Nordic wrote:The professional Left scares me more than the fools of the right. Just like NPR and CNN are far more insidious than blatantly ridiculous Fox News.
When you're being subjected to a good cop/bad cop style interrogation, who is more dishonest, most cunning and manipulative? The good cop, of course. They're the one who pretends to be your friend.
I'll take the obvious evil blowhard any day of the week over the sneaky smiling Obamas of the world.
As someone who's been interrogated a time or two, I have to ask what you mean by "take" -- is this in terms of who you'd rather have a beer with, or who you'd rather have in the room with you? Cuz the bad cops, in my experience, are the ones who smash your face off the table and put you into compliance holds while calling you a hippie faggot.
I'll "take" the good cop's psychological horseshit 10 times out of 9. Then again, this may be why I prefer Obama to Bush.
justdrew wrote:The thing that concerns me is how simple it would be to contaminate existing evidence with DNA of someone the authorities decided to frame.
This ^^ . Next time I'm robbing a bank I'll make sure to bring a small bag of hair, skin cells, maybe a drop of blood or two. And how long until someone hacks into the DNA database and get access to everyone's DNA? And after that - how long until we can synthesize anybody's DNA in our basements? We live in interesting times.
"I only read American. I want my fantasy pure." - Dave
justdrew wrote:is it possible that there's a real issue regarding crime detection and identification of guilty parties? How many unsolved crimes (violent and robberies,etc) are happening? I suspect it may be a lot more than we realize. Gawd knows the statistics aren't VERY reliable.
The thing is....At a wholesale level, I'm not sure they'd be all that useful anyway. We just don't live in one-nation-indivisible when it comes to police/violent-crime stuff. And wrt closure-rates specifically, the racial inequity probably ends up skewing the numbers both ways. (Meaning: There's a much higher rate....Oh, ffs. You know what I mean.)
The thing that concerns me is how simple it would be to contaminate existing evidence with DNA of someone the authorities decided to frame.
If they're using partial-match hits, which I'm sure they generally are, they wouldn't necessarily even need a contaminated sample to do that.
....
I don't know. The truth is that even the most forensically perfect, abuse-and-corruption-free national DNA database on earth would be a pretty limited-utility asset for investigative purposes. DNA evidence is very persuasive in court, especially when the defendant can't afford to challenge it.. But it just doesn't/wouldn't/can't consistently, definitively identify the perpetrator of any broad category of violent crime apart from rape.
“If someone comes out of a liquor store with a weapon and 50 dollars in cash I don’t care if a Drone kills him or a policeman kills him.” -- Rand Paul
justdrew wrote:The thing that concerns me is how simple it would be to contaminate existing evidence with DNA of someone the authorities decided to frame.
This ^^ . Next time I'm robbing a bank I'll make sure to bring a small bag of hair, skin cells, maybe a drop of blood or two. And how long until someone hacks into the DNA database and get access to everyone's DNA? And after that - how long until we can synthesize anybody's DNA in our basements?
Any biology undergraduate can do it now, evidently. Or....They could fabricate a sample, at least. I guess that making it individually incriminating might take more skillz. But I don't really know.
“If someone comes out of a liquor store with a weapon and 50 dollars in cash I don’t care if a Drone kills him or a policeman kills him.” -- Rand Paul
The Battle To Takeover The GOP Begins Today By Richard A. Viguerie | 11/7/12
Despite our efforts and the efforts of millions of other conservatives, who went all-in for the Romney candidacy, Election Day 2012 was a disaster – Barack Obama was re-elected President, Republicans lost seats in the House and failed to gain a majority in the Senate.
However, out of that disaster comes some good news: conservatives are saying “Never again” are we going to nominate a big government establishment Republican for President.
What’s more, we won’t have to – conservatives now have a deep bench of potential presidential candidates.
We have elected a new generation of conservative leaders who are capable of taking over the GOP to become the Party of small government constitutional conservatism.
Last night’s election of small government constitutional conservatives -- Ted Cruz, Jeff Flake and Deb Fischer to the Senate, the election of conservative Mike Pence as Governor of Indiana, the election of Trey Radel and other “boat rockers” to the House -- portend that yesterday’s defeats will spell the end of big government Republicanism.
They join such small government constitutional conservative leaders as Wisconsin Governor Scott Walker, Louisiana Governor Bobby Jindal, Senators Jim DeMint, Rand Paul, Mike Lee, Marco Rubio and Pat Toomey, Virginia’s Attorney General Ken Cuccinelli and the 50-odd Members of the House, such as Justin Amash, who stood for conservative principles and voted against the debt ceiling deal.
Establishment Republicans ever anxious to hold on to power, and the establishment media, are going to blame “the Tea Party” and “radical” conservatives who voted for principled small government constitutional conservative candidates in Republican primaries for the election disaster of 2012.
Nothing could be further from the truth.
Governor Romney won the nomination by spending tens of millions of dollars knee-capping his conservative opponents in the primaries and then handed the election to Obama because he and his campaign team spent most of the campaign mired in the establishment Republican folly of trying to win by standing for nothing.
The “stand for nothing” strategy didn’t work for President Ford’s 1976 campaign, it didn’t work for President George H.W. Bush’s re-election and it certainly didn’t work for Bob Dole and John McCain.
Republicans never, ever, win the presidency unless they nationalize the election by campaigning on a conservative agenda.
While Obama and the Democrats threw down the gauntlet on the social issues -- such as same-sex marriage and abortion -- Republicans ran away from such issues as same-sex marriage, religious freedom and Obama’s war on the Catholic Church. You couldn’t find any mention of the Constitution or the conservative social agenda in a Romney ad or in a Rove-run Super PAC ad or an ad run by the national GOP.
The establishment Republicans who held the reins and the checkbooks chose to run negative ads against Obama and campaign almost solely on Romney’s biography and economic policies, while skipping the social issues and the concerns of Tea Partiers and small government constitutional conservatives.
In choosing to ignore the larger conservative agenda, Romney chose not to follow the path that led Republicans to win seven of the previous eleven presidential elections.
In the Senate, two good and decent men – Todd Akin and Richard Mourdock – were defeated not because they were pro-life, but because they were inept campaigners.
Tommy Thompson, George Allen, Connie Mack and other establishment-backed candidates -- who ran as establishment Republicans -- all went down to defeat in the general election after being boosted past principled small government conservatives in the primaries by Mitch McConnell and the Washington GOP establishment.
The leaders who forced those kinds of candidates on us -- and manipulated the GOP rules to force the Party to change from a grassroots-driven Party to a Party driven from the top-down by Washington insiders -- should resign.
Republican National Committee Chairman Reince Priebus, Senatorial Committee Chairman John Cornyn, Senate Republican Leader Mitch McConnell, Speaker of the House John Boehner, NRCC Chairman Pete Sessions and other Republican leaders behind the epic election failure of 2012 should be replaced with leaders more in tune with the grassroots of the conservative base of the Party.
Likewise, in any logical universe, establishment Republican consultants such as Karl Rove, Ed Gillespie, Romney campaign senior advisor Stewart Stevens and pollster Neil Newhouse would never be hired to run or consult on a national campaign again -- and no one would give a dime to their ineffective Super PACs, such as American Crossroads.
Mitt Romney's loss was the death rattle of the establishment GOP. Far from signaling a rejection of the Tea Party or grassroots conservatives, the disaster of 2012 signals the beginning of the battle to takeover the Republican Party and the opportunity to establish the GOP as the Party of small government constitutional conservatism.
Wombaticus Rex wrote:Cuz the bad cops, in my experience, are the ones who smash your face off the table and put you into compliance holds while calling you a hippie faggot.
I often wonder whether it would make a difference if prime-time cop shows didn't make the right to an attorney look like something that the police have to respect even though it's only exercised by the guilty.
I mean, it's obviously not the only factor. But since it's really never in the better interests of anybody who's been arrested to cooperate with the police on anything beyond the bare minimum required by the booking process,*** it can't help.
______________
***ON EDIT: And the request might not be honored even if you make it, I meant to say.
“If someone comes out of a liquor store with a weapon and 50 dollars in cash I don’t care if a Drone kills him or a policeman kills him.” -- Rand Paul
After the liberation of France at the end of WW2, what was it called when de gaulle(?) announced there would be one night? one week? to settle scores with collaborators and then it would be back to rule of law? I don't remember much to go on googling...
Sen. Lindsey Graham (R-SC) on Sunday said that he was willing to break with anti-tax lobbyist Grover Norquist and find ways to raise additional revenues for the government because he was worried that spending cuts would hurt the military.
Norquist recently insisted to The Wall Street Journal that no Republicans would violate his tax pledge because of the so-called fiscal cliff, which he called a “completely invented crisis” where lawmakers of both parties agreed to automatic rate increases and spending cuts.
“What I would say to Grover is that the sequester destroys the United States military,” Graham told ABC’s George Stephanopoulos on Sunday. “I am willing to generate revenue. It’s fair to ask my party to put revenue on the table. We’re below historic averages. I will not raise tax rates to do it. I will cap deductions.”
After the liberation of France at the end of WW2, what was it called when de gaulle(?) announced there would be one night? one week? to settle scores with collaborators and then it would be back to rule of law? I don't remember much to go on googling...
I've never heard of that, but it sounds characteristic.
I've always liked him more than I should, pretty much exclusively for having been either insane or principled enough to have said, "France has no friends, only interests" to Clementine Churchill.
I mean, it's not like he knew how the war was going to turn out at the time.
