidnapped. That is some of what trump's thugs have been doing. 
They aren’t unmarked. They literally have POLICE written on them lol. I challenge you to show me a video where a federal officer arrested someone where POLICE wasn’t written. 
#38
ILikePie5
ILikePie5's avatar
Debates: 3
Posts: 15,167
3
7
10
ILikePie5's avatar
ILikePie5
3
7
10
-->
@Greyparrot
It is a common misapprehension that police officers are required to tell you why you're being arrested or what offense you've committed when you're being arrested. They are not, and even where there may be local statutes, the exceptions for officer discretion of practicality are in full force.
Local laws don’t apply to federal officers anyways under the supremacy clause.
#39
Greyparrot
Greyparrot's avatar
Debates: 4
Posts: 25,993
3
4
10
Greyparrot's avatar
Greyparrot
3
4
10
They aren’t unmarked. They literally have POLICE written on them lol. I challenge you to show me a video where a federal officer arrested someone where POLICE wasn’t written. 
It's obviously bullshit misinformation, otherwise, those people would have a court case pending right now and a gag order from the Judge instead of cashing in on CNN panicporn mob supporters.

BTW. Nick Sandman just settled for a fucking motherload against the fake news industry. It pays to take the time to use the courts instead of cashing in on misinformation.

#40
ILikePie5
ILikePie5's avatar
Debates: 3
Posts: 15,167
3
7
10
ILikePie5's avatar
ILikePie5
3
7
10
-->
@Greyparrot
It's obviously bullshit misinformation, otherwise those people would have a court case pending right now and a gag order from the Judge instead of cashing in on CNN panicporn mob supporters.
Obviously. The one case I read about was where a dude was taken by federal officers. They read him his Miranda Rights. The dude refused to talk without an attorney present, and they let him go after. 
#41
ILikePie5
ILikePie5's avatar
Debates: 3
Posts: 15,167
3
7
10
ILikePie5's avatar
ILikePie5
3
7
10
-->
@Greyparrot
BTW. Nick Sandman just settled for a fucking motherload against the fake news industry. It pays to take the time to use the courts instead of cashing in on misinformation.
He’s making bank. I still remember when it happened, I was like there’s no way a kid did that on a school trip in front of his peers and teachers lol
#42
HistoryBuff
HistoryBuff's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 4,222
3
3
3
HistoryBuff's avatar
HistoryBuff
3
3
3
-->
@ILikePie5
I’m pretty sure the person being arrested knows they’re being arrested. 
why would you think that? There is footage of unmarked men grabbing a guy and shoving him into a van without saying a word. They gave no indication why they were grabbing him or if they were even affiliated with the police, let alone who precisely they were. 

and no, the police don’t have to tell you why you’re being arrested according to Devenpeck v. Alford.
Did you read about that? It took me like 2 minutes to see that you didn't. That case was to decide: Is an arrest lawful under the Fourth Amendment when the criminal offense for which there is probable cause to arrest is not "closely related" to the offense stated by the arresting officer at the time of arrest?

This case did not say a police officer doesn't have to tell you why you are being arrested. It says that if the cause to arrest given by the office is not closely related to the probable cause, that this is still lawful.

They aren’t unmarked. They literally have POLICE written on them lol. I challenge you to show me a video where a federal officer arrested someone where POLICE wasn’t written. 
that is absolutely still "unmarked". Anyone can write police on a vest. They had no marking of what organization they were with or who they were. And the fact is that they were not police, they were border guards. 
#43
ILikePie5
ILikePie5's avatar
Debates: 3
Posts: 15,167
3
7
10
ILikePie5's avatar
ILikePie5
3
7
10
-->
@HistoryBuff
why would you think that? There is footage of unmarked men grabbing a guy and shoving him into a van without saying a word. They gave no indication why they were grabbing him or if they were even affiliated with the police, let alone who precisely they were. 
So the person can’t read POLICE? Ok.

Did you read about that? It took me like 2 minutes to see that you didn't. That case was to decide: Is an arrest lawful under the Fourth Amendment when the criminal offense for which there is probable cause to arrest is not "closely related" to the offense stated by the arresting officer at the time of arrest?

This case did not say a police officer doesn't have to tell you why you are being arrested. It says that if the cause to arrest given by the office is not closely related to the probable cause, that this is still lawful.
Maybe you want to do a Control+F of the entire ruling to find where the court said that. 

that is absolutely still "unmarked". Anyone can write police on a vest. They had no marking of what organization they were with or who they were. And the fact is that they were not police, they were border guards.
They were federal agents. Anyone can write police on a vest and if they impersonate a federal officer it’s a federal felony. Police don’t have to identify themselves to you. Please show me a federal law where a federal agent has to identify themselves to you. And even if they did your point makes no sense. Anyone can write police on their vest. Anyone can create a false identify too. What’s your point?
#44
HistoryBuff
HistoryBuff's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 4,222
3
3
3
HistoryBuff's avatar
HistoryBuff
3
3
3
-->
@ILikePie5
So the person can’t read POLICE? Ok.
they can, but the thugs didn't identify themselves when asked. They never said they were police. They never said what department they were with. They never said why they were grabbing him. They never said if he was under arrest, or for what reason. They simply jumped out of a rental van and grabbed a man off the street. that is kidnapping. 

Maybe you want to do a Control+F of the entire ruling to find where the court said that. 
they said that the charges against them didn't have to be substantially the same as the the charge the officer said while arresting them. I don't see anything that says they don't have to say why they are being arrested. If you think it is something else, please provide evidence. 

They were federal agents. Anyone can write police on a vest and if they impersonate a federal officer it’s a federal felony. 
exactly, which is why police should identify themselves. 

And even if they did your point makes no sense. Anyone can write police on their vest. Anyone can create a false identify too. What’s your point?
That police should identify themselves. They should tell someone if they are arresting them, and if so why. They should not be permitted to snatch people off the street with no one knowing who they are, what branch of government they belong to, or why they are snatching people. That is some gestapo bullshit. If you are ok with secret police grabbing people off the street with no warning, no explanation and no one knowing who they are or why they are taking people, then you are saying you are ok with the government ruling through fear and coercion. 
#45
ILikePie5
ILikePie5's avatar
Debates: 3
Posts: 15,167
3
7
10
ILikePie5's avatar
ILikePie5
3
7
10
-->
@HistoryBuff
they can, but the thugs didn't identify themselves when asked. They never said they were police. They never said what department they were with. They never said why they were grabbing him. They never said if he was under arrest, or for what reason. They simply jumped out of a rental van and grabbed a man off the street. that is kidnapping. 
Please show where any of that is required under federal law. I’m still waiting.

they said that the charges against them didn't have to be substantially the same as the the charge the officer said while arresting them. I don't see anything that says they don't have to say why they are being arrested. If you think it is something else, please provide evidence. 
Unfortunate that you couldn’t find it. “While it is assuredly good police practice to inform a person of the reason for his arrest at the time he is taken into custody, we [the court] have never held that to be constitutionally required.

exactly, which is why police should identify themselves.
They did. They literally had POLICE written on them.

That police should identify themselves. They should tell someone if they are arresting them, and if so why. They should not be permitted to snatch people off the street with no one knowing who they are, what branch of government they belong to, or why they are snatching people. That is some gestapo bullshit. If you are ok with secret police grabbing people off the street with no warning, no explanation and no one knowing who they are or why they are taking people, then you are saying you are ok with the government ruling through fear and coercion.
Everything done was done within the constraints of the law. I challenge you show me federal statutes that show that federal agents cannot do that. Police aren’t required to tell you who they are or what you are being charged with until they want to question you, at which time they read you your Miranda Rights. That’s what happened with the dude. Police detained him. Took him to a federal courthouse. Read him his rights. He refused to answer without a lawyer. They released him. A “secret police” would do no such thing.
#46
Dr.Franklin
Dr.Franklin's avatar
Debates: 32
Posts: 10,673
4
7
11
Dr.Franklin's avatar
Dr.Franklin
4
7
11
-->
@HistoryBuff
the boy who cried fascist
#47
Dr.Franklin
Dr.Franklin's avatar
Debates: 32
Posts: 10,673
4
7
11
Dr.Franklin's avatar
Dr.Franklin
4
7
11
-->
@zedvictor4
canada is pretty nice
#48
zedvictor4
zedvictor4's avatar
Debates: 22
Posts: 12,078
3
3
6
zedvictor4's avatar
zedvictor4
3
3
6
-->
@Dr.Franklin
Yes I get that impression.....I ought to go take a look.
#49
Dr.Franklin
Dr.Franklin's avatar
Debates: 32
Posts: 10,673
4
7
11
Dr.Franklin's avatar
Dr.Franklin
4
7
11
-->
@zedvictor4
i wonder why??
#50
Greyparrot
Greyparrot's avatar
Debates: 4
Posts: 25,993
3
4
10
Greyparrot's avatar
Greyparrot
3
4
10
-->
@HistoryBuff
They don't care about the federal government sending unmarked thugs into the streets to grab people without warning and for no reason just because the man ordering it happens to be a republican. 

#51
HistoryBuff
HistoryBuff's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 4,222
3
3
3
HistoryBuff's avatar
HistoryBuff
3
3
3
-->
@Greyparrot
why are you linking a satire website?

#52
Greyparrot
Greyparrot's avatar
Debates: 4
Posts: 25,993
3
4
10
Greyparrot's avatar
Greyparrot
3
4
10
-->
@HistoryBuff
Because Democrat talking points are a joke. Have you heard what Barr said in the latest Congressional "hearing?"

Exactly. Cancel culture extends all the way to the top level of government. The ultimate joke on the people. God tier satire.





#53
HistoryBuff
HistoryBuff's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 4,222
3
3
3
HistoryBuff's avatar
HistoryBuff
3
3
3
-->
@Greyparrot
Because Democrat talking points are a joke. Have you heard what Barr said in the latest Congressional "hearing?"
lol this is a joke right? Bill bar interrupts people questioning him and fox blames the person trying to ask the question. Federal thugs are grabbing people off the street and shoving them into rental cars and he describes it as "protecting the courthouse". Bill bar is a disgrace to the office of attorney general. 

Exactly. Cancel culture extends all the way to the top level of government.
how is this cancel culture? They tried to ask him questions and he kept trying to interrupt to list off his talking points. 
#54
Greyparrot
Greyparrot's avatar
Debates: 4
Posts: 25,993
3
4
10
Greyparrot's avatar
Greyparrot
3
4
10
-->
@HistoryBuff
 They tried to ask him questions and he kept trying to interrupt to list off his talking points. 

Lol this has got to be the best example of Orwellian doublethink I have seen in a while.

God tier satire truly.
#55
HistoryBuff
HistoryBuff's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 4,222
3
3
3
HistoryBuff's avatar
HistoryBuff
3
3
3
-->
@Greyparrot
Lol this has got to be the best example of Orwellian doublethink I have seen in a while.
did we not watch the same clip? The people asking the question hadn't finished asking it and bar was trying to cut them off to "answer it" (not that he was actually answering them). They then had to reclaim their time so they could finish asking the question. 

#56
Greyparrot
Greyparrot's avatar
Debates: 4
Posts: 25,993
3
4
10
Greyparrot's avatar
Greyparrot
3
4
10
-->
@HistoryBuff
Again, care to comment on what Barr said? Oh that's right. He wasn't allowed to speak at an Orwellian "Hearing" which was really a venue for a Democrat rally.


Censorship is the best weapon the left has. That and manufacturing rage.
#57
HistoryBuff
HistoryBuff's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 4,222
3
3
3
HistoryBuff's avatar
HistoryBuff
3
3
3
-->
@Greyparrot
Again, care to comment on what Barr said? Oh that's right. He wasn't allowed to speak at an Orwellian "Hearing" which was really a venue for a Democrat rally.
what specifically would you like to comment on? All I heard was useless talking points. Federal thugs are grabbing people off the street in order to defend a building they are not at? His answers were useless as far as I could tell. But granted I don't subject myself to watching that pathetic excuse for an attorney general speak. 
#58
Greyparrot
Greyparrot's avatar
Debates: 4
Posts: 25,993
3
4
10
Greyparrot's avatar
Greyparrot
3
4
10
His answers were useless as far as I could tell.

How could you tell? ESP? He was not allowed to speak.

But granted I don't subject myself to watching that pathetic excuse for an attorney general speak. 

Right, why pay a CNN reporter 50,000 dollars a day to censor thoughts and ideas when you can do it yourself for free?

Honestly, the things you say here are far better quality satire than what the Babylon Bee publishes.
#59
ILikePie5
ILikePie5's avatar
Debates: 3
Posts: 15,167
3
7
10
ILikePie5's avatar
ILikePie5
3
7
10
-->
@HistoryBuff
did we not watch the same clip? The people asking the question hadn't finished asking it and bar was trying to cut them off to "answer it" (not that he was actually answering them). They then had to reclaim their time so they could finish asking the question. 
You’re delusional or just didn’t watch the entire hearing if you believe this. They asked a question. He was answering and before he could finish answering “rEClaIMiNg mY tIMe.” Even then, a good 80% was just a speech without any questions during a “hearing.”
#60
ILikePie5
ILikePie5's avatar
Debates: 3
Posts: 15,167
3
7
10
ILikePie5's avatar
ILikePie5
3
7
10
-->
@Greyparrot
But granted I don't subject myself to watching that pathetic excuse for an attorney general speak.  -HB
Proceeds to comment on something he hasn’t even watched in entirety.