Upload
Login or register

kanpai

Last status update:
-
Gender: male
Age: 21
Date Signed Up:12/24/2012
Last Login:9/30/2016
Stats
Comment Ranking:#6643
Highest Content Rank:#488
Highest Comment Rank:#390
Content Thumbs: 19576 total,  22825 ,  3249
Comment Thumbs: 9633 total,  10630 ,  997
Content Level Progress: 9.6% (96/1000)
Level 219 Content: Comedic Genius → Level 220 Content: Mind Blower
Comment Level Progress: 19% (19/100)
Level 292 Comments: Post Master → Level 293 Comments: Post Master
Subscribers:16
Content Views:1122498
Times Content Favorited:2073 times
Total Comments Made:2121
FJ Points:5246
Favorite Tags: Anime (27) | funny (13) | memecenter (9) | Pokemon (7) | comic (6) | kud (6) | animemanga (4) | Art (4) | Drawing (4) | compilation (3) | Fusion (3) | manga (3) | caption (2) | Chuck Norris (2) | dutch (2) | family guy (2) | from my memecent (2) | GIF (2) | Kid (2) | Madoka Magica (2)

  • Views: 29876
    Thumbs Up 795 Thumbs Down 78 Total: +717
    Comments: 76
    Favorites: 10
    Uploaded: 09/27/14
    am i doing this right? am i doing this right?
  • Views: 22143
    Thumbs Up 417 Thumbs Down 29 Total: +388
    Comments: 47
    Favorites: 54
    Uploaded: 10/05/13
    Filthy Peasant Filthy Peasant
  • Views: 8202
    Thumbs Up 78 Thumbs Down 21 Total: +57
    Comments: 15
    Favorites: 10
    Uploaded: 02/06/14
    Source? Source?

latest user's comments

#65 - wasnt stop and frisk ruled unconstitutional in 2013?  [+] (35 replies) 23 hours ago on Trumper Comp59 +5
User avatar
#67 - MuahahaOfLore (22 hours ago) [-]
No
Look up terry stops
#152 - defhood (15 hours ago) [-]
hey Lore, go Fuck yourself. Im having a civil debate with this guy, and even thumbed him up when he had some decent points. didn't thumb down your straight retarded propaganda comp either. so why are you going through our discussion and thumbing me down? is it cuz you dont like WRONG opinions in your "Redpilled" (Fascist) Circlejerks?
User avatar
#157 - MuahahaOfLore (12 hours ago) [-]
out of all of your comments I thumbed down 2/17 what are you upset about?
User avatar
#114 - defhood (18 hours ago) [-]
if you have to reach all the way back to 1968 to find legal precedent to search black people without a warrant, maybe you should do some SOUL searching too.
User avatar
#78 - defhood (20 hours ago) [-]
Yes. look up The Supreme Court.
User avatar
#82 - arachnofondler (19 hours ago) [-]
MuahahaOfLore is correct. I'm a criminal justice major. New York State judge ruled that NYPD's stop and frisk was "unconstitutional". Now you may think that's a slam dunk, however, written state laws are not to supersede federal laws. So, the U.S. Supreme Court ruling remains law of the land, because stop and frisk was deemed NOT a violation of the 4th amendment by the U.S. Supreme Court in Terry v. Ohio. Here's some reading material for you: www.law.cornell.edu/supremecourt/text/392/1 and www.rt.com/usa/347666-scotus-stop-and-frisk/ (second one is as recent as June 2016).
User avatar
#148 - defhood (15 hours ago) [-]
the reason OP is asking if stop and frisk is unconstitutional is because Donalad Trump constantly praises Mayor Rudy Giuliani and New Yorks stop and frisk policy SPECIFICALLY. you can make arguments about rulings from 1968 all you want, but stop in frisk is unconstitutional in the region that is being disputed, as well as discriminatory, and unamerican.
User avatar
#149 - defhood (15 hours ago) [-]
“Stop and frisk was ruled unconstitutional in New York, because it largely singled out black and Hispanic young men.”
Donald Trump: “No, you’re wrong. It went before a judge, who was a very against-police judge. It was taken away from her. And our mayor, our new mayor [Bill de Blasio], refused to go forward with the case. They would have won an appeal. If you look at it, throughout the country, there are many places where it’s allowed.”

"WRONG WRONG WRONG"
User avatar
#84 - defhood (19 hours ago) [-]
it doesn't just violate the 4th. it also violates the 14th, because it was conclusively shown to unfairly target people of color.
User avatar
#85 - arachnofondler (19 hours ago) [-]
Maybe the stop the NYPD was conducting. I don't know how their practices were previous to 2013, but there is a very thin line between doing it the legal way, and illegal way. However we're still using U.S. Supreme Court rulings because they are the law of the land, and the only mention of the 14th amendment is: "The Fourth Amendment right against unreasonable searches and seizures, made applicable to the States by the Fourteenth Amendment, "protects people, not places," and therefore applies as much to the citizen on the streets as well as at home or elsewhere."

How nobody in the state of NY has argued against this blatant overstep of state power is beyond me. You can't exclude a law in one state that's enforced everywhere else. But then again NY is a liberal circlejerk shithole, so.
User avatar
#86 - defhood (19 hours ago) [-]
maybe they chose to uphold the spirit of the law, because stopping and frisking black people who look suspicious is shady as fuck?
User avatar
#87 - arachnofondler (19 hours ago) [-]
I mean, yeah it's shady to ONLY stop black people and frisk them. But I guarantee that it wasn't only "suspicious" black people that were being stopped. Anybody that looks suspicious will be, at the very least, stopped and talked to. Depending on your interaction with the officer they may frisk to determine their safety. But in New York City, the most populous city within the state, there is a larger percentage of black, or other minorities than white, and statistically, means that there would be a larger percentage of black and other minority people who will have interactions with police.

TL;DR I think because of the bigger minority populations, more minorities were stopped and they screamed racism.
User avatar
#89 - defhood (19 hours ago) [-]
as of 2010, new york was only 25% black. in 2010 police stoped and frisked over 600000 people. 86% were totally innocent, 53% were black, while only 9% were white (whites make up almost 45% of new yorks population).

www.nyclu.org/content/stop-and-frisk-data
User avatar
#90 - arachnofondler (19 hours ago) [-]
Makes me wonder where the officers were patrolling. If officers were only conducting beats in "ghettos", they would purposely drive that number up by wrongly stopping people.
User avatar
#92 - defhood (19 hours ago) [-]
www.nyclu.org/content/nypd-quarterly-reports

this page contains quarterly stop and frisk reports from various precincts in NYC.
User avatar
#95 - arachnofondler (19 hours ago) [-]
informative, but doesn't help when neither of us know the NYPD precincts in correlation to what's considered the "ghetto" areas. all i found was this map. 2015.padjo.org/files/images/tutorials/cartodb/red-choropleth-of-2009.png
User avatar
#97 - defhood (19 hours ago) [-]
idk dude, im not sure it really matters when 86% of these stops are unjustified, and obviously target such a hugely disproportionate segment of the population. im sure if we really broke down the numbers, they would in fact begin to skew in favor of your argument... yes, black neighborhood do tend to correlate with crime, but how does stopping innocent citizens and harassing them do anything to fix that, or help fix the black communities distrust of law enforcement?
User avatar
#98 - arachnofondler (19 hours ago) [-]
i get what you're saying, but that brings up way more issues than just the stop itself. it needs way more to fix, as well. better community outreach programs, better relations, etc.
User avatar
#138 - defhood (16 hours ago) [-]
As long as laws exist in america that allow law enforcement to unfairly target people of color, no amount of outreach is going to convince them they're not being oppressed and discriminated against. It needs to stop.
User avatar
#100 - defhood (19 hours ago) [-]
besides that, i still truly believe stop and frisk is a violation of peoples 4th amendment rights.
"The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized."
User avatar
#102 - arachnofondler (19 hours ago) [-]
I understand your point, but seeing it from the other side I disagree.
Stop and frisk is crucial to officer safety in stops. It lets the officer know if the person they're trying to talk to has a weapon to be used against the officer or otherwise injure other people. I don't see it as an "unreasonable search" because most officers do a pat down while conducting their stop on suspects anyway. I believe the Supreme Court ruled the way it did because they also didn't see it as unreasonable in the case they heard.
User avatar
#101 - defhood (19 hours ago) [-]
beyond just the letter of the law, I believe it is unamerican to empower the government to stop and search private citizens without warrant.
User avatar
#103 - arachnofondler (19 hours ago) [-]
Right, that's fine, and in that sense I agree. Any officer wishing to go into a home needs a warrant. That's it, no if ands or buts. However out on the street is a different matter.
User avatar
#104 - defhood (19 hours ago) [-]
"...The right of the people to be secure in their houses, papers and effects, against unreasonable searches..."
User avatar
#106 - arachnofondler (18 hours ago) [-]
I understand the 4th amendment fine, thanks.

I was referring to the fact that on the street, stop and frisk is still carried out, which is why it is a different matter than trying to go into someone's home.
User avatar
#142 - MuahahaOfLore (15 hours ago) [-]
I've read your responses ansd appreciate your legal input.
People don't understand the low threshold of reasonable suspicion to stop and then having probable cause from a short stop to search.
User avatar
#146 - arachnofondler (15 hours ago) [-]
To be honest, the vast majority of people don't. I didn't fully understand the differences until I started undergoing Criminal Justice classes. US law can be very confusing, difficult to understand, or outright infuriating.
User avatar
#111 - defhood (18 hours ago) [-]
Moderator Lester Holt: “Stop and frisk was ruled unconstitutional in New York, because it largely singled out black and Hispanic young men.”
Donald Trump: “No, you’re wrong. It went before a judge, who was a very against-police judge. It was taken away from her. And our mayor, our new mayor [Bill de Blasio], refused to go forward with the case. They would have won an appeal. If you look at it, throughout the country, there are many places where it’s allowed.”
Holt: “The argument is that it’s a form of racial profiling.”
Trump: “No, the argument is that we have to take the guns away from these people that have them and they are bad people that shouldn’t have them.”

Donald just wants to take peoples guns away to ease the way for his police state takeover. its sad that Liberals are now the ones that have to defend the spirit of the constitution.
User avatar
#145 - arachnofondler (15 hours ago) [-]
The original commentor***
User avatar
#144 - arachnofondler (15 hours ago) [-]
The person who originally asked the question if stop and frisk was unconstitutional. Federally? No. In NY, for some reason, yes. And I don't think you understand how a frisk works. In the US, outside of NY, the officer gives you whatever you have back. Again, it's about officer safety. In NY, they confiscate everything because according to NY's fucked up laws, everything is inherently evil. I think what Donald was trying to say was that doesn't want to take everyone's guns away, but that criminal suspects should not have them in their possession, which is a fair opinion to have. I don't think he'd have so many Pro2A places/groups supporting him.

The argument could be made that Liberals aren't protecting the constitution and are the ones putting it into jeopardy. But I don't have the desire to make that argument. I've gotta go to work.
User avatar
#109 - defhood (18 hours ago) [-]
(for some reason i cant reply to your most recent comment)

That ruling is flawed, and will be overturned by the next federal supreme court justice.
User avatar
#141 - arachnofondler (15 hours ago) [-]
Doubtful.
User avatar
#107 - defhood (18 hours ago) [-]
Definition of personal effects
: privately owned items (as clothing and jewelry) normally worn or carried on the person
User avatar
#108 - arachnofondler (18 hours ago) [-]
Again, that doesn't change the fact that stop and frisk is still accepted and practiced across the United States. 8 justices of the Supreme Court believed it did not violate the 4th amendment, and thus ruled to uphold the method.
#127 - yes it appeals to fantasy..why is that bad?  [+] (1 reply) 23 hours ago on "I wrote a blogpost" comp +1
User avatar
#151 - exceeding (22 hours ago) [-]
because men are bad
#28 - try filming in full hd, you'll need an intire hard drive for e…  [+] (2 replies) 09/26/2016 on I know that guy +9
User avatar
#32 - oneshotclutch (09/26/2016) [-]
they can atleasr increase the quality from 144p
User avatar
#36 - kanpai (09/27/2016) [-]
i base this on absolutely no concrete evidence other then personal experience.

But when you stream a 240p video for an hour it takes about 80 mb per hour and 144p 40 .

This just from watching torrented video and youtube streams but assuming that amount of data/hour is universal every day would be almost 2 gig and a year 700g.

I wasn't didn't really think my point trough before i started typing but now that i think about it...that's actually pretty menagable..



Good point mate
#17 - -solid 5 minutes i have never laughed more then 30 se…  [+] (15 replies) 09/16/2016 on Eye Can See Why +27
User avatar
#58 - daftiduck (09/16/2016) [-]
I've found something amusing and giggled at it on and off for 10 minutes, but never had a full on laughing fit for a solid amount of time
#54 - anon (09/16/2016) [-]
Yeah, I mean, I usually take breaks to breathe in the middle, but I've had many things where I just can't stop giggling over something. I watched Khonjin house for the first time a few days ago and one of the videos (25th episode) I kept giggling every time I thought about it.

tl;dr It's possible, yeah.
User avatar
#46 - mcstorms (09/16/2016) [-]
Yeah , I have laughed for what seems like a really long time more like 2 minutes though not 5.
#44 - arolexion (09/16/2016) [-]
no its just fags overcompensating
#43 - milvus (09/16/2016) [-]
After eating some brownies a friend gave me, I managed to laugh for at least 10 minutes continuosly
User avatar
#56 - sesshii (09/16/2016) [-]
Sounds like a very funny brownie.
#40 - macrase (09/16/2016) [-]
it depends on peoples sense of humor, sometimes i laugh like that, when others don't, and vice versa
User avatar
#39 - metathprah (09/16/2016) [-]
Yes with some comedies, when it really hits I laugh for 5+ minutes, and then I spend the whole day thinking about it and laughing again.
User avatar
#35 - fatsigurd (09/16/2016) [-]
I think I had rare moments in my life where I could not stop laughing for 2 minutes.
User avatar
#32 - ziji (09/16/2016) [-]
Depression
User avatar
#31 - fables (09/16/2016) [-]
one time I was sitting in my friend's living room with her, her brother, and her bf
she had this little soft plastic packet of body wash that was an off white color
she kept squeezing it and it finally exploded on her face, the wall, the chair
it looked like cum.

so the point of that long explanation is, we all laughed for at least 5-10 minutes about it. it's what "that's hysterical" came from. www.dictionary.com/browse/hysteric
User avatar
#18 - iqequalzero (09/16/2016) [-]
Its pretty common, though the continued laughing is usually self sustaining and not so much about what actually made you laugh in the first place. Like a group of friends having laughing fits over something really funny, then the shared laughter just perpetuates itself.

5 minutes is a bit much though.
User avatar
#45 - zight (09/16/2016) [-]
not when your high or drunk enough with the right people. laughing fits to destroy your lungs. Where you forget what originally made you laugh and then every little stupid shit for a good 2-15 minutes makes it non stop luaghing. where you dont even want to laugh anymore but you can't stop. Your body craves it, like a drug YOU START SACRIFICING YOUR ENEMIES FOR A GIGGLE basically its great but its rare
User avatar
#30 - dancingdoggy (09/16/2016) [-]
I've had laughing fits and giggles that wouldn't leave with friends.
But by myself?
If something makes me do a verbal "ha," that's impressive. Like 10/10.
If it makes me smile, it's an 8 or 9/10.
Anything less might get a "hmm, that's funny," in my head, but won't get any external reaction.

How would someone laugh so long alone?
User avatar
#34 - iqequalzero (09/16/2016) [-]
They wouldnt, atleast not in general. Id rate anyone able to laugh like that alone as atleast a little bit of a simpleton.

user's friends