In some states, it's actually codified into law that the cops have the right to demand you tell them where you're coming from/going to: 11 Delaware Code § 1902: Questioning and detaining suspects. (a) A peace officer may stop any person abroad, or in a public place, who the officer has reasonable ground to suspect is committing, has committed or is about to commit a crime, and may demand the person's name, address, business abroad and destination. Rhode Island General Laws § 12–7–1 Temporary detention of suspects. A peace officer may detain any person abroad whom he or she has reason to suspect is committing, has committed, or is about to commit a crime, and may demand of the person his or her name, address, business abroad, and destination; and any person who fails to identify himself or herself and explain his or her actions to the satisfaction of the peace officer may be further detained and further questioned and investigated by any peace officer. Both of these states seem to be excluding this information from 5th Amendment protection the same way identity information is excluded. You don't have a right remain silent about your ID when being legitimately arrested or detained and Delaware and Rhode Island seem to be saying the same applies to question about where you're coming from and going to. If there's any penalty for refusing to answer or lying about your personal business, then it seems like this is a pretty obvious 5th Amendment violation because being forced to answer those questions truthfully can easily lead to being forced to incriminate and 'testify' against yourself.
"...a Supreme Court fully stocked with Trump’s hand-picked replacements for outgoing “liberal” justices."This seems to be a common refrain among the left-leaning critics of the Court-- to pejoratively describe Trump as "hand-picking" justices for open seats. Well... duh. Every president hand-picks his choices for open seats on the Court. That's how the process works. The president picks, the Senate confirms. Biden 'hand-picked' Ketanji Jackson but for some reason, she's never described as such. Only Trump's nominees get that strange appellation applied to them. It's almost as if leftists believe nominating people to the Court is a power of the presidency that's only legitimate when a Democrat uses it.
They only have access to some companies' info, not all. For example, California does not have access to USAA's database, so every year I have to provide written proof of insurance to the DMV either in person or by mail, which means I can't use the online renewal system that most people can use.
"...her disbelief in Taylor’s stated travel plans — plans he had never stated because he was only asked where he was coming from..." I've never understood why the police think where I'm coming from or where I'm going to is any of their damn business in the first place. If I was speeding or ran a stop sign or whatever, just address that and move on. Where I was before I committed the infraction and where I'm going to after I get the ticket is none of their business in any way, shape, or form. I occasionally get stopped by the police checkpoints here in L.A. The pesky Constitution and its probable cause requirements means they're not legally allowed to do DUI dragnets, so they get around that by saying the purpose of the checkpoints is to check for valid licenses and insurance. If they happen to find someone who's drunk at the same time, well, too bad for them. Anyway, I usually don't have a problem-- I exchange a few words with the cop, show him my license, and I'm on my way-- but at one of them, the cop started peppering me with questions about where I was going, where I'd been, who I'd been seeing, what we were doing, what were their names, etc. After about 30 seconds of that, I was like, hey man, the details of my personal life really aren't any of your business or the government's business. That got him pissed off and he started giving me a bunch of bullshit about how me using the public roads makes anything he wants to know about me his business. That's when I showed him my own badge and said I'd be happy to pull to the side, call his supervisor over, and the three of us can discuss his excitingly draconian and certainly unconstitutional legal theory together. COP: No, need for that. Have a nice night.
Nothing but personal insults, no actual rebuttal. Typical for this crowd.
Instead of standing there arguing in the face of threats to call the police on me, I'd have just walked out, called my credit card company and canceled my card. At that point, if they wanted their 10K, they'd have to sue me for it and good luck with that, given how ridiculous their argument is.
"they voted someone into the Oval Office whose choices will absolutely result in people dying" That already happened with Biden. Laken Riley being the most prominent American among many who have lost their lives due to choices made by Joe Biden in Oval Office.
"They are designated as hate crimes when they are motivated by hate." More accurately, they are designated as hate crimes when they are motivated by what government bureaucrats define as 'hate', whether or not it actually is hate.
"But, as that skeet from Pete notes above..." It's hilarious that the lefties over at BlueSky have decided to name their posts "skeets". "Skeet" is urban slang for male ejaculate. https://www.urbandictionary.com/define.php?term=skeet%21 On the other hand, maybe it's the most appropriate name for their posts they could possibly have come up with.
That’s for the DA to decide.The D.A. has decided. Do you not know what a blanket declination is?
This frankly sounds more like a problem on the part of incompetent police rather than the DA having their hands tied.Yes, I know this is TechDirt so everything must be the fault of the police, but no. In Los Angeles, District Attorney George Gascon has a blanket declination policy on property crimes. In his own words, "Property crime is what insurance is for, not the criminal justice system." So there's no point for the police to arrest shoplifters when they know the D.A. won't prosecute the case.
(1) The "serfs" and homeless aren't stealing from law enforcement, you boob. They're stealing from the merchants. (2) No conservatives are complaining about them stealing from law enforcement, either. (3) Many of the stores hit hardest by the lack of law enforcement/prosecution of thieves are small individually-owned businesses, not those evol, evol, "multi-million corporation" boogeymen y'all love to go on about. Not only are they individually-owned stores, but a significant percentage of them are minority-owned as well. So the very "marginalized communities" our D.A. pretends he's protecting with his hug-a-thug policies are the ones hit hardest by them. And they have to have a "do nothing" policy with regard to shoplifters or their insurance won't cover them and they'll be subject to not only being robbed directly by these savages, but sued by them after the fact as well when they find some shyster and file a claim that the employee injured them when he tried to stop their thieving.
Yes, heaven forfend we get actual law enforcement for all the taxes we pay. If I'm a merchant and I have to hire "competent security" because the police and the D.A. will do nothing, then I should be able to retain the taxes I normally pay for those services to pay for it.
They literally do news stories on it here regularly. How the merchants no longer bother reporting crime because it gets them nowhere.
Those 'concerns' are people who have their own 1st Amendment right to both free speech and to redress the government with their grievances. They don't lose their constitutional rights because they have money, nor do their rights become somehow 'less than' with regard to anyone else's rights.
Or crime could be "dropping" because people don't feel there's any point in reporting it anymore. That's certainly the case in L.A., where merchants are fed up with calling the cops on shoplifters only to be told "there's nothing we can do" by the police due to the D.A.'s blanket declination on property crime cases. So they don't even bother calling it in anymore. And if people aren't reporting hundreds, if not thousands, of crimes, suddenly the official stats look like crime is going down when in reality it's exploding.
Herein lies the issue. What’s “good”? That’s very subjective.Well, in this context, 'good' would be equivalent to 'popular', in that they'd be paid by the view. A lot of views by a lot of people would indicate a 'good' show in the sense that its creators would be paid handsomely for it.
So why don't you tell me what Cushing's point was in accusing the senator of prior restraint when there was no prior restraint. What point was Cushing trying to make by lying? Thrill me with your acumen.
I see your grasp of the difference between public officials, private companies and journalistsSomeone here certainly can't grasp the distinction between those things and it ain't me. There is no difference between a public official and a private citizen with regard to their personal, private homes. A person doesn't lose his/her private property rights the moment they're elected to office and journalist doesn't have any more right to trespass on a senator's private property than they do yours or mine.
Why all this focus on immutability? Not all classes protected under law are immutable. Religion, for example, is hardly immutable. People change religions all the time, yet religion is a protected class. And, of course, the gender identity movement tells us that gender isn't immutable, either: One's gender can change back and forth at one's whim. Yet gender is a protected class in statutes around the nation.