Lucky...

>>>>>>>>>>>>>Not sure at all what that has to do with the discussion of entrapment? Drawing a parallel. >>>>>>>>>>>>>As have you with your link between DUI blood draws and entrapment. It was a sort of analogy, not really an opinion. Furthermore, when I do post opinion, I usually attach some supporting evidence with it, not, "my dddiy said we do it that way" etc.... >>>>>>>>>>>>>I have heard of wrongfull arrests and even wronfull convictions yet none of these cases even involved the word entrapment. OK, and your point? Some case are pig misconduct, some are prosecutorial misconduct, some are witness lying, so there doesn't have to be entrapment for them to wrongful, that 's just one facet. One theory as to why you haven't heard the word, "entrapment" is due to the appellate courts limiting the defense of entrapment since the 70's. >>>>>>>>>>>>Every time I hear the word "entrapment" it has something to do with some lowlife who was caught dead in the act of doing something he knew he shouldn't be doing and now wants to cry that the law did not protect him from himself. I think you don't understand the concept of refusing to admit evidence that is ill-gotten. I realize you want to fry em all and let this fantasy of God sort them out, but just in case the .00000000001% there isn't a god (I puke), maybe we should do things right here on earth. Ernesto Miranda was a rapist and was convicted even w/o certain evidence that was excluded. Point is, pigs and the gov are also dirty and will set people up or when they realize the erred, continue the process and cover up their errors and let innocent people go to jail to avoid a scandal. The exclusionary rule was put into place to deter police misconduct. What would be your resolution if pigs are found to have entrapped, set up or otherwise acted with such misconduct that a person would have been wrongfully convicted if the fix wasn't caught? Would kick down a memo and ask all involved to apologize? Put a letter in their file? Pigs are inherently dirty and think everyone criminals, so these pigs would just go on and continue their good work. You fucking throw out all their evidence and the case, that will be the supposed deterrence that might make them act right some of the time. But I know, good ole boy conservatives focus on the criminals, not the other criminals in blue. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>Drug busts- they whine entrapment because the officer approached them. (Wouldn't entrap me because I don't sell drugs) That s/b entrapment if the pig approaches and advances the deal >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>Undercover cops dressed as hookers to bust johns- they whine entrapment. (Wouldn't entrap me because I don't use hookers) If the hooker approaches and offers, that s/b entrapment >>>>>>>>>>>>>>The show "To catch a predator". They act like little kids on the internet to get pedophiles to come looking for kiddie sex and when the cameras and cops surprise them at the door.......they whine entrapment (Wouldn't entrap me because I don't have such unhealthy interests in children) The predator goes to kids forums, that is not entrapment >>>>>>>>>>>>>It seems today that regardless of the legal definition, in the vernacular of criminals and bar-room lawyers, entrapment=sting-operation. Do they expect narcs/vice/sex-crime officers to announce who they are and what their intentions are in advance in the interest of integrity? I think it has to do with who approaches and advances the deal who in the former years, now it's just whatever the pig wants. They can whine entrapment all they want, these defenses are just about extinct to your pleasure. >>>>>>>>>>>>Again. Decent law abiding citizens don't get "entrapped" as I understand the definition of entrapment (based on where and when the term gets used), just scumbags. I will never have to fear being "entrapped" And this comes from a person who has probably never read one case where entrapment was alleged or even knows the legal definition of the same or history thereof.

Here's a Wisconsin case where there was no urine or breath test offerred, worse no warrant obtained. Then becuase the subject didn't have a religious card handy, they refused to acknowledge his religious affiliation. BTW, no accident either. http://www.wisbar.org/res/capp/2003/02-2681.htm DECISION DATED AND FILED April 30, 2003 Cornelia G. Clark Clerk of Court of Appeals NOTICE Appeal No. 02-2681-CR Cir. Ct. No. 01-CT-532 STATE OF WISCONSIN IN COURT OF APPEALS DISTRICT II State of Wisconsin, Plaintiff-Respondent, v. Robert H. Miller, Defendant-Appellant. APPEAL from a judgment of the circuit court for Waukesha County: MARK GEMPELER, Judge. Affirmed. CIRCUMSTANCES ¶1. ANDERSON, J.1 Robert H. Miller appeals from a judgment of the trial court denying a motion to suppress the results of the analysis of a blood sample. Miller argues that the arresting officer used unreasonable force to secure the blood draw and that a forcible blood draw over religious objections is unconstitutional. Because we find that the amount of force was not unreasonable under the circumstances and that Miller has not shown an honestly held religious conviction, we affirm. ¶2. The parties stipulate that there was probable cause to arrest the defendant for drunk driving. When Deputy Ty Dick informed Miller that he would be taken to Waukesha Memorial Hospital to have blood drawn for testing, Miller refused the test. When Dick said that since it was Miller's second offense, the blood would be taken by force, Miller said he would "resist or fight ... all the way." ¶3. Miller then objected to the blood test on the grounds of being a Jehovah's Witness. Dick asked if Miller had any proof of that. Members of the Jehovah's Witness sect are known to object to blood transfusions and many carry church-supplied cards to that effect, lest in the event of an accident or illness they be given medical treatment incompatible with their beliefs. Miller said he had no card and offered no other evidence of membership in the church. ¶4. On the way to the hospital, Dick notified his dispatch center that Miller was going to resist the forced blood draw. The dispatcher contacted the City of Waukesha Police Department and when Miller and Dick arrived at the hospital's police escort room, they were met by two officers and a sergeant from the police department and by Deputy Carini from the sheriff's department. Dick instructed Miller to sit down. Miller said that he would stand; the deputy repeated his instructions, and one of the officers from the city escorted Miller to the chair. ¶5. Dick issued citations to Miller, read him the Implied Consent form, and asked if he would submit to the blood test. Miller refused. When the phlebotomist arrived to take the blood sample, Sergeant Engel advised Miller that either he could submit or the officers would remove the equipment from the room, immobilize him on the floor, and take the blood sample. Miller repeated that it was against his religion to give a blood sample. ¶6. Dick then removed the tables and chairs from the room and the other officers placed Miller face down on the floor with one officer holding each limb. As the phlebotomist attempted unsuccessfully to draw blood from Miller's left arm, he began to move his arm. The phlebotomist decided she needed a smaller needle, and while she was getting one, Miller said that he would cooperate if he were allowed to sit up. Dick told him that he had been given an opportunity to cooperate and "this is the route that we were taking and that this is what we were going to do." ¶7. When the phlebotomist tried again with a smaller needle, Miller again began to move. At that point, Carini took hold of Miller's head to hold him still. Miller objected that what was happening was "not natural" based on his experience of giving blood six years ago. The phlebotomist was finally able to draw two vials of blood from Miller. _________________________________________________________ So does it really matter if it's codified? Hell, they didn't even get a telephonic warrant, so what does it matter if it's law or not? That is a huge fucking cop-out to worry if it's law, that i just a lame escape. Point is, it is policy and they do this shit all the time.

Bring it!!!!! ( I don't like needles much either), did ya have to go so quick to the pig thing......... Seriously, I never seen or heard of such a thing, except in Europe. Implied consent (at least where I work) has it's limits. Unconscionable to slam someone to the ground, hold their arm out and shove a needle in there. I understand the need thing, but where does protection from crime cross-over to protection from government? I think they've passed it here and hopefully things go back after we shift the country left again. Damn pi.......cops. BTW, it's the courts that are fucked, not as much teh cops, but the cops are the deliverers of the govs BS, so who is really worse? But if the courts fixed shit, then those cops would be weeded out, as of now, most of the courts condone that behavior.

Let's not get too carried away. A metaphire meaning someone who disagrees!!! Yea, not like that

Right, cause only criminals get arrested and only criminals get convicted. That's not what I was saying, but don't let facts get in the way of a good straw man argument. I've posted fact, been told that I had my head up my ass for stating that you can have blood forcibly draw on a DUI stop, a former nemesis agreed. You've posted opinion, do better.

This line sounds like a line of crap, and no offense I think you are talking out of your ass. The only time an officer can order that your blood be drawn without your consent is if you are involved in an accident resulting in serious bodily injury (as deifned by statute) or death. That statute is to protect the rights of the victim or their family and to ensure consequences for your actions. As much as it pains me to agree with Lucky on anything, this time he's correct. http://www.motorists.org/blog/duidwi/motorists-forced-to-let-officers-draw-blood-sample-at-dui-stops/ As a reprieve, he's wrong that the SCOTUS is allowing it. Point out when I'm not correct. I may come across as an a'hole, don't care if I do, but if I assert something I will have done some research on it. If I dunno....guess what? I say.....I dunno.... Now you blew it for freefalle, I coulda been done with him. Oh wait, he won't respond. Actually the SCOTUS in years past did affirm non-consentual blood draw from DUI stops, I'm doing more research into it.

Right, cause only criminals get arrested and only criminals get convicted.

>>>>>>>>>This line sounds like a line of crap, and no offense I think you are talking out of your ass. The only time an officer can order that your blood be drawn without your consent is if you are involved in an accident resulting in serious bodily injury (as deifned by statute) or death. That statute is to protect the rights of the victim or their family and to ensure consequences for your actions. I'll make a deal with ya, If I can't provide a case where the cops did this and it was upheld by an appellate court, I will leave here forever, if I can provide 1, you leave forever. Trust me, there are several out there, I just need 1. Exactly, crawl back into your hole. As a matter of fact, I personally know a person this happened to. You can pig-love all ya want, but SOME states have this procedure in their disposal, even without an accident. Well, nuts or no nuts? (Hint: ask Masterrig) >>>>>>>>>>>>As far as the rules of entrampent, they are to protect the public from the police (in a way) In a BIG WAY, as a matter of fact. The exclusionary rule is there to dissuade police misconduct, meaning the SCOTUS knows pigs are prone to misconduct. So, you are right, sir. >>>>>>>>>>>>the rule of entrapment states that the police will not do anything to encourage and individual to commit a criminal act that they would not have committed baring the encounter. I paraphrased by saying that if the behavior is something they wouldn't do anyway - same idea. >>>>>>>>>>>>In the case in the park yes I agree, that should fall into an entrapment as she (the officer) asked the defendant to expose himself. I agree in a common sense view, but it won't be dismissed under the rules of entrapment. A cop can ask a person to lill someone, if that peson does it is not entrapment. To fall under entrapment you must go to a nunnery and persuade them to whore out.....entrapment defenses are all but gone under your parties SCOTUS. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>Had he simple exposed himself without her making the request, he then should be found guilty of exposure and lewd and lacivious if he subsequently began masterbating after exposing himself Makes sense, but not the way it works.

Legally speaking, entrapment has become a matter of a person doing something that they wouldn't otherwise do. IOW's, a guy in the red light district, perhaps a history of being a john, can't claim it as it is something he would do anyway. Before we went to the 7-2 split in the SCOTUS entrapment wasn't like that, it was more along the lines of the behavior of the officer, now it has more to do with the behavior or likely behavior of the perpetrator. There was a case where drug dealers were out of product when approached by agents, so the agents brought these guys the crude product with teh promise fo splitting the take, the dealers made teh meth, called the agenst and bam, they were busted, tried to claim entrapment - no worky. So you guys wanna complain about the cops being brutal, that is primarily a product the 7-2 SCOTUS. The cops get "bright line rules" from these decisions and act accordingly. The Scotus allows cops to forcibly hold you down on a DUI stop and draw blood against your will. So keep voting R, keep seeing BS like the park incident happen.

Here's for MAsterblaster and all the others who don't bother answering points raised, data and citations posted (repost to hope there is some form of empirical methodology here): Paul praises Clinton - REP. PAUL: We have to cut spending. You can't get rid of the income tax if you don't get rid of some spending. But, you know, if you got rid of the income tax today you'd have about as much revenue as, as we had 10 years ago, and the size of government wasn't all that bad 10 years ago. Paul uses a ridiculous comparison - But, you know, we lived a long time in this country without an income tax. Up until 1913 we didn't have it. Me: We couldn't handle the Great Depression, women couldn't vote and we were still too dumb to relize that prohibition wouldn't work, so that is a comparison of futility. Most importantly the family strcture looked like the Walton's, so it was a different world then. Paul makes sense - That's good. I mean, we--but we could save hundreds of billions of dollars if we had a sensible foreign policy. Paul sounds confused - MR. RUSSERT: But if you had a flat tax, 30 percent consumption tax, that would be very, very punishing to the poor and middle class. REP. PAUL: Well, I know. That's why I don't want it. MR. RUSSERT: So you have nothing? REP. PAUL: I want to cut spending. I want to get a--use the Constitution as our guide, and you wouldn't need the income tax. I thought he wanted the flat tax. Hmmm, so he really has no global plan, just cut spending, that is not a realistic, comprehensive plan. Paul is a bit optimistic - REP. PAUL: To operate our total foreign policy, when you add up everything, there's been a good study on this, it's nearly a trillion dollars a year. So I would think if you brought our troops home, you could save hundreds of billions of dollars. It's, you know, it's six months or one year or two year, but you can start saving immediately by changing the foreign policy and not be the policeman over the world. We should have the foreign policy that George Bush ran on. You know, no nation building, no policing of the world, a humble foreign policy. We don't need to be starting wars. That's my argument. Me: I don;t think it's a trillion dollars, hell, we spend 550B per year on the military, so we could perhaps cut that in half. Paul is uneducated / uninformed - MR. RUSSERT: How many troops do we have overseas right now? REP. PAUL: I don't know the exact number, but more than we need. We don't need any. MR. RUSSERT: It's 572,000. And you'd bring them all home? Me: How can you not know that for a guy in his position making the claims he makes? What a buffoon. Come on, you Paul cheerleaders must agree. Avoid the MNealTx school of post answer where usually 1 word is the form and a complete sentence a dream, a paragraph unheard of. I want to know why this guy is so great based upon what he's said, what he stands for, rather than the cheerleader rhetoric. Cut taxes, sut soending, all will be great, it will be awesome. I've yet to hea some hollow-minded Libertarian post a rough detail of the current tax revenues, current expenditures and then explain how the Libertarian change will modify that as well how it will affect the changes to benefits and programs, both military and social. The LIbertarian rant is as pathetic as the Republican rant, it's nice to see infighting within the Reug/Liber Parties to, I guess a sign of the start of the end.

Don't bother asking Lucky questions. He (she?) will ask plenty of questions and expect you to answer them, but when you ask questions to Lucky, don't hold your breath. You might fare better trying to engage someone else in real dialogue here. Get a clue, I have posted litterally all the data here, posted the site for the transcript, posted parts of it and no one has even touched it. You couldn't be more clureless; why not go back and read the trascript or address some issues I posted from it? Cause... well, you are clueles. Now, as to why I've been away. I worked 66 hrs last week, drive 1 hr to work, 1 hr back, had my aunt die on XMas eve, not super close to het, but it was my mom's last surviving person from her generation, and I'm fighting some GD bug or a bad cold and still have to work 10 hrs a day. Get a clue......

Yea, kinda creeps me out - I see it too.

>>>>>>>>>>I am voting for RP because he is an honest man with good intentions. Again, from he guys, you, who claim he's real, quit resting on rhetoric and address the issues I made from the transcript of his conversation. Russert also posted a quote from him where he called Reagan a traitor, he dinied ever saying that. Not to mention he wouldn't take a firm stand on whether he would run indep if the R's toss him in the primaries. You guys sound so staus quo when you refuse to address substance, yet claim he's all about real substance. >>>>>>>>>>>>Dont you think that it is crazy that he is considered a LEFT WING when he is focused on the CONSTITUTION No, because rights from the conservative side are considered unneccesary and the left, the ACLU are the ones supporting them, hence that is why I'm a Dem - get it? >>>>>>>>>>the founding transcript of this nation. Don't forget the living constitution. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>I think the constitution is about as Right Wing as you get! I think its origin are nonpartisan. You just don't want to align yourself with the left. Let's see, elements that are supported by the left: - privacy - 8th - 4th search and seizure - free speech - 14th due process - right to counsel -etc... Elements that are supported by the right: - 2nd, guns So do the math, ow is it a righty thing? Been listening to the pundits a bit too much have we? >>>>>>>>>>>>>Its a shame that the past decades of our government have clouded our image of a proper government.. Find yourself having to apologize for your last 3 boobs? Areyou another Repub to Libertarian convert? How rare >>>>>>>>>>>>still dont believe me? Just reflect on how far our current government has strayed from the foundation of the USA. Oh, the roiginal foundation. OK, let's see here, when teh US Const was drafted, ... - slavery was legal - women couldn't vote - white women couldn't marry non-white males (overturned in 1968, almost 200 years later) - blacks couldn't drink from teh same fountains as whites (overturned almost 200 years later) - Only elites could vote - On and on and on...... What a beautiful document, now what was your point? >>>>>>>>>>>>sttilllll dont agree with RP? How about you research the patriot act and tell me if the ideologies of Checks and Balances, Civil Rights, and the Constution are violated Still refuse to examine the transcript that I posted? And youwant to distance yourself from Republicans who use rhetoric and distraction? Go back and address the issues I raised with the transcript. Furthermore, do you understand what the living constitution is? I'm anti-patriot act too btw.

Edwards - he is pro-labor. I will vote for him in the primaries, but any Dem thereafter. I like Cucinich's (sp) take on socialized meds, he's for absolute universal care, unlike any other candidate that I know of. He's like RP, he doesn't stand a chance, so I will vote for Edwards, another candidate that won't win the primaries. I can't understand why anyone would vote for the Nazi Party (R's), just look at the past almost 3 dacades and figure it out. I think we can call them ideologues, as they won't leave a dying horse.

How long have you known about this phenomenon? You could have gone to the store last week and stocked up. As I stated, in years past there was something open on Xmas day. Also, I worked 66 hours last week as well as a 1-hour drive each way, so I hardly had the time. Now, back to the point.

Well if it's so commercial then why is it that I can't find a fucking place open? It seems in years past I could find 1 grocery store open limited hours, a few fast food places, etc. Now I saw 1 Jack in eth Box open and convenience stores, period. I'm glad to see workers get the day off, but I hate the inconvenience. I'd say your prophecy is waaaaaaaaaaaay off the mark.

Where are all the RP cheerleaders? It seems all they scream about is how open and honest, what a non-politician he is, yet when he goes on TV, there is a transcript, they all flee. Is it that they know what a joke some of his claims are? Why aren't they here like in other RP threads?

All we can do is hope, becuase if the moralist nuts had their way going to church would be compulsory.

Here's a place to get several of them http://wearefishermen.com/home.html I especially like the, "Will work for food" Jesus!!! Those are fucking hillarious..... go long (quarterback Jesus)

How about a MMA Jesus? That would be awesome. How bout, of course, skydiving jesus?

Paul praises Clinton - REP. PAUL: We have to cut spending. You can't get rid of the income tax if you don't get rid of some spending. But, you know, if you got rid of the income tax today you'd have about as much revenue as, as we had 10 years ago, and the size of government wasn't all that bad 10 years ago. Paul uses a ridiculous comparison - But, you know, we lived a long time in this country without an income tax. Up until 1913 we didn't have it. Me: We couldn't handle the Great Depression, women couldn't vote and we were still too dumb to relize that prohibition wouldn't work, so that is a comparison of futility. Most importantly the family strcture looked like the Walton's, so it was a different world then. Paul makes sense - That's good. I mean, we--but we could save hundreds of billions of dollars if we had a sensible foreign policy. Paul sounds confused - MR. RUSSERT: But if you had a flat tax, 30 percent consumption tax, that would be very, very punishing to the poor and middle class. REP. PAUL: Well, I know. That's why I don't want it. MR. RUSSERT: So you have nothing? REP. PAUL: I want to cut spending. I want to get a--use the Constitution as our guide, and you wouldn't need the income tax. I thought he wanted the flat tax. Hmmm, so he really has no global plan, just cut spending, that is not a realistic, comprehensive plan. Paul is a bit optimistic - REP. PAUL: To operate our total foreign policy, when you add up everything, there's been a good study on this, it's nearly a trillion dollars a year. So I would think if you brought our troops home, you could save hundreds of billions of dollars. It's, you know, it's six months or one year or two year, but you can start saving immediately by changing the foreign policy and not be the policeman over the world. We should have the foreign policy that George Bush ran on. You know, no nation building, no policing of the world, a humble foreign policy. We don't need to be starting wars. That's my argument. Me: I don;t think it's a trillion dollars, hell, we spend 550B per year on the military, so we could perhaps cut that in half. Paul is uneducated / uninformed - MR. RUSSERT: How many troops do we have overseas right now? REP. PAUL: I don't know the exact number, but more than we need. We don't need any. MR. RUSSERT: It's 572,000. And you'd bring them all home? Me: How can you not know that for a guy in his position making the claims he makes? What a buffoon. Come on, you Paul cheerleaders must agree.

Here's a link for the transcript. http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/22342301/print/1/displaymode/1098/

>>>>>>>>>>>let looks beyond what he is running as and look at his platform. Aren't you saying he's not full of shit like other politicians? I agree, substance is what matters, but he plays games like any other dirty politician. I like some of his points and his positi0on on some/many issues, but his idea and the Libertarian idea that social security and universal-type healthcare be abolished or greatly limited is pathetic. The Libertarian idea that health-related issues can be handled by the church is pure idiocy. I can take any environment, ignore the biggest issue and then claim the problem solved and declare genius too, but that is juts pathetic. If he had his head out of his ass and wanted pure socialized medicine I would probably vote for him, but that is the key issue now, bugger than even the debt the R's have run from 1T in 1980 to 9.1+ today. As for his articulation someone suggested, he called nuclear weaponry, "nukular" and referred to paying down the deficit. The deficit is the annual figure that establishes how much we went into the hole for that year, the debt is the grand tally. You don't pay down the deficit, you balance the budget to avoid a deficit and you pay down the debt. Kind of like credit cards, you avoid using them to not run up the balance and then you pay down the total at the end of the month. So is he articulate? Hardly, but some of his ideas are good. If he insists on ignoring health issues of the country, he needs to allocate some money for garbage trucks to haul away the dead bodies. For that he is an idiot. >>>>>>>>>>>>>Ron Paul actually gives up front answers. He tells you where he stands. It is not like some candidates who use language that is so middle of the road you can't tell what they are for and against. For the most part, but he did that with the question of whether he will run if the R's toss him in the primary.

Why would you say he neither looked nor sounded presidential, because he give real answers instead of just tap dancing around issues. He writes his own stuff instead of his PR posse. Well, he forgot to write himself out of the mess when Russert asked him about running as an indep if the R's toss him. He also forgot to write himself out of the mess when Russert asked how he could run as an R when all he's done is hammer the R's. It's obvious to those with a pulse that he's running as an R for 2 reasons: 1) More exposure as an R than as a Libertarian 2) A second chance if he runs as an R, then goes Indep. You are unwilling to see his shimmy-shammerring, it was there.

>>>>>>>>>Russert, the business-as-usual MSM shill, was so busy trying to throw disjointed spitballs at Paul that I'm surprised Paul didn't go off on him. Yes, Paul s/b praised for not going off (rolls eys). If you want to cheerlead, you want vanilla questions, as it appears you wanted. But if you want to see what the candidate is made of at the core, you want tough questions. >>>>>>>>>>As usual, Paul was a reasonable gentleman who defied conventional wisdom by being respectful, congruent and articulate. Typical politician "slick"--not in his DNA. I think I saw him levitate at one point (vomits). Paul kept regurgitating this constitution rhetoric and running from certain issues, answerd sme. >>>>>>>>>>>I've been following Paul since the early 80s. He's got my vote (even if it's a write-in). Don't worry, he'll waffle and run as an indep when the R's toss him. >>>>>>>>Not gonna buy into the left-right, Dem-Repub paradigm pablum being peddled ad nauseum to the masses. Anyway . . . never 'misunderestimate' the power of the Perpetually Pissed Off!. Yea, buy into such nuttiness that your vote won't count - I'm good with that