Kody

BST Users
  • Content count

    217
  • Joined

  • Last visited

    Never

About Kody

  • Rank
    Senior Member
  1. Quote: Originally Posted by jmlandru I think the reward goes to every tax payer that won't have to foot the bill for a trial and long jail time. Yes, what a beautiful "utopia" of totalitarianism our country has become. Where instead of arresting suspects, police serve as judge jury and executioner to anyone they choose. In this case stating their intention to “F***ing burn this motherf***er,” and “burn that f***ing house down.” And where police go off on hunting sprees with orders to shoot on sight....And no interest in making sure that they're even shooting the "right" citizens. 33 year old male in a silver Nissan.....71 year old female in a blue Toyota. What's the difference right? Screw civil rights, all hail the police state. It's for our own good.
  2. Quote: Originally Posted by Daughter of a fisherman It wouldn't shock me in the least if one of the factors involved in burning him out of the building was to avoid paying the reward. If the reward payout requires them to be taken alive......They ain't never gonna be taken alive.
  3. Chris Dorner's reward has a big loophole basically preventing all those instrumental in finding the ex-LAPD cop fugitive from claiming the $1 million reward, according to reports out on Wednesday. It has been reported that a number of local citizens in the Los Angeles area where Christopher Dorner was found and ultimately died, played a big part in police locating him. The Mayor of Los Angeles had announced a $1 million reward for anyone who could provide information to police leading to the "capture and conviction" of Dorner. The $1 million is said to have been funded by private groups. However, technically the offer was made for his capture, and also his ultimate conviction in a court of law. Dorner of course died after police surrounded a cabin in Big Bear, California, and so was therefore not technically captured, nor convicted of any crime under the law. However, that reward is not the only one which is likely to go unpaid. It was also reported that the Los Angeles City Council had put up an offer of $100,000 for information leading to the "identification, apprehension, and conviction" of the ex-LAPD cop. Again, although Dorner was positively identified after tip-offs to police, he was not convicted in court. In addition, a third reward will also likely go unpaid after the Los Angeles County Board of Supervisors offered a $100,000 reward for information "leading to the capture of Christopher Dorner." This case is likely to be the most debatable, as Dorner was technically "captured" but captured dead, not alive. However, according to TMZ, a source at the Board of Supervisors has said that they consider Dorner "cornered but not captured." No official decision has been made about the rewards, but it is a big possibility that all three of the rewards, amounting to $1.2 million will not be paid out to anyone who assisted police in leading police to Dorner.
  4. https://www.torproject.org/
  5. Check out the documentary "How Beer Saved the World". Bestest documentary of all time, in my humble (drunken) opinion. http://topdocumentaryfilms.com/how-beer-saved-the-world/
  6. Quote: Originally Posted by Sparky Capper will return with racy pictures of Honey BooBoo Quote: Originally Posted by DerrickT Capper's been back. We'll all rest easy knowing that DerrickT is on the job... Sharp as a brick he is.
  7. Quote: Originally Posted by fish'nmagician Bush defenders, Patriot Act defenders, were pretty effective at defending the actual act. when abuses surfaced or allegations came up as to what the law enabled Government to do, they would say, "Show me where in the Bill that is" and maybe they are right. maybe the abuses were not actually IN the bill, but Government was over reaching and using the Bill to claim they had the power to do stuff. Clearly the Telecom turning over data when Bush asked for it is an example. it's not a Patriot act power. they just did it, Then they were given immunity for doing it rather than allowing us to sue them Privacy issues. So, since I never read the ENTIRE bill, I accepted the fact that the bill really wasn't bad, and decided I would just make noise when objectionable actions come up. I haven't heard of many of late. So either Obama's team isn't overstepping, or they aren't getting caught. but barring an "incident" I don't see how public outrage over the Patriot Act will ever be enough to have it over turned. The main problem with the Patriot Act is that it could be interpreted as allowing the government to detain citizens indefinitely without charge... Bush said he didn't interpret it this way (which wasn't very reassuring, in my opinion). After Obama singed into law an extension of the Patriot Act, he then decided that he does in fact interpret it to grant him powers of indefinite detention. ("Change we can count on".) P.S. **** the Government.
  8. Quote: Originally Posted by fish'nmagician People get pissed when you kill their kids too. and spare me on the Constitution, Team Republican shook their pom poms and said "911 changed everything" when a whole host of Constitutional Rights got ***ed with. Quote: Originally Posted by fish'nmagician Mokes, I was pretty clear on my position from the beginning, the time to attack that is when the bill was being passed..... I said over and over and over again, that all the good little Republicans that defended the act would hate it, just as soon as an Democrat was elected into office. It's hard to start a grass roots movement to repeal an act though..... Do you remember what the Republican position on SOL was back when the Telecoms were caught handing over info to the Government? do you think they defended the Telecoms and thought the BEST thing to do was grant them immunity? or do you think they got pissed because their Constitutional rights were being *****ed with? Start a grass roots movement? Getting rid of the Patriot Act was one of the main themes of the Obama campaign.
  9. Quote: Originally Posted by nipsip It is just smart for the police to have all the information available before going into a dangerous situation. Denying them that info, is just stupid and the people who support denying that information are the ones who say that they support the police. What a laugh. If you want to be taken seriously you should really try to tone down your blatant prejudice against anyone that doesn't think exactly like you on all issues. Everyone doesn't necessarily follow in lockstep with a political ideology. Some of us think for ourselves......And therefore, find cause to distrust pretty much everyone within the political sphere. A few examples of my "white male, right wing, pro-police powers" beliefs: http://www.stripersonline.com/t/877073/plead-guilty-or-go-to-prison-for-life http://www.stripersonline.com/t/869603/police-attack-man-execute-his-dog http://www.stripersonline.com/t/847784/video-of-kelly-thomas-being-murdered-by-police http://www.stripersonline.com/t/849273/under-asset-forfeiture-law-wisconsin-cops-confiscate-families-bail-money http://www.stripersonline.com/t/867771/bungled-swat-raid-leaves-12-year-old-girl-badly-burned-no-meth-lab-found http://www.stripersonline.com/t/863011/prosecutorial-misconduct http://www.stripersonline.com/t/862095/is-prosecutorial-misconduct-a-product-of-a-few-bad-apples-or-is-the-barrel-mostly-rotten
  10. Quote: Originally Posted by nipsip The police deserve to know what weapons are where when they are answering a call that may require them to put life and limb in danger. A couple of problems: First of all....Are you saying that police should assume that a residence with no registered guns, must be gun free? Just like "gun free zones". Criminals won't register their guns. And it's long since been decided that criminals can't be held legally responsible for registering their illegal guns, as this would be a violation of their 5th Amendment right against self incrimination. Only lawful gun owners can be charged with failure to register a firearm. (Haynes v. United States) Secondly..... What exactly are you saying police should do differently if they're called to a residence where they KNOW guns are present? Send in S.W.A.T teams? Refuse entry to EMT's and Firefighters until the residence has been cleared of "threats"?
  11. Quote: Originally Posted by nipsip Nothing more than right wing hysteria. I have watched the white, male, gun nut wing of the Republican party express their views on TV (Alex Jones certainly speaks for them). They believe the US is being taken over by the UN, "love" this country so much they are joining secessionist movements, believe it is the duty of any red blooded Americans to build up a personal arsenal because a day will arrive when the federal government will come to take away their freedoms (2nd), and you will certainly need your AR15 to protect yourself from the US government. Watch it: I don't know if this armed insurrection idea is something that all white male Republicans believe in, but certainly there is a extremist, reactionary, anti-democratic, anti-intellectual, anti-science, wing that certainly does. IMO, there are certainly deeper psychological issues with this reasoning than just a defense of the second amendment. IMO it has a lot to do with their perceived changes that will occur with the loss of white male power due to the demographic shift. These people could never support any type of gun control because it dovetails with their belief that the government is coming to take away their freedoms (2nd), which means that there are lots of people out there buying AR15s with 30+ round clips through a private sale who, if subjected to a background check, would show that they are not a candidate for gun ownership. Furthermore, there is no record of the sale transaction that is held by law enforcement whether it is thru a gun dealer or private that would give the police information as to what guns are are what address when that address is the subject of a police call. Thanks for that...^^^^ I've been mostly being called a left wing extremist lately, so that helps balance things out. (I prefer to be thought of as a neutral extremist.) Oh and by the way.........Gun control was instituted in the United States for the expressed purpose of disarming blacks.. Quote: Before the American Civil War ended, state slave codes prohibited slaves from owning guns. After slavery in the U.S. was abolished, states persisted in prohibiting Black people from owning guns under laws renamed Black Codes. The United States Congress overrode most portions of the Black Codes by passing the Civil Rights Act of 1866. The legislative histories of both the Civil Rights Act and the Fourteenth Amendment, as well as The Special Report of the Anti-Slavery Conference of 1867, are replete with denunciations of those particular statutes that denied blacks equal access to firearms.[81] After the adoption of the Fourteenth Amendment to the U.S. Constitution in 1868, most states turned to "facially neutral" business or transaction taxes on handgun purchases. However, the intention of these laws was not neutral. An article in Virginia's official university law review called for a "prohibitive tax...on the privilege" of selling handguns as a way of disarming "the son of Ham," whose "cowardly practice of 'toting' guns has been one of the most fruitful sources of crime.... Let a negro board a railroad train with a quart of mean whiskey and a pistol in his grip and the chances are that there will be a murder, or at least a row, before he alights."[82] Thus, many Southern States imposed high taxes or banned inexpensive guns in order to price destitute individuals out of the gun market. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gun_control#Gun_control_in_the_United_States