4th Amendment Thread

[Speaker to Animals]

Yeah, it's just "skin color". LMFAO

You people are ridiculous. You have no idea how stupid you sound to the rest of us when you talk like that. It's obviously more than "skin color", dude. This is why you are called cucks.

You might as well say it doesn't matter if your wife has other men's babies because they are still your real children.

Cuck

[de officiis]

Chilling: The Constitutional Implications of Body-Worn Cameras and Facial Recognition Technology at Public Protests

Julian Murphy - 75 Wash. & Lee L. Rev. Online 1 (2018)

Abstract

In recent years body-worn cameras have been championed by community groups, scholars, and the courts as a potential check on police misconduct. Such has been the enthusiasm for body-worn cameras that, in a relatively short time, they have been rolled out to police departments across the country. Perhaps because of the optimism surrounding these devices there has been little consideration of the Fourth Amendment issues they pose, especially when they are coupled with facial recognition technology (FRT). There is one particular context in which police use of FRT equipped body-worn cameras is especially concerning: public protests. This Comment constitutes the first scholarly treatment of this issue. Far from a purely academic exercise, the police use of FRT equipped body-worn cameras at public protests is sure to confront the courts soon. Many police departments have, or will soon have, body-worn cameras equipped with real time FRT and a number of police departments do not prohibit their members from recording public protests. Although primarily descriptive-- exploring the state of current Fourth Amendment doctrine by predicting its application to a hypothetical scenario--this Comment has a normative subtext; namely, suggesting that First Amendment values can strengthen the Fourth Amendment's protections against the tide of technologically enhanced mass surveillance.

https://scholarlycommons.law.wlu.edu/wl ... 75/iss1/1/

[Montegriffo]

Yeah, it's just "skin color". LMFAO

You people are ridiculous. You have no idea how stupid you sound to the rest of us when you talk like that. It's obviously more than "skin color", dude. This is why you are called cucks.

You might as well say it doesn't matter if your wife has other men's babies because they are still your real children.

Cuck

More personal insults. This is why no one takes you seriously when you throw a hissy fit at DB for insulting you, you are the worse offender.
Shared cultural traditions. That is what ethnicity is.
Nothing to do with race as you suggest.

[SuburbanFarmer]

Are you unstable, citizen? Come with us please.

https://www.zerohedge.com/news/2019-05- ... ure-threat

[brewster]

There was an interesting segment on 'all things considered' this evening about this issue in Vermont. They had arrested a teen who had talked a whole lot about taking the school shooting record and started collecting weapons. they charged him with some form of attempted murder and tried to put him away for a very long time but the supreme Court of Vermont intervened.

I'm very conflicted about this, I'd hate to be on the team that frees guy like this if he kills eventually. But drawing the line between assessing threats and 'thought police' is pretty tricky.

Listen to "Part 2: This Teen Planned A School Shooting. But Did He Break The Law?" on WNYC. http://www.wnyc.org/story/part-2-this-t ... k-the-law/

[SuburbanFarmer]

There was an interesting segment on 'all things considered' this evening about this issue in Vermont. They had arrested a teen who had talked a whole lot about taking the school shooting record and started collecting weapons. they charged him with some form of attempted murder and tried to put him away for a very long time but the supreme Court of Vermont intervened.

I'm very conflicted about this, I'd hate to be on the team that frees guy like this if he kills eventually. But drawing the line between assessing threats and 'thought police' is pretty tricky.

Listen to "Part 2: This Teen Planned A School Shooting. But Did He Break The Law?" on WNYC. http://www.wnyc.org/story/part-2-this-t ... k-the-law/

Unbelievable that they’d even discuss this like a “debate”. Either get the kid help or don’t, but charging him with a crime is absolutely insane.

[brewster]

Unbelievable that they’d even discuss this like a “debate”. Either get the kid help or don’t, but charging him with a crime is absolutely insane.

what do you think of the end where they said they changed the law to allow charging for 'terroristic threats'? Is there really any difference between this kid threatening to shoot up the school and an Arab-american threatening to blow up a Marine barracks? Do you think the latter deserves his free-speech rights?

[SuburbanFarmer]

Unbelievable that they’d even discuss this like a “debate”. Either get the kid help or don’t, but charging him with a crime is absolutely insane.

what do you think of the end where they said they changed the law to allow charging for 'terroristic threats'? Is there really any difference between this kid threatening to shoot up the school and an Arab-american threatening to blow up a Marine barracks? Do you think the latter deserves his free-speech rights?

No difference, and yes of course.

Life involves risk. Letting the school marms direct an all-powerful police state at random citizens is not a good alternative.

[brewster]

Unbelievable that they’d even discuss this like a “debate”. Either get the kid help or don’t, but charging him with a crime is absolutely insane.

what do you think of the end where they said they changed the law to allow charging for 'terroristic threats'? Is there really any difference between this kid threatening to shoot up the school and an Arab-american threatening to blow up a Marine barracks? Do you think the latter deserves his free-speech rights?

No difference, and yes of course.

Life involves risk. Letting the school marms direct an all-powerful police state at random citizens is not a good alternative.

So, in your opinion, was there any stage at which the 9/11 hijackers could have been arrested if conspiracy and planning isn't a crime? They physically broke no laws that I recall till wheels were up and the box cutters came out.

[SuburbanFarmer]

what do you think of the end where they said they changed the law to allow charging for 'terroristic threats'? Is there really any difference between this kid threatening to shoot up the school and an Arab-american threatening to blow up a Marine barracks? Do you think the latter deserves his free-speech rights?

No difference, and yes of course.

Life involves risk. Letting the school marms direct an all-powerful police state at random citizens is not a good alternative.

So, in your opinion, was there any stage at which the 9/11 hijackers could have been arrested if conspiracy and planning isn't a crime? They physically broke no laws that I recall till wheels were up and the box cutters came out.

They should have been under some sort of surveillance. The FBI was warned several times of weird people taking flight lessons, along with intel from overseas. They knew something was coming, and dropped the ball.

But then again, several balls were dropped. NORAD ‘just happened’ to be running a simulated airline hijacking that morning. They took over 2 hours to scramble air defense.

The air Marshall’s were completely absent. The cabin doors weren’t locked. Nobody was armed on any of the planes.

The list goes on. So we get Big Government imposing its will on the populace to cover up their incompetence.