Y2HH

QUOTE (Steve9347 @ Apr 2, 2012 -> 04:30 PM) Wow. That's awful. I'd actually like to know your opinion vs having the same 5 f***s repeat themselves ad nauseum in this thread for another 2 weeks. Because us five force you to read what we write with threats of great and irreversible "Internet" harm.

QUOTE (StrangeSox @ Apr 2, 2012 -> 03:56 PM) The Senate failed to repeal oil subsidies 51-47. I love our broken Senate. Wouldn't solve anything anyway. If the republicans were smart, they'd have passed that...because then the cost will just get passed onto the consumer at the pump/elsewhere and they can tell people, we said this exact thing would happen, but in the interest of doing what our boss told us to do, he caused prices to rise even more. Then again, with the short attention spans people have, it probably wouldn't matter...and all that would have ended up happening is they lose some very rich "friends" in the process of going with it.

QUOTE (Steve9347 @ Apr 2, 2012 -> 04:11 PM) strokes/heart attacks That would be hardware related. A human software crash would be something more akin to feinting or a blackout...or a seizure.

QUOTE (StrangeSox @ Apr 2, 2012 -> 02:42 PM) I was curious and thought others might be as well. That's not the mental image I had in my mind. Yes, but shots like that can be very deceptive...that just happened to be a really good day to have been taking pictures.

QUOTE (StrangeSox @ Apr 2, 2012 -> 02:41 PM) It wasn't an argument for the legitimacy of the powers. It was to address Kennedy's assumption. Right, and I don't understand what he's talking about with Kennedy's assumption...one has to do with state powers, one does not.

QUOTE (StrangeSox @ Apr 2, 2012 -> 02:39 PM) The passage doesn't indicate any confusion over that issue. It's meant to address Kennedy's question, not to make a legal argument in favor of Constitutionality. His contention is that the relationship to that state government wasn't fundamentally changed, so it isn't necessarily appropriate to assume that the relationship to the federal government would change, either. The state and federal governments don't have the same powers in any regard...so the comparison is invalid to begin with.

QUOTE (StrangeSox @ Apr 2, 2012 -> 02:34 PM) Here's the ruling: http://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/11pdf/10-945.pdf I don't like that anyone processed into the jail is strip-searched without reasonable suspicion. This isn't very common...there must be something specific to that jail.

QUOTE (Soxbadger @ Apr 2, 2012 -> 02:13 PM) Female officers can enjoy a fine lady. Like I said, it would really depend on the ruling. Id at minimum want there to be some sort of "probable cause" that the person needs to be searched. Now that is going to be a pretty low threshold, but I still believe there must be something. I don't know what the rules are, I suppose I could ask my brother what he'd need to do if he wanted to strip search someone...

QUOTE (Soxbadger @ Apr 2, 2012 -> 02:04 PM) I likely dont agree with it (Id actually have to read the ruling and know what the ruling was to comment, and I dont really feel like doing that.) And Ive been "arrested" at least 5+ times, only 2 of them had any legitimacy, none of them resulted in a conviction. Ive never been strip searched. That being said, the cynic in me believes that strip searches of hot females will increase exponentially. NOT a chance. First, male officers don't strip search females, they have to call a female officer in to do that. Second, even if they COULD, they wouldn't in fear of a complaint being registered against them for sexual harassment, in which they'd lose their jobs. BTW, at any time, for any reason (including no reason or a totally made up reason), you can lodge a complaint against any officer, and they WILL be investigated for it. All you need is a badge number, a name, OR their police car number.

QUOTE (StrangeSox @ Apr 2, 2012 -> 01:57 PM) 1111 Retreat View Cir, Sanford, Seminole, Florida 32771 http://maps.google.com/maps?hl=en&rlz=...ved=0CAoQ_AUoAg Long Oak Way and Twin Trees Lane listed as nearest intersection at start of call. That doesn't help, whatsoever. It doesn't recreate the scene at the time in any regard. It was darker, it was raining, etc.

QUOTE (Balta1701 @ Apr 2, 2012 -> 01:56 PM) You just did the exact same thing to defend him! I laid out no such thing to defend him. You need to go back and start reading again. I've been MORE than clear that while I think Zimmerman has every right to be suspicious, I never defend any further action he took. I simply laid out a situation, not all that similar but a related situation nonetheless where I said I'd have gotten increasingly more suspicious if the person I asked the question too didn't respond, put a hood on and started jogging away. But I never said he should chase him...I'm not defending that in any regard. I'm merely pointing out that of course his suspicion grew. And yes, on the flip side of that coin, I also don't blame Martin for being scared (IF the exaction situation you laid out is true!), and it very well may be!

QUOTE (StrangeSox @ Apr 2, 2012 -> 01:48 PM) You don't see a very serious potential for abuse here? First, you have to understand the precautions they have to take and the laws and procedures that they [the police] have to follow in order to strip search someone. It's not something they can just "do", as you're seeming to take it. They have to take their own safety into account, AND the person they're arresting. When an officer places you under arrest, you are now in their custody...and now your well being is on them. If they put you in danger, especially in this age of video and surveillance, they are held responsible. Police cars in Chicago actually record video of their front windshield view, and audio surrounding the car at all times. Believe it or not, there are a LOT of rules and regulations Police have to follow, and most are very careful to follow as their livelihoods rely on it. Are there some cowboys out there? Sure, and they're also a dying breed that are more rare than people think...they're slowly weeding themselves out. I know this because my brother is a cop, and almost everyone I'm around are cops on a daily basis...and with the garbage they deal with every single day...the last thing they look to do is arrest regular innocent people (that they actually like), and strip search them because it's awesome to do! Police are given specific rights and privileges you and I are not afforded for a specific set of reasons. And yes, with that power, there is ALWAYS potential for abuse. But most don't abuse it for the very reasons I laid out.

QUOTE (Balta1701 @ Apr 2, 2012 -> 01:47 PM) Now here's the problem. Do the exact same exercise from the other side. You're in a neighborhood you're allowed to be in, a 17 year old, 150 lb 6'2" twig, it's raining, the sun set an hour beforehand so it's at the very least quite dark, you're trying to get home, walking with some skittles alone. You're on the phone with someone. Suddenly, some guy starts following you in his truck. He continues following you. You wonder if he's actually following you so you stop to look at him (stated in the 911 call), he stops and continues to look at you. He doesn't take any steps to identify himself. You start to move again, his truck resumes following you. You start to jog, he accelerates. This goes on for a period of at least 8 minutes, based on the timing of phone calls, maybe longer depending on how long Zimmerman was following the kid prior to calling 911. You hide. You think you've lost him. Then, he re-appears (Martin's call to his gf). Then, he gets out of his car and approaches you and yells "What're you doing around here?", again without identifying himself or his purpose. Then, whatever happens, it scares you enough that you wind up screaming (audio tape). You're telling me that you'd just take that in stride? All of that happened before the gunshot. This was literally nearly a 10 minute chase of a car following a kid around the neighborhood. That had to seem like an eternity. And then he comes at you. And in the end, you have every right to be afraid, because the guy's got a gun. I never said any of that. And your entire post is full of speculation and you're basing it all on some tapes and "what you can put together" from those tapes. You weren't there. IF what you are saying is EXACTLY what happened, which you don't actually know...yes, Martin has ever right to be scared, etc...but again, you don't actually know the scene or how it unfolded. You don't know what the neighborhood even looks like, what the roads look like, etc. You're assuming a lot in order to come to your conclusion.

QUOTE (StrangeSox @ Apr 2, 2012 -> 01:44 PM) I'll back up a bit and modify what I was saying since I almost added that exact scenario to an earlier post. I don't see anything wrong with what you did there. But you did not take the same actions Zimmerman did. You didn't follow this man from a distance around the neighborhood for several minutes. The two scenarios, "hey buddy, you look lost, can I help you out?" and following the guy around are very different. You'd have reason to be suspicious of a couple of black guys driving a green van based on crimes that recently occurred in your neighborhood and a description of the suspects. You wouldn't be reasonable to be suspicious of any black person walking down the street. Exactly. We agree 100% that Zimmerman took things too far and should NOT have followed, just as I wouldn't have followed. But that's us...not everyone will react the way we do or have. Zimmerman is obvious proof of that...there are those that take things further. If the world was populated with people just like you and I, there would be no crime. But that's not reality.

QUOTE (iamshack @ Apr 2, 2012 -> 01:43 PM) Well, what comes to my mind is the disconnect between those saying it is completely reasonable and normal to set out on foot and follow a random individual you are suspicious of and those saying you would be frightened if someone set out on foot and followed you around a neighborhood. It can't be both, people. It is either reasonable or it is not reasonable to do what Zimmerman did, and if it was reasonable, what reason would Martin have for being frightened? Let me try to put it another way... Say Martin had been looking to rob someone's house. What position was Zimmerman in to do about it? What good was going to come out of that situation? I think Zimmerman's suspicion was reasonable, I've been in similar situations on both ends of the stick...but I do NOT think his actions following that suspicion were reasonable. I think this is the only fair assessment I can give when it comes to this.

QUOTE (Jenksismyb**** @ Apr 2, 2012 -> 01:38 PM) I think they limited it to situations where they're put into the general population too. So if you're picked up for a misdemeanor and booked and put into a holding cell you can't be searched. So I think in practice it's going to require more than just a simple offense to get to that point. Even for a simple arrest they have to search you for the reason(s) I laid out in my previous post...that said, they won't strip search 99.99999% of their arrests unless they have a very specific reason to do so.

Oh, and so you are aware -- because I can tell you aren't aware... IF the police make an arrest, and the person they arrested somehow gets drugs or a weapon into the holding cell/jail, and something goes down, such as an overdose, or a person ends up getting badly injured (or multiple people), or someone winds up dead...that cop, as Hawk would say...he/she suspended and/or gawn! And most likely their partner, too. Throw their pension and livelihood down the toilet... The court is dead on...they are nobody to second guess the officer making the arrest...because more goes into it than you think, know, or really...want to know.

QUOTE (Jenksismyb**** @ Apr 2, 2012 -> 01:28 PM) This is all unreasonable. For shame, sir. For shame. I know, right?

QUOTE (StrangeSox @ Apr 2, 2012 -> 01:12 PM) Getting arrested happens to law-abiding citizens every day, yes. But it's cool you're on board with strip-searches for any offense, no matter how minor. If you get arrested, the police have the right, and you should expect them to have the right. Being placed under arrest probably means there was a reason. No, people don't get arrested for no reason all the time. Does it happen? Yes. But not often as you'd like. Take your anti police rhetoric and stick it. I have some news for you, police do NOT go looking for innocent people to arrest all the time. As I said, it can happen...but it's not something they actively seek to do. And with that, they have to assume the arrest they're making is legit, and the search to go with it...it's not like they're arresting an innocent person and saying, "you know what...since I know this guy is totally innocent and I'm arresting him for no reason, he's probably not armed or on drugs...so let's not search him at all!" Nothing like that enters a cops mind, I assure you...and if it does...they're not long for the job. Police don't judge people by how they look...they can't afford to do that (and you'll read why in my next post)...but I'm sure you have some sort of fairy tale comeback to the logic and reasons I lay out anyway. And note that just because they CAN strip search someone, does not mean they will...my brother has hundreds upon hundreds of arrests and zero strip searches to speak of...despite having the right to perform them on every arrest.

QUOTE (StrangeSox @ Apr 2, 2012 -> 01:11 PM) I wouldn't be suspicious of someone walking down the street in front of my house. People do it all day, every day. I've never stopped anyone to question why they were in the neighborhood. Zimmerman never approached or questioned Martin until the final altercation, though. He followed him around the neighborhood for several minutes, which, from Martin's point of view, is reasonably suspicious behavior. I know I'd be looking for alternative escape routes if someone was following me around. The last 6 weeks there was a string of burglaries in my neighborhood (Clearing, IL...not far from Midway), two "dark skinned" males were said to be robbing houses and using a non descriptive "green van" to get away. No make, no model...just a green van. Rumor around my "hood" was that they'd first case the street they were looking to hit, separately, on foot before returning on a weekday when people were at work and hit a house when they knew nobody was home. A few weeks ago I saw a dark skinned Latino walking down my street...and I know, I'm a f***ing racist...but I grew suspicious as to why! OMG, I know...how low and racist of me to profile like that. After he walked past my house, I walked out there and watched him walking about, seemingly aimlessly...and I asked him what he was looking for. So he turned around and it turns out he was looking for a specific address, because his family lived there...who shortly after spotted him and came out to greet him and me... You know what would have made me REALLY suspicious? If he suddenly put his hood up when I asked that question and started walking faster, you know...to get away from me. AGAIN, as a final disclaimer. I'm NOT defending what Zimmerman did. I'm simply trying to tell you how and/or why Zimmerman had the right to be suspicious, DESPITE your claim he had no reason to be. Yes, he did. Just like I did. I would have simply called the police (and went to get my brother who lives across the street, who is the police), rather than arming myself and chasing him down...but I'm not Zimmerman, and I don't live in a place that let's me carry. EDIT: Oh, last week, police caught the guys burglarizing a house a few blocks away from here, it turns out it was two black guys driving a light green minivan.

QUOTE (StrangeSox @ Apr 2, 2012 -> 12:27 PM) Any person arrested for any reason can be strip-searched. But universal health care is destroying the last shred of freedom. Right-o, because "getting arrested" is something that happens to us law abiding citizens every day. Note the court ruled that you first have to be arrested for something, THEN they can strip search you...which is kind of a NO s*** reason. Police search and/or strip search people they're arresting for a reason, they may have a dangerous weapon, etc, hidden that they can and have used against police after being placed in their squad cars. And then of course let's use this to turn it into a discussion about health care destroying our freedom. I know this is anecdotal, but I'm sure many of you have shared this same experience, IF you ever shared it at all. I've been arrested one time in my life...and get this...I was doing something wrong when it happened. I KNOW, RIGHT?! THOSE SON OF A b**** POLICE SEARCHED ME AND GRABBED ME IN VERY PRIVATE AREAS TO MAKE SURE I WASN'T ARMED, TOO! DAMN THEM FOR ROBBING ME OF MY FREEEEEDOMMMMMM! WHERE WAS MEL GIBSON WHEN I NEEDED HIM?!

QUOTE (StrangeSox @ Apr 2, 2012 -> 12:25 PM) Zimmerman is not responsible for nor has knowledge of every individual within the community and those who may legitimately be there as guests regardless of whether the community is otherwise open to the public. There was no reason to suspect Trayvon Martin of having done anything wrong. His actions were not reasonable. Aside from fleeing the scene when Zimmerman spotted him, you mean? Not for nothing, but I've been in similar situations where a person asked me what I was doing when wandering around for whatever reason...and I simply turned around and told him/them, "just walking"...to then be left alone. Putting my hood up and quickly leaving the scene, however, MAY look a bit more suspicious to some. Not to you, obviously, so at least I know I can come case yours and your neighbors houses and I won't worry about being asked any questions in the process. And seeing as that you don't racially profile, if you were suspicious of what I was doing there, you'd ask me, even though I'm a harmless white guy, right?

QUOTE (Athomeboy_2000 @ Apr 2, 2012 -> 06:43 AM) We have software craches too. We just call it: eating while driving, texting, putting on makeup, driving under the influence That's not software crashes, that's stupid crashes.

QUOTE (Athomeboy_2000 @ Apr 1, 2012 -> 08:06 AM) Honestly, i forgot Keith Olbermann was still on TV. Olbermann would be better if he didn't take 15 minutes to say something that could be said in 35 seconds...but he's too busy tossing huge words around for anyone to remember what point he was trying to make when he started. I used to watch him quite a bit, but even I'd get sick of his rants after they kept on going...and going...

QUOTE (BigSqwert @ Apr 1, 2012 -> 06:34 PM) Not true. I've been to Corsicana Texas. They let you in?! I thought you had to eat meat just to enter!