US continues to export freedom: Pressures Canada in piracy (We're #1!)

[Fake Boris]

How ****ing stupid can you be?

Confiscations of goods under mere suspicion is paralegal enforcement that shouldn't take place in a fair justice system.

[Ecofarm]

Like they are just going to grab random crap! You know, whatever they feel like!

It'll be a free-for-all, laptops for everyone on the force!


Tool.



Confiscation almost always happens before conviction. It's called evidence. That doesn't make it paralegal enforcement. It's called collecting evidence.

It's not like they get to keep it if you are proven innocent! :rollie eyes:

[Fake Boris]

Thinking of it, why does the State have to prosecute and provide evidence when you're suspected of a crime?

edit: he DanSed me, but his post is still moronic.

[Ecofarm]

Thinking of it, police should not be allowed to collect evidence until there is a conviction.


And, once again, Uncle... they don't get to keep your stuff forever just because of suspicion. There still has to be a trial, ya know? Don't ****.

[Fake Boris]

You do understand what a mandate is?

[Ecofarm]

You're fearmongering for nationalism. Plain and simple.


Good day.

[Fake Boris]

****ing idiot. You'll end up getting what you desserve.

[giblets]

What an idiot, thinking people don't deserve protection from unreasonable search and seizure.

[N35t0r]

Police also have the authority to use deadly force. A cop might set you up, and then shoot you for his own gain. Therefore, police should not have the right to use deadly force?

Um, flawed argument? I'm pretty sure any set-up that ends in the cop being able to legally shoot you is not legal in the first place. So, to use your example, no, cops should not be allowed to set-up people to put him in a position he is justified in killing them.

C'mon dude, surely you can see plainly that pretending this law targets individuals with a few regular movies on their laptop is nothing more than scaremongering under the auspices of nationalism.

So you would be OK if it became legal for cops to search houses, without warrant or court order, if they suspect there might be stolen goods inside it?
I mean, you can see plainly that such a law is not meant to target individuals who might have borrowed something and forgot to return it.

[Ecofarm]

@grib:

You're an idiot for having no idea what the purpose of the law is, then assuming it is to target morons with a movie on their laptop.


I bet you also think the Arizona immigration law is for pulling over brown people.

[loinburger]

Ecofarm, you are one of the stupidest posters on Apolyton. There is one piece of evidence that has been presented: the fact that the US wants Canada to conduct illegal searches and seizures. You have refuted this with evidence that does not even exist: the Ecofarm-fact that thus far an acceptable number of illegal searches and seizures have been conducted in the US, therefore this unjust law is okay by you. You have not defined what would constitute an acceptable number of illegal searches and seizures. You have not provided one iota of evidence to contradict the only evidence that has been presented in this thread. You have acted like a whiny little ***** when other posters refuse to do your work for you. You are the third stupidest poster on Apolyton and it looks like you will remain in that slot for quite awhile, perhaps indefinitely if the number 1 and 2 posters continue to stick around.

[Ecofarm]

So you would be OK if it became legal for cops to search houses, without warrant or court order, if they suspect there might be stolen goods inside it?

I mean, you can see plainly that such a law is not meant to target individuals who might have borrowed something and forgot to return it.

The law does not say "search and seizue does not require probable cause". It says "seizure requires reasonable suspicion and probable cause, not a court order".


There is no removal of reasonable suspicion here, and noone is allowed to keep your stuff without a case. It merely allows cops to gather evidence without a court order under reasonable suspicion.

Big fkn deal.


Really, the whole idea that cops should need a court order to collect evidence under reasonable suspicion is stupid in the first place.

Anyway, if I run into my house with stolen goods (and the cops see me run in there with the stolen goods)... yes... the cops can come in without a warrant. They will not need a court order... BECAUSE they have reasonable suspicion and probable cause. Do you know anything about the law?



Really, I think most people who are worried about this have some very shady stuff on their laptops. Their objection has nothing to do with the law, or their understanding of it. They just want to hide their cartoon child porn and people tell them the cops are going to catch them if this law is passed.

[loinburger]

You're an idiot for having no idea what the purpose of the law is, then assuming it is to target morons with a movie on their laptop.

What is the purpose of this law in your addled mind? What has it been used for thus far? Provide evidence. Enough with this "well maybe these illegal searches and seizures are a good thing!"

[N35t0r]

@grib:

You're an idiot for having no idea what the purpose of the law is, then assuming it is to target morons with a movie on their laptop.


I bet you also think the Arizona immigration law is for pulling over brown people.

Arguing a law based on what its purpose is rather than what will become legal/illegal because of it is short-sighted at best. It's basically saying that the end justifies the means.

[Ecofarm]

No dude.

You can claim all kinds of wild BS about every law on the book... how it will be abused, used against minorities, used by crooked cops... So what?? No law is beyond abuse. Arguing that a law is no good because it is not abuse-proof is stupid. No law is abuse-proof. If our basis for passing a law is that it be abuse-proof, we will never pass another.