The "fruit of the poisonous tree" doctrine only applies to government (mis)behavior. Evidence obtained by private parties through violation of law is still admissible.
If I break into your house to get evidence that you killed someone, that evidence will be admissible against you in court. I might *also* be arrested and charged with breaking/entering and burglary, but my crime doesn't change the admissibility of the evidence against you.
Re: Re: Re: Great use of taxpayer dollars and government resources
> The worst danger is not being able to keep > a straight face while asking some of the > questions and then having to beg for an > autograph afterwards.
If you think those agents had any desire to get an autograph from some no-name writer for humor blog, then you're living in a fantasy world.
Secret Service agents constantly interact with the top A-list celebrities in every field-- movies, TV, sports, etc.-- day due to the nature of their job. The idea that they'd be so star-struck by Daniel O'Brien from Cracked that they'd be begging for his autograph is idiotic.
Re: Re: Re: Great use of taxpayer dollars and government resources
> For a long time, once a month the police > would sit at the stop sign and give tickets > to every bicycle that ran through it. One person > had enough and when he was stopped, demanded > to know why the police were harassing bicyclists.
Good for the cops. It's nice to see those arrogant bikers put in their place for once. I get so sick of their entitled attitudes, constantly lecturing everyone else about how they're as legally entitled to use the road as cars are, and they're considered vehicles just like all the others. And those same jerkoffs that get on their high horse about being legally entitled to the road are the ones who blow right through stop signs, blast past pedestrians in crosswalks and ride on the sidewalks, all of which is illegal and applies to bicycles as much as it does cars and trucks.
They're only concerned about the law when it suits them and ignore it when it doesn't.
/end of rant
(Apologies for the personal pet peeve - I live in a beach community that is plagued with these asshole bicyclists who demand their 'right' to the road, but never follow any of its rules.)
> That whole "serve and protect" thing is > about serving and protecting themselves.
That whole "serve and protect" thing is actually just the motto of one department-- the LAPD. No one in law enforcement ever claimed it to be universal in its application.
If I had dime every time some wannabe internet lawyer told me I was "violating my oath to serve and protect the public", who then slunk away when I quoted the actual oath I took and pointed out that nowhere does it say anything about serving or protecting the public, I could buy that beach house in Hawaii I've always wanted.
Of course now they're trying to use DRM and DMCA copyright circumvention clause to prevent your mechanic from accessing your car's computer systems, thereby forcing you to only use an 'authorized dealer' for repairs and maintenance.
I really have never understood why we can buy every other product in America directly from the company that makes it-- Nike makes a shoe and sells it to me; Apple makes a computer and sells it to me; Bic makes a pen and sells it to me; Coke makes a soda and sells it to me-- but with cars, Ford can't make a car and sell it to me. That's illegal. It has to sell it to a dealer, which then sells it to me, adding nothing but a lot of useless red tape and price markups.
It such a bright line example of regulatory capture and political corruption I'm amazed that it's survived this long. As the article points out, all the lame 'reasons' the dealer industry asserts for why this is necessary (for cars and nothing else!) are so easily debunked it's almost insulting that they feel we're so stupid we'll believe them.
> That's why you get so many situations where > the cop shoots first and asks questions > later...you know, for their "safety".
If it's a question between my safety and some shitbag whipping rocks at me, or shooting at me, or whatever the hell they're trying to do to me, you better believe Iím going to consider my safety paramount over theirs.
That's legally non-sensical. If you have the legal justification to use deadly force to defend yourself, then you can use *any* tool available to accomplish that.
If someone's shooting at you while you're in your car, you can use the car as a weapon to defend yourself. If someone breaks into your home a threatens you with a knife, the law doesn't require you to only defend yourself with a knife. You can shoot the guy, you can beat him with a baseball bat, you can throw a jar of acid at him, you can use whatever you have at hand.
And on a more practical note, this new policy basically neuters and renders moot the entire purpose of having border guards in the first place. When the illegals learn that all they have to do to get the Border Patrol to back off is chunk a rock at them-- that the BP is required to run away when that happens-- then every attempted interdiction will result in rock-throwing and retreat by the BP and the illegals will just waltz on in. Might as well just throw open the borders and let anyone wander on in rather than enforce the laws of the U.S. Sounds suspiciously like the exact goals of the open-borders crowd, which is what's probably the driving force behind this idiocy. Can't get open-borders and amnesty legislation passed in Congress? Why not do an end-run around Congress, neuter the Border Patrol, and accomplish the same thing without any political fight?
> The museum has a strict "no photography" policy > which means that any photos of David are controlled > by the museum.
Not really. If you violate their policy, you can be trespassed and told to leave, and maybe fined, but your violation of museum policy doesn't give the museum control of the photo you took. You still own that.
> seeking to wipe an entire company completely > off the face of the internet for daring to > do something that's basically legal in similar > realms
More like seeking to wipe an entire company off the internet for daring to follow the laws of its own country instead of the laws of a country on the other side of the planet; laws which it is actually under no legal obligation to follow-- no matter what this self-important federal judge thinks.
A Chinese company, based in China, with no presence in the United States does not suddenly become subject to U.S. law and forbidden to do things that are allowed under Chinese laws merely because it puts a website up on the internet.
This is the most ridiculous LEO response policy. Rocks are deadly weapons. The fact that they're primitive weapons doesn't make them any less deadly.
How many rocks does an agent have to endure being hurled at him while he's "moving away"?
To those on the committee who advocate this rule, why don't you stand 10 feet from me, let me start whipping rocks at your head, and see how many hits I can score before you "move away" enough that I can't hit you anymore.
> As has been pointed out by former CIA guy Barry Eisler, > Snowden did not break his "oath." The "oath" you sign > is to protect the Constitution, not to protect secrecy.
Actually, this is not quite true. The general oath that all government employees take is to protect and defend the Constitution, however, when you are read into a classified program, you take and sign a separate oath, which does indeed include a promise to never divulge or make public the information you have access to.
While Keurig's actions may be shitty and annoying, I don't get the basis for the lawsuit against them. It's not like one has a general legal obligation to design one's products in such a way that makes it easy for others to compete with them. Keurig can't stop someone from designing and selling coffee packs that work with their machines, but neither are they obligated to design their machines to make it easy for others to do so.