Assuming all they had was a live stream of police responding, and that it didn't start before police arrived, which would demonstrate prior knowledge, I don't see probable cause. It's much more likely that a passer-by recorded it.
There certainly are situations where this could be reasonable; however, when your parameters return 30,000 people it's not nearly tailored enough.
To get a warrant you need probable cause that a person committed a crime, I don't see how a live stream could meet that burden unless it starts prior to the arrival of the police.
These are both abuses by law enforcement, or more clearly, a path that allows their job to be easier by infringing on people's rights.
Adam Schiff spent money propping up an RNC candidate to torpedo a fellow Democrat.
So he spent money to win an election. That's pretty normal.
This isn't about him putting forward a platform...
Agreed. Most campaigning isn't about simply stating a platform.
this is about him sabotaging a legitimate threat...
Sabotage? That's an overstatement, if not a complete falsehood. He raised the profile of the Republican in an open primary, knowing Katie Porter had less support amongst Democrats.
...and making it more likely that a republican wins the seat - ...
From 0% to .005%? How reasonable is it that any Republican wins this seat, let alone this specific Republican.
...do you think his genuine interpretation is that a republican should take the seat?
I think he realizes that this is the best chance for him to win the election. Winning being the purpose of an election, he's acted as any reasonable person would.
You have still failed to state your standard, and how someone trying to win an election within the bounds of all applicable rules falls short of that standard.
I can't imagine anyone is smart enough to have $500m to lend, but stupid enough to accept this stock as collateral, especially knowing Trump's ability to tank it.
Because they're running for a job where they should have the public interests first.
Yes, in the job they should have the public interest first. But he's competing to get the job, he can't work in the public interest unless he's elected.
Just because America is a shitty corporate hellhole doesn't mean we can't be disappointed when politicians fail to live up to a reasonable standard.
I'm not sure what your standard even is? How can a candidate act in the public interest? They put forward their platform and the people decide. That's what happened. Should he not run because you don't think his policies are best for the public? Isn't that what voting is for?
You're asking candidates to compete for a job. Why are you surprised when they take actions consistent with their best interests. I don't think Schiff did anything inappropriate. Schiff mentioned Garvey to raise his profile because he's easier to defeat.
This isn't like Nixon contacting South Vietnam while he was a presidential candidate and telling them to not make peace because he wanted the war as an issue. That directly led to the deaths of thousands of Americans.
Assuming you preferred Katie Porter, what did you do to ensure she'd be the candidate?
Interesting how the reaction is split so far. It occurs to me that lots of celebrities have sold sketchy shit, but female celebrities get grief over it.
Dr. Oz seems like a great example in line with her. They both made bogus claims about snake oil products that don't provide the benefits claimed.
Did Matt Damon get cancelled over his crypto Superbowl ad? Food for thought, guys.
Damon did an ad as a spokesperson. Crypto is inherently risky; it's a currency based on nothing that people just made up. Unless I'm missing something, I don't even know how they're comparable.
Listen, you got nervous and things didn't work right. It's actually a fairly common issue. The problem is the next time not only are you nervous about the same stuff, but you get nervous it won't work again.
Be an adult and talk to her. You don't need to apologize, just explain that you like her and got nervous and things didn't happen. She's probably worried it was her. Take things slow and be patient and relaxed. Everything will work out fine.
If you don't know what you're doing, search for porn for women. It tends to be more "realistic" and more focused on what women enjoy. But at the end of the day just take it slow and communicate.
Ohhh...the Plaintiffs said it in their complaint! Well then it must be true! It would be impossible to list unsubstantiated claims in a complaint.
The ADA statute does not make specific reference to lactose intolerance. A court would have to determine that lactose intolerance is a disability under the statute, and I don't think it's clear on its face that it is.
The ADA protects qualified individuals with disabilities. An individual with a disability is a person who has a physical or mental impairment that substantially limits major life activities; has a record of such an impairment; or is regarded as having such an impairment.
I can't fathom why you're constantly trying to drag this thread into a discussion about the minutae of drink service operation instead of the topic at hand.
Providing additional options, especially options that require refrigeration, have additional costs associated with them. My central thesis has always been that a business should be able to recoup its cost and make a profit, that is the purpose of a business. The "minutiae of drink service operation" is central to that discussion.
It's clear that this conversation is going in circles and serves no purpose. I find it quite reasonable for a company to charge $0.70 when their costs increase by $0.25 cents, and you don't. The ADA requires only a reasonable accommodation, there are several reasonable accommodations available in the form of non-dairy beverages. It isn't even clear that lactose intolerance would be considered a disability under the ADA.
Troll, propagandist for authoritarians... whichever.
You're right though, I should believe you over ever other country and international organization on the planet. The guy who threatens nuclear annihilation and randomly fires missiles off to be provocative is just a friendly small-town mayor type. Just a case of bad PR.
If by normal country you mean authoritarian dictatorship with little to no freedoms, then sure "normal". Glad we put all that misinformation to rest.
Poisoning the well a bit by saying actively engaging. Sounds like they are passively watching.
Thoroughly disagree.
Ok.
Not so much, and they already, presumably have the video.
Other than mere location, what reason do you have to suspect the person? You can look, sure, but I don't see grounds for a warrant.