TiVo Community Forum

TiVo Community Forum Archive 2
Covering threads with a last post date between
July 1, 2004 and December 31, 2005.
THIS IS A READ ONLY SITE
 


 

SEARCH  |  ARCHIVE 1 MAIN SITE

 
Forum Jump
 
Thread Tools Search this Thread Display Modes
Old 12-29-2005, 07:23 PM   #91 (Print)
GoodSpike
Registered User
 
GoodSpike's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2001
Location: Seattle, WA
Posts: 13,091
Quote:
Originally Posted by aindik
Well, seeing now that it actually was flour, I'm not sure which part of it was "BS" according to you. Certainly not the part where she said it was flour, which is the only legally relevant detail.


Her whole story is BS. Being correct doesn't mean it's not BS.

I wonder why she was never charged with a federal crime?

__________________
Valet Park-It Yourself
GoodSpike is offline Report Bad Post Report Post
Old 12-29-2005, 07:31 PM   #92 (Print)
timckelley
Longhorn Alumni
 
timckelley's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2002
Location: Austin, TX
Posts: 8,099
Even if you want to make her out as a criminal for playing a costly joke on a plane, I don't think the punishment fits the crime. 3 weeks?!?!?!? That's huge. I was once falsely arrested for a crime I didn't commit and spend one night in jail, and being confined for a day felt very uncomfortable and painful to me. I can't imagine spending 3 weeks there.

__________________
Tim

You, sir, are brilliant. - pianoman
reaffirmed by brenrher - brenrher
You sir are a genius! - slydog75
timckelley is offline Report Bad Post Report Post
Old 12-29-2005, 07:35 PM   #93 (Print)
aindik
Registered User
 
aindik's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2002
Location: Philadelphia, PA
Posts: 3,264
Send a message via AIM to aindik
Quote:
Originally Posted by GoodSpike
Being correct doesn't mean it's not BS.


Uh, yeah it does.

Quote:
Originally Posted by GoodSpike
I wonder why she was never charged with a federal crime?


Because she didn't commit one? I'm not sure of your point here.
aindik is offline Report Bad Post Report Post
Old 12-29-2005, 07:36 PM   #94 (Print)
Snowman
Kinda fuggly
 
Snowman's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2004
Posts: 3,086
Quote:
Originally Posted by unixadm
I hope you aren't serious!


Sure I am... They wanna waste my time by pulling me over, I have no issue wasting their time by letting them rip my vehicle apart trying to find the "real" flour.
Snowman is offline Report Bad Post Report Post
Old 12-29-2005, 07:38 PM   #95 (Print)
busyba
Registered User
 
busyba's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2003
Location: NYC
Posts: 2,862
Quote:
Originally Posted by Snowman
Sure I am... They wanna waste my time by pulling me over, I have no issue wasting their time by letting them rip my vehicle apart trying to find the "real" flour.

A saying about spite and a nose comes to mind.....

__________________
"of course, you are 100% correct" --jsmeeker
"Personally, I think that's an excellent point." --pigonthewing
"busyba is officially my favorite poster." --pigonthewing
busyba is offline Report Bad Post Report Post
Old 12-29-2005, 07:39 PM   #96 (Print)
Snowman
Kinda fuggly
 
Snowman's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2004
Posts: 3,086
Quote:
Originally Posted by redrouteone
It sounds like we did not get the whole story, once again.

If I understand correctly once she is arrested they have 48 hours to either file charges or let her go. So if they did file charges, wouldn't it have only take a couple of days for for a judge to decide wether she would be eleigable for bail or not?



Sure she could be eligible for bail, but that does NOT mean she has the means to post bail. Also, the only way to get a court-appointed attorney is to not post bail. They figure if you have money for bail, you've got money for an attorney.

When you're arraigned, you get to say one thing... "yes, I understand the charges". There is no arguing the case.
Snowman is offline Report Bad Post Report Post
Old 12-29-2005, 07:40 PM   #97 (Print)
aindik
Registered User
 
aindik's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2002
Location: Philadelphia, PA
Posts: 3,264
Send a message via AIM to aindik
Quote:
Originally Posted by Snowman
Sure she could be eligible for bail, but that does NOT mean she has the means to post bail. Also, the only way to get a court-appointed attorney is to not post bail. They figure if you have money for bail, you've got money for an attorney.

When you're arraigned, you get to say one thing... "yes, I understand the charges". There is no arguing the case.


She was eligible for bail - at $500,000.
aindik is offline Report Bad Post Report Post
Old 12-29-2005, 07:40 PM   #98 (Print)
Snowman
Kinda fuggly
 
Snowman's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2004
Posts: 3,086
Quote:
Originally Posted by busyba
A saying about spite and a nose comes to mind.....


Seriously, have I not proven time and time again that sensible advice to me falls on deaf ears?
Snowman is offline Report Bad Post Report Post
Old 12-29-2005, 07:43 PM   #99 (Print)
jrinck
Certified Neurotic
 
jrinck's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2004
Location: Hollister, CA (about 90 miles S of SF)
Posts: 3,779
Quote:
Originally Posted by Snowman
When you're arraigned, you get to say one thing... "yes, I understand the charges". There is no arguing the case.


I've never seen anyone say "No" to this question. What do they do when you say you don't understand the charges?

__________________
A wise man learns from the mistakes of others; a fool, from his own.
Oh, and wise men also religiously read The Neurotic Highway!
jrinck is offline Report Bad Post Report Post
Old 12-29-2005, 07:44 PM   #100 (Print)
GoodSpike
Registered User
 
GoodSpike's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2001
Location: Seattle, WA
Posts: 13,091
Quote:
Originally Posted by aindik
Because she didn't commit one? I'm not sure of your point here.


Committing a prank going through airport security isn't a crime?

__________________
Valet Park-It Yourself
GoodSpike is offline Report Bad Post Report Post
Old 12-29-2005, 07:48 PM   #101 (Print)
aindik
Registered User
 
aindik's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2002
Location: Philadelphia, PA
Posts: 3,264
Send a message via AIM to aindik
Quote:
Originally Posted by GoodSpike
Committing a prank going through airport security isn't a crime?


There may or may not be a legal distinction between committing a prank involving the existence of explosives or weapons, on the one hand, and the existence of narcotics or other simple contraband on the other. I'm not sure if there is, but it wouldn't surprise me.
aindik is offline Report Bad Post Report Post
Old 12-29-2005, 07:51 PM   #102 (Print)
GoodSpike
Registered User
 
GoodSpike's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2001
Location: Seattle, WA
Posts: 13,091
Could be, but that's the crime I was thinking of. Not a drug crime, but of interfering with the screeners.

__________________
Valet Park-It Yourself
GoodSpike is offline Report Bad Post Report Post
Old 12-29-2005, 07:54 PM   #103 (Print)
Snowman
Kinda fuggly
 
Snowman's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2004
Posts: 3,086
Quote:
Originally Posted by GoodSpike
Committing a prank going through airport security isn't a crime?


No. She wasn't committing a prank. Committing a prank is calling attention to the issue, such as "I've got a bomb". If she chooses to carry flour in condoms, that's her right. THEY searched her luggage, so THEY started it. If she walked up with said flour in a condom and said "I've got coke", then she started it. That doesn't appear to be what happened.
Snowman is offline Report Bad Post Report Post
Old 12-29-2005, 08:02 PM   #104 (Print)
GoodSpike
Registered User
 
GoodSpike's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2001
Location: Seattle, WA
Posts: 13,091
Quote:
Originally Posted by Snowman
No. She wasn't committing a prank. Committing a prank is calling attention to the issue, such as "I've got a bomb". If she chooses to carry flour in condoms, that's her right. THEY searched her luggage, so THEY started it. If she walked up with said flour in a condom and said "I've got coke", then she started it. That doesn't appear to be what happened.


So under this rational, if she had something in her luggage that looked like a bomb . . ..

__________________
Valet Park-It Yourself
GoodSpike is offline Report Bad Post Report Post
Old 12-29-2005, 08:09 PM   #105 (Print)
Snowman
Kinda fuggly
 
Snowman's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2004
Posts: 3,086
Quote:
Originally Posted by GoodSpike
So under this rational, if she had something in her luggage that looked like a bomb . . ..


Then that's their problem. If I want to wire a clock to a few pieces of pipe, that's my business.

Actually, something looking like a bomb IS something that airport SECURITY should be looking for. Drugs aren't why we pay good money for them to scan stuff.

Last edited by Snowman : 12-29-2005 at 08:22 PM.
Snowman is offline Report Bad Post Report Post
Old 12-29-2005, 08:27 PM   #106 (Print)
GoodSpike
Registered User
 
GoodSpike's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2001
Location: Seattle, WA
Posts: 13,091
Quote:
Originally Posted by Snowman
Actually, something looking like a bomb IS something that airport SECURITY should be looking for. Drugs aren't why we pay good money for them to scan stuff.


Which seemingly might explain why she was charged at the state level and not the federal level.

__________________
Valet Park-It Yourself
GoodSpike is offline Report Bad Post Report Post
Old 12-29-2005, 09:24 PM   #107 (Print)
aindik
Registered User
 
aindik's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2002
Location: Philadelphia, PA
Posts: 3,264
Send a message via AIM to aindik
Quote:
Originally Posted by GoodSpike
So under this rational, if she had something in her luggage that looked like a bomb . . ..


Having something in your luggage (that is commercial airliner-bound) that looks like a bomb is, in and of itself, illegal. Having something in your luggage that looks like drugs isn't.
aindik is offline Report Bad Post Report Post
Old 12-29-2005, 09:42 PM   #108 (Print)
jerobi
News/Deal Junkie
 
Join Date: Sep 2000
Posts: 1,433
Quote:
Originally Posted by Gregor
Dumba$$. Just packaging anything in that manner is bound to raise suspicions.


Exactly. That "It's a stress ball" was a weak defense, at best. It was a prank and the cops didn't find it funny.

__________________
-------
Today's Top Deals, News, & Freebies ...
jerobi is offline Report Bad Post Report Post
Old 12-29-2005, 09:49 PM   #109 (Print)
Philly Bill
Outsider :)
 
Join Date: Oct 2004
Location: Hadley Apennine
Posts: 1,625
Send a message via AIM to Philly Bill Send a message via Yahoo to Philly Bill
What a dumbass.

I bet she doesn't do it again.

__________________
Semper Fi
Philly Bill is offline Report Bad Post Report Post
Old 12-29-2005, 09:50 PM   #110 (Print)
JYoung
Registered User
 
JYoung's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2002
Location: Los Angeles
Posts: 6,544
For her next trick,
she will walk into a bank with a fake gun and say it was joke.

__________________
Member of the TiVoShanan Fan Club!

"I aim to misbehave"

Party in Vegas, see my photos
JYoung is offline Report Bad Post Report Post
Old 12-29-2005, 09:51 PM   #111 (Print)
Mark Lopez
Just click ignore
 
Mark Lopez's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2000
Location: Hondo TX
Posts: 5,317
Quote:
Originally Posted by aindik
Is this the first time they're using it? Either they know it's faulty, or they should.


Huh? (again). If they somehow received a batch of defective test kits, how the hell are they supposed to know about it ahead of time?
Mark Lopez is offline Report Bad Post Report Post
Old 12-29-2005, 10:39 PM   #112 (Print)
houndb
Registered User
 
Join Date: Sep 2005
Location: New Hudson,MI
Posts: 22
Smile

The test kits is just used for presumptive drug testing . It is not a guarantee and that is why you still have to have a lab test it. When the lab says its drugs then it is. The field test just says that it is a good possibility that it can be. Just like for drunk driving you have field tests and a pbt that measures alcohol levels. That does not prove you are drunk driving but it gets you arrested and taking back to the station where you blow into a machine called a datamaster and it reads your alcohol levels and what the machine gives is your alcohol level.

It was her choice to say in jail for 3 weeks she could have posted bond. There are many people in jail that have not been proven guilty yet that can not post bond. That is the way the legal system has always been. You are not guilty until your trial and your trial can be many months away.

The false positive could have been from the chemicals in the condoms. The test does not say how much of the drug was in the condom all they do is change color when there is a presence of the drug tested.

Also criminals never lie. Any one that has drugs on them if ask will say they are not drugs .

__________________
Originally Posted by waldingrl
Quote:
So, if I have read this correctly, women should be constantly having sex with each other, for the health benefits.
houndb is offline Report Bad Post Report Post
Old 12-29-2005, 10:45 PM   #113 (Print)
busyba
Registered User
 
busyba's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2003
Location: NYC
Posts: 2,862
Quote:
Originally Posted by aindik
Having something in your luggage (that is commercial airliner-bound) that looks like a bomb is, in and of itself, illegal.

I think you need to qualify that statement a bit.

I know people who have traveled with a case of poker chips in their luggage. In an X-ray machine, they look suspiciously like dynamite. While they certainly got scrutiny from the screeners, they were not detained or charged with a crime.

Having something in your luggage deliberately made up to look like a bomb... that on the other hand might be illegal in and of itself.

__________________
"of course, you are 100% correct" --jsmeeker
"Personally, I think that's an excellent point." --pigonthewing
"busyba is officially my favorite poster." --pigonthewing
busyba is offline Report Bad Post Report Post
Old 12-30-2005, 01:45 AM   #114 (Print)
aindik
Registered User
 
aindik's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2002
Location: Philadelphia, PA
Posts: 3,264
Send a message via AIM to aindik
Quote:
Originally Posted by busyba
I think you need to qualify that statement a bit.

I know people who have traveled with a case of poker chips in their luggage. In an X-ray machine, they look suspiciously like dynamite. While they certainly got scrutiny from the screeners, they were not detained or charged with a crime.

Having something in your luggage deliberately made up to look like a bomb... that on the other hand might be illegal in and of itself.


This was all under the discussion of "playing a prank with security," but, technically, you're right.
aindik is offline Report Bad Post Report Post
Old 12-30-2005, 01:46 AM   #115 (Print)
aindik
Registered User
 
aindik's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2002
Location: Philadelphia, PA
Posts: 3,264
Send a message via AIM to aindik
Quote:
Originally Posted by houndb
It was her choice to say in jail for 3 weeks she could have posted bond.


I'll tell you that next time they arrest you and your bond is set at $500,000.

Quote:
Originally Posted by houndb
There are many people in jail that have not been proven guilty yet that can not post bond. That is the way the legal system has always been. You are not guilty until your trial and your trial can be many months away.


Of course, not everyone in this situation could be demonstrably proven to not be guilty by a faster lab test.
aindik is offline Report Bad Post Report Post
Old 12-30-2005, 02:12 AM   #116 (Print)
justen_m
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jan 2004
Location: Boise Idaho
Posts: 84
Quote:
Originally Posted by minorthr
Yes and NO

She was incredibly stupid for trying to take condoms packed with anything on a plane.

But what does it say about the philly narcotics cops who took 2 weeks to discover that it was actually flour.


Read the article again.
"Police told her a field test showed that the powder contained opium and cocaine"

Nowhere does it say that at any time the police actually thought there were nartcotics present. They just SAID IT to try and get a confession. Cops can lie all they want to suspects.

Justen
justen_m is offline Report Bad Post Report Post
Old 12-30-2005, 02:29 AM   #117 (Print)
RegBarc
MJITKOP
 
RegBarc's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2003
Location: Philadelphia, PA
Posts: 5,732
Send a message via AIM to RegBarc
Quote:
Originally Posted by justen_m
Read the article again.
"Police told her a field test showed that the powder contained opium and cocaine"

Nowhere does it say that at any time the police actually thought there were nartcotics present. They just SAID IT to try and get a confession. Cops can lie all they want to suspects.

Justen

I believe (and the report could be wrong) a local news station stated the test was a false-positive and it wasn't fabricated to ellicit a confession.

__________________
James, the Merciful

James, the Merciful's books

"Man cannot make principles; he can only discover them." - Thomas Paine
RegBarc is offline Report Bad Post Report Post
Old 12-30-2005, 10:07 AM   #118 (Print)
Tsiehta
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jul 2002
Location: Phila, PA
Posts: 1,067
I'm trying to calculate the costs of a pack of condoms and flour versus just buying a stress ball in the first place

__________________
"You can wordify anything if you just verb it" - Bucky Kat
Tsiehta is offline Report Bad Post Report Post
Old 12-30-2005, 10:15 AM   #119 (Print)
GoodSpike
Registered User
 
GoodSpike's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2001
Location: Seattle, WA
Posts: 13,091
Quote:
Originally Posted by aindik
Having something in your luggage (that is commercial airliner-bound) that looks like a bomb is, in and of itself, illegal. Having something in your luggage that looks like drugs isn't.


I think it would depend on your intent (for the latter case). If you just have something that looks like drugs (e.g. white powder of some type) that wouldn't be illegal. But if you go to steps to make the security screeners question it (e.g. put it in a condom, etc.) then it should be a crime if it isn't.

__________________
Valet Park-It Yourself
GoodSpike is offline Report Bad Post Report Post
Old 12-30-2005, 10:17 AM   #120 (Print)
pigonthewing
Why bother blogging?
 
pigonthewing's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2002
Location: Wayne, NJ
Posts: 5,061
Quote:
Originally Posted by Tsiehta
I'm trying to calculate the costs of a pack of condoms and flour versus just buying a stress ball in the first place

But what if they were glow-in-the-dark condoms? Or ribbed? Perhaps they offered some kind of advantage not available in a stress ball and the article excluded that fact.

__________________
Instapig '06 has been announced! - and solidified!
Now featuring dinner and a new name. =)
pigonthewing is offline Report Bad Post Report Post
 
Forum Jump
Thread Tools

Go Back  TiVo Community Archive2 > Off Topic Areas (Non-TiVo) > Happy Hour - General Chit-Chat

Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

vB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off



All times are GMT -5. The time now is 05:09 PM.


Powered by: vBulletin Version 3.0.6
Copyright ©2000 - 2019, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
(C)opyright - All Rights Reserved. No information may be posted elsewhere without written permission.
TiVoŽ is a registered trademark of TiVo Inc. This site is not affiliated with TiVo Inc.


Spider History Index