Will Gun Scanners Create a Market for Anonymous Objects?

Last week, as noted on Reason 24/7, The New York City Police Department announced that it's rolling out portable terahertz scanners that will let police "see" if people on the street are carrying metal objects, like firearms. It'll give the cops yet one more reason to hassle people going about their business — a practice that's already raising judicial eyebrows. Of course, the scanners are premised on the idea that the items people carry are necessarily recognizable, but their very existence may create demand for versions of forbidden, suspicious or valuable goods that aren't so easy to spot.

As CNet described the new scanners:

The scanner is a device small enough to fit in a police van or set up on a street corner that reads terahertz radiation, which is energy emitted by both humans and inanimate objects. When aimed at a person, it's possible to see anything that is blocking the specific energy coming off the human -- such as a gun.

"If something is obstructing the flow of that radiation, for example a weapon, the device will highlight that object," Police Commissioner Raymond Kelly said, according to the New York Daily News.

Since anything metal will block the radiation, police will be looking for recognizable outlines. Specifically, they're assuming that a gun will look like a gun. That's traditionally been a safe assumption, since disguised weapons are generally categorized as Any Other Weapons under the National Firearms Act and subject to strict regulation. But guns that don't look like guns were a bit of a craze in 19th century America, and there's a market — usually illegal — for them elsewhere. Pen guns are old hat, and European headline writers worked themselves into a frenzy a decade ago when officials discovered that somebody in the Balkans was manufacturing four-shot .22 pistols that looked like cell phones.

With desktop manufacturing coming to a workshop near you, and eager activists already hard at work to circumvent gun controls, it's easy to imagine Defense Distributed, or somebody similar, creating downloadable plans for guns that don't look at all like guns, the better to befuddle the snoops in blue.

But gun-toters aren't the only people who might not be comfortable with the idea of law-enforcement officers lifting the veil, so to speak. Journalists have long had a ... strained relationship with the powers-that-be, and they may not want police so-easily identifying them by the cameras and recording equipment stuffed in their pockets. Neither would activists monitoring police behavior at a demonstration or during an arrest. Most of this gear has been miniaturized in recent years anyway. So why not anonymize it, too? Sunglasses that record video and audio have already been developed for the upload-my-skydive-to-Youtube set, so we're not far off.

Even people who usually consider themselves to have nothing to hide from the police may begin to feel uncomfortable revealing their possession of expensive watches or high-end electronics to public employees who aren't always on the up-and-up. Or, for that matter, public agencies seeking new applications for their toys. Why, of course, scanners would never be used to reveal the ownership of valuables that might contradict the claims made in a tax return.

Unless scanner-blocking metal-mesh clothing comes into wide vogue (limited use would just advertise a suspicious sense of modesty), we may soon live in a world in which  many items are designed to be unidentifiable.

Editor's Note: We invite comments and request that they be civil and on-topic. We do not moderate or assume any responsibility for comments, which are owned by the readers who post them. Comments do not represent the views of Reason.com or Reason Foundation. We reserve the right to delete any comment for any reason at any time. Report abuses.

  • Paul.||

    The scanner is a device small enough to fit in a police van or set up on a street corner that reads terahertz radiation, which is energy emitted by both humans and inanimate objects. When aimed at a person, it's possible to see anything that is blocking the specific energy coming off the human -- such as a gun.

    Hmph... so I'm wondering what other materials block Teraherz radiation. Tin foil? Have we finally come to a place in this country where wearing a tinfoil hat makes you decidedly sane?

  • Tulpa (LAOL-PA)||

    Aluminum foil would definitely do the trick. But not a hat, since you probably have the gun in your pants. More like a tinfoil asshat.

  • Paul.||

    You wear your gun where you want to, I'll wear mine where I want to...

  • Paul.||

    My pistol is a polymer. The only metal parts are the various springs and actions, and of course, the barrel (and the magazine). So I'm trying to imagine what that would look like on a teraherz scanner.

  • ||

    Isn't the slide metal too?

  • Paul.||

    Yes, thank you.

  • ||

    I think that's the bulk of the metal. Well, that and the 17 rounds of armor piercing cop killer bullets that you bought illegally.

  • Paul.||

    13. It's a .45 with a high cap magazine. Illegal in California. Respect.

  • ||

    http://www.para-usa.com/new/pr......php?id=12

    16 rounds of .40 S&W. I'm buying one this week. Fuck AWB states.

  • ||

    nice. fwiw, i just "downgraded" from the .40 S&W i've carried for 18 yrs to a 9 mm. SUPPOSEDLY, the modern 9mm technology makes the stopping power comparable

  • ||

    Honestly, I've always had better luck with .45s and .40s. Explains my aversion to 9mm guns.

    Also, just because. It's a classic, historic design with a large capacity in my most commonly used caliber. The 1911's my favorite firearm of all time. And it's big.

    I can't wait to shoot it.

  • Tulpa (LAOL-PA)||

    Honestly, I've always had better luck with .45s and .40s.

    How many people have you shot, RPA?

  • ||

    Dozens, if the batshit insane PETA asswipe a few houses done has it right.

  • ||

    *down

  • Virginian||

    Eh, don't worry dunphy, I'd imagine a dog can't take too many hits, even from a 9mm.

  • ||

    i've seen a .38 lead semi wadcutter bounch off a deer's head. that's when i upgraded to a semi-auto back in the day.

  • Paul.||

    i've seen a .38 lead semi wadcutter bounch off a deer's head. that's when i upgraded to a semi-auto back in the day.

    Dirty Harry saw a .38 bounce off a car windshield. Odd that.

  • Tulpa (LAOL-PA)||

    Good choice. 40 S & W is the only pistol caliber that Walmart seems to be stocking anymore.

  • AlmightyJB||

    I have a Glock 22 which is a .40. It's nice, accurate but I get a slight weird little "vibration" or "twang" in the trigger that is somewhat annoying. I have a buddy who has a Glock .45 that doesn't do that which actually makes it more comfortable to shoot and his is actually s smaller frame. For me at least.

  • Diligentia Vis Celeritas||

    The trigger felt like it stacked and released on the G22 I tried. Maybe it was me, but it took the surprise out of the moment of released and I couldn't shoot it worth a hoot.
    I have a .40 Kahr that's a tack driver. The trigger has a long pull, but light and very smooth.

  • Paul.||

    I had a chance to do a trigger pull with a Glock for the first time. Both the owner and I agree that the pull on my Springfield XD45 was way, way better. And he's a glock man.

  • Free Society||

    I have a Glock 22, 2nd generation and I don't have that problem.

  • Tulpa (LAOL-PA)||

    The slide and the magazine by themselves are going to make it look gun-shaped.

    A revolver could probably be designed to look like an all-metal screwdriver on one of these scans.

  • Diligentia Vis Celeritas||

    I think we're looking at this all wrong. We should design ordinary, harmless objects to scan like guns.

  • Ice Nine||

    How long before the cops shoot someone down in cold blood because of suspicion and confusion raised by one of these things? Altogether now, three...two...one...

  • ||

    Fuck you, that's how long!

  • Hyperion||

    They already do it without those things, but yeah, this could definitely increase the odds for any given person.

    Cop: What?, that was just an iPhone with a weird metallic case? Oh well, officer safety first, and he was goin for it!

  • Death Rock and Skull||

    How is this different from cops using FLIR without a warrant to see if people are growing pot? Its not.

    Since they are using a method to discover what the police otherwise would not be able to do using their own senses, this constitutes an illegal search.

  • Paul.||

    Cue Tulpa, 3..2..

  • Tulpa (LAOL-PA)||

    I think this *should* be the case, outside of sensitive areas like airports and courtrooms, but SCOTUS gives much higher protection to privacy in one's home than privacy on the street.

  • ||

    or you could live in a state like WA, where many searches legal under federal guidelines (FLIR, search incident, curtilage) are not legal for state/local cops due to the ACTUAL privacy protections in our bitchen constitution

    privacy. we haz it

  • Death Rock and Skull||

    What about when your state thinks it is cool to use dogs to find out what the cops would not have been able to find out using their own senses?

  • Almanian.||

    THAT'S DIFFERENT!

  • ||

    we've already addressed that. since the legalization of mj, drug dogs are useless, since they can't distinguish a dog hit on MJ vs. actual illegal drugs now

    it's a fantastic unintended consequence of the legalization of MJ

    however, prior to this, we couldn't even use a drug dog in my dept. without probable cause, per policy.

    the legalization of MJ has had several unintended positive side effects. the fact that it has made police drug dogs largely obsolete in our state is a big one

  • Death Rock and Skull||

    I'm sure those drug dogs will have an extended career doing "inter agency cooperation" bullshit harassment of schoolchildren.

    A new generation of drug dogs supposedly not trained to "find" marijuana will be brought out on to the streets, and you will be back to "you don't have a right to privacy over odor molecules blah blah blah".

  • sloopyinca||

    What about when your state thinks it is cool to use dogs to find out what the cops would not have been able to find out using their own senses?

    They don't need those dogs anymore. As we all learned today, they merely change their tactics to illegally obtaining medical records from pharmacies so they can bust kids.

  • Rod Flash||

    I'm curious how many metallic threads it would take to make an article of clothing disrupt a scanner. If it's just a few percent of the total I'm sure there would be a market for it. If only because people like f*cking with the po-po.

  • Death Rock and Skull||

    They use copper screen to test electronics in an environment free from background interference. Just put some under the lining of your leather jacket or something.

  • sloopyinca||

    Yeah. And get arrested for inducing a riot and causing a panic, not to mention the reckless endangerment charge for when a police officer discharges his weapon at you without giving a shit what's behind you.

  • SweatingGin||

    A fencing lame might be fun. And a fashion statement.

  • SweatingGin||

    Also may protect against tasers.

  • AlmightyJB||

    I would think any square piece of metal behind the holster would just make the everything show up as one square object? Is it that tuned that it can make out the separate shapes?

  • sloopyinca||

    Some daredevil with a desire to make a lot of fast money will soon begin carrying flat, metal objects around looking for a payday compliments of the taxpayers of New York for when the cops beat the shit out of him for no reason.

    I'm thinking a carpenter's square inside a trench coat ought to do it.

  • Death Rock and Skull||

    Switch comb. In a leather jacket.

  • Tulpa (LAOL-PA)||

    Pittsburgh cops beat the shit out of a black arts student because they mistook a Mountain Dew bottle for a gun, and he hasn't seen dollar one. so I wouldn't count on that.

  • Paul.||

    Anyone who practices the Black Arts is not to be trusted.

  • Free Society||

    deftly done

  • sloopyinca||

    It's really disgusting that the current objective of most law enforcement officers is to see how far they can push the limits of the law and infringe on our freedoms to either make their job easier or to give pants-shitting people some false sense of security.

    Right here on these comment threads, we get officers bragging about illegally obtaining evidence so he can help bust someone for a victimless crime, we read stories where cops kill people mistakenly and violently assault family members but they either walk or get off with a slap on the wrists and we hear how work rules and different sets of due process are established through union contract negotiations.

    It's a far cry from liberty, people. And Ray Kelly is just signalling the next step in the erosion of our privacy. And I'm sure the people of New York City are applauding him for it.

  • Paul.||

    Sent to Doherty this morning, not sure if he'll pick it up:

    Lake Stevens pays couple $100,000 after police force way into home

    Lake Stevens has agreed to pay $100,000 to a young couple after two officers, without a warrant, forced their way into their home and forcibly arrested the man over a day-old traffic confrontation.

    Warbis reportedly identified himself as a police officer and told Fenter that he was driving recklessly and that he would be “issuing him a traffic citation in the mail.” The lawsuit says Warbis did not look at Fenter’s license or registration and noted that he was allowed to continue on his way.

    Fenter said that Warbis was off-duty, in civilian clothes and walking with his family “on the wrong side of the road.”

    The lawsuit also claimed that Warbis had no jurisdiction in Marysville nor cause to have pulled Fenter over.

    The next evening, according to the suit, the 27-year-old Fenter; his wife, Tiffany, 26; their young daughter; and Fenter’s brother, Cody, were sitting down to dinner in the rear of their Lake Stevens home. Fenter looked outside and noticed someone crouching and peering through the slats of a 6-foot cedar fence that surrounds his backyard.

    The money shot:

    Berg said Warbis and Wellington remain members of the Lake Stevens Police Departmen.

    http://seattletimes.com/html/l.....ntxml.html

  • ||

    Forceful entry and trespassing? Unlawful detention?

    He should have shot the fucker.

  • sloopyinca||

    They must have taken that from The Onion. We've been assured on here time and again that Washington State is the home of the friendly police officer that would never, ever violate anybody's rights. And if they did, they'd never get preferential treatment for it and would likely be prosecuted even more vigorously that a "civilian" would.

    Of course, that person obtains medical information illegally to help prosecute victimless crimes, so take hos word for what you will.

  • ||

    1) This retarded bullshit about "civilians" just fucking kills me. Cops are civilians with a small, explicit list of additional powers, revokable upon transgression of authority. Get this through your thick motherfucking skulls, politzei.

    2) If a "civilian" had done the same, he'd have been shot.

  • RBS||

    This, and the bullshit "us against them" mentality that cops have.

  • ||

    It's like a fucking zombie movie -- we're the zombies, and they're the noble remains of the human race.

  • sloopyinca||

    You'll be glad (or not) to know that police in other parts of the world are fucking retarded as well.

    It has nothing to do with America. Anybody in the world that aspires to a position where they have a monopoly on violence in the name of the state should never be given that kind of authority.

  • ||

    I got stopped on Limey Island once (apparently, it was for speeding), and when I questioned the officers logic about my violation, he threatened to have my car scrapped and to put me in a cell.

    That's the last time I rented a car on a trip to Limey Island.

  • Death Rock and Skull||

    I have never been to Limey Island, or anywhere in Eurotopia. I am confident that I am more cultured and worldly as a result.

  • Virginian||

    Pssshhh oh come on. All English cops are friendly, bowler wearing, cheerful Cockney fellows. They don't even carry guns.

  • ||

    No, they instead prefer to beat the fuck out of every suspect in a fashion that would make Baltimore narcotics detectives blush.

  • db||

    Cops are civilians with a small, explicit list of additional powers, revokable upon transgression of authority.

    Prevailing evidence indicates otherwise, the letter of the law notwithstanding.

  • ||

    Yeah, I was referring to the way it technically is. They don't teach cops that shit anymore, do they?

  • ||

    teach us what specifically?

  • ||

    The strict, absolute limitations of their various powers as per Constitutional law.

  • ||

    they certainly do in my dept.

    otoh, i think the Law Enforcement Digest, which i read religiously, should be required reading, since it updates us on current case law/constitutional law limitations. i CHOOSE to read it , but it should be mandatory. training is an absolute joke, although our legal advisor does their best to keep us updated.

    WA is a very libertarian state due to our constitution. and the trend has been MORE freedom over the last decade. pretext stops - outlawed, search incident of a motor vehicle - outlawed, etc.

    in our state it's not about FEDERAL constitutional law, it's about state constitional law, since the state constitution is MUCH MUCH more restrictive.

    it's one of the reasons i chose to live here. more freedom

  • sloopyinca||

    training is an absolute joke,

    Isn't that probably by design, though? After all, you have informed us on here that unless someone in law enforcement has been specifically trained on what the law is, an officer is not in violation of it if he breaks it.

  • ||

    I'm not ignoring those pluses in Washington's favor. Though here's a slight antidote to your enthusiasm:

    -----------------------

    "Washington was among the states that improved the most in overall freedom and consequently moved up five spots in the rankings. Unfortunately for deni- zens of that state, it had—and still has—a long way to go. Washington is still among the 10 least-free states.

    Indeed, it only barely cracks the top half of states in personal freedom. Spending is a bit higher than aver- age, but taxes are slightly lower—a recipe for gov- ernment debt, which Washington has in abundance. Government employment is also too high. Land-use planning is fairly centralized. Eminent-domain legislation has been enacted but reforms need to go further. Labor and health-insurance laws are poor. Washington has the highest minimum wage in the country.

    It also has adjusted community rating and has enacted a host of new health-insurance cover- age mandates. The state liability system is a bit above average. For a liberal state, gun laws remain quite reasonable. Alcohol is tightly controlled, with taxes on spirits the highest in the country by far (effective- ly $22.33 per gallon!).

  • ||

    However, beer and wine taxes are considerably lower than average. Cigarette taxes are high overall and the highest in the West; smoking bans are extensive. Marijuana laws are a bit better than average, with a relatively humane (but still too high, at five years) maximum prison term for single offenses. Making high-level possession and low-level cultivation misdemeanors and low-level possession a civil offense would help further.

    Motorist freedoms are constrained and now include a ban on handheld cell phones. However, Washington does not autho-

  • ||

    rize sobriety checkpoints. Gambling is restricted. Educational regulation is absurdly tight, with private schools needing state approval and under certain conditions, teacher licensing, and homeschool- ers needing to meet teacher qualifications, annual standardized testing, and extensive recordkeeping rules, along with other requirements. Washington’s asset-forfeiture laws are among the worst in the country and require reform. However, the state performs quite well on victimless-crime arrests and drug-law enforcement.

    I'm as big a fan of idealism as you'll ever find in libertarian circles, but give me a break, pal.

  • ||

    And yeah, it's outdated on marijuana legality.

  • Paul.||

    WA state is pissed about liquor legalization. They punished the voters by slapping a 20% tax on spirits after we kicked the state out the bidness.

    Fuck them with something sharp and pointy. Welcome to the private sector, WA state liquor employees, where they expect results and your retirement isn't guaranteed.

    Oh, what's that? What happened to, "We'd make so much more in the private sector..." argument? Man, y'all sure fought hard to maintain that 'lower pay and sacrifice' status.

  • RBS||

    When I worked for the prosecutor's office where I live the local cops would always want opinions about whether what they were doing was constitutional or not. I probably wrote 2 dozen memo's telling them why they couldn't just do whatever the hell they wanted when looking for evidence etc. This almost always led to a meeting with my boss to discuss why I wasn't a "team player."

  • ||

    What state? It wasn't New York, was it?

  • Paul.||

    Unfortunately, what RBS describes is a Pan American problem. It probably exists in the reddest of the red states, all the way through the bluest of the blue states.

  • ||

    Even in New Hampshire, Missouri, and small-town Texas?

    Fuck. In that case, we're doomed.

  • Paul.||

    If it can happen in Seattle with a former Sierra Club director/Biking Activist as our mayor, then yes, we're doomed.

  • Paul.||

    Tell 'em you're playing for Team Constitution!

  • RBS||

    SC

  • nicole||

    There's also the option of carrying around pieces of metal shaped like naughty, scary, or otherwise illicit stuff to confound such scanners. Of course, lots of people would have to do that too for it to work well. But it'd be sort of fun just to fuck with them anyway.

  • Hugh Akston||

    That might almost make going to NYC worthwhile. Almost.

  • SteveE||

    That was my first thought when I heard about this. I would think a lot of civil libertarian types would be happy to carry around thin 'gun' silhouettes that are actually harmless. No doubt the police will try to claim that such carriers are 'disturbing the peace' or some other nonsense.

    Modeled after an idea I learned from Penn & Teller, they could even come with the Bill of Rights (or at least the 2nd and 4th amendments) on the silhouettes.

  • sloopyinca||

    Hey, I hand my metallic Penn & Teller Bill Of Rights to the TSA every time I go through a metal detector. Right before they feel inside my pants.

  • Paul.||

    A metal bill of rights? How the fuck did I miss that? Googling now. I want one.

  • Tulpa (LAOL-PA)||

    It would be interesting to see what would happen if you sewed aluminum foil into the inside of your jacket saying "FUCK YOU, PIGS!" backwards.

  • ||

    most likely nothing

    don't give in to the black helicopter set

  • Tulpa (LAOL-PA)||

    Well obviously not in WA because the cops there are bastions of decency or something. But NYC may be a different story.

  • ||

    NYC already has an established record of clearly ignoring the 4th in their stop and frisk program.

    there are times and places for terry stops. heck, i've done two today so far. but they have to be constitutionally valid

  • Free Society||

    I prefer moral validity. The power to do something, does not make use of that power legitimate even if it's constitutional.

  • Hugh Akston||

    When will you say "enough", New York? How tight do Kelly and Bloomberg have to squeeze before you finally reject the iron fist?

  • Paul.||

    Doin' right ain't got no end.

  • ||

    That's the real kicker -- a majority of New Yorkers seems to love the iron fist up their asses.

  • Paul.||

    Maplethorp photos reference! +9000

  • ||

    (hands Paul a picture of a penis with some random foreign object inserted into the urethra)

    Here you go, Paul.

  • Paul.||

    There had to be a lot of urinary tract infections after a Maplethorp shoot. There just had to be.

    Best line from the (new) documentary show Veep: I'm gonna shove that camera up your ass and give you another kind of red eye to worry about...

  • sloopyinca||

    You'd think that the more they tightened their grip, the more citizens would slip through their fingers.

  • ||

    The more they tighten their grip around the self-adoring authoritarian electorate's cock, the greater their pleasure. Bloomberg's a real champ.

  • Paul.||

    My honest opinion about New York is that it has become a self-selecting problem. The kind of people that now live there are the kinds of people who want this shit. The more bat-shit authoritarian it becomes, it draws in more people like that, and casts off the people who aren't.

    For instance, California will be entirely peopled by SEIU members in the next two decades.

  • ||

    SEIU members? Are those the really resilient invertebrates that are said to be able to survive any disaster?

    What were they called? Co--. Um. Cockanches? Cockranchins?

    IT'S ON THE TIP OF MY TONGUE.

  • Almanian.||

    I think you're looking for Cockaine.

    Welcome.

  • Hugh Akston||

    Not after they demonstrate the capabilities of the NYPD.

  • sloopyinca||

    OK, bone to pick here.

    In Ep. IV, when the Imperial Death Star is approaching the moon nase of the rebels, they show them with a clear line of sight to the planet (as they pan from the rebel fighters to the death star). In the next, and another subsequent scene, they still do not have a clear line of sight. Now either that moon was in a really fast planetary orbit (and Grand Moff Tarkin would have been better off in a clockwise orbit to intercept the moon approaching him), or George Lucas is full of fucking shit.

  • ||

    George Lucas is full of shit.

    I'm willing to bet money JJ Abrams' new Star Wars movie is going to be at least consistently good, even if it isn't great. How awesome will it be to finally get another non-awful Star Wars movie?

  • Tulpa (LAOL-PA)||

    Barf.

    Redlettermedia just put out a new video saying he's glad Abrams is dong SW since he liked ST 2009 so much. Harvey Plinkett is DEAD TO ME.

  • Dweebston||

    Booo! Plinkett uber alles. Of course, when your Star Wars Estimation Bar is set to Phantom Menace, there's really no harm in cutting Abrams some slack.

  • ||

    Hey Ken, the war's over. Get new parts for your head.

  • Hugh Akston||

    Sir, if any of my circuits or gears will help, I'll gladly donate them.

  • ||

    You would identify with C3PO. God, you are the absolute worst. Except for FoE, he's the absolute worst too.
    No, wait, he likes TV Tropes, so he's the worstest again.

  • sloopyinca||

    OK, a Thornton Melon quote deserves a round of applause.

  • Tulpa (LAOL-PA)||

    Bigorati gotta bigorate.

  • ||

    testify! preach!

  • ||

    I still think my idea about relocating the Statue of Liberty to a freer place is a priority.

    I'll just go stand on the New York border with my assault cannon Reaper device destructo death emission machine.

    And how the fuck are these scanners not despicable violations of the Fourth Amendment?

  • Hyperion||

    You can borrow my tractor beam, if you can find a place to put the statue.

  • ||

    I'm a Star Wars guy. Sorry. I'd much rather borrow your medichlorians.

  • pmains||

    What? Are you saying that "tractor beam" is not a Star Wars reference?

  • ||

    That was the joke. I was facetiously implying that the prequels' lore is ascendant over that of the original trilogy, purposely inviting outrage and censure.

    GET WITH THE PROGRAM!

  • Almanian.||

    FAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAGS!!

    /Cartman

  • pmains||

    Ah. That's subtle.

  • DRM||

    Actually, hmm. How about one of those White House petitions to have the Statue of Liberty relocated? Complete with a list of NYC fascist nonsense?

  • Hyperion||

    Get those 3D printers rollin boys. It's time to printz us some gunz made of out yet to be seen non-metallic nano composites. Nanny state lose, freedom win!

  • sloopyinca||

    Would lining one's clothes with aluminum foil defeat this technological invasion of privacy?

  • Hyperion||

    A few million people marching on DC with some tar and feathers will defeat it.

  • sloopyinca||

    Except for the fact that they'd never be given a permit to march on the Mall.

  • ||

    If the crowd's large enough to be counted in the millions, nobody's going to give a shit about permits.

  • Hyperion||

    A few million angry citizens don't need no stinkin permits.

  • ||

    Armed citizens.

    Fuck me. Can you imagine thousands and thousands of armed people in makeshift militias blazing up to the Capitol?

  • Hyperion||

    YES

  • ||

    If I admit online to ever imagining that I'm pretty sure I'll get dronefied.

  • Tulpa (LAOL-PA)||

    Only until the cops get curious about what happens if they taze you.

  • ||

    My key chain is a solid metal miniature Stanley Cup. It gets flagged in the pocket of my coat in the airport scanners every single time (of course they never question my syringes). I'm guessing that with this machine in use it will cause the NYPD to get the vapours too, so that will be fun to try and avoid.

  • db||

    'Way back in the day when carry permits were not issued and cops could search people with impunity (more than now), all manner of non-gun-looking firearms were created. Belt buckle guns, pen guns, shoe guns, cane guns, umprella guns, you name it. Then along came the NFA and the concept of "Any Other Weapon" (AOW) and possession of any of those became a federal felony punishable by 10 years in prison and a $200,000 fine.

  • AlmightyJB||

    I'm going to start selling large metal signs that you can wear around your neck underr you shirt. Large middle finger, "FU Pig" sign, etc.

  • jasno||

    Why even own a gun? It just sets you up for harassment...

    Anyone know what the regulations are for high velocity pneumatic, spring, or electromagnetic projectile weapons? A lot easier to fabricate, I guess, and a lot easier to disguise as an everyday object. Also it doesn't set-off the gunshot detectors they scatter throughout big cities nowadays. Totally immune to ammunition restrictions as well.

    I suppose if you had the energy available to do it, you could condense the water vapor out of the air and use that for a projectile....

  • ||

    in WA state, if it does not use a combustible to fire a projectile, it's not a firearm and firearm regs don't apply.

    had a kid make a VERY powerful potato cannon that used compressed air and made a quite impressive boom. thing would take your head off.

    neighbors complained because they lived in a "no shoot" jurisdiction. however, i told them "no shoot" only applies to firearms. no combustible, no firearm.

    otoh, this reminds me of the moron felon i caught in possession of a flare gun, because he claimed it wasn't a "firearm" and thus he could possess it as a felon

    moron

    got like 2 yrs in prison iirc

  • AlmightyJB||

    Do you guys have a objective measurement that you use for knife blades? I'm in Ohio and I had never been able to find anything definative as to what was legal. I'm pretty sure you would have to allow 4" and below but I don't know that for sure.

  • ||

    i have no idea about the length requirement. stilettos and switchblades, etc. are illegal

    iirc, the (unjustified) woodcutter shooting cop initially investigated because he believed the extended blade of his knife was beyond the prima facie limit.

    again, it's an area of law i admittedly have no idea about. everybody around here carries a knife on their hip and nobody gives a flying f00k as far as i can tell

    the last knife related arrest i made was for a butterfly knife, which are illegal. at least it held up in court.

    of course the guy ALSO had a concealed firearm w/o a permit, so he was a double whammy.

  • AlmightyJB||

    Yeah, I wouldn't worry about except if I ever had to use it. I guess at that point I really wouldn't give a shit about a ccw charge anyways.

  • ||

    you could look it up. online RCW

  • Paul.||

    If I recall correctly, nearly every knife sold in Home Depot is illegal by WA State standards-- any knife which can be opened with a downward motion or by force of gravity or has a thumb assist... well, there goes that MTech I bought, over the counter at a major retailer.

  • Death Rock and Skull||

    If it was so dangerous for him to be allowed to possess a firearm, why was he released from prison in the first place?

  • ||

    unless they get their rights restored, convicted felons are prohibited from possession a "firearm"

    i don't make the law, but that's a felony I enforce.

    the thing is a flare gun is so OBVIOUSLY a firearm - it shoots a projectile by means of an explosive, which is the textbook definition. the guy really was a moron.

    some felons, when they are on parole, are also going to be prohibited from carrying ANY weapon, to include knives, etc.

    PERSONALLY, i don't think nonviolent felonies should result in loss of firearm's rights, but i don't get to make that decision

    the guy with the flare gun was a violent felon, though. iirc, armed robbery conviction

  • sloopyinca||

    So you proudly helped put a man in a cage for two years because he had a flare gun? Was that before or after you circumvented the law in obtaining medical records to put a kid in the slammer for a victimless crime?

    Stay classy.

  • Tulpa (LAOL-PA)||

    Yawn. The crew at Moss Pawn would like to demonstrate the lethality of flare guns as weapons

  • sloopyinca||

    By your incorruptible logic, Tulpa, it would be illegal for a convicted felon to own a swimming pool or bathtub and invite someone to use it.

  • Tulpa (LAOL-PA)||

    Uh....no. Not seeing how that's comparable at all.

  • sloopyinca||

    So a flare gun, which is not a weapon and has not been designed as a weapon, is illegal because it has been lethal according to a couple of dudes on the internet, but a pool or tub is not even though they have killed probably 5000x as many people as flare guns.

  • ||

    it's called rule of law. i know that's something you hate, but there it is.

    a flare gun is a firearm.

    i will GLADLY arrest a violent convited felon (armed robbery) for possessing one

    and note, HE thought it was a weapon. that's why he was carrying it. he thought he could GET AROUND the law since he mistakenly believed it wasn't a firearm. which is moronic.

    fuck him.

  • sloopyinca||

    fuck him

    Now, where have I heard that before? Oh, yeah. Now I remember.

  • ||

    damn right. some people create their own problems

  • Coeus||

    damn right. some people create their own problems

    Right? How dare they worry about self protection. Who do they think they are, cops?

  • Whahappan?||

    The problems were created by the police in that situation, as you well know.

  • Tulpa (LAOL-PA)||

    lethal according to a couple of dudes on the internet

    I will NOT stand idly by and allow you to insult Eric and Barry and certainly not Arthur HiPoint.

  • Tulpa (LAOL-PA)||

    People aren't killed by pools or tubs without either being abducted or choosing to enter them. A flare gun can be used to instantly harm someone in a public area.

  • ||

    People aren't killed by flare guns without being placed within their range or choosing to enter their range. Pools and tubs can be used to instantly harm someone.

    See how that works?

    And who the fuck gives a shit whether it's a public area or not?

  • Paul.||

    I see a couple of country boys in woodland camouflage. Whatever they're shooting should be illegal.

  • ||

    i circumvented no law. i asked for the prescription record, and the pharmacist provided it. got an attaboy from the prosecutor.

    the PHARMACIST may have violated some sort of ethical code or something, but I DIDN'T

    and you are damn right, i arrested a convicted violent felon for possessin a flare gun.

    that's classy as fuck. fuck him. he's a convicted violent scumbag felon and he damn well should have known not to carry the flare gun.

    again, fuck him

  • sloopyinca||

    the PHARMACIST may have violated some sort of ethical code or something, but I DIDN'T

    By "some sort of ethical code", you mean the law. And do you really want us to applaud you for asking someone to break the law so you can pursue a non-violent, victimless crime?

    You're no libertarian. You're a goon.

  • Tulpa (LAOL-PA)||

    Prescription records aren't covered by HIPAA.

  • ||

    i am not responsible for knowing the ethical codes or laws regarding disclosure of patient records by pharmacists.

    the pharmacist is.

    if the pharmacist violated some law or code, that's his fault, not mine. i asked for a record, and he provided it. without warrant. he made a choice. and it HELD UP IN COURT. it was not suppressable because *i* violated no law. that is 100% irrefutable per the court record.

    and if investigating kids selling C-II amphetamines to their classmates or arresting convicted armed robbers for carrying a firearm makes me a goon, then i proudly wear that label.

    but i'm still a libertarian :)

  • sloopyinca||

    if the pharmacist violated some law or code, that's his fault, not mine. i asked for a record, and he provided it. without warrant. he made a choice. and it HELD UP IN COURT. it was not suppressable because *i* violated no law. that is 100% irrefutable per the court record.

    So, now that you do know the law, will you continue to get people to break it? Probably. After all, you've come out in support of cops that smashed a guy's head in resulting in an $10M settlement from King County. If that's not being ok with criminality, then I don't know what is.

  • ||

    i know no law regarding pharmacist and prescription records. i am aware you are claiming he violated some law. if so, that's HIS fault not mine.

    and yes, matt paul was entirely justified in tackling that subject. that's why he wasn't even investigated and no charges were preferred.

    i also support the civil payout, under the common decency principle. guy did not deserve to end up in a coma.

    but as a cop, i am not required to know pharmacy statutes. if i ask a pharmacist for records, it's up to HIM to know if divulging them violates some ethical code or whatnot. that's why the record was NOT i repeat NOT suppressable. because i did nothing wrong.

  • sloopyinca||

    Oh really, Tulpa. Be sure to let R C Dean know that next time you come across him on here. It's only what he does for a fucking living.

  • Tulpa (LAOL-PA)||

    RC is talking about medical records, not prescriptions. He's a hospital lawyer, not a pharmacy lawyer. Very different situations. A pharmacist has NO medical records for his customers.

  • sloopyinca||

    Prescriptions are medical records, you imbecile.

  • Jesus H. Christ||

    That's one of the dumbest things I've read today.

  • Jesus H. Christ||

    That previous comment was for Tulpa.

  • RBS||

    This thread has it all. dunphy further revealing himself to be a piece of shit and Tulpa getting all Tulpical then getting called on his bullshit.

  • ||

    if arresting some scumbag convicted felon for carrying a firearm makes me a piece of shit, then i'm proud to be one

    fuck him

    only on hit and run would some armed robber scumbag carrying a firearm get sympathy

  • sloopyinca||

    First he was a felon. Then he was a scumbag violent felon. Now he's an armed robber scumbag felon.

    You're spinning like a top today, dunphy. Like a little, retarded dreidel.

    And in a just world, once someone has served their sentence, they should be free to exercise their rights to self-defense.

  • ||

    i've been completely consistent./ his felony conviction iirc was for armed robbery. fuck him.

  • ||

    Wanna try again? Leave this to the professionals, Tulpa.

    11/16/2011
    US Pharm. 2011;36(11)79-81.

    [see link]

    Definition of PHI

    PHI is broadly encompassing as defined by HIPAA1:

    Protected health information means individually identifiable health information:

    (1) Except as provided in paragraph (2) of this definition, that is:
    (i) Transmitted by electronic media;
    (ii) Maintained in electronic media; or
    (iii) Transmitted or maintained in any other form or medium.

    Many records kept in pharmacies meet the definition of PHI, including prescription records, billing records, patient profiles, and counseling records. Hence, pharmacy systems must satisfy HIPAA standards for privacy and security. Note that PHI is not restricted to electronic media or transmissions; an oral communication of individually identifiable health information constitutes PHI.

    I happened to be awake (can't sleep) and that is just wrong, Tulpa.

  • ||

    groovy. and as the court records prove, *i* did nothing wrong by asking for the records. the pharmacist may have violated the law. *i* didn't.

  • ||

    groovy. and as the court records prove, *i* did nothing wrong by asking for the records. the pharmacist may have violated the law. *i* didn't.

    Wrong dunphy, you needed a warrant. Read the entire entry. You're not immune from HIPAA, pig. You had no right to ask for them without one.

    I don't like patients giving away meds I RX'd for them, but you needed a warrant and the pharm should have told you to fuck off.

    I also want to see a link of your claim that you can barge into an OR over the objections of the surgeon.

  • sloopyinca||

    I also want to see a link of your claim that you can barge into an OR over the objections of the surgeon.

    Hey, it is dunphy we're talking about. He probably only barged in so he could perform the heart transplant better than the surgeon.* He saved a man's life, dammit! Who are you to keep him from sharing another of his gifts with the world?

    *Afterward, he surfed the Banzai Pipeline and gave a free concert in Central Park that would make Paul Simon cream his jeans.

  • Tulpa (LAOL-PA)||

    HIPAA covers the dispenser of information, not the recipient, right? If I asked you whether the hot chick who just finished her appointment with you has any STDs, and you gave me a list, I haven't broken HIPAA, you have.

  • ||

    HIPAA covers the dispenser of information, not the recipient, right? If I asked you whether the hot chick who just finished her appointment with you has any STDs, and you gave me a list, I haven't broken HIPAA, you have.

    The penalties on me are...ahem...stiffer, Tulpa, but the recipient is also actionable (or should be, thin blue line and all).

    If I posted links to my patients' medical records on Reason, or even divulged information you emailed to me without your permission in writing as per an agreement to TX you, I get no less than a year in the FedPen and 10,000 USD fine per infraction. (Doctors do go to jail for this.) Even sloopy's private emails to me are protected, and I can never, ever tell anyone. If dunphy wanted them, he needs a warrant. Full Stop.

    One HIPAA slip can conceivably contain multiple infractions.

  • ||

    oh yea. and i am so scared the hipaa police are going to come after me.

    im quaking.

    the case was upheld. the evidence was upheld. done. adjudicated finis

    the fact that the pharm should have told me to fuck off is considered. but I was not the holder of the records. there is no such crime as soliciting a pharmacist violate hipaa.

    his bad. not mine. again, upheld in court.

    otoh, just for the record this was 2002, so not sure when that statute was written

  • Tulpa (LAOL-PA)||

    HIPAA became law in 1996.

  • ||

    but I was not the holder of the records. there is no such crime as soliciting a pharmacist violate hipaa.

    You had physical custody of them, no? NO WARRANT? YOU DON'T ASK, ASSHOLE! You violated your precious procedure.

    You had no right to those records and you know it, dunphy.

  • sloopyinca||

    He doesn't care about constitutional protections. He's got bad drug sellers to catch. Er, I mean he did 11 years ago or something. It's all starting to get hazy for him now, though...

    Is there a whistleblower hotline that one could call in the SeaTac area to report this violation of rights? Aw, nevermind. They'd probably just give him a medal in that shithole of police corruption.

  • Tulpa (LAOL-PA)||

    So if I'm an idiot, and I ask my doctor for another patient's records and he gives them to me, have I committed a crime? That's fucked up if it's true. As a private citizen I have no obligations under HIPAA.

    I know that's certainly not the case with FERPA, which is in my domain. If I fuck up and tell Student X what Student Y's grade is, and Student X tells Student Z, Student X hasn't broken the law, I have. Because I was the legitimate custodian of the information.

  • sloopyinca||

    I'm pretty sure he was referring to dunphy's illegal obtaining of the records, Tulpa. He's not a private citizen, seeing as he was acting in his official capacity.

  • Tulpa (LAOL-PA)||

    So now you're approving of a double standard for cops as opposed to "civilians"?

  • ||

    So now you're approving of a double standard for cops as opposed to "civilians"?

    dunphy has a gun and badge, Tulpa. He needed a warrant, full stop. I would not be surprised if dunphy "encouraged" the pharmacy to be compliant. Remember, Tulpa, you can walk away from me...with dunphy, you can't.

  • sloopyinca||

    So now you're approving of a double standard for cops as opposed to "civilians"?

    Do civilians have to power to subpoena information for use in a criminal proceeding? I didn't think so.

    No, I don't approve of a double standard. I expect to be held to the same standards of evidentiary procedures and evidence collection as the next guy.

  • ||

    So if I'm an idiot, and I ask my doctor for another patient's records and he gives them to me, have I committed a crime? That's fucked up if it's true. As a private citizen I have no obligations under HIPAA.

    Technically, yes, because unless by legal designation such as: marriage, MPOA, or specifically designated by the patient or the owner/holder of the medical records (such as an insurance co. or provider, or an employee thereof, called in the biz "Need to know basis" which is why a medical secretary has universal info access in a hospital, but I only have access to my designated patients), you are not supposed to ask. Full Stop.

  • ||

    Also, parents have access their children's medical records while acting as their legal guardian (though there are some privacy exceptions that do vary by state to state, and these can be even more stringent than HIPAA).

  • Tulpa (LAOL-PA)||

    you are not supposed to ask

    You sure about that? Does the law specifically forbid anyone from requesting (excluding deceit or theft) records they shouldn't have access to? My impression is that it's merely the duty of the person with the records to refuse such requests.

  • ||

    You sure about that?

    Yes, because if you ask, and it is shown you had no right to access to those records, you can (should) be held actionable. The rule of thumb, "If you don't know for sure, ask the patient or MPOA for permission."

    HIPAA is in my top three "FEAR OF GOD HIMSELF!" professional concerns. (The others being malpractice claims and The DEA).

  • Whahappan?||

    As if judges apply the law in good faith. You're too much.

  • sloopyinca||

    This is a far cry from your earlier claims, but I'll leave that alone for now.

    You participated in a crime to obtain the records. You were party to the crime and you requested that someone commit it. In the real world, that's called conspiracy. In cop land that's called initiative.

    Die. In. A. Fire.

  • ||

    oh spare me your histrionic rubbish. i participated in no crime. im not a pharmacist and asking a pharmacist a question doesn't make me a hipaa criminal.

    in the real world, it's called THE REAL WORLD

    unlike your fantasy land where asking a pharmacist for some prescription info is PARTICIPATING IN A CRIME. spare me the rubbish.

    by the way, this was 2002, in regards to relevant statutes

  • RBS||

    "in the real world, it's called THE REAL WORLD"

    Ah yes, this old trope that authoritarians have been using for centuries to help themselves feel good about their disregard for the liberties of those they serve.

  • ||

    We have dismissed that claim. *Waves hand*.

  • sloopyinca||

    And the backpedalling continues. It was 2002, yet you remembered it with amazing clarity this morning, now all of a sudden the case is 11 years old.

    You're so full of shit, we ought to start calling you Bono.

  • Calidissident||

    Is dunphy for real in this thread? Acting like he knows medical law better than a freaking doctor AND a hospital lawyer?

  • Tulpa (LAOL-PA)||

    You mean a person who claims to be a doctor and a person who claims to be a hospital lawyer. Rule 33.

  • Ted S.||

    *i* did nothing wrong by asking for the records.

    Apparently conspiracy charges don't apply to cops.

  • Tulpa (LAOL-PA)||

    Looks like I was wrong.

    If only you were awake to testify to the truth when other people were defaming me.

  • ||

    If only you were awake to testify to the truth when other people were defaming me.

    Spare me the martyr act, Tulpa. I am more hated on this board than you.

  • RBS||

    "I am more hated on this board than you."

    Nobody hates you for your love of ABBA...

  • Tulpa (LAOL-PA)||

    Nobody hates you. I want to sometimes, but then the polyps in my colon remind me that life is too short to hate.

  • ZackTheHypochondriac||

    hey groovus, i was wondering if you could tell me if a ct scan of the eyes would reveal a brain tumor that affects vision. idk what your specialty is but if you know, i would appreciate any info you can give. thanks.

  • General Butt Naked||

    I'm not a doctor, Zach, but I've done some doctorin' around the neighborhood and, yes, it's most likely a tumor. The CT scan won't pick it up until it's too late; you'll need an invasive brain biopsy if you want to know for sure.

  • ZackTheHypochondriac||

    lol you bastard, i got scared for a second, gbn looks like groovus on a cursory glance, and of course the first thing i saw was its most likely a tumor. then i remembered that i didnt tell you my symptoms. oh and groovus according to some other thread i was reading is a doc.

  • General Butt Naked||

    It's your name, I couldn't resist.

  • ||

    i was wondering if you could tell me if a ct scan of the eyes would reveal a brain tumor that affects vision.

    It can if it's proximal or directly on the optic nerve. The most likely place a tumor affecting vision will be is in the occipital lobe of the brain or residing on the optic chiasma. Also, if you fall back and hit the back of your head, the resultant hemotoma can also affect vision (but it takes a few hours for the blood to pool).

  • ZackTheHypochondriac||

    "hey groovus, i was wondering if you could tell me if a ct scan of the eyes would reveal a brain tumor that affects vision. idk what your specialty is but if you know, i would appreciate any info you can give"

    so it might, but not definitely. thats not as concrete as i was hoping but thanks anyway. ive got my follow up on the 31st, i might have more questions after that. assuming you don't mind of course.

  • ||

    so it might, but not definitely. thats not as concrete as i was hoping but thanks anyway.

    The best person who can answer this question is the radiologist who reads the CT scan, Zack.-) I'm a surgeon, and read some radiology relevant to my specialty, but this is out of my scope.

    Sorry I can't be more specific, but based on what you said here, I don't really know beyond cursory knowledge.

  • sloopyinca||

    Sorry I can't be more specific, but based on what you said here, I don't really know beyond cursory knowledge.

    Too bad dunphy tucked tail and ran. He could have asked him.

  • ZackTheHypochondriac||

    "Sorry I can't be more specific, but based on what you said here, I don't really know beyond cursory knowledge."

    nah its good, i really do appreciate the response. my optho thinks its all in my head, but i cant help but worry about tumors or autoimmune diseases. she ordered some blood sugar tests too, but hypoglycemia would be alot less scary to me than the other two.

  • sloopyinca||

    Zack is like our very own Lieutenant Barclay!

  • ZackTheHypochondriac||

    "Zack is like our very own Lieutenant Barclay!"

    i probably shouldnt admit it but i havent watched much star trek, i was always a star wars fan. but a quick glance at wikipedia suggests that you are right, it all looks very familiar.

    i mean like "transporter phobia" it destroys you and recreates you at a different spot, its gotta be a different person right? idk, i dont think i would ever use one though. especially after reading michael crichtons Timeline.

  • Paul.||

    Spare me the martyr act, Tulpa. I am more hated on this board than you.

    Slow down, there, cowboy. It's neck and neck.

  • ZackTheHypochondriac||

    whats groovus hated for? ive seen why they don't like tulpa, i guess i havent paid enough attenion to GM, maybe cause i didnt know he was a doctor until recently.

  • ||

    It's neck and neck.

    You too, Paul?

  • Death Rock and Skull||

    I would feel so dirty if I was ever complimented by a prosecutor.

  • ||

    i don't have prejudice against entire groups or professions.

    some prosecutors are good people, some aren't.

    otoh, i do have prejudice against some groups. i take that back. like armed robbers. people who make a living by victimizing innocents

  • sloopyinca||

    people who make a living by victimizing innocents

    How can you have something against them, yet pay dues to their union?

  • ||

    yawn. troll-o-meter: .01

    the people who victimize others are the armed robbers. and if an convicted armed robber is going to carry a firearm in front of me, i'm going to arrest his ass.

    every day of the week. damn proud to have done so

  • sloopyinca||

    You victimized that kid when you helped put him in prison by illegally obtaining his medical records. That's a start.

  • ||

    oh spare me. i broke no law. i asked the pharmacist a question. the kid got justifiably prosecuted. court records are closed. finis

  • sloopyinca||

    You participated in a conspiracy to break the law. Ergo, you broke the fucking law.

  • Tulpa (LAOL-PA)||

    Getting the just punishment for one's crimes isn't "victimization".

    The 4th amendment isn't intended to protect criminals, it's supposed to protect innocent people from police harassment. The exclusionary rule exists to protect innocent people; the guilty people who also benefit are not "victimized" when it isn't followed.

  • ||

    i violated no law. i was not the custodian of records.

    asking a pharmacist a question is not a crime.

    not even in maximus' world

  • sloopyinca||

    i violated no law. i was not the custodian of records.

    Did you have the pharmacist transmit them directly to the prosecutor's office, or did you carry them yourself?

  • ||

    i violated no law. i was not the custodian of records.

    Were you designated privy to those records? No, you weren't.

    asking a pharmacist a question is not a crime.

    It is if you are asking about federally protected health information without a warrant and taking custody of records without a subpoena. You broke the law, dunphy. I would have come after both you and the pharm with an army of RC Deans, TAOs, Johns, and Pro'L Dibs if I had been the RX'ing doc.

    not even in maximus' world

    I don't know how you sleep at night, much less look at yourself in the mirror, dunphy. You are beyond contempt.

  • ||

    Making shit up as we go along -- Tulponics 101. This should be a college course at NYU.

  • ||

    the 4th amendment IS designed to protect criminals.

    and i didn't violate it. hipaa is not the 4th amendment.

    the kid might have been victimized by the pharmacist, but that's tough shit. the pharmacist was not an officer of the court, so the exclusionary rule didn't apply to that evidence.

    if the kid and/or his parents want to sue the phamrmacist for violating their hipaa rights, knock it out. whatever

    i simply asked a pharmacist for some info. i was NOT a custodian of records, and i stand by my actions, as did the courts

  • ||

    You did not have a valid, court-issued warrant for the information you obtained. That's the bottom line. That should have absolutely excluded anything you learned as a result.

    I don't give a fuck what a court said. The court's wrong.

  • sloopyinca||

    hipaa is not the 4th amendment.

    Something about effects and papers...

    And Whalen vs Roe addressed that.

    http://aspe.hhs.gov/admnsimp/final/PvcPre01.htm

    The United States Supreme Court has upheld the constitutional protection of personal health information. In Whalen v. Roe, 429 U.S. 589 (1977), the Court analyzed a New York statute that created a database of persons who obtained drugs for which there was both a lawful and unlawful market. The Court, in upholding the statute, recognized at least two different kinds of interests within the constitutionally protected "zone of privacy." "One is the individual interest in avoiding disclosure of personal matters," such as this regulation principally addresses. This interest in avoiding disclosure, discussed in Whalen in the context of medical information, was found to be distinct from a different line of cases concerning "the interest in independence in making certain kinds of important decisions."

  • sloopyinca||

    Holy shit, Tulpa. I missed the invisible ink on the 4th Amendment that says the protections don't really apply to everyone. I guess it's time to get Nic Cage and some lemon juice to see what else we missed.

  • Tulpa (LAOL-PA)||

    Everyone has protection from unreasonable searches and seizures. However, if someone's guilty, searching for evidence of their guilt is perfectly reasonable. In practice of course you don't know beforehand, but still.

    The exclusionary rule is a utilitarian invention, nowhere to be found in the text, which protects innocents from violations of the 4th -- something you literalists should be against. But you're only literalist when it supports your pre-conceived notions. Lunchroom literalists, as it were.

  • sloopyinca||

    However, if someone's guilty, searching for evidence of their guilt is perfectly reasonable.

    Yes, and we have a process to search for this evidence. In the case of medical records, it involves a subpoena.

  • ||

    By prohibiting unreasonable search and seizure, the Fourth effectively forbids prosecution upon the basis of illegally ("unreasonably") procured evidence. That's what the whole shtick about valid warrants is about, buddy boy.

  • Tulpa (LAOL-PA)||

    So if you change a bunch of words the amendment means something else?

    How do you guys criticize Roberts for the Obamacare decision again?

    That's not what the plain meaning of the 4th is. Justice Scalia's interpretation that unreasonably searched persons' sole recourse is filing lawsuits is actually far more in line with the literal text... that's how other rights in the BoR are enforced.

    Don't get me wrong, the exclusionary rule is a GOOD THING from a utilitarian perspective, because the threat of lawsuits is a paper tiger in these matters. And I oppose Scalia on this subject for that reason. But don't pretend it's there in the text.

  • sloopyinca||

    What the fuck are you babbling about? What does Obamacare have to do with the Fourth, from a Roberts point of view?

  • Tulpa (LAOL-PA)||

    You guys rip on Roberts for changing one word in Obamacare to render it constitutional.

  • sloopyinca||

    You guys rip on Roberts for changing one word in Obamacare to render it constitutional.

    You guys? Who are you referring to, exactly?

    And FWIW, he should have ruled on the law as written, not changing any of it. The job of the legislature is clearly defined. It's not the judiciary's place to modify it to fit in with what they want. They are to rule on the laws as written, period. By that logoc any sane person that values the separation of powers would rightfully rip Roberts for undertaking what is a clear breach of his official capacity.

  • Tulpa (LAOL-PA)||

    You guys? Who are you referring to, exactly?

    Considering the above comment, it looks like I'm referring to you.

  • sloopyinca||

    Yeah, but you're casting a pretty wide net there, and I know I never made this argument against the Roberts decision before this thread.

  • RBS||

    Tulpa's gotta Tulpa.

  • ||

    Fuck me. This is getting harder and harder.

    1) Unreasonable search and seizure is prohibited by the Fourth Amendment to the Constitution of the United States.

    2) The prohibition of unreasonable search and seizure by the Fourth Amendment to the Constitution of the United States renders unreasonable search and seizure illegal.

    3) The resultant illegality of unreasonable search and seizure necessarily means that its utilization in the acquisition of warrants, and, therefore, the prosecution of suspects, is prohibited.

    How much fucking simpler can I make this?

  • sloopyinca||

    How much fucking simpler can I make this?

    You may need to use grunts and pointing for him to even understand you.

  • Tulpa (LAOL-PA)||

    OK, so if I sneak into a movie theater without a ticket, and while there I see the popcorn guy murdering the projectionist, does this mean I can't testify to that fact in court?

    After all, I did break the law, and I wouldn't have had access to this information.

    It's not as simple as some believe.

  • ||

    How the fuck did you go from cops illegally racking up evidence to sneaking into theaters and make them equivalent?

    Holy shit, Tulpa. If mental gymnastics were an Olympic sport, you'd win the so-gold-it-ain't-even-an-element-no-more medal.

  • ||

    If he's an armed robber, why's he free?

  • Tulpa (LAOL-PA)||

    PA is kind of weird -- openly carrying a firearm is almost totally unrestricted, but carrying a collapsible baton or a springloaded knife on a public sidewalk can get you a year in jail.

  • ||

    WA allows open carry without a permit. open carry forum has a lot of positive stories by people who routinely open carry in WA state. no hassles, with very rare exception.

    once in a while some libtard flips out.

  • sloopyinca||

    You mean libtards like these fucking assholes?

  • Death Rock and Skull||

    Oh, nice ink, Dunphy! I didn't know you were so awesome like that! I hope everything's cool between us because I had the wrong opinions about you before.

  • ||

    i'm wicked awesome and shit, but i don't click on sloopy links, so i have no idea what youz be talking about

  • Death Rock and Skull||

    Well, the cameraman was unable to get your head in frame very well, but I think a nice shiny pair of Oakley tactical shades would go great with your tribal sleeves.

  • Paul.||

    Only five cops were called, I don't believe that's WA state. I call PhotoShop! Had it been WA state, he would have been threatened with death from the first cop on the scene, then numerous cops would have been circling the block for hours.

  • ||

  • AlmightyJB||

    I had read this article earlier today about the Supremes and the 4th Amendment. It definately has a lot of application to this I would think. There is defiantely an "expectation of privacy" concerning what you have hidden on your person. I think if they were to have these at certain "secured" locations,like say a courthouse and there were signs in plain view letting you know you were being "scanned" that may be one thing but otherwise seems like a violation of the 4th.

    http://www.cato.org/policy-rep.....crossroads

  • ||

    that's constitutional law 101, but remember, NYC has a storied history of IGNORING the 4th amendment.

  • ||

    I am wondering if I can get a shirt with "Fuck you" woven into the inside back with metal thread.

  • ||

    sympathy for a convicted armed robber caught carrying a flare gun (which is a firearm under the law)? seriously?

    file under wtf

  • ||

    If an individual cannot be trusted with a deadly weapon, he cannot be trusted without a custodian. Period.

    Keep him locked away for life if he's that dangerous. Once he's out, he's paid his due.

  • ||

    great. but that's not the law. you can speak normatively all you want. if i catch a convicted felon who has not had his rights restored with a firearm, i arrest him. every day of the week

  • ||

    I know that's the law. My point was aimed at your pious joy at enforcing that law, which implies you support its premise. That's what I was aiming at -- your convictions upon the matter, and not the law itself.

    He's served his time, and he has been deemed suitable for release from imprisonment. He's a free man. He's served his time. How is it right to fuck his shit up like that?

  • ||

    he KNEW the law. he was strapped because he was a violent piece of shit. i don't support that shit for nonviolent felons, but convicted armed robbers. fuck him. he had no right to carry a firearm.

  • ||

    Didn't I just explain that I'm arguing with your acceptance of the law's premise and not its actual effect?

    WHY is it right for him to suffer post-imprisonment restriction of liberty? How is this moral?

  • Tulpa (LAOL-PA)||

    Because it's part of the punishment for the crime.

    You're making a false dichotomy between imprisonment and absolute freedom. There are gray areas in between that our body politic has decided, like it or not, that certain crimes may be punished by.

  • sloopyinca||

    One should have all rights restored upon release from prison. Period. Full stop. If you're so concerned that they may cause harm or that they're not punished, why are you releasing them in the first place?

    Pseudofreedom is not freedom at all.

  • ||

    That's precisely my point. No weapon = custodian. That, morally, is the end of the argument for me. Once you're out, you're free. And when I say "free", I mean "free."

  • sloopyinca||

    Banjos and I were discussing this last night, oddly enough. If we eliminated all forms of parole, probation and the like, you'd see sentencing reform almost immediately because then people would see the idiocy and unfairness in the way sentences are handled IRT probation, etc.

    Exhibit A: Lindsay Lohan is still in trouble with the law for a DUI almost 7 years ago because she keeps breaking her probation. Nevermind the fact that her sentence was 1 year (mostly on parole).

    All the current system does is eliminate freedom and the ability for people to ever recover from a poor decision and become productive members of society once they're out.

  • Tulpa (LAOL-PA)||

    So you'd rather we kept armed robbers in prison for life than allow them to move about freely with a few rights restrictions? Talk about a rigidly law and order type.

  • sloopyinca||

    Is that what I said? Of course it isn't. I said the sentence should fit the crime and the sentence should be served in its entirety, but once released the rights of the convicted should be fully restored.

    Pretty cool strawman, though. I'll give it a B-

  • Tulpa (LAOL-PA)||

    You're giving society two choices: total imprisonment or total freedom. If society judges they are not fit for total freedom, they must be totally imprisoned in your viewpoint.

    Is this correct?

  • sloopyinca||

    Yes, it is correct. If someone is remanded to the state, they have no freedom. Once released, they are totally free. Probation and parole are nothing but impediments to people re-entering society, not to mention a state jobs program bonanza.

  • Tulpa (LAOL-PA)||

    Longer prison sentences are an even bigger impediment to re-interring society.

  • sloopyinca||

    I would imagine if my ideas were put into practice, the number of crimes worthy of incarceration would drop dramatically, and the prisons would only house the truly dangerous that are unfit to reenter society.

  • Tulpa (LAOL-PA)||

    That's one hell of an imagination.

  • sloopyinca||

    That's one hell of an imagination.

    Why? Do you not think people might start to look at the cost/benefit analysis of incarcerating people convicted of non-violent offenses and victimless crimes for lengthy periods of time? Especially if it meant freeing up a cell for a violent offender for the duration of his sentence.

  • ||

    Yes. If you're dangerous enough to be mistrusted with a firearm, then you're dangerous enough to be mistrusted with a car, a kitchen knife, a leather belt, a vibrator with a clitoral stimulator, or anything else.

  • Tulpa (LAOL-PA)||

    So mentally ill people should not be allowed to own belts?

  • ||

    Not if they're mentally ill enough to the point they're incarcerated and prohibited from possessing firearms. Harsh standards for incarceration is my point.

  • Tulpa (LAOL-PA)||

    So you don't have a problem with mentally ill people possessing firearms?

    Someone can be schizophrenic and you want them to have an AR15?

    Or do you want all schizos to be locked up?

  • ||

    That depends on the extent of their condition.

  • Tulpa (LAOL-PA)||

    Quit beating around the bush.

    Every schizophrenic alive today should either have complete freedom to bear arms OR should be locked in prison. True or false.

  • sloopyinca||

    What part of "Shall not be infringed" don't you understand?

    Or do you support imprisoning people that have committed no crime but have a perceived mental illness?

  • Tulpa (LAOL-PA)||

    Or do you support imprisoning people that have committed no crime but have a perceived mental illness?

    I certainly support not allowing them to carry or possess firearms if they're one missed pill from thinking a random person walking past them on the street is trying to kill them. You disagree?

    If their condition is not controllable by medication then yes, they should be locked up and treated in an institution. I had no idea this was controversial among libertarians, but y'all never cease to amaze me sometimes.

  • ||

    Are you fucking retarded?

    Until a schizophrenic commits a crime, he's a free man. Period.

    Ergo, the extent of his condition.

    Preemptive violations of liberty are unjustifiable to me.

    How many times have I reiterated that?

  • sloopyinca||

    Let's recap what we've learned so far:

    Tulpa is OK with taking away the rights of people that have committed no crime.
    Tulpa thinks he can't be a witness to a crime if he committed one himself.
    Dunphy thinks HIPAA is an "ethical statement".
    Dunphy thinks the 4A is a joke.
    Episiarch's mom gets around.

  • ||

    Sweet God, man. I've given up on Dunphy, and Tulpa's bizarro logic is just killing me.

    It's like explaining arithmetic to a gibbon.

  • sloopyinca||

    Tulpa tonight: 2 plus two equals potato.

  • ||

    Potato equals 3,4-methylenedioxy-N-methylamphetamine.

  • sloopyinca||

    What, no N-hydroxy? Let him have some fun, man.

  • ||

    I hear Tulpa's a (5α,6α) - 7,8-didehydro-4,5 - epoxy - 17 - methylmorphinan - 3,6 - diol diacetate kind of guy.

  • Tulpa (LAOL-PA)||

    Tulpa is OK with taking away the rights of people that have committed no crime.

    That's a mainstream position when we're talking about severely mentally ill people, children, and the like. If you want to throw basic prudence to the four winds to satisfy your ideology, go for it, but you're the one who's in bizarro logic, not me.

    Tulpa thinks he can't be a witness to a crime if he committed one himself.

    No, I'm saying that's what y'all's interpretation of the 4th amendment requires. Evidence that exists due to an illegal act cannot be used to prosecute. RPA said it himself, even said it was simple.

  • sloopyinca||

    No, I'm saying that's what y'all's interpretation of the 4th amendment requires. Evidence that exists due to an illegal act cannot be used to prosecute. RPA said it himself, even said it was simple.

    No, we said illegally obtained evidence is not or should not be admissible. Just because one breaks a law doesn't men they're not a witness. It could just make them a bad witness. Your scenario is a far cry from an agent of the state requesting someone break the law to obtain evidence.

  • ||

    Between us, we've rephrased and presented the same explanation five times in a single thread. If he hasn't gotten it by now, he won't get it.

    "That's a mainstream position when we're talking about severely mentally ill people, children, and the like.

    I don't give a single fuck about whether it's mainstream. A libertarian appealing to majoritarianism? Awesome every time!

    "If you want to throw basic prudence to the four winds to satisfy your ideology, go for it, but you're the one who's in bizarro logic, not me.

    Basic prudence? Let's ban women from leaving their homes a week before and a week after their periods. The severe hormonal imbalances caused by the cycle often breeds hostile, erratic behavior.

    In fact, let's lock them up.

    Also, no knives in houses with kids. FOR THE CHILDREN.

  • ||

    *breed

  • Tulpa (LAOL-PA)||

    but in my scenario the evidence was illegally obtained.

    I committed an illegal act that made it possible for me to obtain evidence. Exactly the same as if a police officer sneaks into your house and sees a pound of weed on the coffee table.

  • sloopyinca||

    but in my scenario the evidence was illegally obtained.

    How so? Evidence is routinely presented in a courtroom by one person involved in a crime against the other accused. It's been part and parcel of jurisprudence predating the Constitution.

    I committed an illegal act that made it possible for me to obtain evidence. Exactly the same as if a police officer sneaks into your house and sees a pound of weed on the coffee table.

    OK. And you could be charged with your crime of trespassing into the theatre. What does that have to do with what you witnessed?

    And the cop that snuck into your house would still be able to testify to the pot possession.* He would also be subject to prosecution for breaking and entering.

    *Possibly, unless he broke into the house to illegally collect evidence, making the collection itself a crime.

  • Tulpa (LAOL-PA)||

    And the cop that snuck into your house would still be able to testify to the pot possession.

    No. Frigging. Way.

    You'd have 157 posts on the morning links about it the next day if the court allowed something like that.

  • sloopyinca||

    Note my addendum. If he broke in to collect evidence, it would be barred because he broke in to obtain it, i.e. in his official capacity.

    Here's a case where a cop that was convicted of a crime testifies against another officer involved in the same crime. Somehow, his evidence is admissible, making your theory so much nonsense.

  • Tulpa (LAOL-PA)||

    Except it's not my theory! It was a reductio ad absurdum.

    RPA's justification of the exclusionary rule was that because it's illegal to unreasonably search, the evidence from that illegal act can't be used to prosecute.

  • sloopyinca||

    You just can't fucking read, can you? Police officers are required by law to follow evidentiary collection procedures for the collection of evidence. A non-cop is not. Therefore, if a non-copo witnesses a crime while in the commission of one, he can be subpoena'd to provide that evidence at trial. A cop whop breaks the law (by breaking evidentiary collection procedures) to get evidence is breaking the law, as an official of the state, to collect that evidence, therefore it can be dismissed from court. Not always, as it is up to the judge to determine if it's admissible.

    In the case I referenced, the cops were forced to testify against another officer because their actions were the direct result of that officer's criminal act.

    Apples and oranges, Tulpa.

  • Tulpa (LAOL-PA)||

    Now show me where that distinction is to be found in the Fourth Amendment, sloopy.

    I agree with what you're saying in THIS post. When an agent of the state is breaking the law to get evidence, the exclusionary rule comes in to play. But the exclusionary rule is an unsightly addition to the 4th.

    RPA was arguing that the fact that evidence was obtained illegally immediately causes it to be inadmissible.

  • Tulpa (LAOL-PA)||

    And the cop that snuck into your house would still be able to testify to the pot possession.

    No. Frigging. Way.

    You'd have 157 posts on the morning links about it the next day if the court allowed something like that.

  • sloopyinca||

    That's a mainstream position when we're talking about severely mentally ill people, children, and the like. If you want to throw basic prudence to the four winds to satisfy your ideology, go for it, but you're the one who's in bizarro logic, not me.

    You also know that male-only voting, slavery, Jim Crow and Prohibition were also "mainstream" positions at one time, right?

  • Tulpa (LAOL-PA)||

    If you want to argue against that position go ahead. Don't accuse me of "bizarro logic" when doing it.

    You're in the tiny minority, even among libertarians, if you take that position.

  • ||

    I'd rather the determination that they've paid their debt to society mean just that, and, therefore, liberty once more.

    So I guess my answer is yeah.

    If you and your buddies rob a bank and, say, someone gets killed, a heavy prison sentence should be the punishment. No negotiation.

    If you're determined, at some point, to have been reformed sufficiently to allow for early release, then that's what it should be -- early release, not shackled parole.

    And what the shit's that crap you keep pulling with "law and order"? I support law and order absolutely and unequivocally. It's just that our ideas as to what constitutes just law and order differ greatly.

  • Tulpa (LAOL-PA)||

    The issue is that you're saying that unless someone is judged to be fit for total freedom as if they had never harmed a person in their lives, they must be locked up in prison.

    Out here in the real world, that means much longer prison sentences.

    Probation and rights restriction are tools to allow a criminal a chance for reintegration into society while society is still somewhat protected if they go bad again. The rigid scheme you're proposing would destroy that opportunity.

  • sloopyinca||

    The issue is that you're saying that unless someone is judged to be fit for total freedom as if they had never harmed a person in their lives, they must be locked up in prison.

    I never said that at all. All I said was that the sentence should fit the crime and once the sentence is completed, the prisoner should be completely freed. Stop trying to put words in my mouth.

    Out here in the real world, that means much longer prison sentences.

    Somehow I doubt that.

    Probation and rights restriction are tools to allow a criminal a chance for reintegration into society while society is still somewhat protected if they go bad again. The rigid scheme you're proposing would destroy that opportunity.

    Bullshit. Probation and rights restrictions are impediments to people being able to reenter society without having a government master control their movements, and are little more than social-engineering jobs programs for people that would otherwise be of no benefit to society.

  • ||

    Not to mention the ludicrous assumption that society is "still somewhat protected if they go bad again."

    What a fucking joke. If an armed robber wants to reoffend, he'll reoffend, and he'll have no trouble acquiring a machete, a gun, a canister of gasoline, or whatever other weaponry he plans to use in his attempt.

  • Tulpa (LAOL-PA)||

    I never said that at all.

    It's the immediate conclusion of what you did say. Society has to choose between total freedom or total imprisonment, therefore anyone deemed unfit for total freedom must be totally imprisoned.

    Your argument is with basic rules of logic if you disagree that this is your conclusion.

  • ||

    Speaking for myself, I agree absolutely.

    1) No preemptive punishments/restrictions of rights.

    2) Violent felons are given harsh sentences that will carry no consequences once they've been served.

  • sloopyinca||

    It's the immediate conclusion of what you did say. Society has to choose between total freedom or total imprisonment, therefore anyone deemed unfit for total freedom must be totally imprisoned.

    Well, I totally agree with the first part of this statement. But I said once their sentence is served, they should be freed without restriction. What you're "concluding" from my pretty unambiguous statement is that they are to be constantly reanalyzed for fitness to reenter society. That's idiotic.

    I'll try to make it clearer, once again: You sentence someone. They serve that sentence in its entirety and they are then released, without restriction, back into the world. If the penal system decides they are eligible for an early release, they are likewise to be released without restriction.

  • ||

    And that's what Tulpa seems to be ignoring in my position:

    Once someone has served their sentence, they are released, and that sentence carries no consequences for the released individual. He/she is totally, righteously free once they're released from imprisonment.

  • sloopyinca||

    Yeah, you and I are on the same page tonight. You've just been a bit less verbose and snarky about it.

  • sloopyinca||

    But Tulpa thinks the death penalty actually helps convicted murderers because it gives them a more exhaustive appeals process.

  • ||

    We're usually on the same page. Until tonight, that is. THOSE FARM ANIMALS.

    You crossed a line, Sloopy.

    Where'd you find the time to care for goats, anyway?

  • sloopyinca||

    About August of last year. As of now, we have 15 goats (counting all of the kids), 6 sheep (2 are ready to lamb any day), 4 pigs (our sow is ready to give birth to a litter of piglets in about 3 weeks), 20+ chickens, 15+ ducks 3 guineafowl and 2 cats and 2 dogs.

    It's not really that hard. And raising your own food can be quite rewarding. Although Banjos and the kids still won't let me kill any of the four-legged critters, but that'll change soon. Little Dunphy (our hog) is getting his as soon as I know the piglets are good to go.

  • ||

    Little Dunphy? Lmao. Be sure to get a warrant before you shoot him.

  • sloopyinca||

    Did you know we named the sow "Lindy West", after the funniest woman in the world?

  • sloopyinca||

    Correction: we now have 14 goats. One of the little buggers didn't make it.

  • Tulpa (LAOL-PA)||

    Which means that sentences will be made longer to begin with! Cheese and crackers.

    Just like if a lender doesn't get collateral if you default, they're going to demand a higher interest rate! We hopefully understand the effect of such incentives when it comes to economics, but dismiss them when it comes to public officials, apparently.

  • sloopyinca||

    Just like if a lender doesn't get collateral if you default, they're going to demand a higher interest rate! We hopefully understand the effect of such incentives when it comes to economics, but dismiss them when it comes to public officials, apparently.

    Yeah, a voluntary transaction between two consenting parties is exactly the same as that.

    Besides, who said we were against lengthy sentences when they're applicable? I sure didn't.

  • Tulpa (LAOL-PA)||

    So you're going to take people who would otherwise have been allowed to live their lives, albeit without firearms, and lock them in a cage... in the name of freedom. Sure.

  • ||

    You really don't get it, do you?

    If they've committed a crime serious enough to warrant lengthy incarceration, I don't give a shit about allowing them to live their lives. In fact, that's counter to the point.

    And how about that whole thing about punishments being proportional to the crime? You must have missed that in the million or so posts Sloopy made about that this last hour.

  • ||

    +1. A gangbanger who shoots up a car and someone dies getting 40 years, say? Great.

  • Tulpa (LAOL-PA)||

    Go Dirty Harry! LOL.

  • ||

    How does jumping the shark feel, consequentialist?

  • Tulpa (LAOL-PA)||

    But given that the sentencing judge, and the writers of statutes, know in advance that in accordance with Sloopy's Law, that the convict will have no restrictions on him or her once the jail term is finished, they're going to extend the prison sentence to cover themselves RATHER THAN adding probation or taking into account the fact that the convict will have other restrictions on his ability to do harm.

    The fact that judges and statute writers tack on probation and other restrictions is not due to them being a bunch of meanies, it is due to the fact they want to protect society after release AND give the con an opportunity to live a mostly free life. And if they are meanies, they're still going to extend the prison sentences. They're not going to suddenly convert to bleeding heart sloopies because of your principle.

    You're falling victim to the "All men are sloopy" fallacy.

  • sloopyinca||

    But given that the sentencing judge, and the writers of statutes, know in advance that in accordance with Sloopy's Law, that the convict will have no restrictions on him or her once the jail term is finished, they're going to extend the prison sentence to cover themselves RATHER THAN adding probation or taking into account the fact that the convict will have other restrictions on his ability to do harm.

    And? That sounds like a good deterrent to criminal behavior.

    The fact that judges and statute writers tack on probation and other restrictions is not due to them being a bunch of meanies, it is due to the fact they want to protect society after release AND give the con an opportunity to live a mostly free life. And if they are meanies, they're still going to extend the prison sentences. They're not going to suddenly convert to bleeding heart sloopies because of your principle.

    Bullshit. They'll enact smarter sentencing guidelines that ensures society's protection as well as making sure non-violent crimes have punishments that fit instead of the absurd ones that currently exist.

    Are we really better off sentencing a person that commits fraud to 20 years with 19 suspended? That man will not be free to defend himself for 19 years and will require supervision that costs taxpayer money far in excess of what it would cost just to jail him for 2-3 years and let him go.

  • Tulpa (LAOL-PA)||

    That sounds like a good deterrent to criminal behavior.

    so you're saying you support replacing probation with longer prison sentences. For the sake of liberty.

    That makes you a LAOS (law and order something). Sorry.

    They'll enact smarter sentencing guidelines that ensures society's protection as well as making sure non-violent crimes have punishments that fit instead of the absurd ones that currently exist.

    HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA

    Sure they will. Is this the same government we have now, or a sloopian grand dictatorship?

  • ||

    That's the point, dipshit -- giving the state incentive to sort its shit out. Who said anything about the state doing so on moral grounds?

    I give the fuck up. Seriously.

  • Tulpa (LAOL-PA)||

    giving the state incentive to sort its shit out.

    No, you're giving them an incentive to lock everyone up for even longer. The state likes to control people.... something I thought would be an uncontroversial point here.

  • sloopyinca||

    No, you're giving them an incentive to lock everyone up for even longer.

    Until you have a tax revolt by people who want sentencing reform because their tax dollars are being squandered housing most of the inmates (the non-violent ones and the ones for crimes without a victim) for a longer period than makes sense.

  • sloopyinca||

    so you're saying you support replacing probation with longer prison sentences. For the sake of liberty.

    Absolutely. Do the crime...do the time (all of it).

    That makes you a LAOS (law and order something). Sorry.

    I ain't no Laotian, you motherfucker!

    Sure they will. Is this the same government we have now, or a sloopian grand dictatorship?

    Either way is fine with me. As long as we get some sentencing reform whereby sentences are uniform, fit the crime and allow people to be free once they are completed.

  • Whahappan?||

    Actually, he did have that right. You violated it, "legally."

  • Tulpa (LAOL-PA)||

    So I take it you're against having people on probation after being released from prison, too?

    Imprisonment is only part of the punishment/protection of society. The loss of the rights of an ordinary free person is another part.

  • ||

    Absolutely.

    If the released felon reoffends during a certain probationary period, and the second offense having occurred within that period means his next sentence is going to be harsher than usual, that's fine.

    But while he's free, he's free. No rights-restricted probation. Ever.

  • Death Rock and Skull||

    I agree sloopyinca and Res Publica Americana, but I add that probation without add-on restrictions can be a way of avoiding a prison sentence if the defendant does not break a real law (with actual victims) during the period of probation. Parole is kind of useless.

  • Tulpa (LAOL-PA)||

    which means you actually don't agree with them, since they demand total freedom or total imprisonment.

  • sloopyinca||

    Did you miss the part where he said "probation without add-on restrictions"? Or are you just arguing in bad faith again?

  • Tulpa (LAOL-PA)||

    Probation isn't total freedom.

    You guys were arguing that as soon as you're out of jail you have to be treated like anyone else.

  • sloopyinca||

    Ooh, we just had another goat drop 3 kids on us. And Banjos had to pull the last one out because she was struggling.

    That's 7 newbies in the past 2 weeks. And we still have one goat, two sheep and a sow (Lindy West) to go.

  • ||

    Holy fuck, dude. I'd have run for the hills. Farm animals scare the shit out of me.

  • sloopyinca||

    These three are hideous. I think I'm gonna start looking for 666 markings once their mother eats all of the birth juice (?) off of them.

  • General Butt Naked||

    Don't use any unauthorized mexican antibiotics on those kids, or dunphy will totally throw you in the slammer, 'cause he's a libertarian.

    And that's what libertarians do: throw people in cages for unauthorized chemicals.

  • sloopyinca||

    Now now. That was like, 11 years ago and stuff. Granted, he's still proud of himself, but it's ancient history.

  • General Butt Naked||

    Being proud about it it the worst thing.

    Dang man, I ain't perfect, but if I ever did something like that I'd hang my head in shame. I guess when you work a job that incentivizes putting victimless criminals in jail, you start thinking that it's an admirable thing to do.

  • buybuydandavis||

    Hmmm.

    Everyone is talking about making other stuff look like guns, or making non metallic guns (presumably transparent to terahertz radiation).

    The premise seems to be that a gun *blocks* terahertz radiation. Instead of a transparent gun, I wonder how hard it is to make a patch to cover the gun that radiates like a human body - does a thin sack of water at 98.6 degrees put over a gun radiate like a human body?

  • Diligentia Vis Celeritas||

    That's the spirit!

  • ||

    Why don't they just invent a scanner that looks for dicklessness. Boom! You've got your gun nutters.

  • Restoras||

    BTW, nice alt+text JD. Very nice.

GET REASON MAGAZINE

Get Reason's print or digital edition before it’s posted online

  • Progressive Puritans: From e-cigs to sex classifieds, the once transgressive left wants to criminalize fun.
  • Port Authoritarians: Chris Christie’s Bridgegate scandal
  • The Menace of Secret Government: Obama’s proposed intelligence reforms don’t safeguard civil liberties

SUBSCRIBE

advertisement