-
Anonymous
-
Anonymous
-
Anonymous
-
Anonymous
@Anonymous: Congratulations on enabling a totalitarian regime with your disregard for your own basic rights and fear of poor people.
-
Anonymous
@JackBlack: I thought they were talking about actual fighting knives, and just neglecting to consider that knives like that would also fall under the ban.
-
Anonymous
@Anonymous: There's pretty much no chance of being anyone's bitch and everyone there can be your bitch if you want because the inmates are all English.
-
Anonymous
@Anonymous: >save a life bin your knife
My understanding of odd British mannerisms isn't total, but unless I'm mistaken this means "In order to prevent possible loss of life you should dispose of your knife by placing it in a trash can".
Did the author of this not consider that a person who wants to avoid loss of life could easily just not stab anybody? Does he think that knives should only be in the hands of people who are in favor of murder?
Also my knife is over three inches (albeit barely) and locks. Both those are legal for me because I'm not a criminal.2 -
Anonymous
@JackBlack: I have a knife that's a bit like that. I use it mostly to open packaging but when I'm out hiking (which I do recreationally) I use it to cut food and to whittle.
-
Anonymous
@JackBlack: What if he's walking around town and wants to cut some twine of fruit?
Also, who just sort of walks around for no reason? -
Anonymous
@Anonymous: Around here we hear about European tourists who go up too close to bears or buffaloes in Yosemite to take pictures. When Yellowstone was closed for a while, nobody died. Does that mean we should close Yellowstone forever?
-
Anonymous
-
Anonymous
-
Anonymous
-
Anonymous
-
Anonymous
-
Anonymous
-
Anonymous
@Anonymous: See, this what I've wondered about when someone like Jackie Chan (whose entire body is a weapon) travels in a commercial airliner. Do they lock him up in one of those full-body restraint kits like Hannibal Lecter, or what?
-
Anonymous
@Anonymous: It would be safer for everyone if you had Jackie Chan sitting in your airplane. He would just snap the terrorists' necks before they'd finished making their demands.
Just be careful what you say if you're sitting near him though. He might mistake you for a terrorist and snap your neck. -
Anonymous
-
Anonymous
@Anonymous: i'm not hurling abuse to strengthen my argument; I am hurling abuse because I am fucking outraged by the support regular people give to practices which oppress the masses. Calling people out on swearing to strengthen your argument sounds like your trying to disregard their opinion based on a technicality. You fucking tool ;)
-
Anonymous
@Anonymous: and of course i now wish i had said "you're" D:
-
Anonymous
@Anonymous: hey...no i don't. God, early mornings are not for me.
-
Anonymous
@Anonymous: All I was saying was why not try and be a bit more civilised when having a discussion, just because you don't agree with someone's opinion doesn't mean you have to verbally abuse them. In addition could you explain exactly how a simple stop and search procedure "oppresses the masses", because to me if anyone has a problem with being searched it means they are carrying something illegal. Furthermore I don't see why anyone should have a problem with doing something very simple like turning out their pockets.
-
Anonymous
-
Anonymous
-
Anonymous
-
Anonymous
-
Anonymous
@Anonymous: right cause unless you were hideing something why wouldnt you agree huh? oh you disagree? probale cause lets just see what your hideing. thats how it works.
2 -
Anonymous
-
Anonymous
-
Anonymous
-
Anonymous
@Anonymous: The drug war creates cop haters. If the police never arrested people for voluntary acts that harm no one, then innocent people would have no reason to fear the police.
1 -
Anonymous
@hamslice: a friend of mine actually dodged a "intent to distribute" charge because of this. Here, anything under an ounce is considered "personal use" and subject to only a slap on the wrist and a fine.
-
Anonymous
@Anonymous: but why would you refuse unless you were hideing somthing eh? Thats all there going to think.
1 -
Anonymous
-
Anonymous
@Anonymous: What they think means literally nothing. Refusal is not probable cause and they can't execute a search based on that alone.
-
Anonymous
-
Anonymous
@Anonymous: No, they won't. If they did, the evidence they discovered would be unusable in court, and any lead the case follows after this point based on that evidence would be fruit of the poisonous tree and also inadmissible.
I seriously think you already know this, and are just bullshitting in an attempt to play devils advocate. -
Anonymous
@Anonymous: No, they do it all of the time. Evidence obtained illegally isn't thrown out of court nearly as often as you'd think.
-
Anonymous
@Anonymous: you know that and I know that but the person they talk to does not always know.
That's why the cop tries to TRICK them into giving permission. -
Anonymous
-
Anonymous
@noahvolek: When last I checked, a warrant is not needed to search a vehicle for obvious reasons.
-
Anonymous
-
@Anonymous: depends on the circumstances(traffic stop, its in your driveway, boarder crossing,etc) and where your from.
in canada...
never agree to a vehicle search. if cops search your car without your consent and they lack the legal justification(warrant or sufficient probable cause) to do so, any evidence they find can be thrown out in court. -
Anonymous
-
Anonymous





