ITT: We discuss controversial legal issues.

theacoustician said:
Sure, but there's no proof. What if the woman is in hysterics because she just saw Jimmy's head on a pike in the basement? She can't communicate properly, but gives the cops enough info (BLOOD, BASEMENT) to find out what the hell is going on.
Click to expand...
While somewhat noble if used for those purposes, and if she called the police - that's a different story, but that type of ruling will only lead to abuse by law enforcement officers.

I think fly and I are thinking more along the lines of:

1. Cops show up at door, demand search of house for whatever reason
2. Person at the door says "Yeah, sure"
3. Co-owner of the property hears what is going on and says "HELL NO"


That's where we don't want to see the cops being able to walk all over people.
 
Exactly.

and iirc, this case was a drug case. Wife calls the police says that husband is selling drugs out of the house. Police come by to check. Wife says its okay to search, husband says no. They search and find drugs.

Illegal search? I think so.
 
fly said:
Exactly.

and iirc, this case was a drug case. Wife calls the police says that husband is selling drugs out of the house. Police come by to check. Wife says its okay to search, husband says no. They search and find drugs.

Illegal search? I think so.
Click to expand...

How is that illegal, though? What if the wife had said he had detailed plans to hurt someone? Blackmail material? A hostage? Where does it become ok to ignore his protests?

And again, if it is a case where you just don't want police searching on a whim, make sure the person you live with knows this. It is as simple as that.
 
fly said:
Exactly.

and iirc, this case was a drug case. Wife calls the police says that husband is selling drugs out of the house. Police come by to check. Wife says its okay to search, husband says no. They search and find drugs.

Illegal search? I think so.
Click to expand...
But you could get a warrant with that info.
 
fly said:
Exactly.

and iirc, this case was a drug case. Wife calls the police says that husband is selling drugs out of the house. Police come by to check. Wife says its okay to search, husband says no. They search and find drugs.

Illegal search? I think so.
Click to expand...


There's nothing illegal about it. It's the wife's property. She owns the house, and so does the husband. Legal agency.
 
theacoustician said:
But you could get a warrant with that info.
Click to expand...

I think that is their argument. They should HAVE to have the warrent. At that point, the police would then have to do whatever is needed to get the warrent to then come back and search the house. Potentially giving time to dispose of the evidence.

I can see how this would prevent frivolous cases where someone just up and calls the police to be a dick. But I have no grasp for how often that happens.
 
ChikkenNoodul said:
Right, so why do we need a new law?
Click to expand...
There is no new law. Its before the Supreme Court. The Supreme Court can only rule on the constitutionality of laws. Meaning this law is in place.
 
Back to the topic at hand.... I really don't understand how the argument works that he is liable for the child. Did he really donate sperm, or was it more that he was in a verbal agreement that he wouldn't be responsible for the child?

Either way... bitch.

Other controversial legal issues I've heard lately is a friend's rant on Roe v. Wade. What are people's thoughts on that (admittedly old) ruling?
 
I think people that kill other people over abortion issues. Such as bombing abortion clinics should be held down and have a fetus jammed up their asses.

It's not that I'm pro life or pro abortion. I'm against people killing others in the name of saving lives.
 
taeric said:
Other controversial legal issues I've heard lately is a friend's rant on Roe v. Wade. What are people's thoughts on that (admittedly old) ruling?
Click to expand...

I don't care how people get out of New Orleans.

/Dubya
 
taeric said:
Other controversial legal issues I've heard lately is a friend's rant on Roe v. Wade. What are people's thoughts on that (admittedly old) ruling?
Click to expand...

You can't keep calling it the land of the free then say you can't do that.
 
b_sinning said:
You can't keep calling it the land of the free then say you can't do that.
Click to expand...

That is a fairly naive outlook, though. There are plenty of things we can't do.

And the rant is more that it should not be a federal law. I'm not sure how the federal court got jurisdiction in this one. I can probably get him to repeat his views on it.

Also, it should be noted that this guy typically likes to just stir up shit. So... yeah.
 
taeric said:
That is a fairly naive outlook, though. There are plenty of things we can't do.

And the rant is more that it should not be a federal law. I'm not sure how the federal court got jurisdiction in this one. I can probably get him to repeat his views on it.

Also, it should be noted that this guy typically likes to just stir up shit. So... yeah.
Click to expand...


I totally agree it should be the states call on this and not the federal governement. People in Utah would have totally different views on the topic then let's say people in california.
 
b_sinning said:
I totally agree it should be the states call on this and not the federal governement. People in Utah would have totally different views on the topic then let's say people in california.
Click to expand...

for the sake of consistency that needs to be a federal level decision
 
why_ask_why said:
for the sake of consistency that needs to be a federal level decision
Click to expand...


Why does it have to be consistent? You can in this state but not in that state. We allow that for some banned substences and weapons.

Let the voters decide for themselves.
 
b_sinning said:
Why does it have to be consistent? You can in this state but not in that state. We allow that for some banned substences and weapons.

Let the voters decide for themselves.
Click to expand...

issues of property rights are generally govt level problems...like eminent domain
 
why_ask_why said:
for the sake of consistency that needs to be a federal level decision
Click to expand...
That is exactly NOT what the Framers had in mind. Anything not spelled out in the Constitution was the domain of the states...


(However, with all the planning they did, they couldn't plan for the interstate commerce clause :()
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top Bottom
Back