Join BayouShooter For Free

Page 7 of 7 FirstFirst ... 67
Results 61 to 69 of 69
  1. #61
    Marksman

    User Info Menu

    I would say a denial alone, without some further investigation to substantiate the denial, would not constitute reasonable suspicion because of the mistakes inherent in databases; but, that's me. There are probably a lot of people, including a fair number of judges (and let's face it, that's whose opinion matters in the end) who would claim it does constitute reasonable suspicion.
    Heck, in some jurisdictions in the U.S. there have been search warrants issued (you need probable cause, which is a higher threshold than reasonable suspicion, for a search warrant) for addressed of suspects, which were found in internet database searches, that were years old. Entry was made and completely different people are living at the address.
    My point is, if that quality of info can be considered probable cause for a search warrant, then yes, a denial could very well be considered reasonable suspicion.
    Wish there was a more concrete answer. That is the best I can offer right now.

  2. #62
    ESSAYONS

    User Info Menu

    Quote Originally Posted by Nathan Hale View Post
    I would say a denial alone, without some further investigation to substantiate the denial, would not constitute reasonable suspicion because of the mistakes inherent in databases; but, that's me. There are probably a lot of people, including a fair number of judges (and let's face it, that's whose opinion matters in the end) who would claim it does constitute reasonable suspicion.
    Heck, in some jurisdictions in the U.S. there have been search warrants issued (you need probable cause, which is a higher threshold than reasonable suspicion, for a search warrant) for addressed of suspects, which were found in internet database searches, that were years old. Entry was made and completely different people are living at the address.
    My point is, if that quality of info can be considered probable cause for a search warrant, then yes, a denial could very well be considered reasonable suspicion.
    Wish there was a more concrete answer. That is the best I can offer right now.
    I have a few questions regarding your reply. You mentioned the non-specific example of a search warrant with the bad address supplied by an internet searches. I'm unclear how this example applies to a background check where the address is provided by the applicant. The address supplied by the applicant is either correct, in which case it is correct, or it's wrong, in which case a crime has been committed. How is your example relevant to this discussion? Does the background check rely on publicly available and/or civilian maintained databases? You mentioned mistakes are inherent to the databases. Do you have any numbers to show this? Do you know how many requests have been denied and how many of those denials were determined to be mistakes?

  3. #63
    Marksman

    User Info Menu

    I think you have misinterpreted my answer.

  4. #64
    All or nothing

    User Info Menu

    Quote Originally Posted by Nathan Hale View Post
    I think you have misinterpreted my answer.
    Don’t sweat it Nathan. That happens a lot when someone is only in the discussion to argue. I totally got your analogy.
    Contrary to popular belief, a head shot is not necessarily a guaranteed kill shot....but it sure does take the fight out of 'em.

    and if one in every 100,000,000 M&M's contained enough cyanide to kill a person, the Mars candy company would be forced by public outcry to correct it
    Bangswitch

  5. #65
    All or nothing

    User Info Menu

    Quote Originally Posted by thperez1972 View Post
    Is your position the police should ignore every denial?


    Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
    Id say my position has often been to not engage people that can offer nothing but argument. Any person can argue that the sun revolves around the earth or the earth is flat or whatever, presenting whatever info twisted and turned and worded any sort of way, pick over every word of every reply and applying any interpretation and literally argue for the sake of arguing, but thats not why Im here at all. Its my belief that you are here for that reason and enjoy arguing for the sake of arguing, which serves no purpose but to entertain you obviously. One has only to search your recent posts to come to that conclusion. A little moderating, a lot of arguing. Its almost like an interrogation when someone posts something you disagree with. So Im done here. You win the argument bro. The pointless argument. Congrats.
    Contrary to popular belief, a head shot is not necessarily a guaranteed kill shot....but it sure does take the fight out of 'em.

    and if one in every 100,000,000 M&M's contained enough cyanide to kill a person, the Mars candy company would be forced by public outcry to correct it
    Bangswitch

  6. #66
    ESSAYONS

    User Info Menu

    Quote Originally Posted by Nathan Hale View Post
    I think you have misinterpreted my answer.
    That's why there were questions. If your answer was misinterpreted, you are welcome to correct any interpretation. Or not.

    Quote Originally Posted by Magdump View Post
    I’d say my position has often been to not engage people that can offer nothing but argument. Any person can argue that the sun revolves around the earth or the earth is flat or whatever, presenting whatever info twisted and turned and worded any sort of way, pick over every word of every reply and applying any interpretation and literally argue for the sake of arguing, but that’s not why I’m here at all. It’s my belief that you are here for that reason and enjoy arguing for the sake of arguing, which serves no purpose but to entertain you obviously. One has only to search your recent posts to come to that conclusion. A little moderating, a lot of arguing. It’s almost like an interrogation when someone posts something you disagree with. So I’m done here. You win the argument bro. The pointless argument. Congrats.
    I'm discussing the issue. And now that we've gotten past the fluff and into the hard stuff, you choose to "gracefully" bow out. I get it. It's tough to have to actually back up your claims. I'm sure it's hard work to actually find the data supporting a position that mistakes happen so often that a denial means nothing. I'm sorry that I do not accept emotional arguments and I'm looking for something more factual. You can call it an interrogation but it's really only asking you to support your claims.

    The heart of the discussion comes down to this:

    You: It's ok for the police to investigate A but they should ignore B.
    Me: Before they investigate, how can they determine if something is A or B?
    You: B shouldn't have to suffer for A.
    Me: How can one tell the difference before investigating?
    You:
    Me: Without being able to tell the difference before investigating, the only way to ensure B is ignored is to also ignore A. Is that your position?
    You: I'm out.

  7. #67
    All or nothing

    User Info Menu

    Quote Originally Posted by thperez1972 View Post
    That's why there were questions. If your answer was misinterpreted, you are welcome to correct any interpretation. Or not.



    I'm discussing the issue. And now that we've gotten past the fluff and into the hard stuff, you choose to "gracefully" bow out. I get it. It's tough to have to actually back up your claims. I'm sure it's hard work to actually find the data supporting a position that mistakes happen so often that a denial means nothing. I'm sorry that I do not accept emotional arguments and I'm looking for something more factual. You can call it an interrogation but it's really only asking you to support your claims.

    The heart of the discussion comes down to this:

    You: It's ok for the police to investigate A but they should ignore B.
    Me: Before they investigate, how can they determine if something is A or B?
    You: B shouldn't have to suffer for A.
    Me: How can one tell the difference before investigating?
    You:
    Me: Without being able to tell the difference before investigating, the only way to ensure B is ignored is to also ignore A. Is that your position?
    You: I'm out.
    I’ve got it. The perfect solution. And you’ll just have to trust me on this bro, but I know it’ll save us both a ton of typing in the future.
    Because.
    Just because.
    It just is.
    That’s how I handle a child that questions every statement I make, mostly because I find it irritating. One of my shortcomings I suppose. Mostly because I don’t feel obligated to prove everything I say, especially here. So from now on:
    Me: This is how the cow ate the cabbage
    You: substantiate your claims
    Me: Because it just is
    You: I call boolchit
    Me: Well bully for you.

    Now how much better is that? Easy as pie, right? Good talk.
    Contrary to popular belief, a head shot is not necessarily a guaranteed kill shot....but it sure does take the fight out of 'em.

    and if one in every 100,000,000 M&M's contained enough cyanide to kill a person, the Mars candy company would be forced by public outcry to correct it
    Bangswitch

  8. #68
    ESSAYONS

    User Info Menu

    Quote Originally Posted by Magdump View Post
    I’ve got it. The perfect solution. And you’ll just have to trust me on this bro, but I know it’ll save us both a ton of typing in the future.
    Because.
    Just because.
    It just is.
    That’s how I handle a child that questions every statement I make, mostly because I find it irritating. One of my shortcomings I suppose. Mostly because I don’t feel obligated to prove everything I say, especially here. So from now on:
    Me: This is how the cow ate the cabbage
    You: substantiate your claims
    Me: Because it just is
    You: I call boolchit
    Me: Well bully for you.

    Now how much better is that? Easy as pie, right? Good talk.
    So does that mean your position is the police should ignore every denial? It's not a tough question to answer. Providing a yes or no would have saved you a lot of typing, since you seem interested in that. But you're not. And you're not interested in answering the question. Which is fine. You're very passionate about your position, I'll grant you that.

  9. #69
    Fresh Reload

    Premium Member

    User Info Menu

    The only way you are going to possibly still be in that Walmart when a deputy shows up for a nonviolent call is if you are having your vehicle serviced in their automotive. You will likely need a shower and a shave before either happens. I also know people who have a defacto 3 day waiting period because they have the same name as others with a police record, and go back and pick up their firearms after 3 days.

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •