Well...That escalated quickly.

Reply

+129

#1 - include (07/11/2014) [-]

When the FBI arrive to the cow.

Reply

+60

#6 - anonymoose ONLINE (07/12/2014) [+] (17 replies)

He was a redditor called /u/khaledthegypsy who posted a comment bombing a mall seems so easy to do. i mean all you really need is a bomb, a regular outfit so you arent the crazy guy in a trench coat trying to blow up a mall and a shopping bag. i mean if terrorism were actually a legitimate threat, think about how many ******* malls would have blown up already.. you can put a bag in a million different places, there would be no way to foresee the next target, and really no way to prevent it unless CTU gets some intel at the last minute in which case every city but LA is ****** ...so...yea...now i'm surely bugged : / saying how easy it would be to bomb a mall. Here's a picture of the tracking device.

You need to login to view this link

Reply

+18

#13 to #6 - lazypaul (07/12/2014) [-]

'All you really need is a bomb'

Yeah I'll just get a bomb then.

Reply

+1

#18 to #13 - brothergrimm ONLINE (07/12/2014) [-]

they're not hard to make

Reply

-2

#19 to #18 - lazypaul (07/12/2014) [-]

One big enough for a mall?

Reply

0

#20 to #19 - brothergrimm ONLINE (07/12/2014) [-]

it doesn't have to blow up the whole mall. just place it in the busy area during the busiest time. maximum carnage

Reply

+1

#23 to #20 - twilightdusk ONLINE (07/12/2014) [-]

Doesn't even need to kill anyone really. The point of terrorism is to incite terror, hence the name. Blow it up in a secluded corner during a busy time and you've got a mob of people running for their lives.

and now I'm sure I'm on an FBI watchlist...meh, I probably already was from looking up so much weird porn.

Reply

0

#24 to #23 - brothergrimm ONLINE (07/12/2014) [-]

I've been on that list for 5 years.... and i'm only 21. i get pulled and frisked every goddamn time i go to the airport.......

Reply

0

#25 to #24 - angelodlt (07/12/2014) [-]

for what

Reply

+1

#26 to #25 - brothergrimm ONLINE (07/12/2014) [-]

multiple reasons. **** i say on the internet like that guy, nearly inciting a riot in a mcdonalds one time, getting picked up by the cops after testing a homemade incendiary device on APPARENTLY private property seriously how the **** was i supposed to know?! the list goes on.....

Reply

+2

#37 to #26 - waffies (07/12/2014) [-]

Damnit grimm. You are not helping you're case.

Reply

+3

#39 to #37 - brothergrimm ONLINE (07/12/2014) [-]

what are they gonna do? arrest me?

Reply

+6

#41 to #39 - waffies (07/12/2014) [-]

Also, testing you're and your

Reply

0

#65 to #41 - sharklazers (07/12/2014) [-]

you're fabulous and sparkly

Reply

+9

#22 to #6 - jpg (07/12/2014) [-]

"yeah, I'm probably bugged"

Good call.

Reply

+3

#11 to #6 - envinite ONLINE (07/12/2014) [-]

I ******* know it you all ******* anomanaloose always up to criminal aktivity.

Reply

0

#45 to #6 - bjornkrage (07/12/2014) [-]

well then, you should probably check you're car right about now.

Reply

-1

#12 to #6 - baitdoesnttalkback (07/12/2014) [-]

that does not look like a tracker

Reply

+1

#14 to #12 - funnyjunkforlife (07/12/2014) [-]

because you would know what the fbi uses to track?

Reply

+36

#8 - willindor (07/12/2014) [+] (1 reply)

Watch out with that, the cow might be a federal agent.

Reply

+1

#51 to #8 - pianoz ONLINE (07/12/2014) [-]

that show was awesome

Reply

+13

#10 - bestfoxgirl (07/12/2014) [+] (38 replies)

Gets a visit from FBI? What did they want? To admit to tracking and ask for their toy back?

Reply

+4

#30 to #10 - kiaserzerg (07/12/2014) [-]

he posted photos of military private hardware all over the internet, so the fbi came by to say "we didnt do anything but dont post pics of our top secret technology"

Reply

+4

#31 to #30 - bestfoxgirl (07/12/2014) [-]

that private military hardware was this toy he found?

Reply

+1

#33 to #31 - kiaserzerg (07/12/2014) [-]

You need to login to view this link

Reply

+1

#32 to #31 - kiaserzerg (07/12/2014) [-]

did a bit of research, this tracker is only available to military and enforcement. so yea. the toy is a high piece of tech

Reply

0

#34 to #32 - bestfoxgirl (07/12/2014) [-]

Well they left it in his car, so he could assume that they abandoned it. Until they came up to retrieve it, he could do all the photos in the world.

And I think he could ask for a reward for finding it, too (if they didn't pay up, he wouldn't even have to give it to them)

Reply

+2

#35 to #34 - kiaserzerg (07/12/2014) [-]

well, since the driveway is considered public property, and using a tracker is no longer in need of a warrant, the fbi still own it. and yes, they could consider it stolen property or some **** . do you really think any government branch is just going to say "oh okay, im sorry heres some money"?

Reply

0

#38 to #35 - bestfoxgirl (07/12/2014) [-]

driveway yes. Car-no. Also, you could always say that someone abandoned it. You didn't even have to know what it is.

"and yes, they could consider it stolen property or some **** ." That's not true. To steal something, you have to 'want' to steal this thing, you have to know that it doesn't belong to you, you have to be sure that someone didn't just abandon it, and you have to be sure that the owner will come looking for it. He could have even sold it.

"do you really think any government branch is just going to say "oh okay, im sorry heres some money"?" From a legal point of view, yes. Sometimes it's the only way. In some country they recently misplaced a drone. They lost a ******* drone. Now if someone found it, they could have ask for 10% of the drone's value before returning it (there's a law saying that. A reward for lost item). A ******** of money. If the military didn't pay up- no dice.

Reply

0

#40 to #38 - kiaserzerg (07/12/2014) [-]

content.time.com/time/magazine/article/0,9171,2015765,00.html

www.nytimes.com/2010/10/05/opinion/05tue2.html?ref=opinion&_r=0

warrantless tracking of the vehicle is legal, and some places are still debating.

Reply

0

#42 to #40 - bestfoxgirl (07/12/2014) [-]

I never said that it's illegal (even though I have my doubts about that. US courts don't have almost any authority when it comes to interpretation of legal problems [US isn't a developed country when it comes to law] and international treaties are much more strict on governmental actions than US laws. Needless to say, International Law> US law. So if US has any human rights treaties signed, their citizens are protected no matter what their sorry excuses of courts say).

What I said is that even if it's legal, there are still at least 2 ways to troll the FBI legally in that situation.

Reply

0

#47 to #42 - themurp (07/12/2014) [-]

You should learn more about U.S. law. First, we don't care all that much about international law, we're America. Second, almost our entire legal system is based of the results of cases. A lot of what goes on in court cases is not pointing to laws but discussing prior cases on the same subject.

Reply

-1

#49 to #47 - bestfoxgirl (07/12/2014) [-]

"First, we don't care all that much about international law, we're America."
-Nobody gives a damn who cares about what. International law always comes before a certain country's law, and if they contradict- a country's law doesn't matter. It's as if it didn't even exist.

"Second, almost our entire legal system is based of the results of cases."
-Of that I am quite aware. But given how low standards of US's juridical system are, it's important to point out that it's easy to point out that certain actions are legal, even without any prior cases on the same subject

Reply

0

#81 to #49 - themurp (07/13/2014) [-]

Also, I should point out that I agree you could easily troll the FBI in that situation. (they might cause you a lot of hassle though.)

Reply

0

#80 to #49 - themurp (07/13/2014) [-]

"Nobody gives a damn who cares about what."
Every single country on the planet cares a whole lot what America thinks about laws. Even our own laws, which is weird and they complain, but we aren't making them watch our cultures television, they choose to. (that's economics and culture though, not law.)

"International law always comes before a certain country's law."
HAHA, no. International law is an agreement to not like people who break international law. The goal is to dissuade people from committing such actions which would get them powerful enemies. The U.S. has the strongest military and therefore the smallest incentive to adhere to international law, the incentive gets bigger as the country gets weaker.

"US courts don't have almost any authority when it comes to interpretation of legal problems"
But... you just agreed they do...

Reply

0

#83 to #80 - bestfoxgirl (07/13/2014) [-]

"Every single country on the planet cares a whole lot what America thinks about laws."
-BS. US is one of the least developed countries (in the civilized world) when it comes to law, and it's common knowledge that it's US which falls far behind the Europe and Asia when it comes to legal regulations and science. I'd say it's enough to say that US is laughed at for the lack of proper 1st instance courts or penal law.

"HAHA, no. International law is an agreement to not like people who break international law."
-Again, don't brag about you're lack of knowledge. Hearing such ********* just hurts.
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Public_international_law
Here, the most basic thing you can have, it's actually dumbed down so that even people like you (who don't know anything about law) could understand it.

"But... you just agreed they do..."
-No, I didn't. You have totally zero knowledge, but you should at least be able to read with comprehension.

Reply

0

#84 to #83 - themurp (07/13/2014) [-]

"-BS. US is one of the least developed countries (in the civilized world) when it comes to law"
I never said our laws were good. People across the world care about it because we are militarily and culturally the most dominant country. Most things we do have an effect on the whole world.

"Hearing such ********* just hurts."
I'm going to give you the benefit of the doubt here and assume you are well educated in law, and simply know absolute **** all about everything else. Yes, there are documents that say they are above every other law. Yes, some countries signed them. Yes, sometimes they are enforced in some ways. But you are heavily mistaken on what that means. Look at how nobody has actively gone to stop what's happening in syria. Why? Diplomacy for one, it's a big ********* waste of time for two, geneva convention and the like be damned nobody's going to try and save a suiciding country just caused someone signed a paper they don't care about. I'm not trying to say what international law says, I'm talking about its practical effect, which is, if you break international law, you might just piss off enough people to get carpet bombed for weeks straight. (Libya/Gadafi, sorta)

Summary: BFG-bestfoxgirl TM-themurp
"you should at least be able to read with comprehension."
BFG: Courts have near no authority for interpreting laws.
TM: But most of what cases are is looking at how courts have interpreted the laws in the past. (sorry if this isn't what my statement implied, this is what I intended)
BFG: "Of that I am quite aware."

Reply

0

#85 to #84 - bestfoxgirl (07/13/2014) [-]

"I never said our laws were good. "
-But you said that every country on the planet cares a whole lot what america thinks about laws, which is total bulldigestive end product. Not only due to the lack of quality of US law, but also the fact that US now tries to catch up to other countries. If anyone, it's US who cares about what others say about laws. Cause they are way behind.

"Yes, there are documents that say they are above every other law. Yes, some countries signed them."
-It doesn't depend on them signing the treaties (that's how they are called). International law IS above a country's law due to it being a principle rule of law. It's Iuris Cogentis/Ius Cogens of the international law, and no country even tries to deny that. It goes further, sometimes UN makes laws which are obligatory for countries which aren't even a part of UN.

"Look at how nobody has actively gone to stop what's happening in syria. Why?"
-Because it wasn't their intense bodyloveing business and Syria didn't ask officially for help to UN. Also, if anyone had a pact of defense signed with Syria, that would be a totally different talk.

Oh, now you need to lie? Pretty low
I said "US courts don't have almost any authority when it comes to interpretation of legal problems". That means that if a "hard case" (a case where an advanced interpretation problem occurs) appears, an interpretation of US court would most likely be laughed at in any international court. I didn't say they don't have competence/task to interpret law (because if they didn't, they couldn't make ANY verdict ever). I said that what US courts say isn't recognized as reasonable. They make silly mistakes, their interpretations are sloppy and vague. So yes, pretty much lack of comprehension on you're side. You misunderstood what I meant by 'authority'. There were 2 main options, one of them led you to an absurd that US courts can't make verdicts (argumentum ad absurdum). In such case, ALWAYS choose the other option.

Reply

0

#86 to #85 - themurp (07/13/2014) [-]

au·thor·i·ty noun \ə-ˈthär-ə-tē, ȯ-, -ˈthȯr-\
: the power to give orders or make decisions : the power or right to direct or control someone or something

"US courts don't have almost any power/right to give orders/direct/control when it comes to interpretation of legal problems"
Stop using you're ad hominem, ultra tunnel vision arguments. You said they can't interpret. Just cause some people might not like their decision, doesn't mean they don't make them. The United States courts interpret laws. They do this legally and their decisions are enforced. They have both power and right that are part of the word authority.

I'll be back later for the other points.

Reply

0

#87 to #86 - bestfoxgirl (07/13/2014) [-]

Also:
1. a. An accepted source of expert information or advice: a noted authority on birds; a reference book often cited as an authority.
2. Power to influence or persuade resulting from knowledge or experience: political observers who acquire authority with age.
3. Confidence derived from experience or practice; firm self-assurance: played the sonata with authority.

Which makes you're wrong interpretation irrelevant.

"Stop using your ad hominem, ultra tunnel vision arguments."
-You don't know what ad hominem is, either. Also, knowledge isn't 'ultra tunnel vision', it's just keeping out all the bulldigestive end product.

"The United States courts interpret laws. " But the way they do it is pathietic and generally laughed at. When it comes to legal debate, citing them is not a good idea.

"You said they can't interpret."
-Let me sum it up for you. You misunderstood the topic 4 times in 3 posts, also you have to be spoon-fed with every piece of information (not to mention you're poor vocabulary) and I can't interpret? Yellow card, kiddo.

Reply

0

#54 to #49 - citruslord ONLINE (07/12/2014) [-]

You really think that the US cares about what law is stronger? If there was an international law that contradicted the ruling that this kind of tracking was legal, who would enforce that? The US would continue to do it, and if that came to light, they would still do it, just more secretly.

Reply

0

#56 to #54 - bestfoxgirl (07/12/2014) [-]

It's not for US to decide. Who would enforce that? If a court made a mistake of not noticing international law, the higher court will **** such verdict up in appeal.

Reply

0

#57 to #56 - citruslord ONLINE (07/12/2014) [-]

I'm just saying that if the any government body, especially someone like the FBI, wanted to do something, they would. Law be damned. Laws are nice and all, but without a body to actually enforce them, they're useless words.

Reply

0

#60 to #57 - bestfoxgirl (07/12/2014) [-]

Not completely. If members of the FBI did what they want and broke the law completely, following the 'law be damned' rule, they could still get arrested in any other country.

Example: soldiers who invaded Crimea didn't identify themselves as Russian army, therefore they were actually terrorists. Now if any soldier said it out loud in any country that he took part in the invasion, the prosecution office of that country would be legally obliged to charge him (terrorism is prosecuted in every country).

Reply

0

#63 to #60 - citruslord ONLINE (07/12/2014) [-]

But generally, and especially in our own country.

Reply

0

#52 to #49 - sketchE (07/12/2014) [-]

no no no. we do not live under the new world order of globilization and one world government. its even said in the international court or whatever it is that they cant enforce anything. international laws only effect the interaction of people from multiple cuntries. they have no baring on what we do inside our own country

Reply

0

#53 to #52 - bestfoxgirl (07/12/2014) [-]

Dude. I know more about the international law than you, trust me.

There is no one world government, but the countries are still bound by international treaties they signed. And there is no one 'international court', there are a couple of them, made by different treaties. European Court of Human Rights for example was a part of the European Convention on Human Rights signed in 1953. European Court of Justice, on the other hand, was made as a part of EU mechanism. These 2 are completely independent.

You also mistook public international law (between countries) and private international law (between citizens of different countries)

Reply

0

#55 to #53 - sketchE (07/12/2014) [-]

so weve gt a bunch of different people telling us different things and saying we all have to follow them. how many countries break international law on a daily basis and nothing is done about it? so obviously international law isnt that big of a deal. you dont get the international police coming to arrest you. you get city state and national police because thats whos laws you're breaking

Reply

0

#58 to #55 - bestfoxgirl (07/12/2014) [-]

The fact that US breaks the international law doesn't make their actions legal.

"so obviously international law isnt that big of a deal."
-No, of course not. It's only the highest instance of legal system, the top of the whole mechanism, which determines the shape of everything below it. No big deal.

" you get city state and national police because thats whos laws your breaking"
-As I said before, I don't break the law if I don't follow a country's law which contradicts the international law. My actions are legal since the rule which I would 'break' if the international law didn't exist doesn't apply.

Reply

0

#59 to #58 - sketchE (07/12/2014) [-]

you're ass is still going to jail. im a criminal justice major. the only thing that effects our laws is our bill of rights. everything is based on that nothing is above it. it even says in our constitution. supremecy clause. the constitution is the supreme law of the land and nothing is above it. international laws do not and should not effect the people acting within a country. interactions between other nations sure let them have a say

Reply

0

#61 to #59 - bestfoxgirl (07/12/2014) [-]

"im a criminal justice major." you're lack of knowledge about law says otherwise. You mixed up 2 parts of international law, you don't know the rule of superiority, you don't even know that there are more than 1 international courts.

"everything is based on that nothing is above it. it even says in our constitution. supremecy clause. the constitution is the supreme law of the land and nothing is above it."
-It's a theoretic contradiction. I'm surprised that you haven't heard of it. Constitution of every country says that it's the highest act in a hierarchy, but when it is incompatible with the international law, the international law has priority. The same problem was with EU law against the constitutions of countries which belong to EU. The problem can be solved in 2 ways:
1. change the constitution
2. leave EU

Here we don't have an option to 'leave' the international law, since every country is bound by its iuris cogentis.

Reply

0

#62 to #61 - sketchE (07/12/2014) [-]

i cant even look up what that is. so how does this one world government theory work again? theres a set of laws out there somewhere that every nation must follow but no one really takes the time to enforce it?

Reply

0

#64 to #62 - bestfoxgirl (07/12/2014) [-]

Ok my slow friend, last piece of explanation (since I see that explaining legal problems to you is like explaining thermodynamics to a monkey)

1. It's not a one world government.
2. It's not a theory. It's a practice which was developed throughout centuries.
3. There are some laws which every nation must follow and they are iuris cogentis aka ius cogens. It's latin. In addition to that, every nation must obey the treaties they signed.

legal-dictionary.thefreedictionary.com/Jus+Cogens

Reply

0

#79 to #64 - themurp (07/12/2014) [-]

sketche down there (#66) is 100% right about laws. You obviously haven't heard of the many times laws have been ignored by enforcers or have gone unenforced and it seems you haven't heard of the many times sanctions have just been scraps of paper.

0

#82 to #79 - bestfoxgirl (07/13/2014) [-]

It doesn't mean it doesn't exist. It's just not enforced properly. But it doesn't change the fact of objective act of breaking the law.

Reply

0

#66 to #64 - sketchE (07/12/2014) [-]

so whats enforcing them? a law with no way to enforce it is just a peice of paper

0

#68 to #66 - bestfoxgirl (07/12/2014) [-]

I'm not even going to fall for that bait. I'm just gonna look at it for a bit and ponder on the cognitive level of an average inhabitant of our world.

So soothing...

Reply

0

#43 to #42 - kiaserzerg (07/12/2014) [-]

oh. i liked some ones idea of shoving it up a cows ass.

Reply

-1

#44 to #43 - bestfoxgirl (07/12/2014) [-]

I would have just sold it. I think toys like that are valuable.

Reply

+1

#36 to #34 - kiaserzerg (07/12/2014) [-]

also the item was strapped near the exhaust out of the way, a mechanic shop found it.