436
Most Dangerous Jobs
(lemmy.nz)
cross-posted from: https://lemmy.dbzer0.com/post/74446906
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
this post was submitted on 24 Aug 2026
436 points (97.8% liked)
Political Memes
12425 readers
2471 users here now
Welcome to politcal memes!
These are our rules:
1) Be civil
Jokes are okay, but don’t intentionally harass or disturb any member of our community. Sexism, racism and bigotry are not allowed. Good faith argumentation only. No posts discouraging people to vote or shaming people for voting.
2) No misinformation
Don’t post any intentional misinformation. When asked by mods, provide sources for any claims you make.
3) Posts should be memes
Random pictures do not qualify as memes. Relevance to politics is required.
4) No bots, spam or self-promotion
Follow instance rules, ask for your bot to be allowed on this community.
5) No AI generated content.
Content posted must not be created by AI with the intent to mimic the style of existing images
founded 3 years ago
MODERATORS
Generally illegal as of 1989's Bowyer v. Inyo and impractical regardless; you vastly overestimate how many patrol cars are in a given area.
Assuming the driver is the registered owner, their address is up to date, and they change their mind about fleeing. I guess now that Flock is getting popular that's increasingly less of a problem, though.
that was a good read, but, I don't think the term "generally illegal" will apply to it. The only thing that supreme court case provided that that a road block can lead to a seizure, which triggers the fourth amendment protections. That doesn't outlaw the roadblock, or does it mean it will be a violation of the fourth amendment as generally speaking seizure under the fourth amendment has leniency that allows for probable cause and a reasonable approach. It means that road blocks need to be looked at when done and decided if it was a reasonable method of stopping them.
In the specific case listed, it was passed down to the lower court again to decide whether the roadblock was a reasonable use of force or not, so it was never an argument about whether the roadblock was allowed to be done, but whether or not how they implemented the roadblock was reasonable due to the fact it was constructed around a corner and contained lights that were positioned in a way that would blind drivers coming in.
You have a different interpretation of that than the lawyer that taught me about that case, so I think it's safe to say you're wrong.
But congratulations on getting into the weeds about 1/3 of my comment while ignoring the other 2/3.
I don't know why you are coming in as hot as you are. You mentioned a case that I decided to spend two hours last night looking into because it made me curious as I have seen roadblocks constantly. I felt I needed to respond that your supporting evidence didn't support your claim. For the reasons already provided. If you care to look it up yourself (I recommend looking at the actual supreme court hearing first) instead of relying on the "my girlfriend is in another state" reasoning, feel free. It's clear by your aggression you aren't open for discussion on this and as such I'm moving on.
P.S I didn't refute your claim on the flock cameras because I partially agree with you. But good job owning me I guess? I hope your day ends up getting better.
Because it's annoying to see a topic you know about circlejerked by a bunch of people speculating in ignorance while patting each other on the back despite being wrong.
The great tragedy of the internet is that every person thinks their opinion has equal weight to experts because they have an equal voice. You're doing the same "do your own research" thing as anti-vax/mask/science people, just in a different flavor.
If a (large collection of) doctor(s) tell me a vaccine is safe but Pika@sh.itjust.works insists it's not and insists I should review the clinical data myself to find out why, I'm just going to roll my eyes.