Well yeah, japan got to try twice. They tried it themselves, fucked it up the same way Germany did, then did it right with the Americans holding their hands and fingering their ass. Its not hard to get it right when youre a hand puppet.

Brothers what i would give for a remaster of Chromehounds on console.

Big stompy triple doubles, whack ass drinking bird howitzers, a swam of pile driver piranhas, Gator snipers, all the things.

I would love to see a couple modern MOBA teams running a tournament. Who is running radar? Is someone rushing base with a pile driver? Who is that widow main in the gator over on the edge of the combat area?

It would be glorious.

I literally say "save your receipts" at the end of my post and you come back with "well what if you couldn't prove it?"

Thats what court is for.

Are you saying we should implicitly trust what a cop says just because they happened to be around to write a ticket? What makes an officers testimony more reliable than a photograph or video? In my state, cops arent even allowed to pull people over for minor traffic infractions anymore because they cant seem to stop targeting black and brown people. Do you think that's somehow better than a speed camera or red light cam that doesnt care if the person driving is white or not?

Clearly the only solution here is to issue each child their own protective shock gloves so they can tase the SRO who tased them.

You are correct in theory. In reality, its messy.

The courts suppose that a theoretical officer could be at any public place at any time for various reasons, and they are correct. Anything viewable from a public space is subject to plain view doctrine.

Your problem is that you say the scope of the actual surveillance available is disproportionate to the reality of what officers could feasibly see in the same timeframe. You are basically arguing that a continuous surveillance of public spaces constitutes an overbroad search.

The problem is that courts have set no upper limit on passive public observation. I cant think of any precedent where "the cops look this way too much" has ever been set as a valid cause of action against a government interest. Your best bet would be trying to argue that its prejudicial, but it'd be hard to proceed when there is surveillance on everyone pretty equally.

My problem with it is mostly that its a private network. If these cameras and services are being paid for with public funds, then the images they capture should be available for public use. Thats a whole new nightmare all on its own, but thats kind of the technohorror future we are building towards. Anyone being able to track down anyone at any time is a scary thought. But that's what you get when you build a giant spy network with public money. The public gets access according to the law.

Then how do plain view doctrine and warrantless searches work then?

Cool, so anyone who can afford a self driving car is immune to tickets and traffic citations. Very bourgeois.

Ticketing a car is a good practice to avoid police interaction, which is the real danger in this country. The burden of proof still applies in court, so even if you did get a "phantom" ticket, they still have to prove you were in control of the vehicle at the time. I recently got a red light camera ticket on a rental thrown out because I showed i turned in the vehicle 4 hours before the time of the infraction. Goddamn Hertz tried to throw me under the bus. Always keep your receipts.

There are plenty of privacy laws, but the catch is that you have to make an effort to create privacy. Putting your blinds down creates privacy. Building a roof over your pool and walls around your yard create privacy. There is just no expectation of privacy in public, and technically anything that can be seen from public is "in plain view". Protecting your privacy is not a function of the state unless you had an expectation of privacy through explicit disclaimer or honest effort.

They dont need a warrant for a plate that is visible from public. If your car was locked up in a garage, that would be a different story. Taking your car out in public is the same as taking your face out in public legally speaking.

You're as native to New York as the horses that came over on the Mayflower. As a native American, its always a trip to see immigrants looking down on shiner, newer immigrants. Talking about natives and non natives like that means anything in a gateway city like NYC, SF, or LA is laughable.

You can be a South Brooklyn chump all you want. It doesnt mean youre any more "new york" than an Amish kid who came up to the city on rumspringa and never left.

Its a lot easier if you think of it as the same sound you'd get at the end of badum tiss

"Assthedick"

Now you'll never forget.

As a native english speaker, obsequious.