WTF? (**NSFW**)

[herkbier]

6 hours ago, Biff_T said:

Put some guns and a few rockets for added deterrence.  

Cobras!

[Swizzle]

Darwinian-Belly-Flop winner!?  Ouch. 

 

https://nypost.com/2024/05/28/us-news/passenger-dead-after-jumping-off-worlds-largest-cruise-ship/

[skybert]

5 hours ago, Swizzle said:

Darwinian-Belly-Flop winner!?  Ouch. 

 

https://nypost.com/2024/05/28/us-news/passenger-dead-after-jumping-off-worlds-largest-cruise-ship/

I’m sure he was. “A really good man, just starting to turn his life around” and the family will be suing the cruise line 

[Biff_T]

20 hours ago, Swizzle said:

Darwinian-Belly-Flop winner!?  Ouch. 

 

https://nypost.com/2024/05/28/us-news/passenger-dead-after-jumping-off-worlds-largest-cruise-ship/

Huh, huh uuh...dumb ass

[uhhello]

21 hours ago, Swizzle said:

Darwinian-Belly-Flop winner!?  Ouch. 

 

https://nypost.com/2024/05/28/us-news/passenger-dead-after-jumping-off-worlds-largest-cruise-ship/

I can't believe they found him.  Those boats don't stop on a dime.

[disgruntledemployee]

🎵 Dumb ways to die.....

[Biff_T]

I wonder if he bounced?  

[uhhello]

 

[HeloDude]

Some people are pro-cop vs anti-cop…I’m just anti spending more time in cities ran by progressives than I need to.

 

[Boomer6]

2 hours ago, HeloDude said:

Some people are pro-cop vs anti-cop…I’m just anti spending more time in cities ran by progressives than I need to.

 

Besides acting like assholes, are these officers violating a law? 

It sounds like they didn't have a warrant, but is there any back story here? Did they have probable cause for an "inspection"?

[Smokin]

Seriously?  I'm assuming that you're military and have actually read the Constitution that you've sworn to protect. 

Police don't conduct "inspections".  They are clearly searching the store without a warrant, which is against the Constitution.  They arrested a man for not complying with their illegal search, which is a wrongful arrest.  Very likely they broke some things in the process, like the cop going over the counter by sitting on a glass case and other guys forcing the door open that is designed to keep people out.  Every one of these cops should be fired and then arrested for breaking and entering. 

The modern tyrannical police state has broken the public faith and the only way to restore that faith is to hold themselves accountable for following the law they pretend to enforce.

[uhhello]

 

https://www.thecity.nyc/2024/06/03/video-nypd-cannabis-raid-adams-hochul/

The regulatory inspection process was outlined in the 2021 state law legalizing cannabis use. A section of that law enshrines the right of individuals to refuse a regulatory inspection, though subjects them to a civil fine if they do so. Once a regulatory inspection is refused, then the Office of Cannabis Management (OCM) or its board must request a court order, the law says. 

Last May, Governor Kathy Hochul expanded the state’s enforcement powers from the 2021 law, empowering OCM and the Department of Taxation and Finance to enter unlicensed cannabis establishments, seize products and get a court order to padlock shops shut. 

But over the last year, the legislation did little to curb the number of illegal stores. The state agencies did not have the resources to inspect a significant number of unlicensed stores as they continued to proliferate around the city. And when products were seized from unlicensed cannabis shops, the stores often reopened the next day.  

In April, Hochul expanded the state’s enforcement powers again, this time authorizing local jurisdictions to conduct regulatory inspections, adding more manpower behind the state agencies. It also made it easier to padlock stores after one inspection, rather than seeking a court order. 

Empowered by the legislation, Adams last month formed a task force of NYPD officers, the Sheriff’s Office and the Department of Consumer and Worker Protection as part of his enforcement effort, called Operation Padlock to Protect.

As of May 29, the task force has completed 329 inspections, padlocked 224 stores and issued 231 cease and desist orders, the mayor’s office said. The move comes as the number of unlicensed shops in New York City has exploded since legalization. Officials estimate there are 2,800 unlicensed shops in the city. By comparison, there are 58 legal shops within the five boroughs.

[Boomer6]

2 hours ago, Smokin said:

Seriously?  I'm assuming that you're military and have actually read the Constitution that you've sworn to protect. 

Police don't conduct "inspections".  They are clearly searching the store without a warrant, which is against the Constitution.  They arrested a man for not complying with their illegal search, which is a wrongful arrest.  Very likely they broke some things in the process, like the cop going over the counter by sitting on a glass case and other guys forcing the door open that is designed to keep people out.  Every one of these cops should be fired and then arrested for breaking and entering. 

The modern tyrannical police state has broken the public faith and the only way to restore that faith is to hold themselves accountable for following the law they pretend to enforce.

I'm not a fucking shop keeper in a state that sells cannabis, so no I don't know what the law says in this specific state. 

As much as I love reading platitude spewing rhetoric and questions highlighting my constitutional knowledge, maybe loosen your sphincter an RCH. Props to @uhhello for actually providing some positive insight in this situation. Maybe UTFSF (known as Google) next time before you blow a gasket.

 

 

Edited June 9 by Boomer6

[Smokin]

The Constitution preempts any and all state laws including business licenses.  It doesn't matter what law a state passes allowing police to search businesses.  Just like a state cannot pass a law saying National Guard troops can be lodged in someone's home without consent.

A butcher shop is subject to state inspections, but those inspections are consented to.  If an inspector shows up, wants to do an inspection, is refused, and then continues anyway and arrests the person for not complying, that is an unlawful search and wrongful arrest.  The state can immediately revoke the butcher license, but they cannot continue a search (or "inspection") after being turned down without a warrant.

In this case the police should have said 'fine, you won't let us in, we'll suspend your license'.  As soon as they forced their way in anyway, they became the bad guys.

[BashiChuni]

2 hours ago, Boomer6 said:

I'm not a fucking shop keeper in a state that sells cannabis, so no I don't know what the law says in this specific state. 

As much as I love reading platitude spewing rhetoric and questions highlighting my constitutional knowledge, maybe loosen your sphincter an RCH. Props to @uhhello for actually providing some positive insight in this situation. Maybe UTFSF (known as Google) next time before you blow a gasket.

 

 

triggered

[Boomer6]

23 hours ago, Smokin said:

The Constitution preempts any and all state laws including business licenses.  It doesn't matter what law a state passes allowing police to search businesses.  Just like a state cannot pass a law saying National Guard troops can be lodged in someone's home without consent.

A butcher shop is subject to state inspections, but those inspections are consented to.  If an inspector shows up, wants to do an inspection, is refused, and then continues anyway and arrests the person for not complying, that is an unlawful search and wrongful arrest.  The state can immediately revoke the butcher license, but they cannot continue a search (or "inspection") after being turned down without a warrant.

In this case the police should have said 'fine, you won't let us in, we'll suspend your license'.  As soon as they forced their way in anyway, they became the bad guys.

Below is the actual law (see the bold section). There was an amendment added that gives local municipalities the ability to padlock a store first, then get a court order after. I didn't find the legal verbiage for the amendment in my 6-9 sec. search. However, the link to the article which references the amendment is also below.

I'm not engaging in a constitutional argument. I asked what law the officers broke. Based on my public school level of reading comprehension it seems like they adhered to the new stipulations of this specific law. I reserve the right to be proven wrong as we don't have all the data based on a short video (which is what prompted my question in the first place).

If the argument is the NYPD and sheriff are acting like assholes here, I don't disagree. If you think the law and it's amendments are against the constitution, I'll leave that to ppl who wear robes and have a bunch of letters after their name.

Section 133.23 Act is Relating to Unlicensed Activities.
(a) The Office may issue a notice of violation and order to cease unlicensed activity to any 
person, as defined in section 40-a of the Cannabis Law, who is cultivating, processing,
distributing or selling cannabis, cannabis product, cannabinoid hemp or hemp extract product, or 
any product marketed or labeled as such in this state, or engaging in an indirect retail sale,
without obtaining the appropriate registration, license, or permit therefor.
(b) In the event that the Office issues a notice of violation and order to cease unlicensed
activity to a person:
(1) that person must cease all cannabis or cannabinoid hemp related activity as described in 
subdivision (a) of this section;
(2) the Office may seize any cannabis, cannabis product, cannabinoid hemp or hemp extract 
product, or any product marketed or labeled as such, found in the possession of a person engaged 
in the conduct described in subdivision (a) of this section;

Article: NY State Operation Padlock

Edited June 10 by Boomer6

[Biff_T]

On 6/9/2024 at 9:01 AM, HeloDude said:

Some people are pro-cop vs anti-cop…I’m just anti spending more time in cities ran by progressives than I need to.

 

This is complete bullshit.   There are far worse criminals than an Indian dude selling Stizzies.    They need about 10 more officers in that tobacco store.   I sleep safer at night knowing the police are raiding novelty smoke shops.   Fucking morons.   

Edit: What kind of progressive city cares about weed?   Really, I always thought it was more of a conservative thing to flip out about marijuana. 

Edited June 10 by Biff_T
Afterthought

[uhhello]

50 minutes ago, Biff_T said:

This is complete bullshit.   There are far worse criminals than an Indian dude selling Stizzies.    They need about 10 more officers in that tobacco store.   I sleep safer at night knowing the police are raiding novelty smoke shops.   Fucking morons.   

Edit: What kind of progressive city cares about weed?   Really, I always thought it was more of a conservative thing to flip out about marijuana. 

The progressive city mayor who is trying to ensure the 'legit' businesses that fund him make the sales and not the other guys.

[Smokin]

I know that many people are about as interested in Constitutional law as they are about internal politics of Bolivia, but anyone that is a public servant and particularly those responsible for law enforcement should have a working knowledge of the Constitution and how local, state, and federal laws work under the Constitution.  If those cops had taken a Constitutional law class (should be mandatory for law enforcement), they would have known that what they were being told to do is illegal.  You are morally and legally obligated to not follow an illegal order.  You shouldn't just do what you're told and wait for a judge to sort it out.

I am not anti-police.  I am very pro law enforcement.  But when cops break they law, they become traitors to their responsibility to the public and that is far worse than a run of the mill criminal.

[Rifleman96]

I’m sure this will turn out fine.
 

https://www.af.mil/News/Article-Display/Article/3800809/department-of-the-air-force-launches-niprgpt/

[Majestik Møøse]

On 6/11/2024 at 4:56 AM, Rifleman96 said:

I’m sure this will turn out fine.
 

https://www.af.mil/News/Article-Display/Article/3800809/department-of-the-air-force-launches-niprgpt/

Sounds like a security violation nightmare. “What’s this F-69 jet I saw on The Drive?” “Am I allowed to say I’m deployed to XXXX Air Base?” Not sure how you’d forbid it from talking about secrets unless you fed it a list of secrets to not talk about, which would be impossible. But what I do know is you’ll be flagged no matter what because you’ve logged in with your CAC.

[ClearedHot]

On 6/9/2024 at 7:32 PM, Boomer6 said:

Below is the actual law (see the bold section). There was an amendment added that gives local municipalities the ability to padlock a store first, then get a court order after. I didn't find the legal verbiage for the amendment in my 6-9 sec. search. However, the link to the article which references the amendment is also below.

I'm not engaging in a constitutional argument. I asked what law the officers broke. Based on my public school level of reading comprehension it seems like they adhered to the new stipulations of this specific law. I reserve the right to be proven wrong as we don't have all the data based on a short video (which is what prompted my question in the first place).

Seriously?

Cities overreach all the time and pass "laws" that are in conflict (and thus illegal), with the Constitution and that is the point.  Another example is what has happened with Panhandling all around the country, cities and municipalities have tried to outlaw it but SCOTUS CLEARLY ruled that it is protected under the 1st amendment as free speech our a charitable appeal for help.  These cities are learning as a wave of lawsuits is forcing them to change the "law."

I am certainly not a Constitutional scholar but having sworn an oath I have actually read the document and as part of my education, read a lot of the framing documents like the Federalist Papers which provide the foundation and rationale for the bill of rights.  Warrant-less search and seizures have been addressed many times and like other amendments there are exceptions like exigent circumstances, that was not the case here.

The NYPD has a bad record when it comes to the bill of rights, they are in the middle of a 1st amendment lawsuit that is going to cost them (actually the tax payers), dearly.  Sadly, it is part of their DNA.  Notice how many times the tell the guy to shut the F@ck up...sorry, however distasteful you find it, there is still a 1st amendment.

[brabus]

49 minutes ago, ClearedHot said:

The NYPD has a bad record when it comes to the bill of rights,

I once called the NY state patrol to ensure I was protected by a federal law that enables me to transport firearms through NY on a XC move. The guy confirmed I was protected,  and then said, “but not all troopers may be aware of, or follow, that law in the moment. But don’t worry, charges will certainly be dropped when you go to court.” Unbelievable - directly admitting NY LE violates federal law and is incompetent/ignorant.

[Boomer6]

2 hours ago, ClearedHot said:

Seriously?

Yes.

At the danger of talking past each other, I am not in disagreement with anything you wrote. My opinion, and yours for that matter, on this not being IAW Article IV is irrelevant. The only opinion that matters legally is the court's.

The point I was trying, and obviously failing, to make is that the city passed a law specifically to empower officers to do what we see in the video.

It's easy to say they should have just refused. They're officers that are trying to clean up their city and were given approval to execute per the new law. Pardon me for not immediately damning them to hell for doing what they're told. If leadership directs a subordinate to do something unlawful, I'd prefer to hold leadership accountable. Even moreso when leadership just passed a law making it "legal."

 

Edited June 30 by Boomer6

[HossHarris]

49 minutes ago, Boomer6 said:

Yes.

At the danger of talking past each other, I am not in disagreement with anything you wrote. My opinion, and yours for that matter, on this not being IAW Article IV is irrelevant. The only opinion that matters legally is the court's.

The point I was trying, and obviously failing, to make is that the city passed a law specifically to empower officers to do what we see in the video.

It's easy to say they should have just refused. They're officers that are trying to clean up their city and were given approval to execute per the new law. Pardon me for not immediately damning them to hell for doing what they're told. If leadership directs a subordinate to do something unlawful, I'd prefer to hold leadership accountable. Even moreso when leadership just passed a law making it "legal."

 

So the concentration camp guards “just following orders” is valid defense/excuse for you?

Edited June 30 by HossHarris