by Max Barry

Latest Forum Topics

Advertisement

Search

Search

[+] Advanced...

Author:

Region:

Sort:

«12. . .82838485868788. . .269270»

If the West keeps supporting obvious puppet regimes (such as the Word Bank man who is now to become President of Afghanistan) then the Taliban (and their pals AQ) will take over.

As for the Third Party candidates - yes indeed, the "tyranny of mathematics".

In a first-past-the-post election system then voting for a Third Party is actually voting for the one of the two big parties you want LEAST.

For example the "Libertarian Party" benefits the DEMOCRATS (for example it has given them New Hampshire, once one of the most conservative States, on a plate).

Indeed Democrats have often been found to have been funding LP campaigns - which is entirely logical.

Libertarians do have a chance to influence things positively- in Republican Primaries.

If they can not even win a Primary how does anyone think a Libertarian can win a general election?

Running LP candidates in general elections is insane.

We welcome The Republic of Minerva Diplomat to our region.

Minerva diplomat

Thank you. For now I'll be unofficially representing Libertatem, particularly during the crisis that is affecting BeneCap.

Feel free to invite any of your former countrymen.

Last week's poll came out pretty much where I thought it would. There was only one vote in the poll that favored voting for a candidate that stand no reasonable chance of winning. While I don't get that, I do have to respect it.

New poll up in an hour or so.

Last month a Salt Lake City police officer looking for a missing mentally disabled three year old child entered the back yard of a private residence belonging to Sean Kendall. It must also be stated that the child in question does not reliably respond to being called by name or other verbal attention getting signals. All we know for sure is that his dog, Geist, was in the yard and officer Olsen (No first name was ever released) shot and killed him.[1]

The story simmered until Kendall posted a video of his encounters with officers after the shooting.[2] The community exploded in outrage. Add to that a badly handled press conference on the matter[3] and this ass-hat former cop columnist with the Salt Lake City Tribune[4], things got pretty heated. Some of the comments are suggesting that shooting a dog should be a capital offense.

We are going skip over all the emotions from this issue and get down to the law. The police are claiming exigent circumstances gave them the right to enter the private property.

Exigent circumstances is defined by the US Supreme Court as:

"An emergency situation requiring swift action to prevent imminent danger to life or serious damage to property, or to forestall the imminent escape of a suspect, or destruction of evidence. There is no ready litmus test for determining whether such circumstances exist, and in each case the extraordinary situation must be measured by the facts known by officials."

"Those circumstances that would cause a reasonable person to believe that entry (or other relevant prompt action) was necessary to prevent physical harm to the officers or other persons, the destruction of relevant evidence, the escape of a suspect, or some other consequence improperly frustrating legitimate law enforcement efforts."[5]

That is a pretty wide opening in the door. So what do you think?

Does searching for a missing developmentally disabled child measure up to exigent circumstances? Is this enough of a pressing matter to permit an officer to enter a private, fenced back yard when there is no direct knowledge or second hand information from a reliable informant that the missing child is in there?

The matter is now open for discussion.

---------------------------------------------------------
[1] http://www.sltrib.com/sltrib/news/58089102-78/dog-heiden-child-officer.html.csp
[2] https://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_embedded&v=_fmdAS_Z6CY
[3] http://fox13now.com/2014/06/27/slc-police-chief-dog-attacked-seasoned-officer-he-will-remain-on-duty-during-investigation/
[4] http://www.sltrib.com/sltrib/home3/58124166-200/dog-didn-killed-officer.html.csp
[5] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Exigent_circumstance_in_United_States_law

Hey there fellow region dwellers. I am likely to need to take some time off from Nation States for a week or so. I'll be back.

Trans-american empire has the conn.

Ok, that job didn't come through so I'm still here. Time for another poll.

Draper, UT is getting a brand new high school. The high school will come with the requisite teams so the residents were polled on what the school mascot should be.

The winning mascot, with 23% of the vote, is the Cougar.[1] As it happens, that is also the same mascot as Brigham Young University.[2]

But, apparently Utah has an abundance of older women seeking physical companionship from young men. At least that is what Canyons School District board must have thought when they declared "cougars" potentially offensive to women and politically incorrect.

The new high school's teams will now be known as the "chargers."[3] As near as I can tell the board never met a teenage girl armed with her father's credit card.

So what do you think? Overreach, just right? Not enough?

-------------------------------------------------
[1] http://fox13now.com/2012/01/18/canyons-district-rejects-cougar-mascot-says-its-offensive-to-women/
[2] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Brigham_Young_University
[3] http://www.canyonsdistrict.org/district-news/item/1624-corner-canyon-high-school

Xyanth wrote:At least that is what Canyons School District board must have thought when they declared "cougars" potentially offensive to women and politically incorrect.

It's getting harder and harder to distinguish between satire and reality with those language police loonies.

Spinoza wrote:It's getting harder and harder to distinguish between satire and reality with those language police loonies.

Sadly, on my first read I thought this one was satire.

How very odd.

Meanwhile in part of the world that is not particularly concerned with the being P.C. , Iran has pushed past the July 20th deadline. The "Hastener" regime (a "Hastener" is someone who wishes to "hasten" the return of the "Hidden One" by spreading fire and death over the world) continues its underground (and mountain) bunkers, and its building of missiles

But I am sure that the Canyons School District Board have the Iranian "Hasteners" shaking with fear.

45 years ago today Neil Armstrong stepped on to the Moon - since then humanity has stalled.

We are returning to the dirt - turning our heads away from the sky.

Greetings from a cheap hotel in Somerset, PA.

The last poll about whether or not choosing the cougar as a high school mascot is politically incorrect went overwhelmingly in favor of "no." It seems the older women chasing younger men got no love from this region.

Today's poll comes from the case of a 17 year old male from Virginia who is accused of sending a sexually explicit photo to his girlfriend. The photo was discovered by the girlfriend's mother. She called the police and the wheels of justice began grinding toward the teen.[1]

A plea bargain was offered where the teen would be deprived of all internet and cell phone contact for a year. (From a teen point of view, isn't that right up there with a death sentence?) If the teen successfully completed the probation, he would miss out on the felony record and free life time membership in the sex offender's registry club.

The teen's guardian balked at that arrangement, apparently fearing the teen would screw it up.

That was when things got really strange. The prosecutor got a magistrate to sign off on a warrant requiring the teen to allow police to give him a drug that would excite him and then take photos of private parts.

Yes. You read that right. The prosecutor in the case intended to use computer analysis to compare the image the girlfriend got with those evidentiary photographs to see if there is a match.[2]

The teen's guardian and his lawyer immediately shipped the teen out of state pending a hearing on the warrant. Since that time, after some "feedback" from the community, the police decided they will not execute that warrant.[3]

So what do you think? Overreach or right on? Poll's up, let the debating begin.

-------------------------------------------------------------------
[1] The part that really gets me is if this very same couple were caught in bed together, in the act, there would be no crime. But sending a picture is a crime. Go figure.
[2] http://www.foxnews.com/us/2014/07/09/police-get-warrant-to-take-explicit-photos-teen-to-prove-sexting-charge-family/
[3] http://www.foxnews.com/us/2014/07/10/police-back-off-on-plan-to-take-explicit-photo-teen-in-attempt-to-prove-sexting/

Jesusgotdabooty

I think I somehow managed to avoid paying for my netflix because I only have $6 in my checking...
(I pay for it with my debit card and have the card set to not allow a charge to happen if it'll overdraft me)

Netflix is going to shut you off.

Jesusgotdabooty

Xyanth wrote:Netflix is going to shut you off.

I just got my paycheck so I went onto Netflix and it made me update my card data, so all's well :]

This is interesting. http://thehill.com/regulation/other/213447-court-overturns-dc-handgun-law

It is my considered opinion that numerous members of the Secret Service just got a cold chill down their backs. Any thoughts on this one?

Last week's poll came in overwhelmingly for the premise that police should only be able to take "personal" pictures when there is a physical rape case on the line.

The new poll relates to last week's poll.

More and more teens are finding themselves in felony trouble for what many say is, at worse, bad judgment. That is the modern day practice of sexting and sending explicit pictures of themselves to friends.

In every state it is illegal for an adult to posses a sexually explicit image of a minor. They call that child pornography. In many states that law also applies to minors in possession of those same images. That means sending those picture, even between a couple of hormonally poisoned love struck teens is a felony.

Sexting has been around since very shortly after the first written note was passed in class. Aside from earlier artist renditions, teens have been sharing explicit pictures since Polaroid released the instant camera.

But now that picture holds the potential to become public record with millions of copies all over the world. It seems that many states and the federal government think they can solve that problem by passing more laws.[1]

So today's question is this. Should sexting in the form of pictures between two underage teens be a felony, or even illegal at all? What about the case where kids a year apart have been together since junior high and she, a 17 year old, sends a boob shot to her boy friend, now 18?[2]

Keep in mind that a conviction of teen sexting wins the convicted a felony record with all the loss of rights and privileges that go with that, a permanent sex offense record and a life time membership on the sex offender registry.

Poll is up. Tell us what you think.

--------------------------------------------------------
[1] Like that worked with alcohol, tobacco, pot and violent video games.
[2] Colorado covered that scenario in statutory rape by making their law that 16 is legal as long as the elder party is no more then two years her senior.

Xyanth wrote:This is interesting. http://thehill.com/regulation/other/213447-court-overturns-dc-handgun-law

It is my considered opinion that numerous members of the Secret Service just got a cold chill down their backs. Any thoughts on this one?

I'm all for it. I'm sure the SS will be able to cover down.

Carolina v wrote:I'm all for it. I'm sure the SS will be able to cover down.

Me too. I never said I was against it.

Jesusgotdabooty

I'm not totally sure how many people believe in revenge, but Dux Milan (the region that ejected me after I helped build it from the ground in December to now because I kept pushing away unwanted sexual harassment and repealed my WA endorsement of the delegate) just got raided by The Black Riders! So Dux Milan has fallen! <3

Sexual law is a minefield.

Even Roman lawyers were divided on it.

One School of Thought held that it sex should be banned before a specific age - 14.

The other School of Thought that it depended on the physical (and mental?) development of the people involved - with 14 being too young for some people.

In British law the "age of consent" is 16.

The American (and British?) cultural attitude is wink at underage sex when both parties are under 16, but to punish it when one of them is over 16 (or over 18).

As for sending dirty pictures to each other - societal attitudes to that appear to be utterly confused.

Jesusgotdabooty wrote:I'm not totally sure how many people believe in revenge, but Dux Milan (the region that ejected me after I helped build it from the ground in December to now because I kept pushing away unwanted sexual harassment and repealed my WA endorsement of the delegate) just got raided by The Black Riders! So Dux Milan has fallen! <3

Karma sucks.

Reed audio wrote:Sexual law is a minefield.

Amen. When we seek to legislate subjective morality we fail miserably.

Reed audio wrote:As for sending dirty pictures to each other - societal attitudes to that appear to be utterly confused.

That is an understatement.

Post self-deleted by Xyanth.

Unless you've been living under a rock, you are aware that Africa is in the midst of a severe Ebola outbreak. This strain appears to be a lot more contagious then the last dose the planet dealt with, possibly becoming airborne which is a new trick for Ebola.

Two Americans were over there trying to help out and both caught a scorching case of the disease.

They were brought to Emory University Hospital in Atlanta, GA, USA for treatment. Since that time the hysteria in conversation, social media and even the news media is at an all time high.

In an op-ed piece called "I'm the head nurse at Emory. This is why we wanted to bring the Ebola patients to the U.S." that ran in the Washington Post[1], Emory Head Nurse Susan M. Grant explains in no uncertain terms why those patients came here.

Check out the article the vote. Should those people have been left in Africa to die or was bringing them here the right thing to do?

Poll's up. Let us know what you think.

----------------------------------------------------------
[1] http://www.washingtonpost.com/posteverything/wp/2014/08/06/im-the-head-nurse-at-emory-this-is-why-we-wanted-to-bring-the-ebola-patients-to-the-u-s/

«12. . .82838485868788. . .269270»

Advertisement