it's your baby
you should SEE it
Profile > Modify Profile > Personal Message Options > Add their names manually to the list.
Profile > "Modify Profile" list > Personal Message Options > Add their names manually to the list.
Now as soon as they hit the "send" button they'll get a message telling them that you've ignored them.
Profile > Modify Profile > Personal Message Options > Add their names manually to the list.
http://www.evilbore.com/forum/index.php?action=profile;sa=pmprefs
Fixed. The one you posted was tied to your profile.
my gf wants to know your secret
Ichirou?He was banned. Not possible.
I don't want to name any names but his initials are "Green Shinobi"
I don't want to name any names but his initials are "Green Shinobi"
A lot of posters, many of whom generally agree with a move towards legalizing drugs, have not liked your debating techniques.
You should really pop back into that thread and check out Willco's debating "techniques" if you think I was somehow offensive.
A lot of posters, many of whom generally agree with a move towards legalizing drugs, have not liked your debating techniques.
You should really pop back into that thread and check out Willco's debating "techniques" if you think I was somehow offensive.
I never said you were offensive. You are basically demonstrating what you kept doing in the drug debates.
while Patel is usually awesome, this particular tiff is pretty dumb on both sides imo, probably due to shitty imaging drivers from sketchy ISVs
while Patel is usually awesome, this particular tiff is pretty dumb on both sides imo, probably due to shitty imaging drivers from sketchy ISVs
A lot of posters, many of whom generally agree with a move towards legalizing drugs, have not liked your debating techniques.
You should really pop back into that thread and check out Willco's debating "techniques" if you think I was somehow offensive.
I never said you were offensive. You are basically demonstrating what you kept doing in the drug debates.
:rofl
Of course, this is the intellectual genius, who, made this statement "Boogie, I'm wondering why you think no-knock warrants with SWAT tactics are necessary when looking for drug dealers"
and then, when informed that it is because drug dealers have guns, replied "And you think they would open fire on a big squad of cops knowing they'd be ending their lives by doing so?"
Oh, I'll post the entire exchange.Why do you have me on ignore?because of the silly drug legalization thread
I'll get tired of clicking on all your posts and un-ignore you soon enoughYou seriously ignore people because of their political opinions? You are a sadder man than I'd thought.1) drug legalization is not a "political" opinion
2) you're the only activte poster I'm ignoring right now, so it's not like this is a long term life strategy or anything
3) I ignored you NOT because of your opinion but because of the way you were ARGUING your opinion
4) I SAID I would take you off after a few days, but I'm not sure why I would do that now that you've dropped to personal attacks out of nowhere
Patel proving his social ineptitude and probable asperger's diagnosis once again.
while Patel is usually awesome, this particular tiff is pretty dumb on both sides imo, probably due to shitty imaging drivers from sketchy ISVsspoiler (click to show/hide)(http://images.encyclopediadramatica.com/images/thumb/f/f9/Sonic-785270.jpg/120px-Sonic-785270.jpg)(http://images.encyclopediadramatica.com/images/thumb/f/f9/Sonic-785270.jpg/120px-Sonic-785270.jpg)(http://images.encyclopediadramatica.com/images/thumb/f/f9/Sonic-785270.jpg/120px-Sonic-785270.jpg)(http://images.encyclopediadramatica.com/images/thumb/f/f9/Sonic-785270.jpg/120px-Sonic-785270.jpg)(http://images.encyclopediadramatica.com/images/thumb/f/f9/Sonic-785270.jpg/120px-Sonic-785270.jpg)(http://images.encyclopediadramatica.com/images/thumb/f/f9/Sonic-785270.jpg/120px-Sonic-785270.jpg)(http://images.encyclopediadramatica.com/images/thumb/f/f9/Sonic-785270.jpg/120px-Sonic-785270.jpg)(http://images.encyclopediadramatica.com/images/thumb/f/f9/Sonic-785270.jpg/120px-Sonic-785270.jpg)(http://images.encyclopediadramatica.com/images/thumb/f/f9/Sonic-785270.jpg/120px-Sonic-785270.jpg)(http://images.encyclopediadramatica.com/images/thumb/f/f9/Sonic-785270.jpg/120px-Sonic-785270.jpg)[close]
Icon gangbang sounds hot. Let's do Prole first :drool
how is that "porn"? Sonic's probably just pulling burs out of Tails' fur or something
:lolA lot of posters, many of whom generally agree with a move towards legalizing drugs, have not liked your debating techniques.
You should really pop back into that thread and check out Willco's debating "techniques" if you think I was somehow offensive.
I never said you were offensive. You are basically demonstrating what you kept doing in the drug debates.
:rofl
Of course, this is the intellectual genius, who, made this statement "Boogie, I'm wondering why you think no-knock warrants with SWAT tactics are necessary when looking for drug dealers"
and then, when informed that it is because drug dealers have guns, replied "And you think they would open fire on a big squad of cops knowing they'd be ending their lives by doing so?"
don't tell him, but i was yanking it to his sultry voice the whole time we were recording last week
None of these fights would happen if we were able to buy cocaine and heroin over the counter at our local grocery store guys.
Patel, you can take my anal virginity anyday :-* :-* :-*
Missing the point, again :-\
Missing the point, again :-\
The point being that making pot basically legal without making its cultivation legal ensures that criminals will be the ones growing pot? How fucking novel.
Missing the point, again :-\
The point being that making pot basically legal without making its cultivation legal ensures that criminals will be the ones growing pot? How fucking novel.
... these types of operations when used against suspected dealers go against the spirit of the American Constitution (but you're from Canada, so I don't know what kind of ideas you guys have on that subject)
<snip>
You're still on this point?
Many people do not want military-style operations being conducted in their neighborhoods.
Furthermore, many people would argue that these types of operations when used against suspected dealers go against the spirit of the American Constitution
No-knock warrants place people at risk because if someone breaks down your front door and you have a weapon, your first impulse is to reach for your weapon,
and the cop's first impulse if he sees this is to shoot you.
Did you read a single story from the website I posted about drug-war collateral damage?
It sounds like you think my motivation for wanting to end the drug war is so that I can shoot heroin in the street, when in actuality my motivation is to end the massive toll of death and suffering that the drug war causes.
no, the point is that people think you're a whiny dickhead in arguments, and they do not like this
How do I act like a whiny dickhead in arguments?
(http://g-ecx.images-amazon.com/images/G/01/askville/1695487_7140458_mywrite/simpsons_-_bart.jpg)
(http://g-ecx.images-amazon.com/images/G/01/askville/1695487_7140458_mywrite/simpsons_-_bart.jpg)
If you really wanted to mitigate the death toll of the drug war, you could chip in by not using cocaine when it's monopolized by murderers. Sheesh.
<snip>
There is a huge difference between *knock* "Good morning, sir, we have a warrant to search these premises," and *door is splintered as a bunch of armed men charge through your door at the same time as two men dressed in black kevlar dive through your front window* "POLICE, FREEZE!!!!"
I am pretty certain that the founders of the U.S. Constitution did not consider the latter scenario a "reasonable search."
GS, willing to fight this until the bitter end, eh?
Boogie, whatever you can say about my arguments; at least I have kept my side of it civil and not casually thrown insults into it.
Boogie, whatever you can say about my arguments; at least I have kept my side of it civil and not casually thrown insults into it.
The fact of the matter is that military-style operations are conducted against citizens who oftentimes are guilty of no other crime than servicing the market of people who want to get high.
This offends me as a human being.
There are a number of ways that drug dealers could be arrested that do not resort to these dangerous tactics.
For example, the suspected dealer could be arrested when he leaves his house,
or the police could announce the warrant over a loudspeaker.
It's clear that I'm more idealistic when it comes to privacy and property rights than you are, but I don't think that I'm so idealistic as to be an "ignorant twat."
You could argue that evidence could be destroyed if the police didn't have the element of surprise, but I would say that I hope the police have more evidence against these people than mere possession if these tactics are to be used.
I'm not saying that no-knock warrants should absolutely never be used, but I don't think that the crimes that these people are often committing justify the use of them.
Also, for the record, I am strongly in favor of stricter gun control.
Boogie out of interest, do you think SWAT type raids of overwhelming force are a good way of deterring a potential fire fight?
This thread sucks.
Boogie can enter my back door unannounced whenever he likes. No warrants necessary. :-*
The ones who push shit on kids could be arrested on the street. I'd honestly have no trouble with meth labs being busted in; my argument is that these tactics shouldn't be used against suspected low-level dealers.
You are also arguing from a position of extreme bias as an officer.
Whatever your job is, your first priority is going to be making your job easier.
So you're admitting that these tactics would be used when the police don't already have substantial evidence? That's horrible.
"This is the police. We have you surrounded. Come out with your hands up" has worked for centuries.
I'm not saying that no-knock warrants should never be used, but they should be used in extreme cases. Over 50,000 knockless warrants were served in 2005, vs. 3000 in 1981. Clearly more discretion should be used in this matter.
As I said, it's unfortunate that your job is so difficult, but the rights of citizens should be the first priority.
Yes, it is my opinion that if extreme tactics are going to be used, they should be used in cases where there is already a substantial body of evidence against the suspect. Doors shouldn't get broken in because of an "anonymous tip."
The entire justification for knockless warrants is that evidence could potentially be destroyed if police announced their arrival.
No bias in th...o wait cato institute.
- Knockless warrants are often authorized on extremely flimsy evidence
http://www.arktimes.com/Articles/ArticleViewer.aspx?ArticleID=68509828-1566-472d-9a68-79f43b522950 (http://www.arktimes.com/Articles/ArticleViewer.aspx?ArticleID=68509828-1566-472d-9a68-79f43b522950)
Okay, reply to this tomorrow, but you are aware that in most cases a citizen is allowed to defend his or her home against intruders, even to the point of killing the intruder if necessary? Knockless warrants combined with this philosophy can lead to a lot of problems.
Okay, reply to this tomorrow, but you are aware that in most cases a citizen is allowed to defend his or her home against intruders, even to the point of killing the intruder if necessary? Knockless warrants combined with this philosophy can lead to a lot of problems.
Largely due to the increased use of soft body armor, better training and improved equipment, police deaths have been on the decline for the past two decades. During the 1980’s we averaged 187 officer fatalities each year, and in the 1990’s we averaged 153.
holy shit loki.
Admit that your ulterior purpose was simply to ridicule Amirox.
Sometimes, when I make love to a woman, I pretend I'm Patel.
Other times, I pretend she's Patel.
I don't think you can recommend yourself for Icon privileges.
Plus, I'm not so sure the rest of 'em are so keen about letting Johnny Law into our den of sin.
Boogie for Icon.
I'm sure my verbosity will at least garner me Loki's vote. :P :-*
I'm sure my verbosity will at least garner me Loki's vote. :P :-*
His is a silent vote.
Also, imagine if we lured Boogie into the seedy underbelly of the Internet. Perhaps he would be seduced by our free spending debauchery, and slip into a state of euphoria of which there is no escape!
Not a dirty cokesnorting, restroom toe-tapping kid-diddlin' Republican figurt :punch
HOMOJUSTICE
New ABC crime drama about Canadian mountie who takes out vigilante justice on homophobic, overweight men the only way he knows how!
Boogie is it true that half of RCMP training is watching all four seasons of Due South?
SHINOBIWORLD
WHERE COPS FIGHT CRIME WITH LOLLIPOPS AND POST-IT NOTES.
OPIATES FREELY AVAILABLE IN SOBE PRODUCTS AND YOUR LOCAL 7-ELEVEN.GANG WARS ARE SOLVED THROUGH JOUSTING.
(wait there are no gang wars, since we legalized drugs and got rid of unnecessary no knock warrants and swat tactics)
THE ARTS COMMUNITY IS OVERRATED.
SHINOBIWORLD: THE FUTURE OF TOMORROW - TODAY!
Bah you people suck. The best show would be where Boogie plays the honest cop that can't bare to see people cry, Malek an alcoholic lawyer and Arvie as autistic computer programmer all working together use a special computer program to solve Candian crimes like people stealing maple syrup. They then go to Switzerland to meet up with Agent Cloud to solve Swiss crimes like kicking black people out and discussing tea.
At the end of the episode Arvie confuses a popular saying and the gang all have a laugh about it over a bottle of Crown Royale.
HOMOJUSTICE
New ABC crime drama about Canadian mountie who takes out vigilante justice on homophobic, overweight men the only way he knows how!
Due South 2: Below the Boarder
firefox has a built in spellchecker u kno
boarder is a word! It's just not the word I wanted to right, though it's not my fault as they sound exactly the same.
distantmantra or White Man, diagnose Arvie's learning disability.
Arvie is the only person I know who types phonetically.
Having your door broken in and a gun pointed at your head based [sic] on an anonymous tip is not a reasonable search.
http://www.huntingtonnews.net/local/090219-rutherford-localdrugraid.html (http://www.huntingtonnews.net/local/090219-rutherford-localdrugraid.html)
http://www.shroomery.org/forums/showflat.php/Number/7637931 (http://www.shroomery.org/forums/showflat.php/Number/7637931)
So this never happens?
http://www.huntingtonnews.net/local/090219-rutherford-localdrugraid.html (http://www.huntingtonnews.net/local/090219-rutherford-localdrugraid.html)
http://www.shroomery.org/forums/showflat.php/Number/7637931 (http://www.shroomery.org/forums/showflat.php/Number/7637931)
So this never happens?
I don't recall using the word never
The news stories (after coming to law school, I've learned the press isn't just bad at reporting science stories) claim the tips led to the searches; they omit to mention whether the tips first led police to obtain corroborating evidence. Unless the tips first led to successful attempts to get corroborating evidence, the cases will be dismissed or a superior court will overturn any possible convictions.
also, the media tends not to know the difference between an anonymous tip and a confidential informant. Do you, GS?
also, the media tends not to know the difference between an anonymous tip and a confidential informant. Do you, GS?
The one makes it OK for police to point loaded guns at innocent drug dealers and the other one doesn't :smug
According to that article and several others I've seen on the subject, police in the U.S. do not always immediately announce themselves as such.
Several articles claimed that they occasionally choose to open things with the use of flash-bang grenades.
Furthermore, when they're doing things in the middle of the night, they run the risk of encountering people who have just been woken up and are completely disoriented.
Suffice to say there are a number of reasons why someone might not immediately recognize police.
I think part of this disagreement is that you are a Canadian trying to argue that these raids are always conducted the exact same way in the U.S. as you would do them. According to a number of articles I've read, they aren't. Now it's possible that those articles are wrong, or are exaggerating the situation, in which case I would revise my argument.
I'd say a big reason for it is that these types of raids are a very traumatic and violating experience for most people, which you aren't taking into account.
That's why I argued that their use should be restricted to dealers with a previous history of violence or some other type of crime, or at least to cases where there is already some substantial evidence that the person being raided is guilty.
If police can just break down the door of any house based on some anonymous tip,
they run a good chance of inflicting all this trauma on an innocent person.
Did you not read that at least one person has had a heart attack due to the stress of a no-knock raid?
they absolutely should not be used against someone when the only evidence against the person is an anonymous tip.
Maybe in Canada. Have you not been following the increasing rate of taser use in the U.S?
I'm betting you don't keep track of the cases where cops have killed unarmed suspects or people who weren't even suspects at all. Just last month there was a case of an undercover officer shooting a man who came at him with a broom because he thought the cop was a burglar. The cop was cleared of any wrongdoing. He killed a man who came at him with a broom rather than get off the property. Sure it was the most efficient way for him to resolve the situation, but it resulted in an innocent man's death.
This is becoming a theme in the U.S: police using deadly force because it is the most efficient way to do things, without regard for the potential civil rights violations that can result.
Making no-knock warrants the de-facto means of drug searches is just another symptom of this.
I know these cases aren't even close to a majority of police operations,
but the fact remains that there have been a disturbing number of excessive uses of force in the U.S.,
and it's not unreasonable to conclude that it has something to do with the increased militarization of police forces.
I don't disagree that these tactics are safer for police officers, which is why I conceded that they have a place.
Under the Fourth Amendement, Americans have the right to be free from unreasonable searches and seizures. Having your door broken in and a gun pointed at your head based on an anonymous tip is not a reasonable search.
I think it's inherently unconstitutional, but I also have a pretty polarized view on civil rights. I understand that it's a safer method of serving warrants.
I think Green Shinobi left, dude.
I think Green Shinobi left, dude.
pissing on a defeated man, boogie
smh
Well, if not when he's defeated, when are you supposed to piss on someone, then? ???
Clearly Canadian mounties have nothing better to do :smug
Clearly Canadian mounties have nothing better to do :smug
Not true.
I'm executing a no-knock warrant this week. :smug