So the town basically hired a gang of thugs to be their police while they extort travelers in their jurisdiction, sounds like a 70’s or later action movie/show like Dukes of Hazzard, Billy Jack, or Rambo.
Hopefully the main character shows up and kicks all of their asses and we all get a happy ending. (Meanwhile in reality they will just keep getting away with it because of the way Texas is ran and qualified immunity)
That’s still nowhere near enough for 50 cops with public level benefits. Even if every dollar of that goes towards the cops, at $20k/year each, it would hardly cover federal taxes on their income, let alone the income itself
Between insurance, pensions, salary, reimbursements, and fringe benefits, you’re looking at a minimum cost of $70k per full-time officer per year. They’d have to issue $3,500,000 in tickets to cover that alone, and even then, that leaves nothing for vehicle replacement/maintenance (which is huge on a fleet of cop cars), non-officer employee salaries (clerks etc.), rent/taxes/maintenance on the station, equipment and weapons, training programs, and so much more. No way tickets and forfeitures alone take in that much in a town of 250
The opportunity to wear a badge allows officers to make extra money. In the state of Texas, a commissioned reserve officer may work off-duty performing traffic control duties, commonly known as “road jobs.” Of the 50 sworn officers at the Coffee City Police Department, 38 are reserves according to state records.
Wasn’t that a huge point of the feminist revolution? To get women out of the kitchen (ie, out of their homes, away from where their children are) and into the office?
That’s only true if demand remains constant. It’s also an incredibly cynical way to look at the labor market. This is a result of the continuing gutting of the middle class and concentration of wealth in the hands of an ever shrinking pool of the ultra wealthy. The answer to why it’s no longer possible to support yourself on the pay of the majority of jobs even working full time isn’t “too many workers”, it’s the leeches at the top taking the majority of the profits.
it’s the leeches at the top taking the majority of the profits
Why now though? Why didn’t this happen 50 years ago? 100 years ago? Have people suddenly become greedy and were somehow not greedy before? No, something (or somethings) have changed in the last few decades that brought this about.
Why now though? Why didn’t this happen 50 years ago? 100 years ago? Have people suddenly become greedy and were somehow not greedy before? No, something (or somethings) have changed in the last few decades that brought this about.
Oh, that’s super easy, Reagan happened. It just takes a while for unstable systems to reach a tipping point. Reagan put that brain fart out there, and then the GOP picked up that ball and ran with it for all they were worth. They know a good grift when they see one.
What’s visible from public spaces, including the air, is not considered a search of your persons, houses, papers, and effects. Or at least not an unreasonable search.
I know thermal imaging has been used to look for marijuana farms, back when grow lamps were incandescent and houses would stand out as hot. But I don’t know if they had warrants for those or not.
But to actually use imaging, whether it’s thermal, radio, or X-ray, to see through a wall, is definitely considered a search.
How do you think they catch grow-houses? They thermal scan neighborhoods for heat signatures from the grow lights. Cops are masters of subverting the law to do whatever they want.
Police are not allowed to use anything other than the ‘naked eye’ (their own senses) without a warrant.
If this includes police dogs (it does, the SC ruled on this and a conservative justice wrote the majority opinion), it includes drones (with or without thermal cameras).
What’s visible with the naked eye. If using a dog outside an apartment door to smell weed is unconstitutional, I imagine doing a flyover with a drone is too.
I remember hearing about police thermal camera use being unconstitutional (or at least not allowed) in some places. How is this different?
I would like to add I have no source for this it’s just something I remember hearing and you shouldn’t believe people on the Internet do some research in verified sources or reputable news organizations and definitely don’t just blindly believe what I have to say, but if it’s for entertainment purposes then sure believe me. I believe me but I’m not heavily invested in verifying this fact.
Your property rights do not stop at the ground. No one has the right to fly a drone over your property. There’s just usually not much you can do about it.
This is not correct. Navigable airspace is controlled by the FAA alone. Part 107 rules state that in fact you must fly a small unmanned aircraft less than 400 feet above ground level or within 400 feet of a structure. So, if someone is flying a drone around, they must fly it fairly close to the ground (though a little quadcopter at 400 feet would be pretty hard to notice).
You may be thinking “the airspace above the surface that could reasonably be used in connection with the land” seems noticeably vague. At what point does my airspace end and the public highway begin? Unfortunately, there is no exact answer to this question, but generally, the government considers the public highway to start around 500 feet in uncongested areas, and 1000 feet otherwise. Flight over private land cannot interfere with the enjoyment and use of the land.
What about the airspace below 500 feet? Can helicopters, drones, or hang gliders legally fly above my property? In 1946 in the case of the United States v. Causby, a large military aircraft flew 83 feet above a farmer’s land startling his chickens, causing them to kill themselves by flying into walls. The Supreme Court ruled in favor of the farmer. So we are at least entitled to 83 feet. What about the space between 83 and 500 feet?
Well… this appears to be rather unclear and is still undecided.
Like I said, navigable airspace is controlled by the FAA, but what is “navigable airspace” is not quantified. And the rules say small unmanned aircraft cannot exceed 400 feet.
Sorry, I forgot which way I was using the negative when writing that sentence. I’ve fixed it. You have to stay under 400 ft, or within 400 ft of a structure.
what a piece of shit headline. the girl was being punished or the lady was trying to scare her and the gun went off. the 7 year old said that they were being punished for waking someone up and eating food?! this is probably a foster parent situation. I sure as fuck hope that 7 year old is placed in a new home!
showing someone gun safety is the killers excuse, thats not what happened here at all.
AND FUCKING 4 YEAR OLDS CANT EVEN TIE THEIR SHOES! WHY WOULD YOU GIVE THEM GUN SAFETY?
Yup, sounds like she was trying to scare the girl. She was mad at the kids and wacking them before this. Jackass didn’t even check to see if there was a round in the chamber not that they should be aiming guns at people and pulling the trigger.
I wonder if there were powder burns and a muzzle imprint on the kid, that would show if the gun was pressed against her. I wouldn’t trust anything they say at this point anyway.
news
Newest
This magazine is from a federated server and may be incomplete. Browse more on the original instance.