The entire basis of the organization is that that specific truck had been used to smuggle cocaine before, been seized, and the smugglers prosecuted.
Since both civil and criminal asset forfeiture are things that exist, how did that truck get back into the wild, as it were? Obviously it was forfeited and sold, given how cash hungry cops are, no amount of property is too small to forfeit.
So the new owners of the truck are not under any suspicion of any kind -- all of the suspicion here falls upon the truck, as if it had loaded the cocaine all by itself, independent of its owners!
So the government acts as if the truck were the smuggler, and attached a GPS tracker. They follow the truck, and when it makes its delivery, they sweep in and bust the people operating it. They search the truck and find only the cargo on the manifest, none of it illegal in any way.
AND THEY STILL FILED CHARGES AGAINST THE OPERATORS!
They are apparently prosecuting people for owning a truck that the government sold to them, with no actual evidence against them aside from an illegal search that failed to find anything illegal on the truck!
First, 11,000 mAh is not 'colossal' in any way. The FAA limit is 26,800 mAh without needing permission from the airline, and up to about 50,000 mAh with airline permission (above that is forbidden by FAA regulations). I own a 120,000 mAh battery I use in place of a generator for emergencies and camping -- while it's not legal on an airliner, it's a lot closer to what would be considered 'colossal' these days.
Second, if you don't consider the 3rd USB port a must-have, you can get an 11,000 mAh battery with two USB ports on Amazon right now for a buck or two more than half the price of the Daily Deal here.
This is precisely why I believe suing cops for violating your rights is a bad idea. Supposedly, creating a less privileged class of citizen is illegal, but the current Qualified Immunity doctrine sure does exactly that. Police have more privileges than non-police, creating a very LARGE less privileged class. Courts supposedly lack the authority to create new laws, but they've done exactly that with Qualified Immunity -- and if someone tried to create an actual law that does what that doctrine does, the law would be struck down by the same courts that adhere to QI like it was the Word of God!
Every single thing that previous generations considered so beyond the pale that no one could ever justify doing it is now fair game for a rights violation by police because no court has ever needed to rule on such a violation before because everyone knew it was a violation. And with no previous case law, courts defer to the doctrine of Qualified Immunity and dismiss the case.
This is why, for years now, I've been suggesting that instead of going through the civil courts, people should take the criminal court route. Every rights violation that you could win a Title 42, Section 1983 lawsuit against a police officer for (assuming you get past the doctrine of qualified immunity) is also a criminal act under Title 18, Section 242! And almost invariably a felony to boot, given the circumstances of a typical rights violation by police!
In 49 out of 50 states, it is completely legal for non-police to arrest a criminal for committing a felony in their presence, even if that criminal is a cop. In almost all of those, it's just as illegal to flee from or resist a citizen's arrest as it is to do so for one by police. Escaping from custody is a crime in all 50 states.
Sure, you might be putting yourself in danger doing it, but you're already in danger just by being in close proximity to police. If they decide to attack you unlawfully, odds are you are the one who will go to prison for it. If they decide to kill you, even if they are prosecuted and convicted you will remain dead -- and the odds heavily favor them getting away with murdering you too.
There's an old story about two government workers in China who were late to work. The penalty for anyone holding a government job being late was death. So was the penalty for armed rebellion. When people have nothing to lose, and success means escaping to safety, why not go for it?
Where in my post did I ever say cops were GOOD shots?
Given that there are MANY people who would be in prison, convicted of felonies, without a recording contradicting a lying cop, they're not mandatory but only a fool won't have one.
"(a) receiving a pre-generated file linking to at least some content from current and upcoming digital editions, (b) requesting the linked-content for display, and (c) determining how much content from the upcoming edition to download based on publication date and device capacity."
My computer violated that patent when I clicked on the link to this very article!
This. I'm curious though, is the judge in question aware he may have just effectively struck down the Sherman Anti-Trust Act?
After all, if a single company in a market that gets 100% of the customers and actively discourages competitors isn't anti-competitive, then nothing is.
Could be worse. I've heard of people being named Richard Less.
I imagine it also suggests suppository points when editing documents?
Because if you login to some sites with a fake name they will delete your account?
Taking that 'what if the private citizen has a gun' what if:
Suppose a cop sees someone jaywalking (practically a sacred right in NYC) and decided to go all tacticool excessive force takedown on the poor jaywalker. Jaywalker isn't resisting at all (and is down on the ground injured) but the cop pulls a muscle and collapses too, screaming for help.
Bystander draws gun (legality of carry optional) and demonstrates police grade marksmanship skills. Fires 10-20 times, missed jaywalker entirely, kills officer, two cats and a TV. Responding backup sees the assisting citizen and guns him down, no questions asked.
And the outcome: The law is quite clear. The jaywalker murdered the cop (felony murder rule) by resisting arrest (not falling down before the officer drop-kicked him), thereby making it 'necessary' for someone to use force on him in defense of the dead officer, so he goes to prison for 20-life. The shooter is dead, but his estate gets sued by the cop's family and loses everything.
But hey, at least his family gets $500 out of it, right?
I'd be more worried about a DMCA notice against the entire site being sent to Tucows.
Any violation of constitutional, civil or statutory rights you could sue a public official in federal civil court for and win, is also a criminal act, and a felony almost without exception when it's done by a cop.
But somehow, the cops and the feds are just too busy to bother enforcing the law against their own guys.
"Suddenly, the home they were already in was declared a crime scene, despite there being no evidence of foul play. "
This almost happened to my mother recently. My grandmother had congestive heart failure, and wasn't expected to live long (and her chances of surviving surgery were lower than just letting it happen). One day, my mother went to visit her and found her dead in her bed.
So my mother called the police, and the first officer on the scene was apparently instantly convinced my mother had murdered my 92 year old grandmother. Somehow. The idiot tried to turn the house into a crime scene, prevented anyone from covering my grandmother's body, acted extremely aggressive and hostile, the works.
It was only when his supervisor arrived that sanity prevailed.
The United States is unusual among Western countries for making our human rights protections the highest of laws. Most other countries do it through mere statutes, and one statute can easily override or supersede another.
In the EU, if two statutes directly conflict, the court balances them out in a compromise. In the US, if a statute directly conflicts with the Constitution, the Constitution wins.
This. If the only reason you had to look in a given place for a specific thing was information acquired through an illegal search, then looking for that thing in that place was a product of the illegal search, and is also inadmissible.
Depends on the asshole. People have no problems identifying OotB even when he posts as an AC.
Re:
Prince is not fantastic, I'd call it slightly overpriced if anything.