More facepalms

Any discussion not related to furry goes in here. Politics, religion, current affairs...this is the place for it.
User avatar
Franky
The Bad Guy
Posts: 1748
Joined: Tue Jan 01, 2013 12:32 am
Gender: Male
Sexual preference: Straight
Species: Mortally Challenged Fox
Region: Gauteng
Location: Where bad things happen.
Contact:

More facepalms

#1

Post by Franky »

SJW student takeover at evergreen college.

Another case where a racist fuelled cult like coalition discredits a professor who simply wants equity.

Leeward
Recalcitrant Ruminant
Posts: 7036
Joined: Wed Mar 19, 2014 10:23 pm

Re: More facepalms

#2

Post by Leeward »

Nope. I couldn't watch past 3 minutes. So much stupidity and entitlement, it made me throw up in my mouth a little.
User avatar
Franky
The Bad Guy
Posts: 1748
Joined: Tue Jan 01, 2013 12:32 am
Gender: Male
Sexual preference: Straight
Species: Mortally Challenged Fox
Region: Gauteng
Location: Where bad things happen.
Contact:

Re: More facepalms

#3

Post by Franky »

Leeward wrote:Nope. I couldn't watch past 3 minutes. So much stupidity and entitlement, it made me throw up in my mouth a little.
Lemme guess. It's when she said "this white cis male professor..."
Leeward
Recalcitrant Ruminant
Posts: 7036
Joined: Wed Mar 19, 2014 10:23 pm

Re: More facepalms

#4

Post by Leeward »

Yeah. Precious snowflake that looks for a reason to be offended on moral grounds in every situation because self-righteousness trumps logic. Needs a solid smack to the face, pronto.

Image
User avatar
Raven Song
Stealer of Time
Posts: 7039
Joined: Tue Apr 24, 2012 8:56 pm
Gender: Does it matter?
Sexual preference: Other
Species: Shapeshifting Anubian
Region: Other
Location: Londonium ONce more...
Contact:

Re: More facepalms

#5

Post by Raven Song »

I listen to kids like these and I cry because how do these kids expect to survive in the world beyond their University if this is the way they treat the people who, in some cases voluntarily, choose to educate and help these kids become our future...

I weep for our world
Learn the rules like a pro, so you can break them like an artist. Pablo Picasso
User avatar
Ivic_Wulfe
Viridis Spes Vulupe
Posts: 3012
Joined: Sun Nov 02, 2008 10:58 am
Gender: Male
Sexual preference: Other
Species: Green Folf
Region: Gauteng
Location: Pretoria East (I prefer Valhalla)
Contact:

Re: More facepalms

#6

Post by Ivic_Wulfe »

Good lord...I actually also stopped there also...I was speaking to our politics lecturer. He said it isn't the privileged people's fight to "give to those who aren't, it removes the entire agency of the struggle for equality completely." So...it's quite ironic, if not angering to me that some...trumped up tart can pick this up on the issue of race as though she bloody well knows better.
AND THEN THE CAGE COMES DOWN! The cage with the Japanese fighting spiders inside, your mother strikes a match off her forearm and tells you to dance in the front room for money... - Dylan Moran
User avatar
Splicer-Fox
Posts: 1956
Joined: Mon Aug 23, 2010 12:38 pm
Gender: Male
Sexual preference: Bi
Species: Fox fennec springbok thing
Region: Gauteng
Location: Thailand
Contact:

Re: More facepalms

#7

Post by Splicer-Fox »

The god of war does not care from who the blood flows. Only that it does.
Justification does not matter. But a good noble cause can justify slaughter more smoothly.
All these civilized nations are becoming antsy because you can no longer solve problems the why nature intended.
User avatar
Animew
Banter kitty
Posts: 1217
Joined: Wed Jan 21, 2015 12:45 pm
Species: Animu cat

Re: More facepalms

#8

Post by Animew »

bored rich kids that don’t know how good they have it and want to desperately complain about something... yea this is why i live alone out in the middle of nowhere stockpiling food and ammunition... screw aliens or nuclear holocaust, the world is heading towards a worse fate than destruction.
Duck face? i thought they were all just making fart noises when posing for pictures...
User avatar
Franky
The Bad Guy
Posts: 1748
Joined: Tue Jan 01, 2013 12:32 am
Gender: Male
Sexual preference: Straight
Species: Mortally Challenged Fox
Region: Gauteng
Location: Where bad things happen.
Contact:

Re: More facepalms

#9

Post by Franky »

Leeward
Recalcitrant Ruminant
Posts: 7036
Joined: Wed Mar 19, 2014 10:23 pm

Re: More facepalms

#10

Post by Leeward »

This would be a non-issue if we didn't even have gendered pronouns in the first place. Why are we so obsessed with sex and genitals that we have to qualify everything by it? I find it a strange concept.
User avatar
Galahad
Posts: 1972
Joined: Tue Mar 29, 2016 6:31 pm
Gender: Male
Region: Gauteng
Location: Pretoria

Re: More facepalms

#11

Post by Galahad »

Because of the history of language and the simplicity of sex as the pronoun qualifier? What other qualification would there be - size, colour, quantity, age, reputation etc.? Male or female (or neuter, in the cases of certain languages): Two (to three) variables, encountered commonly and which every human being, irrespective of culture, will know. Three to four, if you include plural. It was simple and understandable.
User avatar
Franky
The Bad Guy
Posts: 1748
Joined: Tue Jan 01, 2013 12:32 am
Gender: Male
Sexual preference: Straight
Species: Mortally Challenged Fox
Region: Gauteng
Location: Where bad things happen.
Contact:

Re: More facepalms

#12

Post by Franky »

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2017/09 ... t-comment/
L’Oréal has sacked its first transgender model after comments surfaced where she had described all white people as racist.

Munroe Bergdorf said: "Honestly I don’t have energy to talk about the racial violence of white people any more. Yes ALL white people."

Her contract with the beauty giant was ended just days after she landed it.
User avatar
Rakuen Growlithe
Fire Puppy
Posts: 6718
Joined: Tue Apr 01, 2008 2:24 pm
Gender: Male
Sexual preference: Bi
Species: Growlithe (pokemon)
Region: Other
Location: Pretoria
Contact:

Re: More facepalms

#13

Post by Rakuen Growlithe »

All angry after watching body cam video of police assaulting and falsely arresting a nurse for refusing to draw blood from an unconscious patient in accordance with the laws and policies. I saw the video on a Facebook feed but its all over the news right now too.
"If all mankind minus one, were of one opinion, and only one person were of the contrary opinion, mankind would be no more justified in silencing that one person, than he, if he had the power, would be justified in silencing mankind."
~John Stuart Mill~

“Give me the liberty to know, to utter, and to argue freely according to conscience, above all liberties.”
~John Milton~
User avatar
Sudan Red
Posts: 698
Joined: Thu Jun 16, 2016 10:59 am
Gender: Female
Sexual preference: Straight
Species: Lion
Region: Gauteng

Re: More facepalms

#14

Post by Sudan Red »

Rakuen Growlithe wrote:All angry after watching body cam video of police assaulting and falsely arresting a nurse for refusing to draw blood from an unconscious patient in accordance with the laws and policies. I saw the video on a Facebook feed but its all over the news right now too.
I strongly condemn the action taken by the police officers in that clip. From a forensic perspective though, that nurse should just have taken the sample. In the long run it might benefit the patient to prove that they were not drunk/high at the time of an accident. Criminal considerations aside, what if they wanted to claim from the equivalent of a road accidents fund? This would serve to strengthen their case. A head injury might make them APPEAR intoxicated to bystanders but a blood test would have confirmed it.

I know this is an unpopular opinion, but I wish people would just let the police do their jobs. You can hear the frustration in the officer's voice before he flips out. The test in question is time sensitive. To say he needed a warrant is to be ignorant of probable cause. So if a police officer patrols past your house, hears gun shots from inside, should he go get a warrant before he enters your house to help you?
User avatar
Darq
Posts: 98
Joined: Thu May 20, 2010 4:33 pm
Species: Kitteh =3
Region: Gauteng

Re: More facepalms

#15

Post by Darq »

Sudan Red wrote:I strongly condemn the action taken by the police officers in that clip. From a forensic perspective though, that nurse should just have taken the sample. In the long run it might benefit the patient to prove that they were not drunk/high at the time of an accident. Criminal considerations aside, what if they wanted to claim from the equivalent of a road accidents fund? This would serve to strengthen their case. A head injury might make them APPEAR intoxicated to bystanders but a blood test would have confirmed it.

I know this is an unpopular opinion, but I wish people would just let the police do their jobs. You can hear the frustration in the officer's voice before he flips out. The test in question is time sensitive. To say he needed a warrant is to be ignorant of probable cause. So if a police officer patrols past your house, hears gun shots from inside, should he go get a warrant before he enters your house to help you?
In this case though Sudan, the hospitalised person was not a suspect, they were a third party that was injured in a police chase. The police are officially responsible for this person's injuries, unless they can prove that the victim was intoxicated. So the forensic evidence would only work against the victim here.

Additionally, you can hear in the video, one of the officers mentions they can't get a warrant because they don't have probable cause. Mainly because the injured party was a victim, not a suspect.

Besides, the person had been heavily drugged up at that point. Most blood tests would have been useless.

And lastly, if the nurse had caved and drawn blood, she would be in violation of HIPAA. She legally cannot draw blood without a warrant, or consent of the person, if they are not under arrest. She would have been stripped of her medical licence, and then likely sued or prosecuted further.

The officer was asking her to break the law. And if she acquiesced, she would have been liable, not him. I don't care that he became frustrated when she, rightfully, denied him. She acted in the best interests of her patient, the officer removed a nurse from an emergency burn unit, endangering those patients. Because he couldn't get evidence that would absolve the police of their responsibility to the injured party.
You are a child of the universe, no less than the trees and the stars, you have a right to be here.
Backpackcat. Enby, they / them. Telegram and Twitter: @Darq_At
Leeward
Recalcitrant Ruminant
Posts: 7036
Joined: Wed Mar 19, 2014 10:23 pm

Re: More facepalms

#16

Post by Leeward »

She could have argued that she did it while under duress.
User avatar
Sudan Red
Posts: 698
Joined: Thu Jun 16, 2016 10:59 am
Gender: Female
Sexual preference: Straight
Species: Lion
Region: Gauteng

Re: More facepalms

#17

Post by Sudan Red »

Sudan Red wrote:In the long run it might benefit the patient to prove that they were not drunk/high at the time of an accident.
But... so drawing blood to prove the victim was NOT intoxicated would absolve the police of the accident? I don't follow... surely under the circumstances you describe, it is in the victim's best interest to prove they were not at fault? Otherwise the meaniehead police could say whatever they wanted?

I can tell you from firsthand experience that a sample/results that are wrongfully or unlawfully obtained will be thrown out of court - no matter what the outcome proves/disproves. The nurse could have taken the sample but noted that there was no warrant & no consent. Nobody would fire her for that & the record would follow to court for them to decide on the legality of it.
User avatar
Galahad
Posts: 1972
Joined: Tue Mar 29, 2016 6:31 pm
Gender: Male
Region: Gauteng
Location: Pretoria

Re: More facepalms

#18

Post by Galahad »

If the nurse refused and later the patient was considered a suspect, could the nurse be charged with obstructing the course of justice?
User avatar
Darq
Posts: 98
Joined: Thu May 20, 2010 4:33 pm
Species: Kitteh =3
Region: Gauteng

Re: More facepalms

#19

Post by Darq »

Leeward wrote:She could have argued that she did it while under duress.
Could she though? The officer was frustrated, but made no threats before he spontaneously arrested her. The police would argue against there being duress, and if she loses, she is liable. Why should she risk her licence and livelihood in this situation?
Sudan Red wrote:But... so drawing blood to prove the victim was NOT intoxicated would absolve the police of the accident? I don't follow... surely under the circumstances you describe, it is in the victim's best interest to prove they were not at fault? Otherwise the meaniehead police could say whatever they wanted?

I can tell you from firsthand experience that a sample/results that are wrongfully or unlawfully obtained will be thrown out of court - no matter what the outcome proves/disproves. The nurse could have taken the sample but noted that there was no warrant & no consent. Nobody would fire her for that & the record would follow to court for them to decide on the legality of it.
The victim doesn't need to prove anything here, they are not at fault. The evidence can only harm them in this specific case. The police can say anything they like, the victim is not responsible. Unless it is proven that they are intoxicated.

Either way, the evidence for or against the victim would probably have been thrown out, I agree. But the nurse would still be liable. It's the nurse's case I'm concerned about.

The law is clear in this situation, to obtain blood the police need to have a warrant, or consent, or to have arrested the person. None of those were true. The police can be heard discussing that they can't get a warrant, they knew they were in the wrong here.

The nurse noting down that there is no warrant, consent, or arrest but continuing with the procedure would be a confession of guilt. She knows the law, and would knowingly have broken it. She would lose her licence, and face further prosecution.

Why are we placing the burden on the innocent party? Rather than the party whose job it is to know and enforce the law? The nurse was plainly within the law in her refusal, the police officer was not.

Not to mention do we not have some right to bodily integrity? My blood is mine, and absent of a court order or a probable-cause arrest, nobody has the right to force me to undergo a medical procedure, even a minor one.
You are a child of the universe, no less than the trees and the stars, you have a right to be here.
Backpackcat. Enby, they / them. Telegram and Twitter: @Darq_At
User avatar
Valerion
Alpha Wolf
Posts: 2803
Joined: Fri Apr 11, 2008 8:50 pm
Gender: Male
Sexual preference: Gay
Species: Werewolf
Region: Gauteng
Location: ::1
Contact:

Re: More facepalms

#20

Post by Valerion »

The issue here is of police abuse, which is quite prevalent in the US, under the banner of the "thin blue line". Under that, it is very rare for a police officer to speak up against a colleague, and doing so will likely cost you a lot i.t.o your job. Also, police have been caught regularly. For a long time they have been doing this with impunity, because the word of a police officer counts more than the word of an eye witness.

Regarding the evidence - the crash was caused by a police high-speed chase. The truck driver was innocent. However, if they can find ANYTHING that shifts even a little bit of culpability onto him - perhaps he had a bong 4 weeks ago, or perhaps some cough meds in his blood, or anything they can argue was impairing him, then they can claim that he was driving erratically, and therefore was partly to blame for the crash, so the whole responsibility doesn't fall on them, and he'll be the one fighting a court case at his own cost. Yes, the evidence will get thrown out, but only after several hundreds or thousands of dollars was spent on lawyers.

But US law are VERY VERY clear about this - what the police officer wanted to do was expressly illegal, and the US Supreme Court have ruled so before. The nurse was not just a nurse - she was the head nurse of a ICU. Those people are fiercely protective of their patients, and they would do almost anything to protect them. She called her supervisor, who told her to deny the request until the officer comes back with a warrant signed by a judge. If she HAD allowed this, there would have been a good chance that the patient could lie a complaint with the Nursing Council, and she could lose her license for allowing this. In addition, the hospital would be liable for HUGE claims under HIPPAA - that law has serious teeth.

He then proceeded to arrest her, and take her away from her ward. Again, she is head nurse of an ICU. This act alone may cause patients to die, or suffer needlessly. This opens up the officer to charges of false arrest and endangerment, but he persisted.

Also, interestingly here, the nurse was supposed to know the law, but the police officer isn't required to know it at all. This was confirmed by US Courts. The officer's supervisor told him to continue to act in an unlawful manner, after the correct law was pointed out to both of them.

Also, there's a sort of cooperation between hospital staff and police in the US. Very often triaging staff will bump the police officer up a little in the queue when he is injured. However, if a police officer acts in a hostile way towards nursing staff (especially if he's a frequent offender), they will either treat him 100% according to his needs, or bump him a step or two down the ladder. Obviously nothing serious (they will still treat him), but he may need to wait a little longer for treatment.

Some facts that came out later, or changed as a result of this:

1) The truck driver is a reserve police officer, from a different state (Idaho). They released a press release praising the nurse and supporting her.
2) The police officer involved is also a part-time paramedic. He is supposed to know the law regarding this sort of thing. He got fired from that job for ethics violations.
3) The hospital changed their policy. Police officers are no longer allowed to interact with nursing staff, they must only work through the admin offices, and present the warrants there.

Of course I am not even getting into the way the 4th Amendment are regularly violated - parallel construction.
User avatar
Sudan Red
Posts: 698
Joined: Thu Jun 16, 2016 10:59 am
Gender: Female
Sexual preference: Straight
Species: Lion
Region: Gauteng

Re: More facepalms

#21

Post by Sudan Red »

Forensic evidence speaks when the victim is unable to. In a situation such as this where a victim is too severely injured to participate in the process or, godforbid, passes away, the forensic evidence may be the only thing that will ensure justice for that victim. Maybe I am just tired of working with poorly investigated cases and frustrated at missed opportunities to collect such evidence. If you think that the integrity of victims are not dissected during a court trial, I have bad news for you... :(

On bodily integrity - sometimes this is sacrificed for justice. I don't think rape victims enjoy the sample collection. It is uncomfortable & humiliating. But in many instances it is the only way that victim will get justice.

To say victims have nothing to prove, is like being T-boned at an 4-way stop intersection because you had right of way. Although it might be true, it doesn't stop other people from being idiots. Look before you drive on.

EDIT: LULZ and before I sound too much like I would love to live in a police state, let me state very clearly that these police officers were absolute douches. I respect that the nurse stood up for herself. But I do not believe that not taking the blood sample was a good thing for the victim in this case (legalities aside). The court system is a horrible, illogical place. I would always rather have a piece of evidence & not use it, than need a piece of evidence & not have it.
Last edited by Sudan Red on Thu Sep 07, 2017 6:00 pm, edited 1 time in total.
User avatar
Valerion
Alpha Wolf
Posts: 2803
Joined: Fri Apr 11, 2008 8:50 pm
Gender: Male
Sexual preference: Gay
Species: Werewolf
Region: Gauteng
Location: ::1
Contact:

Re: More facepalms

#22

Post by Valerion »

I understand your frustration, Sudan, very often these things are done badly. I have spoken to magistrates that says they are so tired of being forced to let clearly guilty people go because the investigation wasn't done properly.

However, the police, as first line of artiters of the law, have to follow it strictly, in my opinion. They have to set a proper precedent. It's like the teacher at school that tell me that I can't put my hands in my pockets, while he ignores the rules. Or the Metro officer that watches a taxi go down the wrong side of the highway and does nothing. It erodes the trust the public has in figures of power.

This is a US case, so the US laws apply.

4th Amendment of the US Constitution:
The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.
US Supreme Court in 2013 ruled on this:
Missouri v. McNeely, 569 U.S. 141 (2013), was a case decided by United States Supreme Court, on appeal from the Supreme Court of Missouri, regarding exceptions to the Fourth Amendment to the United States Constitution under exigent circumstances. The United States Supreme Court ruled that police must generally obtain a warrant before subjecting a drunken-driving suspect to a blood test, and
that the natural metabolism of blood alcohol does not establish a per se exigency that would justify a blood draw without consent.
In this case the officer admitted that he has no probable cause, and can't obtain a warrant, but he wanted the blood draw in any case, because reasons. All he had to do was get a judge or magistrate to sign off on a search warrant, and fax it to the hospital, and the nurse would have no grounds to object on.
User avatar
Rakuen Growlithe
Fire Puppy
Posts: 6718
Joined: Tue Apr 01, 2008 2:24 pm
Gender: Male
Sexual preference: Bi
Species: Growlithe (pokemon)
Region: Other
Location: Pretoria
Contact:

Re: More facepalms

#23

Post by Rakuen Growlithe »

Sudan Red wrote:On bodily integrity - sometimes this is sacrificed for justice. I don't think rape victims enjoy the sample collection. It is uncomfortable & humiliating. But in many instances it is the only way that victim will get justice.
I might be wrong here but I am pretty sure you can't do such sample collection without the victim's consent. You can't perform non-emergency medical procedures without the consent of a patient or their guardian. If the patient is unconscious then it is absolutely right that no blood is taken without a warrant or emergency need. Setting a precedent where police can just ignore people's consent unless they have a warrant or proper justification that that person was involved in a crime is terrible one to set.
"If all mankind minus one, were of one opinion, and only one person were of the contrary opinion, mankind would be no more justified in silencing that one person, than he, if he had the power, would be justified in silencing mankind."
~John Stuart Mill~

“Give me the liberty to know, to utter, and to argue freely according to conscience, above all liberties.”
~John Milton~
User avatar
Sudan Red
Posts: 698
Joined: Thu Jun 16, 2016 10:59 am
Gender: Female
Sexual preference: Straight
Species: Lion
Region: Gauteng

Re: More facepalms

#24

Post by Sudan Red »

Rakuen Growlithe wrote:
Sudan Red wrote:On bodily integrity - sometimes this is sacrificed for justice. I don't think rape victims enjoy the sample collection. It is uncomfortable & humiliating. But in many instances it is the only way that victim will get justice.
I might be wrong here but I am pretty sure you can't do such sample collection without the victim's consent. You can't perform non-emergency medical procedures without the consent of a patient or their guardian. If the patient is unconscious then it is absolutely right that no blood is taken without a warrant or emergency need. Setting a precedent where police can just ignore people's consent unless they have a warrant or proper justification that that person was involved in a crime is terrible one to set.
Most biological samples are time sensitive. As an investigator, I wanna catch bad guys and bring justice to a victim. Where does a victim's right to privacy/bodily integrity outweigh their right to justice? Like, a serious question - thoughts?
User avatar
Franky
The Bad Guy
Posts: 1748
Joined: Tue Jan 01, 2013 12:32 am
Gender: Male
Sexual preference: Straight
Species: Mortally Challenged Fox
Region: Gauteng
Location: Where bad things happen.
Contact:

Re: More facepalms

#25

Post by Franky »

This is how I understand it:

You don't have to prove that you're not drunk or high. You're innocent untill proven guilty so no drawing blood without a warrant or the person's concent is illegal and the nurse did the right thing.

If they had sufficient evidence a warrent could have been issued in the time frame for a toxicology to come through.

Example, an officer is allowed to tell you to do the blow test. If that reads over the limit the true screening is validated with a warrant. Oh btw a police officer is allowed to arrest you for anything which is what will happen in the scenario above. What happens after that is where the law comes in play.
User avatar
Rakuen Growlithe
Fire Puppy
Posts: 6718
Joined: Tue Apr 01, 2008 2:24 pm
Gender: Male
Sexual preference: Bi
Species: Growlithe (pokemon)
Region: Other
Location: Pretoria
Contact:

Re: More facepalms

#26

Post by Rakuen Growlithe »

Sudan Red wrote:Most biological samples are time sensitive. As an investigator, I wanna catch bad guys and bring justice to a victim. Where does a victim's right to privacy/bodily integrity outweigh their right to justice? Like, a serious question - thoughts?
A man for all seasons wrote:ROPER: So now you'd give the Devil benefit of law!

MORE: Yes. What would you do? Cut a great road through the law to get after the Devil?

ROPER: I'd cut down every law in England to do that!

MORE: (Roused and excited) Oh? (Advances on ROPER) And when the last law was down, and the Devil turned round on you-where would you hide, Roper, the laws all being flat? (He leaves him) This country's planted thick with laws from coast to coast-man's laws, not God's-and if you cut them down-and you're just the man to do it-d'you really think you could stand upright in the winds that would blow then? (Quietly) Yes, I'd give the Devil benefit of law, for my own safety's sake.
The laws should be there to regulate conduct in a way that protects people. It is better for some of the guilty to go free than for the rights of the innocent to be violated. If you ignore a victim's right to privacy and autonomy then you make them a victim a second time and the law fails to do what it should exist to do. Even if your intentions are good, others intentions will not be and when those people have a chance to act then we require laws that can stand up to them. Don't get too caught up in the chase to catch a bad guy that you become one yourself.
"If all mankind minus one, were of one opinion, and only one person were of the contrary opinion, mankind would be no more justified in silencing that one person, than he, if he had the power, would be justified in silencing mankind."
~John Stuart Mill~

“Give me the liberty to know, to utter, and to argue freely according to conscience, above all liberties.”
~John Milton~
User avatar
Franky
The Bad Guy
Posts: 1748
Joined: Tue Jan 01, 2013 12:32 am
Gender: Male
Sexual preference: Straight
Species: Mortally Challenged Fox
Region: Gauteng
Location: Where bad things happen.
Contact:

Re: More facepalms

#27

Post by Franky »

Oops quoted myself instead of editing. Admin, Plz delete.
User avatar
Sudan Red
Posts: 698
Joined: Thu Jun 16, 2016 10:59 am
Gender: Female
Sexual preference: Straight
Species: Lion
Region: Gauteng

Re: More facepalms

#28

Post by Sudan Red »

Rakuen Growlithe wrote:
Sudan Red wrote:Most biological samples are time sensitive. As an investigator, I wanna catch bad guys and bring justice to a victim. Where does a victim's right to privacy/bodily integrity outweigh their right to justice? Like, a serious question - thoughts?
A man for all seasons wrote:ROPER: So now you'd give the Devil benefit of law!

MORE: Yes. What would you do? Cut a great road through the law to get after the Devil?

ROPER: I'd cut down every law in England to do that!

MORE: (Roused and excited) Oh? (Advances on ROPER) And when the last law was down, and the Devil turned round on you-where would you hide, Roper, the laws all being flat? (He leaves him) This country's planted thick with laws from coast to coast-man's laws, not God's-and if you cut them down-and you're just the man to do it-d'you really think you could stand upright in the winds that would blow then? (Quietly) Yes, I'd give the Devil benefit of law, for my own safety's sake.
The laws should be there to regulate conduct in a way that protects people. It is better for some of the guilty to go free than for the rights of the innocent to be violated. If you ignore a victim's right to privacy and autonomy then you make them a victim a second time and the law fails to do what it should exist to do. Even if your intentions are good, others intentions will not be and when those people have a chance to act then we require laws that can stand up to them. Don't get too caught up in the chase to catch a bad guy that you become one yourself.
As noble as this sounds, you are bullshitting yourself. :) What is legal isn't always right and what is right isn't always strictly legal. The legality/admissability of any evidence is decided by the court - not you or I. Of course I am not going to pin down a victim to take samples but I am definitely going to try my best to convince them that it will be the best possible way to bring them justice.
User avatar
Rakuen Growlithe
Fire Puppy
Posts: 6718
Joined: Tue Apr 01, 2008 2:24 pm
Gender: Male
Sexual preference: Bi
Species: Growlithe (pokemon)
Region: Other
Location: Pretoria
Contact:

Re: More facepalms

#29

Post by Rakuen Growlithe »

I absolutely agree. Law and morality are too separate things which do not always intersect. My point was merely not to dismantle what protections people have in pursuit of catching bad guys. Same reason I'm opposed to widespread police/government surveillance and stuff like that.
"If all mankind minus one, were of one opinion, and only one person were of the contrary opinion, mankind would be no more justified in silencing that one person, than he, if he had the power, would be justified in silencing mankind."
~John Stuart Mill~

“Give me the liberty to know, to utter, and to argue freely according to conscience, above all liberties.”
~John Milton~
User avatar
Franky
The Bad Guy
Posts: 1748
Joined: Tue Jan 01, 2013 12:32 am
Gender: Male
Sexual preference: Straight
Species: Mortally Challenged Fox
Region: Gauteng
Location: Where bad things happen.
Contact:

Re: More facepalms

#30

Post by Franky »

Image
Cape Town - German expats in Cape Town got a Nazi fright when they noticed this street sign.
The board, which reads “German School” and gives directions to the German International School Cape Town in Tamboerskloof, depicts a teacher making what looks to be a Nazi salute, to students.

One German Facebook user, who saw the lighter side of the unfortunate sign, took a picture of the board in Kloof Nek Road and posted it on Facebook.

The woman, who asked not to be named, quipped: “So apparently these are the governmental signs for private school ... they obviously add the respective names on the sign before putting them up. And the teacher is clearly pointing at the blackboard. But with the German school’s name to it ... it clearly becomes something else. I find it funny too... very funny actually!”

She added: “I find it mind-blowing that the city puts it up and doesn’t see that it’s clearly not the right sign in combo with the ‘German school’ next to it. and further that the German school hasn’t corrected it”




The City of Cape Town insists there is no link between the sign and the infamous salute used by Adolf Hitler in Nazi Germany.

According to Area North Mayco member, Suzette Little, the symbol is the recognised road signage standard as specified by the National Road Traffic Act and Road Traffic Regulations.

“The figurine represents a teacher pointing to a board in front of a class of learners. The symbols used in SADC RTSM were workshopped and agreed to by the various national and stakeholders, prior to inclusion in the manual.”

She says the City has not received any complaints about this particular sign.

Alexander Kirmse, Headmaster of the German International School Cape Town says they previously asked for the sign to be changed.

“But the fact is that this is not our sign, it is the official sign for schools. Previously the City has been approached by the former headmaster with a request to change the sign, but to no avail. The matter has not been taken further by us as we feel we cannot expect them to change an official sign just for us.”
https://www.iol.co.za/news/south-africa ... s-11131331
Post Reply