Rank #13425 on CommentsLevel 213 Comments: Comedic Genius
OfflineSend mail to moggz Block moggz Invite moggz to be your friend
|Last status update:|| |
|Date Signed Up:||12/18/2012|
|FunnyJunk Career Stats|
|Highest Content Rank:||#9053|
|Highest Comment Rank:||#3246|
|Content Thumbs:||42 total, 118 , 76|
|Comment Thumbs:||1434 total, 2364 , 930|
|Content Level Progress:|| 77.96% (46/59) |
Level 0 Content: Untouched account → Level 1 Content: New Here
|Comment Level Progress:|| 60% (60/100) |
Level 213 Comments: Comedic Genius → Level 214 Comments: Comedic Genius
|Times Content Favorited:||6 times|
|Total Comments Made:||555|
latest user's comments
|#160 - Comment deleted||05/23/2016 on GreenTeaNeko||+4|
|#110 - Hoping this guy can finally help his friend put out the invisi…||05/20/2016 on Dishonored 2 - New...||0|
|#55 - **moggz used "*roll picture*"** **moggz rolled image ** Ho…||05/16/2016 on Please||0|
|#10 - **moggz used "*roll picture*"** **moggz rolled image ** [+] (2 new replies)||05/15/2016 on Roll for the new Overwatch...||+55|
|#6 - My personal favorites per generation Bulbasaur. Totadile. Mudk… [+] (1 new reply)||05/10/2016 on MFW I see the new starters||+1|
|#4 - this right here. but like 50 times more. people always bitch a…||05/10/2016 on MFW I see the new starters||+1|
|#44 - What movie is this? [+] (2 new replies)||05/10/2016 on Random shit on my phone 23||0|
|#13 - So. Alot of people are against the guy in the truck. But this …||04/21/2016 on Rekt||-9|
|#6 - Wtf. why put the dog down? the dog did what its supposed to do… [+] (62 new replies)||04/13/2016 on CHILL, PUPPER, CHILL!!!||-115|
#36 - anon (04/13/2016) [-]
Guy makes mistake: "ugh humans r so stoopid"
Dog almost kills man: "no muh doggy, he didnu nuttin, plox save da doggy, so cute. I have a dog and it never does bad thing 2 me, it was humens fault"
I know that we have a fond image of dogs in our heads as cute, loyal fluffy creatures, and we tend to favour them against humans, but no matter how many people I meet who should be beaten to death, or how many dogs I meet which are furry bags of happiness, you should aways give priority to a human life instead of dogs.
I know it's harsh and edgy, and there are exceptions, but I belive this is how it should be.
I await read thumbs.
#66 - anon (04/13/2016) [-]
I don't disagree that this dog should be put down.
But this is very clearly not the dogs fault. It is poor training that has led to this unfortunate outcome, not a flaw inherent to the dog.
#62 - anon (04/13/2016) [-]
But the dog is a police dog that was, in fact, commanded to attack. Your argument is not a reason to put it down, because it is a dog whose purpose is to be violent on command. fabulousfreep has the right idea as to what went wrong here...you on the other hand appear not to.
#72 - blackmageewizardt (04/13/2016) [-]
he is supposed to disarm and to take the guy out, NOT TO FUCKING BITE HIS THROAT OPEN!
It went above what it had to do, bitting an subject ( who was btw, neither doing anything, nore was an obvious threat at the moment) on arm or leg to take it down, is one thing, but the dog went straight for the throat, theirfore a killing attempt.
Once a dog does this you have to put him to sleep, his very beeing and the training he got made him impossible for resocialisation.
So again, braindead anons as always.
#48 - youregaylol (04/13/2016) [-]
He was given many opportunities to get up, identify himself, or identify a reason why he couldn't get up. He could've answered the door. He could've not started a fire in his backyard while threatening his neighbors. He could've not had a rap sheet that included assault with a deadly weapon that the police knew about.
He got what was coming to him.
#136 - youregaylol (04/13/2016) [-]
#106 - anon (04/13/2016) [-]
Well he settled for 125 000 dollars so the police department apparently disagrees with you.
#57 - anon (04/13/2016) [-]
They entered the house ilegaly you fuckhead
#71 - anon (04/13/2016) [-]
How was it illegal
#80 - youregaylol (04/13/2016) [-]
You realize that cops don't need a warrant everytime they enter someones house right?
If there is an imminent need to enter the house they can do so, this is basic, basic law. If someone is being killed in a house a cop doesn't need a warrant to enter it.
If there is a fire in the backyard that needs to be put out and firefighters can't get to it because there is an uncooperative man with a violent record in the house, who neighbors say is violent, they can enter.
All of the people giving me reds should actually look up the laws instead of going on these uninformed rages against "durr ebil po po".
#89 - rhydonsmash (04/13/2016) [-]
And probable cause is also the most abused way for cops to illegally enter a house.
After the fact, literally all they have to say is something along the lines "We thought there was danger" and they don't even need witnesses. I'm a felon, so they can enter my house willy nilly anyway, but you as a citizen(I'm assuming) should definitely realize that your rights are only something you have until you give them away, and blindly assuming the police are in the right, is how you lose them.
And them not being charged with a crime is a joke. If you know anything about law and order, it's got more to do with what the DA considers a crime worth charging, rather than a law being broken. But you blindly assuming the police are in the right, tells me you've never had any experience with this.
Take it from someone who has. Always assume the police are in the wrong, unless they have concrete evidence to the contrary, seriously, if you've ever spent more than a few minutes with cops, it's not very hard to get the "Us Vs. Them" mentality, and they don't give a damn if you're breaking a law or not.
#91 - youregaylol (04/13/2016) [-]
>Always assume the police are in the wrong
Ya, I can tell I'm dealing with some real logical people here.
And what about you blindly assuming that what they did was illegal without any evidence?
What, you being a felon makes you an expert on illegal entries now? Please.
Your past experiences with cops have no bearing on this. They had probable cause to enter, it was completely legal. The only thing that came out of this was a civil suit that only had merit because the dog bit the dudes face.
There was nothing illegal about the entry. Things aren't illegal just because you feel like they are. Thats tumblr logic.
#96 - rhydonsmash (04/13/2016) [-]
I never said what they did was illegal. I simply stated that you blindly agreeing is how you lose your rights, and that probable cause is the most common way for illegal searches to be legally authorized.
And yes, my personal experience with these types of searches does make me knowledgeable on the subject. That's how experience and knowledge works.
And my last comment was followed with the statement, "Unless they have concrete evidence to the contrary"
You wouldn't pay a computer technician to fix your computer when you've never noticed a problem before. You'd need evidence that it's broken. Why are the police different? Oh right, they're not.
Seriously. Stop trolling. Your name is a giveaway.
#98 - youregaylol (04/13/2016) [-]
It's idiotic to assume that computer techinicans are putting viruses on my computer just because I see them pressing buttons on a keyboard. The whole "always assume cops are wrong" is beyond retarded.
Tbh I'd say that everyone bandwagoning me in this thread is trolling, but I know thats not the case.
You are all legitimately this illogical. You think what they did was illegal just because you "feel" it is. Complete insanity.
In my experience anti coppers are the bottom feeders of society. I don't subscribe to that hate group bullshit but the amount of incoherent rage you people feel towards law enforcement is creepy at best and dangerously stupid at worst.
#104 - rhydonsmash (04/13/2016) [-]
Once again, I've yet to say it was illegal. The fact that I've had to state this twice is telling me that you're the one not using logic. I'm not going to say it was illegal. I don't know the backstory, nor do I really care.
Nor did I say computer technicians were putting viruses on your computer, but they could definitely be trying to use your ignorance against you and charge you to do nothing. Much like police bringing up prior charges wit no backstory, to give an explanation for why a police dog mauled an obviously defenseless person(And their comment he could still be hiding a weapon, is ridiculous. Seriously, open handed with them in the air? Where would it be that they couldn't disarm him before he attacked. He's sitting on a couch. He'd need to make considerable movements just to have it in his hands by the time they were close)
And is your profile picture guy fawkes? If so, that's very ironic.
#123 - youregaylol (04/13/2016) [-]
Thats Doc Holiday from Tombstone. The "muh anonymouse" movement is cancer started by a bunch of no life shut ins.
If you have yet to call it illegal then I guess you're taking back your first assertion that "you should always assume cops are wrong".
He refused to get up and he refused to communicate. He could have easily been sitting on a weapon. Standing up readies someone for a search and arrest. He did not comply. It's not a considerable movement to reach and grab a knife under your butt cheek.
The prior charges are important because cops need to know if someone has a violent history. This one does, so they changed their tactics to fit the situation. You don't ask Ted Bundy to talk for instance.
#82 - anon (04/13/2016) [-]
It's okay bro, to err is human. It takes a real men to set his ego aside and admit defeat. Be that man today
#84 - youregaylol (04/13/2016) [-]
Regardless, I am right and all of you are wrong. An officer can enter a home without a warrant under certain circumstances. There was nothing illegal about entering the home.
I'll take all your reds, lick my ass you faggot queers.
#126 - sunnyday (04/13/2016) [-]
Just gonna say that, usually when it's 1 vs the world, especially when the world not only has read the stickied news article at the top of the fucking comment section and actually know what they're talking about, then the one is usually wrong.
"When the police wish to search a property they will generally require a warrant. The police have the right to search your property and seize any items that are linked with a crime, but they must do so lawfully. Any search which is not done lawfully will be in breach of Article 8 of the Human Rights Act which protects a suspect’s right to respect for his private and family life. The police must therefore ensure any attempts to search property and seize goods are reasonably necessary and proportionate to the circumstances involved at that time."
"Most often, the term warrant refers to a specific type of authorization; a writ issued by a competent officer, usually a judge or magistrate, which permits an otherwise illegal act that would violate individual rights and affords the person executing the writ protection from damages if the act is performed."
"Any police entry of an individual's home always requires a warrant (for either search or arrest), absent exigent circumstances, or the free and voluntary consent of a person with reasonably apparent use of or control over the property. Under the Fourth Amendment, searches must be reasonable and specific. This means that a search warrant must specify the object to search for and the place to search for it. Other items, rooms, outbuildings, persons, vehicles, etc. may require additional search warrants."
I mean, I could go on provide more, but you know... Overkill is a thing.
#129 - youregaylol (04/13/2016) [-]
You are all illogical babies foaming at the mouth about things you know nothing about. I am not going to bend for your group idiocy. Whats right is right, and you are wrong.
"If the police feel that the time it would take to get a warrant would jeopardize public safety or lead to the loss of evidence, they can perform a search without a warrant. For example, the police can forcibly enter a home if it is probable that evidence is being destroyed, if a suspect is trying to escape, or if someone is being injured. The police officer's responsibility to preserve evidence, arrest a suspect, or protect an individual outweighs the search warrant requirement."
"The police can also enter your home:
to give emergency aid to someone inside,
to protect the life or safety of someone inside if they have a reasonable belief that a life-threatening emergency exists,
to protect the life or safety of people in the home if someone heard a gunshot inside,
to investigate a 911 telephone call,
to help someone who has reported a domestic assault to remove their belongings safely,
to protect people from injury if the police have reason to suspect that there is a drug laboratory in the house, or
to help animals in immediate distress because of injury, illness, abuse, or neglect."
You are children, and like a good teacher I will educate you whether you like it or not.
#142 - sunnyday (04/13/2016) [-]
Right. Okay. But I fail to see how this supports your argument.
In fact, I'd say your argument contradicts itself by posting those sources.
No one inside that house called the police. The people that called were neighbors, calling due to "Threatening behavior. You cannot find physical evidence of that, so there was no reason to be there without a warrant.
No one in that house was in danger UNTIL the police dog attacked him.
No one needed emergency aid in that house UNTIL the police dog attacked him.
No one in that house needed protecting UNTIL the police dog attacked him.
No one called the police due to a domestic assault within the property. No violence actually occurred UNTIL the police dog attacked him.
There was NO REASON to suspect domestic violence, a drug laboratory or any animals in distress.
The police had NO REASON to enter the property unlawfully. NONE WHATSOEVER.
You're not a teacher in a classroom of children. You're an autist with his head in his own ass. Oooh looky here, i can call people stupid too!
#149 - youregaylol (04/13/2016) [-]
All it says is to investigate a 911 call, it has nothing to do with whether or not someone from inside the house called. If I hear screams coming from my neighbors house and I call the cops the cops must investigate it by going to the door, if no one answers they have to assume the worst. What if a murderer is inside killing someone and is forcing everyone ti be quiet?
Once again, it doesn't have to be just people outside the house being in danger, the fire posed a threat to the community. Also they don't know if anyone else is even inside the house being harmed because no one is talking to them
They needed emergency aid for the fire. Even in the source you keep flaunting it says firefighters couldnt get to the fire because the scene was not safe due to the erratic man.
You don't know who needs protecting inside that house before you go in and the neighbors need protecting from that fire.
They did have reason to enter. Putting that in caps doesn't change anything.
We'll get to that on your next lesson Kevin. Also we need to address your victim complex, if you insult someone you can't be surprised if they insult you back.
#151 - sunnyday (04/13/2016) [-]
"The West Jordan Police Department said the video tells an incomplete story. In a press conference Thursday afternoon, Sgt. Dan Roberts said they'd been called to Hoogveldts residence by neighbors who'd felt threatened by him and were concerned about a fire burning in his back yard." Says the article.
"Threatening behaviour" and "A fire in the BACKYARD" sure sound like GOOD REASONS to unlawfully breakdown a mans door with a team of armed police officers and police dog(s).
It does not take that much excessive force to investigate a 911 call for those kind of reports. It's like using a .50 cal gun to go clay pigeon shooting.
Also where the fuck did I insult you in my first comment?
#153 - youregaylol (04/13/2016) [-]
Umm, maybe I'm missing something but yeah, "threatening behavior" coupled with a fucking fire that firefighters can't put out is a pretty good reason to enter someones property.
The only thing that went wrong in this was the bite to the face, which he could've avoided had he only complied with the multiple orders given.
Lets not pretend that you weren't being passive aggressive. Just be a man and take what you give alright.
#156 - sunnyday (04/13/2016) [-]
Threaten behaviour is just shouting. And a that literally could have been any size. It doesn't even say if it was controlled or not. If the fire brigade were needed, the police would have brought them along but no where is that mentioned in the report, neither are they seen in the video.
And usually, when a group of men with guns break into your house unexpectedly, point there weapons at you and threaten to shoot, you're probably gonna freeze in fear. Emotion exists.
If you watch the video he's order to put his hands up. He complies.
Then they ask him to "Stand slowly" and then right after that order is given the dog attacks.
Sure. Of course. Believe that as much as you believe your own arguments but I don't think I'm the one with the victim complex here if you're trying to suggest my initial comment was "passive aggressive".
#159 - youregaylol (04/14/2016) [-]
Threatening behavior could be just shouting, it could also be "Fuck you I'm going to come into your house at night and rape you to death" , why you assume the neighbors are full of shit and overreacting is beyond me. It says that the fire department could not respond to take care of the fires, they couldn't do that because the scene was not safe.
Oh yeah, so frozen in fear that he couldn't answer the door, couldn't talk to them at all, and couldn't stand up despite hearing the order to raise his hands. Such bullshit.
He says stand up 5 times. How many warnings was he supposed to give.
Anyone with the most basic level of reading comprehension can recognize that was passive aggressive, dont be a fuckboy.
#157 - sunnyday (04/13/2016) [-]
Also when I say "Threatening behavior is just shouting" I'm using your own words as a source for that. "If I hear screams coming from my neighbors house" is exactly what you said. And if you're so right about what you're saying then surely you can't be wrong about this bit, right? There's some passive aggression for you.
#92 - useroftheLOLZ (04/13/2016) [-]
They need a warrant IN ALL CASES FUCKTARD.
The SUPREME COURT OF THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA.
"The Supreme Court has ruled that the home is entitled to maximum search protection. Even if they have probable cause to believe something illegal is going on inside your home, the 4th Amendment requires police to get a signed search warrant from a judge to legally enter and search."
You do not have to ANSWER your door. You do not have to ANSER THEIR QUESTIONS. There are two cases where the police MAY enter.
"If the police see an illegal act occurring outside of your home, they may perform a search and seize evidence from your home without a search warrant."
It's not an imminent need, retard, its if its an ILLEGAL ACT THAT THEY ARE ABLE TO OBSERVE. Your neighbor can't call and say, "Hi, Joe down the block is killing someone in his house." Before going down, busting down the door and shooting Joe's dog.
They need to go to his house and see if there is any observable evidence. Screams, blood, a gunshot. its a precourse to number two.
" If the police feel that the time it would take to get a warrant would jeopardize public safety or lead to the loss of evidence, they can perform a search without a warrant. For example, the police can forcibly enter a home if it is probable that evidence is being destroyed, if a suspect is trying to escape, or if someone is being injured. The police officer's responsibility to preserve evidence, arrest a suspect, or protect an individual outweighs the search warrant requirement."
AKA, only in cases where the person is under a CRIMINAL INVESTIGATION, can they enter if they have the belief, beyond the benefit of a doubt, that some serious shit is going on.
This dude was suspected of having burn barrel and cops kicked down his door, for what would could have very well been legal, had he been in possession of a burning permit, sicked a K9, only meant to be used in cases of ARMED SUSPECTS and then FAILED TO REMOVE THE IMPROPERLY TRAINED K9 FROM THE SCENE AFTER IT ALMOST LETHALLY KILLED SOMEONE.
This isn't a case of nigger trash acting stupid, this is cops, breaking and entering on doubtful grounds, committing attempted manslaughter in two separate accounts.
None the less, the K9 still attacked AN UNARMED, COMPLIANT MAN TWICE, ON COMMAND. That's the fucking issue you fucking autistic manchild. If someone fails to comply, you use force. You don't escalate it beyond what is necessary. If you believe your life is in danger, you use a tazer, or a gun if it is appropriate. Instead of arresting him with force, they instead tried KILLING HIM.
Fucking retard, I swear.
#95 - youregaylol (04/13/2016) [-]
The SUPREME COURT OF THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA."
Much to the surprise of the general public, the U.S. Supreme Court has ruled in favor of expanded the ability of law enforcement to search without warrants.
Your arm chair lawyer shtick is cool, I bet you even watch PINAC, but please stop yelling at me child. I am in no mood for your ignorance..
#112 - komandantmirkoo (04/13/2016) [-]
have you read beyond the title?
i get a feeling you didn't.
"Alito said there was no need for officers to obtain a warrant,” the Post explained. “When they arrived the first time, having followed Fernandez from the scene of a robbery, Rojas answered the door crying, with a bump on her nose and blood on her hands and shirt."
that's probable cause.
"What happened when police arrived was a girlfriend of an occupant allowed them to access the apartment, even though her boyfriend had refused to consent to the search"
she let the cops inside.
#121 - komandantmirkoo (04/13/2016) [-]
if nobody gives them permission to enter, they absolutely need a warrant.
however in the example you provided, there was both probable cause and a permission to enter. if for instance nobody answered the door, they couldn't do jack shit based on unconfirmed suspicions alone.
#125 - youregaylol (04/13/2016) [-]
>if nobody gives them permission to enter, they absolutely need a warrant.
Untrue. They do not need permission to enter someone home if there is an immediate danger. The fire in the backyard, coupled with the fact that firefighters couldn't get to it and the neighbors were afraid of him acting erratically, plus the non compliance brought on the probably cause.
#103 - useroftheLOLZ (04/13/2016) [-]
Except this is entirely click bate.
One, the woman CONSENTED to the search both verbally and in written form.
Second, the man in question was a suspect IN A CRIMINAL INVESTIGATION, AND IN THIS CASE FALLS INTO CATEGORY 2 WHERE IF THE POLICE SUSPECT OR HAVE STRONG EVIDENCE THAT... So they could have gotten a warrant had they wanted to.
This isn't a president of, "lol, fuck man, cappas, you do you."
This is a president of, "Jesus Christ, NO, all occupants of a home do NOT have to agree to a search if they're of equal stature on the building's title."
You're still ignoring the whole, "Cops lethally attacked a man with a purpously improperly trained K9."
#111 - youregaylol (04/13/2016) [-]
I'm not ignoring it, this entire thread was about whether or not it was illegal for them to enter the house illegally. It's not.
You said that they need a warrant in all cases. They don't, so I just found the first link on google and dismissed you.
You are not an intelligent person and I do not wish to converse with you. Thank you.
#165 - useroftheLOLZ (04/14/2016) [-]
>Hurr, ignore two specific exceptions made in absolute extreme cases
>Hurr, ignore the fact that police had no right, legally, to enter
>Hurr, ignore that the police's entry failed to meet the two specific criteria that only allowed them to enter the building, not enter the grounds, nor the fact that they have the legal right to observe
>Hurr, ignore that police are to work with firemen when there is a clear case of arson
>Hurr, ignore that in this case, protocol states that they first must attempt to put out the fire due to the non threatening nature of the fire not causing an imminent danger to the neighborhood
>Hurr, ignore that the cops were only called to perform a first responder INVESTIGATION
>Hurr, ignore the fact that the county and courts agreed and sided with the victim since the police have already lost the settlement, the dog was put down and apparently a criminal investigation was conducted on the cops
Wow Billy, you sure showed me!
#100 - anon (04/13/2016) [-]
Your link refers to a very specific instance where one occupant had given _permission_ for the police to enter while another had not - the supreme court ruled that this was sufficient.
It has absolutely nothing to do with the matter at hand. No permission to enter was given by anyone. Did you even read the article?
You are actually correct though, police can enter an apartment when they have probable cause - but don't link that unrelated shit based on the title.
#105 - youregaylol (04/13/2016) [-]
It's not unrelated, he started his rant by saying that you need a warrant in all cases to enter someones house. This is obviously false so I took the first link off of google and dismissed him because he's an idiot.
Anyway, thank you little anon for at least acknowledging the main point. I was beginning to think I was the only sane person in this thread.
#86 - anon (04/13/2016) [-]
"I don't like to say I'm wrong and be the bugger man xdddd"
|#111 - **moggz used "*roll picture*"** **moggz rolled image ** … [+] (1 new reply)||04/12/2016 on Call Of Duty Players...||0|