Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

FBI raids Washington Post reporter's home

theguardian.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

311–320 of 612 posts

Re: FBI raids Washington Post reporter's home

#311

Post by anon84873628 »

k2enemy wrote: post #64
Nifty3929 wrote: post #46

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The guns haven't been taken away only because people do care so much about the 2nd amendment. Those people understand that the 2nd amendment is the only ultimate defense for the people against the government. I too wish people also cared as much about the 1st amendment, but sadly I think the tide is turning on that. Too many on both the right and left seem okay with censorship and harassment.

Kind of ironic that there's a big overlap in the venn diagram between 2nd amendment enthusiasts and the crowd that is cheering on the government's authoritarian actions.

Because the visible 2A enthusiasts essentially trace a lineage to the KKK. Of course, they don't actually care about upholding the Constitution or fighting tyranny. That was just a convenient cover tactic and accusation to use against political opponents.

Re: FBI raids Washington Post reporter's home

#312

Post by yorwba »

TimTheTinker wrote: post #271
eli wrote: post #250

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Sure, though the government routinely searches the personal property of innocent people if they think that search will yield information about a suspect. The issue here is the American tradition of a free press and the legitimate role of leaks in a free country. The PBS article is a bit better on context: > The Justice Department over the years has developed, and revised, internal guidelines governing how it will res…

> the government routinely searches the personal property of innocent people if they think that search will yield information about a suspect. If that's true, it's a direct violation of the fourth amendment. I'll paste it here for convenience: The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall iss…

That includes an explicit carve-out for reasonable searches. And given "innocent until proven guilty" any search is technically targeting innocent people in hopes of yielding information about a suspect. Sometimes that's a reasonable thing to do.

Re: FBI raids Washington Post reporter's home

#313

Post by Capricorn2481 »

dabluecaboose wrote: post #56
alsetmusic wrote: post #31

It'd be real cool if all the second amendment (guns) people cared as much about the first amendment (free speech and freedom of press). "They're gonna take my guns away!" Yet that never happens. But people are being targeted for what they say, for disagreeing publicly. That's real. And a lot of "patriots" don't seem to notice or care.

[flagged]

> The American Left has spent the better part of the last century attacking the 2nd Amendment

That's doing a lot of heavy lifting. I know Republicans who unironically say shit like "We can't do background checks. What if I'm trying to buy a gun really quick for a hunting trip?" I would imagine your idea of "attacking" the second amendment is just common sense laws.

> Just a few years ago, their own supporters were smugly saying that standing up to the government is a fantasy for paranoid whackjobs.

In your heart of hearts, do you really believe this has anything to do with it? If we were to take your comment seriously, it just illustrates the right never actually cared about standing up to oppressive governments, they just wanted to be the oppressive government. That is actually pretty consistent with how the left clocked them.

But in reality, it has nothing to do with what you wrote. The biggest 2A fanatics, as someone related to quite a few of them, just have a fantasy of shooting people. They are openly celebrating the death of Renee Nicole Good because that's the kind of thing they want to do.

Re: FBI raids Washington Post reporter's home

#314

Post by budududuroiu »

johnisgood wrote: post #291
budududuroiu wrote: post #285

Earlier quoted context omitted.

"Firearms may not be discharged solely to disable moving vehicles. Specifically, firearms may not be discharged at a moving vehicle unless: (1) a person in the vehicle is threatening the officer or another person with deadly force by means other than the vehicle; or (2) the vehicle is operated in a manner that threatens to cause death or serious physical injury to the officer or others, and no other objectively reaso…

[flagged]

Yes, let's argue a truly hypothetical situation that has no contact with reality.

What you're arguing is that the woman (alive) pointed her car at him with intent to kill, but after the shooting, the woman's corpse was able to steer out of the way of the officer

Re: FBI raids Washington Post reporter's home

#315

Post by packetlost »

johnisgood wrote: post #291
budududuroiu wrote: post #285

Earlier quoted context omitted.

"Firearms may not be discharged solely to disable moving vehicles. Specifically, firearms may not be discharged at a moving vehicle unless: (1) a person in the vehicle is threatening the officer or another person with deadly force by means other than the vehicle; or (2) the vehicle is operated in a manner that threatens to cause death or serious physical injury to the officer or others, and no other objectively reaso…

[flagged]

Even if the 1st shot through the front of the vehicle is ruled (if it even gets to that point) to be legit, the 2nd and 3rd through the side window almost certainly wouldn't. There's virtually no way this guy walks free if it goes to a fair trial.

If I was on a jury for that case, I'd need some very, very convincing evidence to suggest the officer was in serious fear for his life (or anyone else's) given the publicly available evidence now.

Re: FBI raids Washington Post reporter's home

#316

Post by AndrewKemendo »

snowwrestler wrote: post #88

To clarify why it’s aggressive: federal employees have a legal duty to secure classified information, but everyone else does not. Reporters are not federal employees and it’s not illegal for them to have or discuss classified materials. Most of what Snowden leaked was classified, and remains classified to this day , but you and I can read about it on Wikipedia. The government pursued Snowden because he was legally ob…

Explain why they pursued Julian Assange then.

Based on your own logic then Assange did not have any requirement to protect classified information yet he was Public Enemy number one.

I know people who personally sat on the Edward Snowden board and spent years of their life trying to create a case within the intelligence community against this guy

Re: FBI raids Washington Post reporter's home

#317

Post by toast0 »

peab wrote: post #194
njovin wrote: post #138

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I don't know if it's fair to say we're chilling - there have been fairly organized (although admittedly not very large) protests around the nation related to the killing of Nicole Renee Good. I live in southern California and there were at least 6 within easy driving distance this past weekend. Whenever ICE goes into a new city, they're meeting more and more community resistance. The protestors have mostly been very…

I understand protesting ICE for better accountability, they certainly need to be held accountable. But I don't understand those who protest the presence of ICE as a concept. Are there any countries that don't enforce their immigration laws?

A protest movement can't be very subtle. A clear and short message like "No ICE" or "ICE Out" is much preferable to "We would like an immigrations and and custom enforcement agency that respects people and the law, efficiently inspects imports, checks in on visa overstayers, pursues charges against business owners that have a business practice of not checking work eligibility of new hires, and works with competent, trained agencies to perform traffic stops and home/office raids or trains their own officers for such"

Re: FBI raids Washington Post reporter's home

#318

Post by anon84873628 »

jeroenhd wrote: post #182
Nifty3929 wrote: post #46

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The guns haven't been taken away only because people do care so much about the 2nd amendment. Those people understand that the 2nd amendment is the only ultimate defense for the people against the government. I too wish people also cared as much about the 1st amendment, but sadly I think the tide is turning on that. Too many on both the right and left seem okay with censorship and harassment.

With the government harassing, attacking, and now killing innocent American citizens, I'm not so sure if the second amendment is working out so well. With the ridiculous leeway American law enforcement has when it comes to harming people ("qualified immunity"), I don't think that second amendment will be relevant until there's an outright civil war happening. And when it comes to that, one or both sides have access t…

Imagine every protestor you see on video was instead standing rank and file in the street with a rifle on their shoulder. I.e. a well regulated militia. That would sure send a very different message, wouldn't it?

Re: FBI raids Washington Post reporter's home

#319

Post by Levitz »

simgoh wrote: post #248
quietbritishjim wrote: post #150

Earlier quoted context omitted.

You are severely misreading why people flag posts about that discuss the administration (whether for or against): they are tiresome to read about, and it doesn't lead to productive interesting discussion (which is supposed to be what the vote buttons are for here). Politics isn't 100% off topic for HN but mostly I come here to get away from it and I'm sure others do too.

> Politics isn't 100% off topic for HN but mostly I come here to get away from it and I'm sure others do too. I sympathize, relate, and I'm not about to lecture you like some corners of the internet about "the privilege" to try and ignore stuff like this, but it is important to keep stuff like this at the forefront. We continue to experience unprecedented life events.

On the contrary, there's no need whatsoever to even deal with this since it already happens everywhere else, it's not some niche, subtle matter, it's probably the most talked about subject in the last decade.

Re: FBI raids Washington Post reporter's home

#320

Post by watwut »

throw0101d wrote: post #290
snowwrestler wrote: post #88

To clarify why it’s aggressive: federal employees have a legal duty to secure classified information, but everyone else does not. Reporters are not federal employees and it’s not illegal for them to have or discuss classified materials. Most of what Snowden leaked was classified, and remains classified to this day , but you and I can read about it on Wikipedia. The government pursued Snowden because he was legally ob…

> To clarify why it’s aggressive: federal employees have a legal duty to secure classified information […] Does that include (former) presidents as well? * https://www.bbc.com/news/world-us-canada-65775163 * https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Federal_prosecution_of_Donald_... (Asking for a friend.)

They have duty to not take documents with them when they leave office. And they have duty to protect the documents while in the office.

Of course that was before right wing supreme cpurt decides presidents can vreak the law as they wish (wink wink only as long as they are right wing, I am sure they would rule differently on democrat).

Post reply on HN