btr1701’s Techdirt Profile


About btr1701

btr1701’s Comments comment rss

  • Jul 2nd, 2015 @ 8:38am

    Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Trump

    I must have missed the meeting where everybody decided that having actual national borders is a violation of basic human rights. (But only for the U.S.-- every other country can have borders with no problem.)

  • Jul 2nd, 2015 @ 8:12am

    Re: Re: Re:

    > Sure but not based on law enforcement requests.

    Cite me the case law, statute, regulation, or code that prohibits a business from declining to do business with someone based on a law enforcement request.

  • Jul 1st, 2015 @ 2:20pm

    Re: Re: Re: Re: Trump

    > Expect the knock-on effects to result in
    > harassment of innocent citizens.

    Unless those citizens are swimming across a river or climbing a fence to get into the country, I see no reason why they'd be harassed. Indeed, if they *are* doing those things, they deserve to be harassed right along with the illegals.

  • Jul 1st, 2015 @ 1:46pm


    > Isn't Chicago broke? How it has money to do this.

    Pay attention to the article. This is the sheriff of Cook County, not Chicago.

  • Jul 1st, 2015 @ 1:45pm


    > and possibly result in a lawsuit from the Government
    > itself against the payment processors.

    A lawsuit based on what? Credit card companies are free to do business (or refuse to do business) with whomever they please. There's no "constitutional right to credit card transactions" in the USA.

  • Jul 1st, 2015 @ 12:54pm

    Re: When is this going to stop?

    There's also this bit to the 5th Amendment:

    "...nor shall private property be taken for public use, without just compensation."

    How does that not apply? They're taking the private property of citizens for (ostensibly) public use-- law enforcement purposes-- and not compensating them for it.

    Since the Supreme Court has ruled that "just compensation" is fair market value, then the DEA should have to pay the fair market value for the $77,000 in cash that it took-- and fair market value on $77,000 in cash turns out to be $77,000.

  • Jul 1st, 2015 @ 12:20pm

    Re: Re: Trump

    > but that INS should instead work harder to make
    > everybody else’s lives miserable with red tape?

    Not everyone else. Just illegal aliens.

    They certainly don't have any right to a hassle free experience while entering the country illegally.

  • Jul 1st, 2015 @ 11:42am

    Re: Re: Re: Re: Defamation insane, breach of contract, probably not so much...

    > You're gonna have to get a clue before you address me.

    Says the guy who doesn't even know it's "breach of contract", not "breech of contract".

  • Jul 1st, 2015 @ 11:37am


    > As Mr. Trump explained in an interview with
    > Fox News' Bill O'Reilly on March 30, 2011,
    > "[t]hey're coming over, and they're climbing
    > over a fence, and there's nobody within 10
    > miles -- and they're selling drugs all over
    > the place, they're killing people all over
    > the place -- and we're not doing anything
    > about it."

    > Indeed. It may be true that Trump has said
    > offensive things in the past

    How the hell is that offensive? It's *true*. Illegals *do* account for a significant amount of crime in the U.S. Are we not even allowed to acknowledge reality anymore out of the abject terror of offending someone?

    We had a brilliant Chinese kid at USC get viciously murdered by a couple of illegals last year. Illegals who were on their second or third capture-deport-capture-deport merry-go-round. When the kid's parents in China tried to book travel to the U.S. to claim their son's body and bring it back home, U.S. Immigration gave them no end of grief and red tape. When it comes to grieving parents, they're suddenly all concerned about strictly enforcing immigration law-- dotting those i's and crossing those t's-- but the two sociopaths who killed the kid? It's hands off them. They're Mexicans and enforcing the law against them would rrraaaaaciiiist or something.

    This crap is getting absurd.

  • Jun 29th, 2015 @ 11:23am

    Re: Re:

    > The piracy mention took up less than 30 seconds
    > of the 15 minutes of pre movie ads.

    Which is why I only patronize one theater chain here in Los Angeles-- Arclight. They do not have any pre-show advertising at all-- they just project soothing abstract color patterns on the screen while various film soundtracks play quietly in the background-- and they even limit the trailers to three per showing.

    And I've let the management know that I exclusively patrionize their business for that very reason, to reinforce to them that they're doing something right.

  • Jun 26th, 2015 @ 4:42pm

    Re: Re: Legitimate gun owners do more to stop mass shooters

    > Yet more fond gun-lover mythology, totally
    > divorced from the facts.

    Could you please explain how, if guns are to blame, that the city of Detroit which makes up only 9.8% of Michigan's total population, somehow accounts for 58% of the murders in the state, where all residents have the same access to firearms and are all subject to the same state and federal gun laws? (Despite neighboring communities literally sharing a border with the city having a murder rate that is only a fraction of Detroit's?)

    Because if guns are to blame, then the murder should be more or less equal throughout the state.

  • Jun 26th, 2015 @ 4:34pm

    Re: Dukes of Hazard

    > I just hope they don't ban Dukes of Hazard
    > because of the car...

    If you take the VIP studio tour at Warner Bros. Studios, one of the stops is a display of various picture cars used in movies and TV shows over the years-- everything from the many incarnations of the Batmobile, to the Scooby Doo Mystery Machine and Austin Powers' Mini Cooper. Last time I was there, they had one of the original DUKES OF HAZZARD hero car General Lees on display, but with no Confederate flag on the roof, which prompted one of the other guests to doubt its authenticity. The tour guide replied that they chose to deface this piece of television history by painting over the flag after someone on the tour complained about being offended by it.

    So to all those who say this isn't about sanitizing history and the flag is fine if confined to a museum, here's an example of how even museums are pressured to, and cave to, political correctness.

  • Jun 26th, 2015 @ 4:12pm


    > It gives me an heavy heart every time I
    > see such an horrible mangling of our language.

    They're literally decimating it!

  • Jun 26th, 2015 @ 3:43pm

    Five Eyes

    > As much as it claims to be righteously angered
    > by the latest revelations, it is likely in no
    > hurry to strain its "Five Eyes" relationship with
    > a powerful ally.

    France is *not* one of the Five Eyes, which are:

    United States
    United Kingdom
    New Zealand

  • May 18th, 2015 @ 1:30pm

    Re: Re:

    > I hope that abstinence is just their public
    > position and they're not actually denying
    > themselves access to digital communications tools.

    They're not abstaining. They're just saying they will keep their current phones (which are not subject to this nonsense) and delay getting a new one until they turn 19.

  • May 18th, 2015 @ 1:28pm


    > Some terms it monitors (both in text
    > messages and searches) would obviously raise
    > concerns in parents

    Why would the words "handicap" and "menstruation" obviously raise concerns in parents? And what kid is going to actually use the word "menstruation", anyway? They'll use "period" or "rag" or whatever the South Korean slang for it is.

    And it seems like the best way to get around this (especially the "nagware" part of the law) is to just not tell the retailer you're buying the phone for your kid. Just say it's for yourself or your spouse or something, and then give it to your kid when you get home.

  • May 14th, 2015 @ 10:47am


    This is so obviously unconstitutional, if I lived in Wyoming, I'd go out and purposely violate the law just so they could try and prosecute me and have it overturned by the court.

  • Apr 24th, 2015 @ 10:16am

    Re: Panic room

    > Logically it sounds like I need to start
    > thinking of installing a panic room as the
    > only legal way to protect myself from this

    It's amazing how many millions of people manage to go their whole lives never having the cops execute a raid/search warrant on their home. Unless you're actually a dealer of illicit narcotics, you have a better chance of being struck by lightning than being raided by the cops, yet you believe the only *logical* way to keep it from happening to you is to install a panic room in your home?

    It's apparent that you and logic aren't even passing acquaintances.

  • Apr 24th, 2015 @ 10:12am

    Good Faith

    > The "good faith exception" triumphs again.

    No, actually it didn't, Tim. What triumphed was the part that you *didn't* highlight:

    "the police did not act in bad faith,

    A court can't grant relief that's not requested. The "good faith" exception might not have triumphed if it had actually been, you know, challenged by the defense.

  • Apr 2nd, 2015 @ 2:41pm

    Re: There's merit to the notion.

    That isn't what Christenson said. He said: "for the SUSPECT's words to be admissible in court, it has to be on camera. Otherwise, its presumed to be perjury."

    So he's not talking about charging the cop with perjury for off-camera statements. He's advocating charging the *defendant* with perjury for repeating anything in court that wasn't captured on camera at the time of the arrest.

More comments from btr1701 >>