|
twodot posted:Are you saying reports of abuse aren't grounds for suspicion of a crime? Like I'm not sure I'm even parsing this post correctly. They investigate regardless of who reported and what. They will investigate if you say 'I have a bad feeling'. Don't get me wrong, in CPS case, while it generates a lot of false positives, its better than not investigating and failing to help an abused child.
|
#
?
Dec 3, 2015 18:17
|
|
|
|
| # ? Apr 19, 2024 14:54 |
|
|
twodot posted:Are you saying reports of abuse aren't grounds for suspicion of a crime? Like I'm not sure I'm even parsing this post correctly. It sounds to me like they're saying that it's too easy for a report to trigger a search/visit even when there's no reasonable cause to believe that a crime has occurred based on the "report." In other words, that there aren't enough safeguards in the system to prevent it being used to harass people with spurious allegations. Which is a fair criticism, but it's hard to completely eliminate the possibility of spurious reports being acted on at first and still have a system that's effective, so I think it's reasonable to settle for a system that corrects itself as soon as the false suspicions are discovered and prevents them from reoccurring to the same person. (And to bring it back on topic, the same is reasonable in the case of guns.) PE:FB, kinda.
|
|
#
?
Dec 3, 2015 18:20
|
|
JerryLee posted:It sounds to me like they're saying that it's too easy for a report to trigger a search/visit even when there's no reasonable cause to believe that a crime has occurred based on the "report." In other words, that there aren't enough safeguards in the system to prevent it being used to harass people with spurious allegations. Nah, the system is actually fine the way it is for CPS.
|
|
|
#
?
Dec 3, 2015 18:21
|
|
|
CommieGIR posted:They investigate regardless of who reported and what. They will investigate if you say 'I have a bad feeling'.
|
|
#
?
Dec 3, 2015 18:24
|
|
|
twodot posted:They can investigate all they want, they aren't entering my house without a warrant. They can get those relatively fast now, especially CPS.
|
|
#
?
Dec 3, 2015 18:26
|
|
|
CommieGIR posted:They can get those relatively fast now, especially CPS.
|
|
#
?
Dec 3, 2015 18:36
|
|
|
Unless CPS is randomly inspecting every child's bedroom annually without a warrant, they're not operating the way Australia does.
|
|
#
?
Dec 3, 2015 18:46
|
|
This poster loves police brutality, but only when its against minorities!
|
Treating gun owners like children with special needs actually sounds quite fitting.
|
|
#
?
Dec 3, 2015 18:54
|
|
|
Flowers For Algeria posted:Treating gun owners like children with special needs actually sounds quite fitting. Maybe we should get people with a phobia of weapons the counseling they need.
|
|
#
?
Dec 3, 2015 19:00
|
|
|
I'm not a gunophobe, I'm a gun realist.
|
|
#
?
Dec 3, 2015 19:09
|
|
various cheeses posted:Maybe we should get people with a phobia of weapons the counseling they need. Priority one for treating PTSD induced by a mass shooting: getting the patient over any fear of guns.
|
|
|
#
?
Dec 3, 2015 19:10
|
|
|
DeusExMachinima posted:Unless CPS is randomly inspecting every child's bedroom annually without a warrant, they're not operating the way Australia does. Australia doesn't inspect every gun owner's safe randomly every year.
|
|
#
?
Dec 3, 2015 19:22
|
|
|
twodot posted:When is the last time your home was inspected by the health department? CPS definitely requires suspicion of a crime. I get the impression you had a really weird childhood. Your pet adoption thing is too stupid to directly address. If I was running a commercial kitchen out of my home, aka if I was doing something that could kill people, I would get an inspection. If I was applying to adopt or foster a child, aka if I was responsible for the safety of a human life, I would get an inspection. Even if I was responsible for an animal life I get an inspection. These are all inspections that happen before you take on an immense, life-threatening responsibility. It is possible and normal to pass these inspections. They're only there to check that you aren't doing something dangerously irresponsible. You're having trouble connecting these dots and calling me stupid? Tiny Brontosaurus fucked around with this message at 19:30 on Dec 3, 2015 |
|
#
?
Dec 3, 2015 19:28
|
|
|
Tiny Brontosaurus posted:If I was running a commercial kitchen out of my home, aka if I was doing something that could kill people, I would get an inspection. If I was applying to adopt or foster a child, aka if I was responsible for the safety of a human life, I would get an inspection. Even if I was responsible for an animal life I get an inspection. These are all inspections that happen before you take on an immense, life-threatening responsibility. It is possible and normal to pass these inspections. They're only there to check that you aren't doing something dangerously irresponsible. Heres a potential difference between where we're coming from. Due to our 4th Amendment, risk doesn't really play a role in justifying inspections without specific suspicions on someone's property. You have to be engaging in commerce basically. If a cop is looking at building code compliance and randomly decides to check out your gun closet and finds a machine gun, it'll be thrown out as inadmissible in court. Feel free to stay in your pants making GBS threads safe zone. DeusExMachinima fucked around with this message at 19:42 on Dec 3, 2015 |
|
#
?
Dec 3, 2015 19:37
|
|
|
Tiny Brontosaurus posted:If I was running a commercial kitchen out of my home, aka if I was doing something that could kill people, I would get an inspection. quote:If I was applying to adopt or foster a child, aka if I was responsible for the safety of a human life, I would get an inspection. Even if I was responsible for an animal life I get an inspection. quote:You're having trouble connecting these dots and calling me stupid? edit: And that CPS wouldn't need suspicion of a crime. Did you seriously think that a CPS agent is just like "Well, I'm bored, better spin up the random number generator and randomly harass whoever is at that address with no suspicion of a crime whatsoever." twodot fucked around with this message at 19:46 on Dec 3, 2015 |
|
#
?
Dec 3, 2015 19:41
|
|
|
DeusExMachinima posted:Heres a potential difference between where we're coming from. Due to our 4th Amendment, risk doesn't really play a role in justifying inspections without specific suspicions on someone's property. You have to be engaging in commerce basically. If a cop is looking at building code compliance and randomly decides to check out your gun closet and finds a machine gun, it'll be thrown out as inadmissible in court. Feel free to stay in your pants making GBS threads safe zone. So then what's the problem. If the ATF checks your gunsafe to make sure you're not leaving all your firearms around your deranged kid, and while they're there they hunt around and find your drug stash, it will be thrown out as inadmissible. So....I guess there's nothing to worry about then 
|
|
#
?
Dec 3, 2015 21:56
|
|
|
twodot posted:I'm not entirely certain it would be legal to run a commercial kitchen out your home, but yeah if you did that you'd either voluntarily submit to health inspections or have your commercial kitchen closed down. If you're advocating for inspecting commercial gun operations, that's cool with me, otherwise I don't understand how you could possibly think this is relevant. No, I am not going to cite "adoption agencies do home inspections" for you. You live in the world. Wipe your own rear end. Home commercial kitchens is entirely a zoning thing and thus varies by region, as does pet adoption. You're moving goalposts since I only posted any of this to point out that inspections without suspicion already happen for all kinds of reasons and don't get protested by the ACLU because the ACLU is smarter than a bunch of dumbfuck goons. You insisted a thing can't possibly exist, but it does, so cope.
|
|
#
?
Dec 3, 2015 22:26
|
|
|
Tiny Brontosaurus posted:No, I am not going to cite "adoption agencies do home inspections" for you. You live in the world. Wipe your own rear end. Home commercial kitchens is entirely a zoning thing and thus varies by region, as does pet adoption. You're moving goalposts since I only posted any of this to point out that inspections without suspicion already happen for all kinds of reasons and don't get protested by the ACLU because the ACLU is smarter than a bunch of dumbfuck goons. You insisted a thing can't possibly exist, but it does, so cope.
|
|
#
?
Dec 3, 2015 22:45
|
|
|
twodot posted:I read the Washington state procedures for adoptions which don't appear to include a government inspection, but it's hard to prove a negative, so asking you to cite your own assertion seemed like a more reasonable thing to do than flatly contradicting you, but if you would prefer that "No, your thing about adoptions both human and otherwise is wrong". How am I moving goal posts? You claimed that CPS performs inspections without suspicion, this is not correct, the fourth amendment does actually exist. If anything you seem to be moving goal posts by conflating personal and commercial property. The reasons existing inspections don't get protested is because existing inspections don't inspect personal property without a specific suspicion of a crime (aka are compatible with the fourth amendment). You're moving goalposts because you insisted that non-suspicion inspections don't exist, and now that I've pointed out that they do, you're scrambling for something else to refute instead and demanding I cite the wetness of water. When the State of California summons me to the DMV for a vehicle inspection they are not stating they suspect me of a crime, they're simply doing a routine check to make sure I keep the dangerous machine I can kill people with in compliance with safety standards. You can get your own loving citation for that.
|
|
#
?
Dec 3, 2015 22:52
|
|
|
Tiny Brontosaurus posted:When the State of California summons me to the DMV for a vehicle inspection they are not stating they suspect me of a crime, they're simply doing a routine check to make sure I keep the dangerous machine I can kill people with in compliance with safety standards. Right and the reason they have the ability to do that in the United States isn't because it's dangerous. That power exists solely because you're operating your vehicle on public property/roads. If it's a car you don't drive on public roads and they demand you bring it in for inspection, it really is 100% your right in America to tell them to get bent.  If you subsequently drive your killdozer into town square and run down helpless grannies beneath your treads, that's life (or the end thereof). New powers of inspections aren't granted as a result because Fourth Amendment trump card. Deal with it. e: in all fairness I guess you could use the above to make an argument for requiring carry licenses in incorporated public areas, as long as the license is shall-issue like drivers' licenses and you pass the same test that police take for marksmanship. IOW a license that anyone with a pulse could get. DeusExMachinima fucked around with this message at 23:05 on Dec 3, 2015 |
|
#
?
Dec 3, 2015 23:01
|
|
|
DeusExMachinima posted:Right and the reason they have the ability to do that in the United States isn't because it's dangerous. That power exists solely because you're operating your vehicle on public property/roads. If it's a car you don't drive on public roads or register with the state and they demand you bring it in for inspection, it really is 100% your right in America to tell them to get bent. Again, other loving moron in this thread, your fellow loving moron stated that inspections without suspicion don't exist. I have demonstrated that they do. loving accept it.
|
|
#
?
Dec 3, 2015 23:03
|
|
|
Tiny Brontosaurus posted:You're moving goalposts because you insisted that non-suspicion inspections don't exist quote:demanding I cite the wetness of water quote:cars
|
|
#
?
Dec 3, 2015 23:03
|
|
|
twodot posted:Quote me saying this. I believe I've made it pretty clear that I'm not going to play the citation game, you useless sack of poo poo. I've posted multiple examples of inspections. You're playing No True Scotsman with all of them but it doesn't change the fact that they exist. Not all government inspections involve suspicion of a crime. This is a very simple, easily observable fact. You can keep throwing a fit about it but it will never stop being true. Base your arguments on something other than an easily disprovable falsehood.
|
|
#
?
Dec 3, 2015 23:07
|
|
|
Tiny Brontosaurus posted:Again, other loving moron in this thread, your fellow loving moron stated that inspections without suspicion don't exist. I have demonstrated that they do. loving accept it. Are you from America? For some reason I thought you were Australian somewhere, if not correct me, so we may just be talking past each other. It's pretty obvious to me twodot was referring to personal matters (or at least I was the whole time) when we were talking about searches. Commercial isn't personal and public roads aren't private. Inspecting a restaraunt kitchen is different than inspecting a personal kitchen, drastically different. It's a distinction that often isn't made explicit in American political discussions because it's just kinda assumed the other guy already knows that. Now address the fact that the "we get to inspect wherever because it's dangerous" isn't the top dog in legal reasoning in the U.S.
|
|
#
?
Dec 3, 2015 23:09
|
|
|
Tiny Brontosaurus posted:I believe I've made it pretty clear that I'm not going to play the citation game, you useless sack of poo poo. I've posted multiple examples of inspections. You're playing No True Scotsman with all of them but it doesn't change the fact that they exist. Not all government inspections involve suspicion of a crime. This is a very simple, easily observable fact. You can keep throwing a fit about it but it will never stop being true. Base your arguments on something other than an easily disprovable falsehood.
|
|
#
?
Dec 3, 2015 23:11
|
|
|
DeusExMachinima posted:Are you from America? For some reason I thought you were Australian somewhere, if not correct me, so we may just be talking past each other. Yes, I'm American. Home commercial kitchens are personal - the type of inspection I mentioned applies to people who have farmer's market bake stands and etsy marshmallow shops and things - cottage industry stuff. And again, even if you want to insist that example doesn't wear a kilt, I've mentioned many others, and how well they pull off tartan doesn't have a drat thing to do with whether they exist. And as I said right from the beginning, a SEARCH and an INSPECTION are two entirely different things. I haven't mentioned one single thing that's a search. Tiny Brontosaurus fucked around with this message at 23:20 on Dec 3, 2015 |
|
#
?
Dec 3, 2015 23:16
|
|
|
twodot posted:I'm seeing a notable lack of quotes in this post. Is this because you claimed I said a thing I never did? You may not be aware of this, but you can click the question mark next to my post and read every post I've made in this thread. If you never made the claim why are you making GBS threads uncontrollably over me refuting it?
|
|
#
?
Dec 3, 2015 23:18
|
|
|
Tiny Brontosaurus posted:You're moving goalposts because you insisted that non-suspicion inspections don't exist, and now that I've pointed out that they do, you're scrambling for something else to refute instead and demanding I cite the wetness of water. When the State of California summons me to the DMV for a vehicle inspection they are not stating they suspect me of a crime, they're simply doing a routine check to make sure I keep the dangerous machine I can kill people with in compliance with safety standards. You can get your own loving citation for that. The building inspection example is dumb, because it isn't conducted by law enforcement, and isn't a recurring compliance check; the city inspectors don't stop by your house once a year to make sure you haven't installed any non-permitted plumbing. The CPS example is asinine as well, because there is no competing state interest in protecting my property against me harming it, unlike a minor child. If I want to beat my AR-15 with a leather belt because of its accuracy problems, I'm not violating its rights. I've also worked at animal shelters, and I have literally never heard of the staff visiting a person's house before allowing them to adopt a pet. I'd also note that your car inspection happens because you have applied for a permit to operate your car on public roadways. You can build a track car in your garage that runs on coal and lacks seat belts, and CalDOT won't say a word as long as you operate it on private property. Similarly, most shooting activities on public land, like concealed carry and hunting, already require licensing and permitting. Tiny Brontosaurus posted:Yes, I'm American. Home commercial kitchens are personal - the type of inspection I mentioned applies to people who have farmer's market bake stands and etsy marshmallow shops and things - cottage industry stuff. And again, even if you want to insist that example doesn't wear a kilt, I've mentioned many others, and how well they pull off tartan doesn't have a drat thing to do with whether they exist. Dead Reckoning fucked around with this message at 23:31 on Dec 3, 2015 |
|
#
?
Dec 3, 2015 23:25
|
|
|
Tiny Brontosaurus posted:If you never made the claim why are you making GBS threads uncontrollably over me refuting it? Here's a question for you, if I made the claim, why don't you just quote me making it? I've made like ten posts in this thread, three of them asking you to do this.
|
|
#
?
Dec 3, 2015 23:28
|
|
|
Dead Reckoning posted:It's pretty clear we were talking about private property. The whole conversation has been about residential inspections, not commercial property. The TSA is allowed to cup my balls and x-ray my bags when I want to get on a plane, but that doesn't mean it's OK for them to do it while I'm walking down the street, nor would it be a good argument for why the police should have the power to make me turn out my pockets and backpack during a Terry stop. I can't believe how much bullshit you two are generating over not knowing how a food safety compliance inspection works... I don't care what you haven't heard of. As is demonstrably apparent, goons don't know a whole lot of things about the world. In many aspects of american life, public and private, if you want to do a dangerous thing you have to prove you have the equipment and training to make it safe. If you could conceive of gun safes and trigger locks living in the same category as helmets and turn signals instead of life-threatening limits on your penis extensions this would all be a lot easier for you to understand. The dividing line for who is inspected and who is not is whether your choices affect others - living in squalor is a-ok unless you want to adopt, keeping your fridge warm enough for bacteria growth is your freedom until you risk poisoning a lot of people over it - you're free to birth a child but in many places you're not free to drive that baby home from the hospital until you produce a car seat for inspection. "Here are the tools I use to keep my dangerous thing I'm doing from hurting others" is already a common thing in society, and it's just fine. Two dots is a reactionary idiot who thinks any government scrutiny is tantamount to dragging him off to the fema camps. All I'm saying - all I have ever been saying - is that private citizens already get inspected in all sorts of ways for all sorts of reasons and it isn't an infringement on their rights. Given that these types of inspections exist, which they loving do, two dots, there's no reason to imagine that it would be impossible to implement some kind of safe gun owner check without ushering in the fourth reich.
|
|
#
?
Dec 3, 2015 23:43
|
|
|
Tiny Brontosaurus posted:I can't believe how much bullshit you two are generating over not knowing how a food safety compliance inspection works... you're really dumb and angry and upping the angry isn't doing anything to make you sound less dumb
|
|
#
?
Dec 3, 2015 23:46
|
|
|
A Wizard of Goatse posted:you're really dumb and angry and upping the angry isn't doing anything to make you sound less dumb Cry about it.
|
|
#
?
Dec 3, 2015 23:49
|
|
|
nah I'm good wanna keep presentable in case the county health inspector comes rappelling through my bedroom window
|
|
#
?
Dec 3, 2015 23:53
|
|
|
Tiny Brontosaurus posted:Two dots is a reactionary idiot who thinks any government scrutiny is tantamount to dragging him off to the fema camps. quote:All I'm saying - all I have ever been saying - is that private citizens already get inspected in all sorts of ways for all sorts of reasons and it isn't an infringement on their rights. Given that these types of inspections exist, which they loving do, two dots, there's no reason to imagine that it would be impossible to implement some kind of safe gun owner check without ushering in the fourth reich.
|
|
#
?
Dec 3, 2015 23:57
|
|
A Wizard of Goatse posted:you're really dumb and angry and upping the angry isn't doing anything to make you sound less dumb Okay, now switch sides and argue for that guy's position.
|
|
|
#
?
Dec 3, 2015 23:57
|
|
|
twodot posted:I literally adopted a cat last week and neither the government nor the adoption agency inspected my home. You... you do know that cats aren't people, right?
|
|
#
?
Dec 3, 2015 23:58
|
|
|
Effectronica posted:Okay, now switch sides and argue for that guy's position. i hope you're not still trying to suggest that everyone doing this could make this thread worse
|
|
#
?
Dec 3, 2015 23:59
|
|
A Wizard of Goatse posted:i hope you're not still trying to suggest that everyone doing this could make this thread worse I think you have me confused with someone else, but stay on topic you stupid Gen-Xer. You need to argue for increased gun control now. Then I'll argue against it.
|
|
|
#
?
Dec 4, 2015 00:03
|
|
|
Who What Now posted:You... you do know that cats aren't people, right? Tiny Brontosaurus posted:Even if I was responsible for an animal life I get an inspection. edit: This looks low content, but it's a good reminder that Tiny Brontosaurus is engaging in some idiot form of gish gallop. edit2: \/\/\/\/\/\/ Tiny Brontosaurus posted:Sorry I'm not gonna take my definition of "plausible" from the guy who's too loving stupid to know adoption inspections exist. twodot fucked around with this message at 00:11 on Dec 4, 2015 |
|
#
?
Dec 4, 2015 00:05
|
|
|
|
| # ? Apr 19, 2024 14:54 |
|
|
twodot posted:Quote me saying this. twodot posted:Any plausible safe gun owner check would involve a fourth amendment violation. The reason that of the examples you've brought up that actually exist, do exist without being a fourth amendment violation is that they are obviously and totally unlike any plausible safe gun owner check. Now maybe you think we could rollback certain fourth amendment rights without ushering in the fourth reich, but trying to relate to other existing things is a pretty disingenuous way to argue that. Sorry I'm not gonna take my definition of "plausible" from the guy who's too loving stupid to know adoption inspections exist.
|
|
#
?
Dec 4, 2015 00:08
|
|