ChefBourgeoisie
kiwifarms.net
- Dołączono
- 18 Sie 2024
A thought just occurred to me moments ago. Congress has the (legitimate) authority to decide what constitutes "probable cause" for arrest. Usually, courts will decide what rises to the level of probable cause on a case-by-case basis, and they use that discretion as they see fit. Some conservative judges will rubber-stamp just about anything the cops claim, leftoid judges throw out everything... "just because they had a crack pipe in their lips, it might have been performance art or ironic jewelry, I'm excluding the discovered 300 grams of crack rocks from the evidence!". But Congress can set explicit rules, and the judges will have their hands tied in the matter.
Specifically, I'm considering whether flying a foreign flag should be probable cause to arrest someone for treason. This would be narrowly defined with numerous carve-outs... no one should be arrested for it if they're at Toronto Blue Jays away game. Embassies of foreign countries get a pass. Sanctioned holidays (St. Patrick's Day in Chicago), etc. But those flying foreign flags (or using their printed emblems) at protests/riots/unrest, as is happening in California, where they are specifically attacking government offices and agents, this should be sufficient reason to arrest those people by itself, requiring no other outward indications than the flag itself.
For those who would argue that treason is a crime that can only be committed by citizens (true), these flags could be probable cause for some mayhem-type crime for non-citizens. One might even go so far as to make it sufficient reason to deport non-citizens. Greta Thunberg could get a tourist visa, protest all she might like, and generally be safe doing so as long as she didn't display the Swedish flag, but could be arrested if she did that. In such cases, not only would it be sufficient for probable cause (justifying the arrest), but authorities would have the option of prosecuting whatever crime the investigation uncovered, or just canceling visas and deporting with that as a justification alone.
In some cases, these arrests would find insufficient evidence for prosecution of treason/mayhem, and they would be released (if citizens), but it is true that no standard is perfect and that any could result in such releases. The inevitability of those doesn't undermine the idea itself.
What counter-arguments would leftoids use to undermine this proposal in the realm of public opinion? What counter-arguments would be clever enough to convince judges to overturn it? What obstacles would such a policy have to being enacted by Congress?
Specifically, I'm considering whether flying a foreign flag should be probable cause to arrest someone for treason. This would be narrowly defined with numerous carve-outs... no one should be arrested for it if they're at Toronto Blue Jays away game. Embassies of foreign countries get a pass. Sanctioned holidays (St. Patrick's Day in Chicago), etc. But those flying foreign flags (or using their printed emblems) at protests/riots/unrest, as is happening in California, where they are specifically attacking government offices and agents, this should be sufficient reason to arrest those people by itself, requiring no other outward indications than the flag itself.
For those who would argue that treason is a crime that can only be committed by citizens (true), these flags could be probable cause for some mayhem-type crime for non-citizens. One might even go so far as to make it sufficient reason to deport non-citizens. Greta Thunberg could get a tourist visa, protest all she might like, and generally be safe doing so as long as she didn't display the Swedish flag, but could be arrested if she did that. In such cases, not only would it be sufficient for probable cause (justifying the arrest), but authorities would have the option of prosecuting whatever crime the investigation uncovered, or just canceling visas and deporting with that as a justification alone.
In some cases, these arrests would find insufficient evidence for prosecution of treason/mayhem, and they would be released (if citizens), but it is true that no standard is perfect and that any could result in such releases. The inevitability of those doesn't undermine the idea itself.
What counter-arguments would leftoids use to undermine this proposal in the realm of public opinion? What counter-arguments would be clever enough to convince judges to overturn it? What obstacles would such a policy have to being enacted by Congress?
