More Legislators Jump On The 'Blue Lives Matter' Bandwagon

from the still-plenty-more-'stupid'-in-the-Congressional-storerooms dept

Fri, May 26th 2017 7:39pm — Tim Cushing

Not wanting to be outdone by idiots in Congress, two idiot senators from the great state of Texas* are pushing their own "Blue Lives Matter" legislation. Senators Cruz and Cornyn have (re)introduced the ~~Backed and Blown~~ "Back the Blue Act," which adds mandatory minimums to any act of violence against most government officials. Oh, and for extra fun, automatic death penalty considerations for anyone charged under this act.

^{*Federal law requires the descriptor "great state of" to be appended to any state name, but especially Texas.}

I'll get out of the way and allow Senator Cornyn to toot his own horn:

“Our law enforcement officers put their lives on the line every day to protect and serve families across Texas. Violent criminals who deliberately target those who protect and serve our communities should face swift and tough penalties and the Back the Blue Act sends that clear message. Every day, and particularly during National Police Week, we must give the men and women in blue our unparalleled support,” Sen. Cornyn said.

You hear that, you bunch of ungrateful Americans? No matter how many citizens are gunned down for holding game controllers or toddlers torched by carelessly-tossed flashbang grenades, these fine men and women are to be given "unparalleled support." They apparently "deserve" it -- a term that must be wholly divorced from the process of earning it.

Cruz and Cornyn's 2016 attempt died from a lack of attention, perhaps overshadowed by the DOJ's endless stream of scathing reports on police misconduct. With a new "tough on crime" DOJ boss at the helm and the DOJ's civil rights division neutered, the political climate seems a tad more receptive to glorifying government employees as lowercase-g gods. (But gods nonetheless.)

Several legislators have joined the two senators in stumping for underprotected government employees. Rep. Ted Poe (also of Texas) has plenty to say about the bill at his personal blog. He's all for it, naturally, but more importantly, he summarizes the harsh new penalties awaiting anyone who threatens, injures, kills, or conspires to do any of the above to a law enforcement officer.

Creates a new federal crime for killing, attempting to kill, or conspiring to kill a federal judge, federal law enforcement officer, or federally funded public safety officer. The offender would be subject to the death penalty and a mandatory minimum sentence of 30 years if death results; the offender would otherwise face a minimum sentence of 10 years.

Creates a new federal crime for assaulting a federally funded law enforcement officer with escalating penalties, including mandatory minimums, based on the extent of any injury and the use of a dangerous weapon. However, no prosecution can be commenced absent certification by the Attorney General that prosecution is appropriate.

Creates a new federal crime for interstate flight from justice to avoid prosecution for killing, attempting to kill, or conspiring to kill a federal judge, federal law enforcement officer, or federally funded public safety officer. The offender would be subject to a mandatory minimum sentence of 10 years for this offense.

Take a good look at the middle stipulation. This means pretty much every law enforcement officer in the nation will be covered by this law, instantly subjecting people who do nothing more than assault an officer (aka, resisting arrest, contempt of cop, etc.) to federal punishments. Almost every law enforcement agency in the nation receives some sort of federal funding. This bill would yank prosecutions out of locals' hands and, presumably, separate defendants from less-harsh local laws.

The bill also allows law enforcement officers (including those whose agencies are the recipients of federal funding) to carry weapons into places citizens can't. Nothing like adding an extra right to a long list of extra punishments.

This chaser would put two "Blue Lives Matter" bills in play, giving Congress multiple ways to make policing worse. Considering the Go Team Blue attitude on display at the White House, these bills have a home team advantage and a president dying to sign a few more citizens' rights and liberties away on behalf of law enforcement.

Thank you for reading this Techdirt post. With so many things competing for everyone’s attention these days, we really appreciate you giving us your time. We work hard every day to put quality content out there for our community.

Techdirt is one of the few remaining truly independent media outlets. We do not have a giant corporation behind us, and we rely heavily on our community to support us, in an age when advertisers are increasingly uninterested in sponsoring small, independent sites — especially a site like ours that is unwilling to pull punches in its reporting and analysis.

While other websites have resorted to paywalls, registration requirements, and increasingly annoying/intrusive advertising, we have always kept Techdirt open and available to anyone. But in order to continue doing so, we need your support. We offer a variety of ways for our readers to support us, from direct donations to special subscriptions and cool merchandise — and every little bit helps. Thank you.

–The Techdirt Team

Filed Under: blue lives matter, free speech, hate speech, john cornyn, laws, police, ted cruz

268 Comments

If you liked this post, you may also be interested in...

Reader Comments

Subscribe: RSS

View by: Time | Thread

Anonymous Anonymous Coward (profile), 26 May 2017 @ 6:09pm

Another good take on this subject...
...From Scott Greenfield at Simple Justice: Only The Pure Shall Prevail

They are paid to take risks, that's the job description. Why more protections? It is simply a political ploy to 'enhance' ones 'anti crime' credentials leading up to the next election. This has nothing to do with the criminals (who might in fact not be criminals) and everything to do with politics.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
- This comment has been flagged by the community. Click here to show it
  
  Anonymous Coward, 26 May 2017 @ 8:07pm
  
  Re: Another good take on this subject...
  "They are paid to take risks"
  
  Wow, you really are a pussy. You hire other people to protect you and others and if they get hurt, oh well, that is their job. You really are a worthless piece of crap.
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
  - Lawrence D’Oliveiro, 26 May 2017 @ 8:35pm
    
    Re: You hire other people to protect you and others and if they get hurt, oh well, that is their job.
    And if they can’t do that job properly, they should leave. They most certainly should not be ganging up to protect each other from disciplinary action.
    
    They are supposed to be here to serve us, we are not here to serve them.
    [ link to this | view in chronology ]
  - Rusty Eulberg, 26 May 2017 @ 9:36pm
    
    Re: Re: Another good take on this subject...
    garbage collectors have more risk, with much less pay and respect:
    https://www.bloomberg.com/graphics/2015-dangerous-jobs/
    [ link to this | view in chronology ]
    - Anonymous Coward, 27 May 2017 @ 9:24am
      
      Re: Re: Re: Another good take on this subject...
      I thought that garbage collectors had way more respect from the public than that of leo
      [ link to this | view in chronology ]
Anonymous Coward, 26 May 2017 @ 8:11pm

A big problem is that these bills fail to make any distinction between the kind of predatory gunman who methodically hunts down police - as happened in Dallas last year - and a half-asleep homeowner who makes a split second decision to return fire against late-night home invaders ... who turn out to be cops.

That's because the law does not recognize self-defence against police, no matter what the circumstances, even when it is clearly self-defence by any rational definition.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
- Anonymous Coward, 27 May 2017 @ 4:54am
  
  Re:
  This creates a protected class of people who have extra rights and powers while at the same time having the power to remove all rights including the one to continue to breathe. There is no possible way this is going to be abused by the people already abusing their positions.
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
  - Anonymous Coward, 27 May 2017 @ 9:27am
    
    Re: Re:
    "creates a protected class of people who have extra rights and powers"
    
    I thought such a class was created long ago, its members are of the most monied and includes known criminals.
    [ link to this | view in chronology ]
Anonymous Coward, 26 May 2017 @ 8:29pm

Does anyone besides me think that this kind of law is dangerous? If suspected criminals think that they'll receive longer sentences for crimes against police officers, then they are more likely to kill that police officer, which will result in higher fatalities when it comes to law enforcement officers.

I don't think that this is the kind of thing that our elected officials would want.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
- That One Guy (profile), 26 May 2017 @ 10:15pm
  
  Not a position you want a desperate person to be in
  The law also introduces a problem in that if a person kills a cop, whether deliberately or not, they no longer have anything to lose.
  
  They're already facing what many would likely see as the worst punishment the legal system can hand out, death, and by setting it as a minimum there's really nothing they can do to make their situation worse at that point, no crime they can commit that will make the punishment worse, up to and including trying to get rid of any other witnesses.
  
  To say this bill would likely cause 'unfortunate side-effects' would be putting it very mildly.
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
  - Anonymous Coward, 27 May 2017 @ 4:56am
    
    Re: Not a position you want a desperate person to be in
    Redefine roles and laws and enjoy the double plus good life that results.
    [ link to this | view in chronology ]
That One Guy (profile), 26 May 2017 @ 9:55pm

... but some are more equal than others
Notably lacking in the law unless I missed it, a mandatory death sentence for a cop who kills a suspect, because apparently that's not nearly as important or as big of a deal.

By all means lawmakers, keep pushing for even more protections for an already heavily protected group of people, that's sure to get people to respect them! /s
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
- Bergman (profile), 26 May 2017 @ 11:27pm
  
  Re: ... but some are more equal than others
  It is unconstitutional to create a less privileged class of citizens -- and nowhere is it stated how small or large the group must be to qualify as a class.
  
  If a police officer robs a liquor store in plain clothes, this law would seem to make it a capital crime for a clerk to defend himself in any way against the officer, despite not knowing the robber is a cop.
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
- Anonymous Coward, 27 May 2017 @ 3:58am
  
  Re: ... but some are more equal than others
  The death sentence should be for a member of a cop's family. If they kill someone, then a person in their family should be chosen at random and publicly executed.
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
  - Anonymous Coward, 27 May 2017 @ 6:22am
    
    Re: Re: ... but some are more equal than others
    that makes you just as evil as a bad cop.
    
    The ONLY person that should EVER pay for a crime or an evil is the person that committed it.
    [ link to this | view in chronology ]
  - Anonymous Coward, 27 May 2017 @ 9:31am
    
    Re: Re: ... but some are more equal than others
    Extreme Third Party Liability, this may yet become a thing.
    [ link to this | view in chronology ]
  - Bergman (profile), 27 May 2017 @ 5:29pm
    
    Re: Re: ... but some are more equal than others
    Are you volunteering, AC?
    [ link to this | view in chronology ]
- Anonymous Coward, 27 May 2017 @ 5:00am
  
  Re: ... but some are more equal than others
  People that can and have charged people for assaulting an officer, when they bled on the cop as they were being beaten, or where they officer breaks a hand on their skull as they try to beat them to death.
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
christenson, 26 May 2017 @ 10:01pm

Typo nazi alert!
Hey!

When you put "great state of" in FRONT of "Texas", you are prepending "great state of" to the beginning of "Texas", not appending to the end!

Seems to be a preponderance of petty officers in blue looking to get spat on some more. Please, politicians, don't escalate the violence. Get these officers the proper training and vigorous oversight they desperately need!
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
- Bergman (profile), 27 May 2017 @ 5:47am
  
  Re: Typo nazi alert!
  It's Texas government officials...head, ass, what's the difference?
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
Anonymous Coward, 26 May 2017 @ 10:23pm

Taxi Driver Lives Matter!
Our taxi drivers put their lives on the line every day to transport and serve families across the nation. Violent criminals who deliberately target those who transport and serve our communities should face swift and tough penalties and a Back the Hack law would send that clear message. Every day, and particularly during National Taxi Driver Week, we must give the men and women driving taxis our unparalleled support!
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
This comment has been flagged by the community. Click here to show it

My_Name_Here, 26 May 2017 @ 10:23pm

Techdirt only bothers with statistics that concern police deaths because it's the one statistic they can't ignore. The truth is that every time you mock the dangers and risks that these brave people face, you are in fact killing them. The laws need to be updated to make sure any action that bears ill will to the protectors of the law are severely punished to make up for the all-time low respect for this noble profession.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
- Seegras (profile), 26 May 2017 @ 11:27pm
  
  Re:
  You're talking about Taxi Drivers, yes?
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
- This comment has been flagged by the community. Click here to show it
  
  Anonymous Coward, 26 May 2017 @ 11:33pm
  
  Re:
  Techdirt is focused on defaming someone, whether it be the Email inventor, or the police, or anyone who enforces copyright or patent law. TechDirt is basically a defamation database, defamation is the product that they sell to their anonymous donors. I think it is shameful that they do their best to defame police. Personally, I think you should all live with each other, and police each other. You don't deserve the protections that you so openly disparage. Real US citizens should drive them off the internet, or at least segment them so they can spend their time abusing each other and stay the hell away from decent people. Oh, wait, I think that is already happening, in court, right now.
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
  - Anonymous Coward, 26 May 2017 @ 11:41pm
    
    Re: Re:
    k
    [ link to this | view in chronology ]
  - This comment has been flagged by the community. Click here to show it
    
    My_Name_Here, 27 May 2017 @ 12:13am
    
    Re: Re:
    I completely agree. I think it's a wonderful thing that you're funding Shiva Ayyadurai to help destroy this website.
    [ link to this | view in chronology ]
    - This comment has been flagged by the community. Click here to show it
      
      Anonymous Coward, 27 May 2017 @ 12:27am
      
      Re: Re: Re:
      Why, thank you for that. I would just like to add that the video below does a really good job of showing how well Shiva is doing in the Commonwealth of Massachusetts. And to be honest, my "funding" is really limited to lending my good family name as a testament to his good character, which I admire. The really important supporters are in the crowd in the video below. They like his story about his childhood, his beliefs, and his priorities. Just watch the end of the video. I like it, too. Happy to help in any way I can.
      
      http://vashiva.com/shiva-ayyadurais-speech-at-cape-cod-republican-club-annual-breakfast-meeting/ #utm _source=SM&utm_medium=Event&utm_campaign=01On26May2017
      [ link to this | view in chronology ]
      - This comment has been flagged by the community. Click here to show it
        
        My_Name_Here, 27 May 2017 @ 12:37am
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re:
        If it would help Shiva shut down this disgraceful website I would gladly suck the cocks of a hundred cops. Not to say that I would not mind doing it for free, but anything for a good cause.
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        Stephen T. Stone (profile), 27 May 2017 @ 12:38am
        
        I had to make this reference.
        
        I would gladly suck the cocks of a hundred cops.
        
        In a row?
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        Bergman (profile), 27 May 2017 @ 5:48am
        
        Re: I had to make this reference.
        Simultaneously. He'd have to be pretty mutated to see the world as bizarrely as he does.
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
  - Stephen T. Stone (profile), 27 May 2017 @ 12:32am
    
    Re: Re:
    I see no defamation of anyone—only opinions that are given weight by the recitation of actual facts. Your feelings about those opinions cannot sustain an accusation of defamation.
    [ link to this | view in chronology ]
    - Bergman (profile), 27 May 2017 @ 5:49am
      
      Re: Re: Re:
      Well, until Trump 'opens up' defamation laws anyway. And for full impact, he'd need to make the change retroactive.
      
      Constitution? What Constitution.
      [ link to this | view in chronology ]
    - This comment has been flagged by the community. Click here to show it
      
      Anonymous Coward, 27 May 2017 @ 6:45am
      
      Re: Re: Re:
      Well, perhaps I would just say that reasonable people can differ. I see a lot of defamation, it seems to be the point of each and every article. The only thing that changes is the target. Also, people have publicly accused at least one TechDirt moderator of specifically threatening "defamation by TechDirt" to settle business disputes.
      
      http://www.ripoffreport.com/reports/wendy-cockcroft-web-design-wendy-cockcroft-interservecom/interne t/wendy-cockcroft-web-design-wendy-cockcroft-interservecom-wendy-cockcroft-manchester-u-1280160
      
      Ms Cockcroft suddenly became very angry and threatened to ruin my business before it started. She said that she was in with a very influential group of people on a technical blog who would write about me and many other people would comment. She said this would mean that my reputation would be ruined and it would remain at the tip of Google. Wendy Cockcroft refused to refund my money, refused to re-do the work and threatened to destroy my business and personal reputation before it even started.
      [ link to this | view in chronology ]
      - JMT (profile), 27 May 2017 @ 3:05pm
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re:
        "I see a lot of defamation, it seems to be the point of each and every article."
        
        That simply proves you have no idea what defamation actually is.
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        Anonymous Coward, 27 May 2017 @ 5:02pm
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
        
        That simply proves you have no idea what defamation actually is.
        
        It's anything I disagree with! Like "fake news" is any news I don't like!
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        This comment has been flagged by the community. Click here to show it
        
        Anonymous Coward, 27 May 2017 @ 5:49pm
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
        Defamation: The act of damaging the good reputation of someone.
        
        "Not wanting to be outdone by idiots in Congress, two idiot senators from the great state of Texas* are pushing their own "Blue Lives Matter" legislation"
        
        I believe this would qualify as at least attempting to damage a good reputation. The obvious bias and poor literary skills make it very ineffective, but there is no doubt about the intent.
        
        One (poorly attempted) defamatory article after another. There is little else this site offers. It is slightly amusing to read, but only slightly. If the authors had anything to say other than their sponsored character assassination, this site would probably be more popular. Instead, it only draws mostly unhappy mental toddlers like yourself.
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        This comment has been flagged by the community. Click here to show it
        
        Anonymous Coward, 27 May 2017 @ 5:53pm
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
        Further, consider your current court case, brought by a very public and widely respected figure showcased in the national news. This site is IN COURT for defamation. That tells you something, right? Or not, you mental midget.
        
        http://www.hannity.com/articles/election-493995/real-indian-challenges-elizabeth-warren-to-15 862862/
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        This comment has been flagged by the community. Click here to show it
        
        Anonymous Coward, 27 May 2017 @ 6:25pm
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
        I cannot help but admire the legal Aikido (the way of unifying life energy) that Shiva is employing. He is using your negative energy, your technical marketing skills, and your stupid arguments to catapult himself into the US Senate. He already used Gawker's energy, and, at this very moment, he is using yours. Then, after he wins his court case, he will use more of your energy (your money) against your cause (socialism and anarchy) further.
        
        It's a beautiful thing to watch unfold.
        
        Just take a look:
        
        https://shiva4senate.com/
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        Chuck, 27 May 2017 @ 10:50pm
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
        On the one hand, you should never feed trolls.
        
        On the other hand...you're just too tasty to pass up the opportunity.
        
        Let's start with your supposed evidence, shall we? The story about Ms. Warren is false on more levels than most can count, but I'll try. First, Ms. Warren never claimed that she was Native American. (Not that you care, but Indian refers to someone from India, not the people who originally owned America before white people, my people, stole it from them at gunpoint.) She said she stood with the Native Americans protesting the oil sands pipeline being forcibly routed through their land. Much like I stand with the victims of the police. I am neither black nor unarmed, but that doesn't mean I automatically lack any sympathy (it's one of those human emotions, if you didn't know) for those who are unarmed, black, and very very dead under circumstances that could be described GENEROUSLY as "suspicious." I mean, they'd be less suspicious if the body cameras cops have been forced to wear didn't miraculously turn off or malfunction the one time in thousands when they kill someone, but alas, that's police accountability for ya. (Yanno, what this article is actually about, not Elizabeth Warren or Shiva or anyone else.)
        
        Second, you cited Hannity. You literally couldn't cite a more biased source if you tried. You could cite hundreds who are EQUALLY biased, true, but none more. It's hard to take any claim from Mr. Hannity with any seriousness. The fact that a supposed journalist (hint: Hannity is no journalist) can cite nothing more than a twitter post as a source should've tipped you off.
        
        Speaking of journalism, let's go there. Have you ever noticed how every "fake news" (i.e. ACTUAL FACTS) outlet notes that they reached out for comment to the subject of their story? There's a reason for that. Response or not, asking the subject of your story to comment is a demonstration that you are willing to ask BOTH sides of the story to try to ascertain the truth. The mere fact that Hannity, Beck, and their ilk almost never bother to ASK the subject of their hit pieces for their comment is simply proof that they are well aware their "news" is of less value than 1-ply toilet paper. Or in plainer English: it proves they have no interest in even APPEARING to be non-biased.
        
        And why would they? With an audience of people like yourself refreshing their web sites and waiting to gobble up the next wholly fabricated headline - and immediately regurgitate it to all your "liberal friends" (who, I assure you, are only your "friends" because they have to be. Gary who works for you seriously doesn't give a sh*t, but he needs the minimum wage you pay him to, yanno, eat.) With such an massive following so hungry for their daily load of crap, they must be straining their imaginations to the brink of collapse to come up with the outlandish yarns they write for you.
        
        But then again, they make so much money selling you survivalist foodstuffs and cashing kickback checks from the NRA that I'm sure the money is more than worth their time. And their souls. Assuming they ever had souls, that is.
        
        Now please, go away before I have to make this truly embarrassing for you.
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        This comment has been flagged by the community. Click here to show it
        
        Anonymous Coward, 28 May 2017 @ 12:35am
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
        Is that you, Ms. Warren? It sounds like you. You know, there seem to be a lot of lady posers on this site, and you really write like another lady, don't you think? Or is it you, Wendy Cockcroft? You pose as PaulT, right, but also write like a lady writes, using either name. Only ladies get easily embarrassed, men usually stick around and try to finish a point. Here's a challenge - do you even have a point? Make it like a man, then, Chuck. Make you point, Chuck. The floor is open.
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        Stephen T. Stone (profile), 28 May 2017 @ 1:42am
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
        For someone opposed to other people using insults, you sure seem eager to insult both the individual to whom you replied and women in general.
        
        What the fuck is your point?
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        This comment has been flagged by the community. Click here to show it
        
        Anonymous Coward, 28 May 2017 @ 1:48am
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
        Exposing posers.
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        This comment has been flagged by the community. Click here to show it
        
        Anonymous Coward, 28 May 2017 @ 2:10am
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
        And I don't intend to insult women in general. But I think it common knowledge that the female reasoning process is colored differently than the male reasoning process in many cases. Ask any married man, or almost any adult man, or any lady, for that matter.
        
        I know some of the posters on this site are part of the paid messaging that TechDirt sells as a service, but I don't know which ones. And it appears that some posters disguise their female voice behind a male name. And some, like Wendy Cockcroft, have a reputation for threatening people with "Defamation by TechDirt" to settle money disputes.
        
        I think all these things are relevant topics to discuss on this site. Who paid for the article to begin with? Which of the posters are paid? Which of the posters are actually "posers", disguising themselves as someone else? Why are they disguising themselves as someone else?
        
        People read this blog as if it were real, when in fact there is (at least) a lot of secrecy surrounding who is who and if their opinions are their own or are paid for. There is also a lot of "ganging up" to prevent legitimate opinions from being heard. I am trying to perform a community service, as a concerned citizen. Much of the speech here seems extremely un-American and deceptive.
        
        Especially troubling is the defamatory speech about the Email guy - we don't need to argue about whether or not it is defamatory, we have a judge to work that out for us. We will all find out together.
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        Stephen T. Stone (profile), 28 May 2017 @ 2:29am
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
        Shiva, go home, you’re an idiot.
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        This comment has been flagged by the community. Click here to show it
        
        Anonymous Coward, 28 May 2017 @ 2:51am
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
        Stephen T. Stone, you are decidedly not an idiot, you are an eloquent writer, I would be much happier to read an article by you than the trash above. Your calling me Shiva is strange, though. Paranoid much?
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        Stephen T. Stone (profile), 28 May 2017 @ 3:07am
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
        
        Paranoid much?
        
        Few commenters here write out “Techdirt” as “TechDirt”. Even fewer invoke the “MAGA” acronym without irony or sarcasm. Your penchant for both writing out full names and calling people “socialists” makes it even easier to track you. You also continue to bring up Shiva Ayyadurai in the comments of articles that do not discuss him—and you only ever talk about him as if he is a deity. The quirks of your writing give you away, Shiva. Try trolling Ars Technica next time.
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        This comment has been flagged by the community. Click here to show it
        
        Anonymous Coward, 28 May 2017 @ 3:12am
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
        Wow, Ok, but if I am Shiva, can I ask your opinion? You see, this Senate race against Warren is already pretty wrapped up. Donald himself came up with the "Real-Indian" stuff, and he's a master, let me tell you. It will stick in your mind forever, trust me. Like "Crooked Hillary", real genius. So, a few years in the Senate, and maybe Donald can hand power off to me, what do you think? I can be the next "change" president after Donald, while reinforcing everything that he wants to get done. And, good news for all, TechDirt can fund it. You seem like a honest fellow, Stephen - would I get your vote? What could I do to appeal to voters like you more? Change my spelling of "TechDirt"? I could do that.
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        Stephen T. Stone (profile), 28 May 2017 @ 3:16am
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
        Go home, Shiva, you’re an idiot.
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        This comment has been flagged by the community. Click here to show it
        
        Anonymous Coward, 28 May 2017 @ 3:22am
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
        Don't you think you "should be mocked and insulted for (your) opinion" first? You have a real personality disorder, my intelligent friend. It appears to be a genuine and obvious disorder, your honest opinion seems to be that I am Shiva in disguise. You need to be mocked and insulted a little, by your own standards, don't you think?. Why don't you give it a go? I'm sure you have had a lot of practice. I'm not Shiva. Never have been. Never will be. I like him, sure, looks presidential to me. But I am not him.
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        This comment has been flagged by the community. Click here to show it
        
        Anonymous Coward, 28 May 2017 @ 3:33am
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
        Again, not trying to be rude, but I'm pretty sure Chuck (above) was a lady posing as a man. And I'm pretty sure that PaulT is a lady posing as a man. And you sure suddenly got sensitive and paranoid when I brought that up. Hmm.. Are you lady, Stephen? No insult intended, just asking.
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        Stephen T. Stone (profile), 28 May 2017 @ 3:38am
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
        Go home, Shiva, you're a woman-hating idiot.
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        This comment has been flagged by the community. Click here to show it
        
        Anonymous Coward, 28 May 2017 @ 3:43am
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
        I take that as a 'yes'.
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        PaulT (profile), 29 May 2017 @ 12:40am
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
        "And I'm pretty sure that PaulT is a lady posing as a man"
        
        Doesn't mean that you're not making shit up and addressing the polar opposite of reality.
        
        Just why are you so obsessed with me and my gender anyway? Are you hoping I do turn out to be female so you won't feel guilty about being sexually attracted to my adherence to the truth?
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        Anonymous Coward, 28 May 2017 @ 9:26am
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
        Oh Hamilton. Slow down, you will tucker yourself out before the nice men with the long coats revoke your internet privlages again.
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        PaulT (profile), 29 May 2017 @ 12:38am
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
        1999 comments and a bank holiday so, I thought I'd scroll down and see what our resident troll decided to say to spin this (almost every thread over 100 comments is because some idiot's trolling). Wow...
        
        "Or is it you, Wendy Cockcroft? You pose as PaulT, right, but also write like a lady writes, using either name."
        
        Fuck me, you really are an obsessed idiot, aren't you? Is there anyone posting on this site who isn't me now? Are you sure you're not me?
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        Wendy Cockcroft, 1 Jun 2017 @ 2:40am
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
        LOL! I haunt his dreams, that's what it is. How is a call centre worker a terrifying boogeyman figure?
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        JMT (profile), 28 May 2017 @ 5:45pm
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
        "Defamation: The act of damaging the good reputation of someone."
        
        Thanks for proving me right.
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
      - Wendy Cockcroft, 31 May 2017 @ 7:27am
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re:
        I'm not a moderator, genius. I'm a regular AC commenter.
        
        Secondly, if I've ever done such a thing before, prove it.
        
        Thirdly, if I did ever do such a thing to a customer it's bad business practice that'd backfire good and hard on me, and I'd deserve it.
        
        Fourthly, do you really believe that if a man was a few grand down and reduced to poverty he would ONLY complain on a review site and NOT go to the police?
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
    - JEDIDIAH, 27 May 2017 @ 5:14pm
      
      Don't tell me you actually trust journalists? (any of them)
      Selectively presented and curated facts.
      [ link to this | view in chronology ]
  - Anonymous Coward, 27 May 2017 @ 6:29am
    
    Re: Re:
    Wow the police apologist bots are coming out of the woodwork for this article.
    
    Lynch any officer who kills an innocent civillian.
    
    Lynch any civillian who kills an innocent police officer.
    
    Now its fair for everyone.
    
    Fuck your blue lives matter bs.
    [ link to this | view in chronology ]
    - JEDIDIAH, 27 May 2017 @ 5:16pm
      
      This law is probably redundant anyways.
      The idea of giving the death penalty to anyone that premeditates a cop killing is pretty ancient and mundane really.
      
      It only seems to have become a controversial idea very recently.
      [ link to this | view in chronology ]
      - Anonymous Coward, 28 May 2017 @ 6:37am
        
        Re: This law is probably redundant anyways.
        What .. police abuse of power has only become "controversial" lately? Perhaps you have not been paying attention.
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
- Stephen T. Stone (profile), 27 May 2017 @ 12:23am
  
  Re:
  We do not mock the risks that officers face—only the idea that officers face greater risks now than they ever have in the past. Our society gives to police officers a level of safety and security that is equalled or exceeded only by the military. That sense of safety does not require a “Blue Lives Matter” law to remain intact.
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
  - This comment has been flagged by the community. Click here to show it
    
    Anonymous Coward, 27 May 2017 @ 12:29am
    
    Re: Re:
    In your humble opinion, right, StoneHead? Your opinion is that the law is not required, but the actual police and lawmakers think that it is. Hmm.. I wonder who I would give more credence to?
    [ link to this | view in chronology ]
    - Stephen T. Stone (profile), 27 May 2017 @ 12:36am
      
      Re: Re: Re:
      No one person’s opinion deserves to become the law. That said: My opinion takes root in the fact that we already punish those who hurt or kill police officers with harsher sentences. What would this law accomplish that cannot be accomplished under current laws?
      [ link to this | view in chronology ]
      - This comment has been flagged by the community. Click here to show it
        
        Anonymous Coward, 27 May 2017 @ 12:41am
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re:
        Ok, that was a rational reply, so I withdraw the StoneHead remark. Maybe I mistook you for someone else. Sorry for that.
        
        To be honest, I am not sure what it would accomplish, that is, I am not sure if it is good or bad. But I tend to lean towards giving police what they ask for, since their role is so indispensable in our society. And I tend to lean away from sensationalist pieces like the one above, that seems to me to completely overstate one side of the issue. For example:
        
        "This chaser would put two "Blue Lives Matter" bills in play, giving Congress multiple ways to make policing worse. Considering the Go Team Blue attitude on display at the White House, these bills have a home team advantage and a president dying to sign a few more citizens' rights and liberties away on behalf of law enforcement."
        
        It just sounds kind of idiotic to me.
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        Stephen T. Stone (profile), 27 May 2017 @ 12:50am
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
        
        I tend to lean towards giving police what they ask for
        
        How far does your respect for the police allow you to ignore the serious issues within modern policing, including the violation of an average citizen’s civil liberties in the name of “law and order”?
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        Anonymous Coward, 27 May 2017 @ 1:02am
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
        Well, to be honest, it goes a long way. They're human, after all, and have an extremely tough job. They have to police not only citizens, but often illegal aliens organized into large dangerous gangs, as well as actual citizens expressing their outrage at their circumstances in inappropriate ways. And by inappropriate ways, I mean blaming the police, or the government, or history, or old flags, or pretty much anything as an excuse for their circumstances, rather than following the law and raising themselves up as can be done in America.
        
        It's a tough job from any angle. I used to manage large groups, for example, development engineers and support personnel. When I heard the development engineers disparage how stupid the support personnel were, I had them switch jobs for a week. That changed their world view in a really good way, and a new respect emerged. Short of being willing to pitch in yourself, I think it is usually best to support those who risk their actual safety to protect those they never met. More often than not, they are a noble bunch.
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        Stephen T. Stone (profile), 27 May 2017 @ 1:15am
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
        Support and respect for police officers means nothing if it turns into blind loyalty. Society gives to the police an enormous amount of power and authority—and society expects the police to use that power with responsibility and restraint. We must not ignore any abuse of that power, even if we believe the victims of that abuse deserve it.
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        Anonymous Coward, 27 May 2017 @ 2:13am
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
        Well, blind loyalty might be taking my point a little far. There are already a lot of oversight organizations for the police, right? I don't condone blind loyalty. But I also don't condone blind opposition, as the article above seems to propose.
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        Stephen T. Stone (profile), 27 May 2017 @ 6:16am
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
        
        There are already a lot of oversight organizations for the police, right?
        
        They exist, but they do not always work in favor of the general public.
        
        I don't condone blind loyalty. But I also don't condone blind opposition
        
        Nobody here “opposes” the police with their eyes closed. We oppose the systems that allow police officers with poor records of behavior and judgment to keep their jobs. We oppose a culture that rewards, not punishes, an abuse of power and authority. We oppose the notion that police deserve to do their jobs without respect for the civil liberties of all people.
        
        When a police officer conducts a search that violates the 4th Amendment, we oppose it. When an officer shoots an unarmed person seemingly because of that person’s skin color, we oppose it. When a member of the police force tries intimidating a regular citizen that appears to have contempt for police (e.g., a reporter), we oppose it. These acts do not exist as the fevered nightmare of a career criminal; they are real abuses of power that have happened before and will happen again. We have and we will oppose those abuses because we believe the police’s job should be difficult—not to stymie the police and protect criminals, but to prevent abuses of power and keep intact the civil rights of all peoples.
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        Anonymous Coward, 27 May 2017 @ 6:48am
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
        Well put. Happy to hear that "Nobody here “opposes” the police with their eyes closed." That's good. Maybe I misread the comments.
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        Anonymous Coward, 27 May 2017 @ 5:04pm
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
        
        they do not always work in favor of the general public.
        
        Good!
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        Stephen T. Stone (profile), 27 May 2017 @ 7:31pm
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
        Our society’s laws give an absurd amount of power and authority to the police so that they may uphold the law. In return, those same laws are supposed to protect the average citizen from abuses of that power. But that protection exists at the whims of those who make and enforce the laws. A police officer who violates a person’s civil rights, for example, may continue to do so if the oversight systems fail to punish the officer for that violation. A district attorney too afraid to prosecute a cop, a lawmaker who wants to appear “tough on crime”, and a judiciary that believes the police need “more latitiude” to carry out their duties all erode our civil liberties in the name of “law and order”.
        
        The oversight systems that favor police officers over the general public only allow existing abuses of power to continue and new ones to flourish. Anyone who argues in favor of those circumstances as a societal “good” should be mocked and insulted for their opinion.
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        This comment has been flagged by the community. Click here to show it
        
        Anonymous Coward, 28 May 2017 @ 12:43am
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
        Could I just suggest that maybe one step short of mocked and insulted would be more effective? When people here the mocking and insulting, they tend tune out and lose respect for the rest of your message, which you package and transmit quite well. A lot of people discard opinions that are insulting and mocking, with a knee jerk. No need for that if you have a legitimate point, which you seem to.
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        Stephen T. Stone (profile), 28 May 2017 @ 1:04am
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
        You can suggest the idea. But you cannot force people to adopt your position. If someone wants to use mockery and insults to make a point, that is their goddamned right—just as you have the right to ignore them at your leisure.
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        Anonymous Coward, 28 May 2017 @ 5:19pm
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
        > You can suggest the idea. But you cannot force people to adopt your position.
        
        Authoritarians would beg to differ.
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        This comment has been flagged by the community. Click here to show it
        
        My_Name_Here, 27 May 2017 @ 1:49am
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
        I completely agree. I don't care if citizens are armed or not. If the police shoots you, you did something wrong, no questions asked. It is by the police's grace that many of the pirates here haven't been dragged behind a dumpster and put out of their misery.
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        Stephen T. Stone (profile), 27 May 2017 @ 12:59pm
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
        
        If the police shoots you, you did something wrong, no questions asked.
        
        If a drunk off-duty police officer shoots an otherwise innocent person in a fit of inebriated rage, is that person still innocent? If, during a shootout with a criminal, an officer shoots an innocent bystander by accident, is that bystander still innocent? If an officer kills himself with his service weapon, is that officer still innocent?
        
        May your questionless fealty to authority and power never come back to bite you on your ass.
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        PaulT (profile), 29 May 2017 @ 12:45am
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
        "If the police shoots you, you did something wrong, no questions asked."
        
        http://www.latimes.com/nation/nationnow/la-na-nn-south-carolina-trooper-shooting-20140925-sto ry.html
        
        How dare he obey a direct order! That level of co-operation must be punished!
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        Anonymous Coward, 27 May 2017 @ 5:06am
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
        
        They're human, after all, and have an extremely tough job.
        
        Actually their job is pretty easy compared to many. And they're paid far, far better than most other groups with a similar level of required education and training.
        
        As to being human, when did that become an excuse?
        
        raising themselves up as can be done in America.
        
        It's kind of hard to raise one's self up from the grave after being murdered by some power tripping cop, even in America.
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        Anonymous Coward, 27 May 2017 @ 6:18am
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
        I can't think of a single educated American adult, who has any experience in the real world, that would say that the police career is "pretty easy". They put their lives at risk every day. I salute them. Trump salutes them. You should salute them, too. Or volunteer to help them. Pick one.
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        Anonymous Coward, 27 May 2017 @ 9:34am
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
        Volunteer - help them he said ....
        
        Like that dude who volunteered, shot and killed an innocent person who was minding their own business ... oh and did I mention he was poor and not white
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        Anonymous Coward, 27 May 2017 @ 5:08pm
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
        I an highly educated and have worked alongside the police quite a bit. Their job is "pretty easy" compared to many others that pay far less.
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        Anonymous Anonymous Coward (profile), 27 May 2017 @ 5:14pm
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
        Yet you oppose the ways of the universe without knowing the way of the universe. Too much education, too little understanding.
        
        Or you have an agenda. An agenda that does not comport with the reality of morality.
        
        It's one or the other, which is it?
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        blademan9999 (profile), 3 Jun 2017 @ 7:19am
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
        While in comparison the UK police managed to go a TWO YEAR PERIOD without fatally shooting a single person.
        The average for the last decade is only 2 a year.
        Compared to the US rate of about a THOUSAND a year for the last few years.
        If the UK is able to have the per capita rate of citizens being fatally shot by police officers be a hundred times lower then the US, then can you really say the US police are doing a good job.
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
    - Bergman (profile), 27 May 2017 @ 5:51am
      
      Re: Re: Re:
      Given that there was a lawmaker not too long ago who believes that we must ban solar panels because they weaken the sunlight reaching the ground even in places they are not installed, I know whose opinion I would place more value upon.
      [ link to this | view in chronology ]
  - Anonymous Coward, 27 May 2017 @ 4:41am
    
    Re: Re:
    
    We do not mock the risks that officers face
    
    Or taxi drivers.
    [ link to this | view in chronology ]
- Anonymous Coward, 27 May 2017 @ 12:48am
  
  Response to: My_Name_Here on May 26th, 2017 @ 10:23pm
  What respect should be given when a group of officers pound on Andrew Scott's door at 3am with no announcement that they are in fact police. He answered the door with a pistol aimed at the floor. He was killed because the brave officers were scared.
  Many other stories abound of officers abusing their authority with similar results. So I ask you again, why the fuck should we support any organization that doesn't support us?
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
  - Anonymous Coward, 27 May 2017 @ 1:03am
    
    Re: Response to: My_Name_Here on May 26th, 2017 @ 10:23pm
    You are over-generalizing.
    [ link to this | view in chronology ]
    - AL, 27 May 2017 @ 1:40am
      
      Re: Re: Response to: My_Name_Here on May 26th, 2017 @ 10:23pm
      Funnily enough, so were the police when Andrew opened that door. Only one person died as a result of that though, and he wasn't the one wearing blue
      [ link to this | view in chronology ]
      - Anonymous Coward, 27 May 2017 @ 2:19am
        
        Re: Re: Re: Response to: My_Name_Here on May 26th, 2017 @ 10:23pm
        So your point is about one case in particular, right? And that one case was reviewed by the US Court of Appeals for the 11th Circuit, right? Yes, that case looks tragic for all involved.
        
        I would say that using profanities does not help your point much, and neither does saying that similar stories "abound" without citing them.
        
        Your point is that a single tragedy justifies what exactly?
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        Anonymous Coward, 27 May 2017 @ 3:07am
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Response to: My_Name_Here on May 26th, 2017 @ 10:23pm
        How about this position to deal with the problem of tragic events like the one you describe: let's do more to attract and train the best and the brightest in the police. Double the money allocated to train them, and double the money allocated to pay them. Then, watch them closely, and punish those who behave badly (according to their rigorous training) and reward those who do best. That is, as a society, how about we invest more in those who protect us?
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        Anonymous Coward, 27 May 2017 @ 4:46am
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Response to: My_Name_Here on May 26th, 2017 @ 10:23pm
        > That is, as a society, how about we invest more in those who protect us?
        
        From the cops?
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        This comment has been flagged by the community. Click here to show it
        
        Anonymous Coward, 27 May 2017 @ 6:23am
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Response to: My_Name_Here on May 26th, 2017 @ 10:23pm
        No, idiot. How about we invest more in police that have not received enough training (if that is the case). Or others that could do a better job, like ex-military. Patriots that should earn a good standard of living for protecting fellow citizens at large. Respect, money, and status for those brave enough to take on a life threatening job every day. Sounds right to me.
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        Anonymous Coward, 27 May 2017 @ 9:38am
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Response to: My_Name_Here on May 26th, 2017 @ 10:23pm
        "I would say that using profanities does not help your point much,"
        
        Neither does calling someone an idiot
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        This comment has been flagged by the community. Click here to show it
        
        Anonymous Coward, 27 May 2017 @ 7:51pm
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Response to: My_Name_Here on May 26th, 2017 @ 10:23pm
        OK, fair enough, but help me pick a better word. The comment was "That is, as a society, how about we invest more in those who protect us?" and the response was "From the cops?"
        
        No, not from the cops. I meant invest in those who protect us from the criminals in our society, of which there are many.
        
        But this was obvious from the beginning, right? So, what is a better word to describe the characteristic of the comment "From the cops?"? Sarcastic? Maybe, but sarcasm standing alone in this case is just stupid, right? Trivial? Foolish? Moronic? Imbecilic? Simplistic? Which one would express it best?
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        Anonymous Coward, 28 May 2017 @ 6:40am
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Response to: My_Name_Here on May 26th, 2017 @ 10:23pm
        Blah blah blah ... I did nothing wrong and my point is still valid ... kiss my ass and agree with everything I say otherwise I will insult you again.
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        Anonymous Coward, 27 May 2017 @ 5:12pm
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Response to: My_Name_Here on May 26th, 2017 @ 10:23pm
        They're overpaid already. Taking someone who's already doing a poor job and then paying them more for it doesn't magically make them do a better job.
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        This comment has been flagged by the community. Click here to show it
        
        Anonymous Coward, 27 May 2017 @ 7:54pm
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Response to: My_Name_Here on May 26th, 2017 @ 10:23pm
        Are you insane? Overpaid? These are the most self-less among us, upon which our personal and financial safety depends. Overpaid? What is your personal and financial safety worth? Oh, wait, you're probably a another socialist foreigner, right? So you wouldn't be familiar with the heroes in blue that in the US we call the Police.
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        This comment has been flagged by the community. Click here to show it
        
        Anonymous Coward, 28 May 2017 @ 6:41am
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Response to: My_Name_Here on May 26th, 2017 @ 10:23pm
        You are full of shit.
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        Anonymous Coward, 28 May 2017 @ 5:05am
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Response to: My_Name_Here on May 26th, 2017 @ 10:23pm
        So what are your standards for determining salary again? If the danger is the main determinant then doubling the salaries as you propose is absurd on its face if you consider the facts. According to this list of the 10 most dangerous jobs police officers don't even make it into the top 10. They have a fatal job injury rate of 3.38 per 100,000 workers, far lower than even that of landscaping supervisors, who come in at number 10 on the list with 18 per 100,000.
        
        Only two categories on the list have higher median salaries than police officers, pilots and farmers/ranchers. Doubling the salaries for law enforcement would put them at a median of $120,000 per year and make them better paid than any of the ten most dangerous professions and paid roughly four times the amount that is paid to lumberjacks, the most dangerous profession with 132 fatal job injuries per 100,000 workers.
        
        Why are you not advocating for the just remuneration of lumberjacks? You rely on their work for the lumber that built your home, the paper you user to read and write and the softer paper you use to wipe your ass. However, maybe you don't need that last one, since it seems like you're the type that just spews your bullshit out of your mouth instead of waiting for your digestive system to do its thing like the rest of us.
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        This comment has been flagged by the community. Click here to show it
        
        Anonymous Coward, 28 May 2017 @ 7:01am
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Response to: My_Name_Here on May 26th, 2017 @ 10:23pm
        My my my, you seem upset. I told you why I was advocating for respect, money, insurance and retirement benefits for the American Heroes in Blue, the Police. I need them, you need them, we all need them to protect us from lawbreakers. I think you're being just plain silly comparing them to lumberjacks, right, honey?
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        Anonymous Coward, 28 May 2017 @ 7:23am
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Response to: My_Name_Here on May 26th, 2017 @ 10:23pm
        To quote you from the post I replied to:
        
        "Respect, money, and status for those brave enough to take on a life threatening job every day."
        
        Way to shift the goal post there, sweetie. You yourself said that those brave enough to take on a life threatening job deserve respect, money and status. I guess the silliest thing I did was expecting to take you at your word. Instead you changed your premise and called me silly for pointing out logical flaws in your argument. Snowflake much?
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        This comment has been flagged by the community. Click here to show it
        
        Anonymous Coward, 28 May 2017 @ 7:32am
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Response to: My_Name_Here on May 26th, 2017 @ 10:23pm
        I think I'm starting to like you, "Sweetie" always works with me. Let's see - you are defending comparing the danger a lumberjack faces to what a Police Officer faces. Ok, I'm a sensitive kind of guy, I'll play along. Being a lumberjack is more dangerous, that's you position, right? Just visualize the danger a lumberjack faces. Trees. Now visualize the danger a Police Officer faces. Not trees. Criminals with guns. How far would you like to take this, honey? And wait, do I actually have to patient with you? You're not my wife, are you? Or my ex-wife?
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        This comment has been flagged by the community. Click here to show it
        
        Anonymous Coward, 28 May 2017 @ 7:49am
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Response to: My_Name_Here on May 26th, 2017 @ 10:23pm
        In the spirit of comedy that I so often enjoy on TechDirt, and in honor of the many ladies who frequent this site, I offer a joke I learned from my father. It uses a rude word (twice), so if you are easily offended please do not continue reading this post.
        
        Question: What is the definition of a good marriage?
        Answer: If the fucking you're getting is worth the fucking you're getting.
        
        It's deep, actually, once you get over the foul language.
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        Anonymous Coward, 28 May 2017 @ 7:56am
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Response to: My_Name_Here on May 26th, 2017 @ 10:23pm
        No wonder you have an ex-wife if that's what you consider "deep." I actually almost pity you, living a life that meaningless and devoid of any genuine human connection.
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        Anonymous Coward, 28 May 2017 @ 7:53am
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Response to: My_Name_Here on May 26th, 2017 @ 10:23pm
        My position was that since you asserted:
        
        "Respect, money, and status for those brave enough to take on a life threatening job every day."
        
        (Which isn't a sentence by the way, it's a fragment without a verb, but I digress...)
        
        That if you believed your assertion it is not logical to use it to advocate for higher pay for law enforcement since, statistically, their profession is thirty-nine times less likely to die on the job than lumberjacks. You can make the argumentum ad absurdum of claiming that trees are not dangerous compared to criminals, but it doesn't change the facts of the comparative rates of death for law enforcement and lumberjacks.
        
        Trees may not seem dangerous but the tools used to cut them down are quite dangerous, and giant trees tend to fall down once they are cut (thanks, gravity!) and large objects tend to have the ability to crush people. Combined with remote work sites that are quite distant from the nearest hospital these factors can make many more accidents fatal as the bona fide mortality statistics bear out.
        
        For someone who likes to criticize others for a lack of rationality (owing of course to being female, as if that is somehow connected) you sure do seem to have an acute allergy to facts.
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        Anonymous Coward, 29 May 2017 @ 6:55am
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Response to: My_Name_Here on May 26th, 2017 @ 10:23pm
        If leo deserve more pay because of the risks they take while on duty ...
        
        Why do we not pay our grunt military members more?
        Why do we not provide health care for our grunt military members?
        
        Seems to me that the grunt soldier faces much more risk than a leo and therefore deserves a higher rate of pay in addition to adequate health care - but I guess that is socialism talk right there. Weird
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        btr1701 (profile), 27 May 2017 @ 10:18am
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Response to: My_Name_Here on May 26th, 2017 @ 10:23pm
        > let's do more to attract and train the best and the brightest in the police
        
        Oh, we can't do that. That's racist.
        
        For example, used to be there was a requirement that Houston police officers had to have a college degree to qualify. The usual rabble rousers... ear, I mean community organizers, decried that requirement as racist because it kept minorities from qualifying to be police.
        
        So the city scrapped it. Now all you need is a high school diploma or a GED to be a cop.
        
        And guess what happened? Police shootings went up, community complaints against cops went up, and case dismissals due to poor arrest/evidence practices went up.
        
        But hey, at least we're 'diverse' now. That's priority number one, right?
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        Anonymous Coward, 27 May 2017 @ 4:07pm
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Response to: My_Name_Here on May 26th, 2017 @ 10:23pm
        I thought the low IQ requirement for leo was because those with higher IQ would get bored with the job duties and or become disgusted with the unethical things they were asked to do ... and because of that leave for better jobs elsewhere.
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        PaulT (profile), 29 May 2017 @ 12:59am
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Response to: My_Name_Here on May 26th, 2017 @ 10:23pm
        "For example, used to be there was a requirement that Houston police officers had to have a college degree to qualify. "
        
        ...and expanding the pool of applicants led to lower quality hires in what way? Are you saying that people with college degrees were deterred from applying because they no longer needed the degree. Or, are you saying that the only possible way the recruiters could tell good cop from bad cop was whether they went to college first?
        
        "The usual rabble rousers... ear, I mean community organizers, decried that requirement as racist because it kept minorities from qualifying to be police."
        
        I'm sure you have a citation for that claim, right? I've always read that such practices were because more educated people were finding other jobs with more pay for less risk, and the departments needed to increase the number of applicants.
        
        "Police shootings went up, community complaints against cops went up, and case dismissals due to poor arrest/evidence practices went up"
        
        I'm intrigued. How would removing the requirement for a degree prevent cops from being disciplined, retrained or fired if they're behaving so poorly? Plus, how does the claim that this only happened because of more non-white people being let on to the force jibe with the general trend of shootings against non-whites?
        
        Something doesn't seem right here.
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        Anonymous Coward, 27 May 2017 @ 5:05am
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Response to: My_Name_Here on May 26th, 2017 @ 10:23pm
        If it only happened once, it would be a non issue:
        https://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2017/03/18/us/texas-no-knock-warrant-drugs.html
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        Anonymous Coward, 27 May 2017 @ 6:20am
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Response to: My_Name_Here on May 26th, 2017 @ 10:23pm
        OK, good, 2. I would imagine that with the millions and millions of life and death decisions that the American police force will have to make every day, tragedies sometimes occur. How could they not? What is your point?
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        Anonymous Coward, 27 May 2017 @ 8:12am
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Response to: My_Name_Here on May 26th, 2017 @ 10:23pm
        Do you need a chart so that we can list everything or are you being willfully blind?
        
        "tragedies sometimes occur. How could they not?"
        
        Good to know having flash-bangs thrown into a baby's room is no big deal right? No, I expect better them to exercise caution not just jump at the chance to use the new toys they got.
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        Anonymous Coward, 27 May 2017 @ 8:14am
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Response to: My_Name_Here on May 26th, 2017 @ 10:23pm
        
        with the millions and millions of life and death decisions that the American police force will have to make every day
        
        You misspelled "dozens and dozens".
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        Anonymous Coward, 27 May 2017 @ 5:20pm
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Response to: My_Name_Here on May 26th, 2017 @ 10:23pm
        
        OK, good, 2. I would imagine that with the millions and millions of life and death decisions that the American police force will have to make every day, tragedies sometimes occur. How could they not? What is your point?
        
        Every time I decide not to murder someone who's ticked me off, I've made a "life or death decision". I guess that makes me a real "hero", huh?
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        Anonymous Coward, 27 May 2017 @ 8:24pm
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Response to: My_Name_Here on May 26th, 2017 @ 10:23pm
        I am really having trouble following the logic here. Let's go back to the basics:
        
        We all agree that we have criminals in our society, right? And that many of them are dangerous to our personal and financial safety, right? So, we all chip in to protect honest law abiding citizens from those who would break the law, right? We call them Police. That's a given.
        
        Is their job dangerous? I believe there is no doubt about that, either. Are they brave and self-less? I cannot think of any other explanation for their behavior. Do they make mistakes? Yes, who amongst us does not.
        
        Do they, by and large, do their best, risk their lives, and protect us all from dangerous criminals? YES! Do they deserve our respect for that? Hell Yes. This left-wing media focus on getting our federal government MORE involved in LOCAL police is just crazy. Obama is gone, Hillary lost, get over it already. The adults are back in the room. MAGA
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        Anonymous Coward, 28 May 2017 @ 6:43am
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Response to: My_Name_Here on May 26th, 2017 @ 10:23pm
        "I am really having trouble following the logic here."
        
        Yes, that is obvious.
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        Anonymous Coward, 28 May 2017 @ 6:44am
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Response to: My_Name_Here on May 26th, 2017 @ 10:23pm
        "We all agree that we have criminals in our society, right?"
        
        and some of them are employed by the police departments
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        Anonymous Coward, 30 May 2017 @ 7:12am
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Response to: My_Name_Here on May 26th, 2017 @ 10:23pm
        "Are they brave and self-less? I cannot think of any other explanation for their behavior."
        
        This is the fundamental difference between your position and the people you are disagreeing with.
        
        I've lived a pretty low financial class life, travelled alla round the country, and I've met more good cops than bad... but the ratio has been pretty close. In the maybe two dozen interactions with police I've had, about 40% of them were not brave and self-less, they were petty thugs and bullies who found a way to have some measure of power. These are the police who aren't just "trained bad", they are actively bad. There are police officers who became police officers for bad reasons and to do bad things, and the numbers show that there are more of them than their should be. So how do we fix that?
        
        The Black Lives Matter movement had one goal, "let's come up with a way to hold the bad cops accountable". Your response "Cops are selfless because otherwise why would they be cops" ignores the fact that there are a lot of really bad reasons to be a cop.
        
        Everything you are saying would make sense if there were no bad cops. That's just not the case.
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
DarkKnight (profile), 27 May 2017 @ 3:56am

HMMMM....
How about some technology to provide Police with Non Lethal Weaponry, that disables law breakers and knocks them out, without killing them? The end of Police brutality style killings, a great PR upgrade, and less fear and loathing, from the public?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
- Stephen T. Stone (profile), 27 May 2017 @ 5:59am
  
  Re: HMMMM....
  “Non-lethal weaponry” is an oxymoron. Weapons such as Tasers can be less lethal than traditional firearms, but they can still kill a person. A good rule of thumb to remember: If it can be used as a weapon, it can kill.
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
- Anonymous Coward, 27 May 2017 @ 4:10pm
  
  Re: HMMMM....
  Such a device would never be abused
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
- JEDIDIAH, 27 May 2017 @ 5:18pm
  
  I think that's already been tried.
  People would just start whining about that too.
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
  - Anonymous Coward, 27 May 2017 @ 5:28pm
    
    Re: I think that's already been tried.
    Yes, all that whining about how innocent lives were taken by the police
    [ link to this | view in chronology ]
- PaulT (profile), 29 May 2017 @ 1:06am
  
  Re: HMMMM....
  If you're referring to Tasers, not only are they NOT non-lethal (see below), but they're generally overused in situations where no weapon is appropriate.
  
  https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Taser_safety_issues#Deaths_and_injuries_related_to_Taser_u se
  
  Here's a different bright idea - how about you train police to de-escalate situations before they require any sort of violent interaction? In my experience, cops in other Western countries tend to try to talk criminals down first, US cops are always itching for a fight and will escalate situations toward violence where none was previously imminant.
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
Anonymous Coward, 27 May 2017 @ 4:07am

Does this mean the Trump would get charged for assaulting the government official from Montenegro? He pushed him like he was a just some journalist.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
- This comment has been flagged by the community. Click here to show it
  
  Anonymous Coward, 27 May 2017 @ 6:24am
  
  Re:
  American first. That's how things work now. Get used to it. MAGA!
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
  - Anonymous Coward, 27 May 2017 @ 9:14am
    
    Re: Re:
    How's that police cock taste?
    [ link to this | view in chronology ]
    - This comment has been flagged by the community. Click here to show it
      
      My_Name_Here, 28 May 2017 @ 12:18am
      
      Re: Re: Re:
      Delicious. But I don't expect someone who torrents movies to appreciate such sophisticated tastes.
      [ link to this | view in chronology ]
      - Anonymous Coward, 28 May 2017 @ 6:46am
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re:
        Anyone who disagrees with you is a pirate - got it.
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
  - Anonymous Coward, 27 May 2017 @ 9:41am
    
    Re: Re:
    I doubt you are serious, but others I am not so sure about
    [ link to this | view in chronology ]
Anonymous Coward, 27 May 2017 @ 7:26am

"law enforcement officers put their lives on the line every day to protect and serve"

To protest and serve ... their uber-riche overlords that is - everyone else can kiss their ass. You had damn well better kiss their ass and look as though you like it or risk get your head caved in by their jack boots.

If one were to ask them about this "protect and serve" bullshit, their response might imply they have no duty to protect you or serve you in any way - rather their duty is to enforce the law, even when said law is unconstitutional, immoral and unethical.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
- Anonymous Coward, 27 May 2017 @ 7:52am
  
  Re:
  There are over 700,000 uniformed police in the US. To your point about how they do their job every day, please show ANY evidence that a majority, or a sizable minority, or even more than 1% of them carry out criminal or brutal acts. Shouldn't be hard to document 7000 police shootings this year, right?
  
  There ARE bad cops out there. There are bad garbage men and bad hairdressers too. The difference is the job they do, and the magnitude and consequences of their actions. When you lump the good in with the bad and crap all over them, you are NOT helping the problem get fixed.
  
  Focus on the barriers to getting rid of the bad cops and maybe the rhetoric will die down enough for something positive to be accomplished.
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
  - JB, 27 May 2017 @ 8:11am
    
    Re: Re:
    Do you not grok that this type of bill IS a "barrier [s] to getting rid of the bad cops"?
    [ link to this | view in chronology ]
  - Anonymous Anonymous Coward (profile), 27 May 2017 @ 8:20am
    
    Police Reform Suggestions
    
    Focus on the barriers to getting rid of the bad cops and maybe the rhetoric will die down enough for something positive to be accomplished.
    
    To that end I would recommend the following:
    
    Either get rid of qualified immunity, or make it much, much harder to qualify.
    
    Stop trying to create a new protected class out of whole cloth where the only qualification of that class is a uniform.
    
    Make it a requirement that the police know the laws they enforce, and enforce only those laws. Too many laws? Make the law simpler, sunset all laws every 7 years. The legislatures will tire of spending all of their time re-enacting laws and will simplify them so they can address new issues.
    
    Make it a requirement that police actually have to protect and serve.
    
    Remove policy and procedure where police have an opportunity to revise testimony after an incident. They should be subject to the same rules as the people they arrest.
    
    Eliminate the construct whereby police are believed automatically, let them show proof of allegations, not just their word.
    
    Hold police personally responsible for their actions (especially when there is a question of rights violations), along with the persons who supervise and control those actions, and not use taxpayers money to settle.
    
    Get rid of unions in public service positions. Treat those people fairly and give them some form of grievance arbitration that does not include striking or in some other way holding the public hostage.
    
    Stop allowing officers fired from one position for bad conduct to be allowed to serve in another position with another department or even in another jurisdiction, or to get rehired by the same department.
    
    There are probably some additional ideas...
    [ link to this | view in chronology ]
    - Anonymous Coward, 27 May 2017 @ 9:45am
      
      Re: Police Reform Suggestions
      These are all reasonable suggestions.
      [ link to this | view in chronology ]
  - Anonymous Coward, 27 May 2017 @ 9:53am
    
    Re: Re:
    Not sure what the quantity of leos has to do with it or the stats about whether criminal activity is over some arbitrary high water mark. What, exactly, would this show? Why do you ask about an unrelated data point? All it takes is one action to ruin the lives of many and because those lives are not valued by the overlords, there are little to no consequences to said action. But pointing this out is not helping ... right, just stfu and take the beatings.
    
    Even you admit there are bad loes - why not get rid of them then? Anywhere else except politics, you get fired for not doing your function(s) properly.
    
    Why do the citizens have to focus on barriers to equal enforcement of the law - what would such barriers be ... you know - the ones that ordinary folk have influence over? Rhetoric huh ... complaining about abuse is sooo rhetorical.
    
    All rhetoric must stop before anything positive is accomplished? Wow, no wonder nothing gets done.
    [ link to this | view in chronology ]
    - JEDIDIAH, 27 May 2017 @ 5:20pm
      
      Re: Re: Re:
      The current presumption is that the cop is always wrong regardless of circumstances. This goes double if the victim/perp fits a certain profile.
      
      Although the news media, and people that indulge in too much narrative seem to be led around by the nose in general. If someone is accused that's as good as them being convicted. It doesn't just apply to cops.
      [ link to this | view in chronology ]
      - Anonymous Coward, 27 May 2017 @ 5:34pm
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re:
        The general presumption is the cop is correct and somehow this applies when it's obviously wrong.
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        This comment has been flagged by the community. Click here to show it
        
        Anonymous Coward, 27 May 2017 @ 9:10pm
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
        Obvious to who? To you personally? To a news article from a fake news site like this one? To the liberal media with their own biased agenda? We have a process to deal with lawbreakers, even police who break the law.
        
        Obviously wrong? When Police are obviously wrong they are punished. Except Hillary Clinton, of course. She is a proven criminal, and has yet to be punished. There is hope, though. Get on the right side of the law. Or go comment on a post in your own miserable country.
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        Anonymous Coward, 28 May 2017 @ 6:50am
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
        Obviously wrong to toss a flash bang into a crib .. or do you think otherwise?
        
        Obviously wrong to shoot an unarmed person in the back for no reason other than they were not white .. you disagree?
        
        "When Police are obviously wrong they are punished"
        That paid vacation is sooo punishing, it's probably unbearable! Let's all feel sorry.
        
        Hillary? Really? .. scraping the bottom of the barrel will not help your silly troll
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        Anonymous Coward, 28 May 2017 @ 7:03am
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
        I tell you what - why don't you ride with an officer in your neighborhood, or maybe the back streets of Chicago, and then give me your lecture about "obviously wrong". Try it, see how steady your nerves stay. Don't be so quick to criticize something you have no understanding of, at all.
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        Anonymous Coward, 28 May 2017 @ 7:10am
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
        You still do not get it
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        Anonymous Coward, 28 May 2017 @ 7:55am
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
        You seem to be saying that it is a war zone out there and the police need military equipment in order to suppress the uppity wage slaves.
        
        The nerve of those ungrateful cretins, look at what the monied interests have done for them ... oh wait, don't look there - nothing to see.
        
        Yes, law enforcement has its roots in the enforcement of monied interests at the expense of the rest of society. Has anything changed?
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        This comment has been flagged by the community. Click here to show it
        
        Anonymous Coward, 28 May 2017 @ 8:33am
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
        That may be true in your country, Miss. In the great United States of America, we have American Police, respected the world over. Just like our President, Donald Trump, the Magnificent.
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        Anonymous Coward, 28 May 2017 @ 9:36am
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
        That's pretty funny, do you do standup?
        
        That was sarcasm - right?
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        This comment has been flagged by the community. Click here to show it
        
        Anonymous Coward, 28 May 2017 @ 5:04pm
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
        Magnificent: Splendid, spectacular, impressive, striking, glorious, superb, majestic, awesome, awe-inspiring, breathtaking.
        
        Did you see President Donald J. Trump in front of the whole Muslim world? "Drive them out!". Wow. Magnificent is just not strong enough to describe him. Genius. Statesman. Hero of the American People. Patriot. Leader of the Free World.
        
        And his wife? She should be on the cover of every fashion and lady magazine in the world.
        
        President Donald J. Trump, the AWESOME!
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        Stephen T. Stone (profile), 28 May 2017 @ 5:08pm
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
        I haven’t seen this much fellatio since my last visit to PornHub.
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        Anonymous Coward, 29 May 2017 @ 7:01am
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
        Yes, this is sarcasm - well done.
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
discordian_eris (profile), 27 May 2017 @ 7:58am

It is not a cops duty to go home safe at the end of the day. His duty is to make sure everyone else makes it home safe, even if it costs him his life. If they cannot understand and accept that, they need to find a different line of work.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
- Anonymous Coward, 27 May 2017 @ 8:03am
  
  Re: Discordian_eris
  What a stupid statement. Because you dont want to do the job yourself, you think the rest should die for you?
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
  - Stephen T. Stone (profile), 27 May 2017 @ 1:08pm
    
    Re: Re: Discordian_eris
    A police officer is not hired to run away from danger, to hide from criminals, or to protect themselves first and the people in a far distant second. Their duty is to serve the people—at any cost.
    [ link to this | view in chronology ]
    - Anonymous Coward, 27 May 2017 @ 5:24pm
      
      Re: Re: Re: Discordian_eris
      > A police officer is not hired to run away from danger, to hide from criminals, or to protect themselves first and the people in a far distant second. Their duty is to serve the people—at any cost.
      
      Not at all. There job is to make sure the ruling class stays that way.
      [ link to this | view in chronology ]
      - This comment has been flagged by the community. Click here to show it
        
        Anonymous Coward, 27 May 2017 @ 9:11pm
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Discordian_eris
        You are a foreign socialist, right? We have no ruling class in America. We have a free society, and we vote for our leaders. Our Police are simply superior to what you have seen in your own backward country. Don't try to compare them with our Heroes in Blue.
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        Anonymous Coward, 28 May 2017 @ 6:55am
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Discordian_eris
        Hahahaha ... too easy.
        
        "We have no ruling class in America"
        Wow, ignorance is bliss ... bliss for the elite ruling class when the proles are ignorant.
        
        "We have a free society"
        Free is an interesting word, not sure what it means here. Are you free to demonstrate against your government without the fear of reprisals? Yeah, I didn't think so.
        
        Your assumptions are wrong, but please do continue as it has entertainment value.
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        This comment has been flagged by the community. Click here to show it
        
        Anonymous Coward, 28 May 2017 @ 7:09am
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Discordian_eris
        Are you joking? Do you see what the media is doing "protesting" President Trump each and every day? Did you see the pink pussy hats? Wow, that was rude, but everyone accepted it. Did you see Madonna rant about Trump and Nazis (I know you male posers really liked that). Free to demonstrate? I think so. Just look at the silly crap that is said 24/7 on the mainstream media and in Hollywood. Change the electoral college vote, did you catch that? Impeach the president. Blah blah blah, protest after protest. I think it fair to say that EVERYONE is free to protest EVERYTHING, even if it is about nothing at all, like Russia collusion. By demonstration, people are FREE to spread their nonsense. Real Americans sorted it out just fine last election, and they will the next, too.
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        Anonymous Coward, 28 May 2017 @ 7:12am
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Discordian_eris
        Oh - the media is protesting .. lol
        
        Your skewed views are quite entertaining
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        Stephen T. Stone (profile), 28 May 2017 @ 8:34am
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Discordian_eris
        Go home, Shiva, you’re a woman-hating idiot.
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        Anonymous Coward, 28 May 2017 @ 9:35am
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Discordian_eris
        Stop stop! I can only get so many right wing nutjob bingos in one day!
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
- Anonymous Coward, 27 May 2017 @ 8:05am
  
  Re:
  They accept it, by demonstration. Please accept that in return for their service, they deserve your respect and support.
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
  - Anonymous Coward, 27 May 2017 @ 9:58am
    
    Re: Re:
    No one "deserves" respect as it must be earned.
    
    Perhaps you meant to use a form of the word reverence or adulation?
    [ link to this | view in chronology ]
    - This comment has been flagged by the community. Click here to show it
      
      Anonymous Coward, 27 May 2017 @ 6:41pm
      
      Re: Re: Re:
      They earn my respect every day. Try doing what they do once for yourself. Personally confront armed evil-doers on behalf of other innocent citizens. I'm guessing that you do not have the moral character to do so. It takes a lot, I would think.
      [ link to this | view in chronology ]
      - Stephen T. Stone (profile), 27 May 2017 @ 7:19pm
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re:
        And what of the officers who violate civil liberties, kill unarmed suspects, harass people based on skin color, or commit other crimes—do they continue earn your respect because of their chosen career?
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        This comment has been flagged by the community. Click here to show it
        
        Anonymous Coward, 27 May 2017 @ 9:15pm
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
        Pretty easy to throw stones, right? The impact of the real system that we use to protect ourselves from dangerous and violent criminals is too important to trivialize, which I think you are doing. Of course with the number of Police, there will be some who are just not up to it. The others among them are our first line of defense, it is usually enough. So, yes, in spite of the fact that some tiny fraction of police do not live up to their (own) exceptionally high standards, they absolutely earn my respect. The Police. Thank God For the Police. MAGA
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        Stephen T. Stone (profile), 27 May 2017 @ 9:31pm
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
        
        “Nearly all men can stand adversity, but if you want to test a man's character, give him power.” – Abraham Lincoln
        
        I do not make light of the very real dangers faced by police officers in the line of duty. I respect those officers who work to keep the peace with a restrained use of their power and authority. But I do not respect officers who see their job as an excuse to abuse their power and exercise their authoritarian instincts upon the general public. Such officers do not deserve, nor do they earn, my respect.
        
        May you never end up in a situation where your rights are violated by a cop who thinks he is above the law. If you do end up in such a situation, may your willful naïveté disappear as fast as your civil rights.
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        This comment has been flagged by the community. Click here to show it
        
        Anonymous Coward, 27 May 2017 @ 9:39pm
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
        Your writing is persuasive. I was in a situation like that once, in Germany, going through customs inspection. I had a customs officer who really, really was rude, arrogant, nasty, and used every opportunity to showcase his power. I didn't like it. But I don't infer from that experience that I need to shame all customs officers everywhere. He was a jerk, I didn't like it, happens sometimes. Nobody died, but I did feel bad. Forgot about it, actually. But, if it happened a lot, I guess I could be upset enough about it to complain in public, if that is your point. Maybe I'm an insensitive jerk, from a female point of view. From a male point of view, I feel brotherly love for the Heroes in Blue, our American Police. The male view wins. MAGA
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        Stephen T. Stone (profile), 27 May 2017 @ 9:54pm
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
        
        I don't infer from that experience that I need to shame all customs officers everywhere.
        
        Nor do I infer that the actions of a single bad police officer means we must shame all police officers. But we cannot—should not—offer them our blind loyalty and unyielding respect only because they chose to wear the badge and serve the public.
        
        Society must expect better of the police. It must hold them accountable when they violate civil liberties and destroy the trust between the police and the community. To look the other way when an officer does those things is to give the police a reverence that borders on blind worship.
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        This comment has been flagged by the community. Click here to show it
        
        Anonymous Coward, 27 May 2017 @ 11:01pm
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
        Well, ok, I'm finding it a little hard to argue with your position in general. I'm not totally sure my position borders on blind worship, but you definitely express your view more eloquently.
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        Anonymous Coward, 28 May 2017 @ 7:03am
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
        "I'm finding it a little hard to argue with your position"
        
        Understandable, since you have no leg to stand upon.
        Yes, it appears to be blind worship to me.
        
        I respect the actions of anyone going above and beyond in order to help/assist others in need - however ... the corollary is also true in that I despise those who use their position/authority to abuse others. So, does that make me a bad person, an evil doer? I suppose the lack of blind worship would, for some, make me a terrible (insert per peeve terminology here).
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        This comment has been flagged by the community. Click here to show it
        
        Anonymous Coward, 28 May 2017 @ 7:21am
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
        Gosh, there is certainly a lot of pissy lady reasoning in this forum, isn't there? Also a lot of black and white thinking. Neither are very attractive nor persuasive.
        
        This article was about the American Police, remember? We love our Police in America, the way we love our military (this is memorial day weekend). I think you must be from somewhere else.
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        Anonymous Coward, 28 May 2017 @ 7:24am
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
        Nice no true Scotsman fallacy there, darling. Drink bleach.
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        Anonymous Coward, 28 May 2017 @ 8:06am
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
        Ignoring the obvious sexism ...
        Is it being pissy to demand equal treatment under the law?
        If so, why? And please be specific because many out there, including myself, do not understand this.
        
        What benefit is obtained via unequal treatment under the law? My guess is money, money for those who pull the strings - money obtained from exploiting those who cannot pull strings and/or are not allowed to pull strings - only puppet masters are allowed to do that.
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        This comment has been flagged by the community. Click here to show it
        
        Anonymous Coward, 29 May 2017 @ 10:02pm
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
        Ok, well, with respect, I believe we live in different worlds. I live in America, where the Rule of Law allows anyone to achieve anything they desire. It basically allows hard working people to compete fairly and to distinguish themselves from lazy people. That is why we call it the "land of opportunity". What you are describing is something else, perhaps without the rule of American Law. It sounds bad, what you're talking about.
        
        We do have money here, it is available to anyone who is ready to work for it. In fact, if you can get along with others, and support them our democratic system, there is no limit to what you can achieve. This has been demonstrated through history again and again, and the primary reason that the best and the brightest in the world flock to America to live their dreams, both financial and otherwise. And yes, you are being pissy about something that no hard working American could relate to at all. Get up off your ass, go get some purpose in your life, succeed at something more prestigious than your pissy little posts, and your tone will change, I'm sure.
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
- btr1701 (profile), 27 May 2017 @ 10:25am
  
  Re:
  > His duty is to make sure everyone else makes it home safe, even if it
  > costs him his life.
  
  That's simply wrong. There is no legal obligation (i.e., duty) for anyone to die to keep you safe, cop or not.
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
  - discordian_eris (profile), 27 May 2017 @ 4:20pm
    
    Re: Re:
    It may not be a legal obligation, but it sure as hell is the moral obligation of the job. If a LEO cannot accept that, there are many other careers they can pursue. And you are conflating legal obligation with duty in regards to this.
    [ link to this | view in chronology ]
    - JEDIDIAH, 27 May 2017 @ 5:22pm
      
      Let Joker run Arkham.
      I don't think you've really thought this principle through. It's likely to harm you directly with inevitable chaos it would cause. Giving thugs free reign is no a bright idea. This is pretty d*mn obvious if you've ever shared a neighborhood with them. Probably less so if you feel suitably insulated and isolated.
      [ link to this | view in chronology ]
      - Anonymous Coward, 28 May 2017 @ 7:06am
        
        Re: Let Joker run Arkham.
        "Giving thugs free reign is no a bright idea"
        
        Agreed, so why give the police added powers and protections, you say it is no bright idea and yet would do it anyway.
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
    - btr1701 (profile), 31 May 2017 @ 9:08am
      
      Re: Re: Re:
      > It may not be a legal obligation
      
      Then it's not a duty, since that's what a duty is.
      [ link to this | view in chronology ]
      - The Wanderer (profile), 1 Jun 2017 @ 4:29am
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re:
        That may be the legal definition of a duty, but the legal definition is not the only one.
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
  - Chuck, 27 May 2017 @ 11:05pm
    
    Re: Re:
    "That's simply wrong. There is no legal obligation (i.e., duty) for anyone to die to keep you safe, cop or not."
    
    That's literally a soldier's job description.
    
    I mean, in the last few years, they seem to be dying to keep Oil safe. Oil that goes to 5 corporations in Europe, via Haliburton shipping, and not a single drop of which ever makes it to American shores.
    
    But still, their job description basically literally says "go to strange nations, shoot thousands of natives, occasionally get killed by what is most likely a ricochet because the other side is poorly trained, poorly equipped, and just trying to keep you from invading their house, get celebrated as a hero for your bad luck if you die, otherwise get free college tuition in the 98% chance that you survive."
    
    Or, yanno, your shorter version.
    
    So yes, there are people with that job description. The one for cops isn't QUITE that, but if a cop isn't willing to take a bullet that was meant for an innocent bystander, they may be a cop, but they're no hero.
    
    And "shoot first, check to see if they have any actual weapon later" is literally infinitely worse than that.
    [ link to this | view in chronology ]
Anonymous Coward, 27 May 2017 @ 8:02am

Lots of nasty people on techdirt in the months I have been away
Lets not forget that these are politicians making their own points. Not the people on the ground doing the job. Dont trash the employee because you dont like what their bosses say. I dont think I have ever been so disappointed in my fellow tech dirt readers as I am from these comments.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
- Anonymous Coward, 27 May 2017 @ 9:59am
  
  Re: Lots of nasty people on techdirt in the months I have been away
  I fell so bad now ;(
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
  - This comment has been flagged by the community. Click here to show it
    
    Anonymous Coward, 27 May 2017 @ 6:43pm
    
    Re: Re: Lots of nasty people on techdirt in the months I have been away
    You should feel bad. You seem to have no idea how lucky we are that in our society, there are so many committed and selfless people, willing to put their safety in peril on behalf of others. If you are not willing to pony up and help, at least lose the snide remarks.
    [ link to this | view in chronology ]
    - Anonymous Coward, 28 May 2017 @ 7:09am
      
      Re: Re: Re: Lots of nasty people on techdirt in the months I have been away
      and I thought we lived in a free society where one was allowed to express their opinions ... but I guess it is not all that peachy keen now is it? Your one sided view is causing you great stress, I can tell.
      [ link to this | view in chronology ]
      - This comment has been flagged by the community. Click here to show it
        
        Anonymous Coward, 28 May 2017 @ 7:14am
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Lots of nasty people on techdirt in the months I have been away
        Yes, as a member of a free society, I would also protect your right to express your silliness, lady. Express away your useless chatter. Take all the time you would like.
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        Anonymous Coward, 28 May 2017 @ 7:26am
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Lots of nasty people on techdirt in the months I have been away
        You really seem to hold women in such contempt. I wonder what your mother had to do to you to fuck you up so badly.
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        Anonymous Coward, 28 May 2017 @ 8:10am
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Lots of nasty people on techdirt in the months I have been away
        Contempt for those who you view as being of lower stature is the tried and true method for divide and conquer. It is amazing how well this has worked throughout the ages.
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        This comment has been flagged by the community. Click here to show it
        
        Anonymous Coward, 28 May 2017 @ 8:38am
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Lots of nasty people on techdirt in the months I have been away
        I would never describe women as having lower stature than men, never. Women are just as clever (considered over time) and often more successful than men. Not you, of course, you are kind of pitiful. Talking about my mother. That's not even nice.
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        Anonymous Coward, 28 May 2017 @ 9:02am
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Lots of nasty people on techdirt in the months I have been away
        Must be tough trying this hard to troll. You can't even keep your marks straight anymore. I'm the one who mentioned your mother. Looks like you're losing steam.
        
        You haven't even acknowledged my latest barb in our lumberjack discussion. Maybe because it hurts being bested by a woman to someone who is so obviously a misogynist.
        
        If all women are inferior and you're inferior to a woman, then what, exactly, does that make you? Are you still even human according to your warped calculus?
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        Anonymous Coward, 28 May 2017 @ 9:41am
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Lots of nasty people on techdirt in the months I have been away
        "I would never describe women as having lower stature than men"
        
        And yet you obviously did.
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
- Lawrence D’Oliveiro, 27 May 2017 @ 8:59pm
  
  Re: Dont trash the employee because you dont like what their bosses say.
  Oh, don’t worry, the employees have plenty to answer for.
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
  - Anonymous Coward, 27 May 2017 @ 10:53pm
    
    Re: Re: Dont trash the employee because you dont like what their bosses say.
    Ask Special Agent Michael T. Walter how he feels about how dangerous his job is, jackass.
    [ link to this | view in chronology ]
This comment has been flagged by the community. Click here to show it

Anonymous Coward, 27 May 2017 @ 10:06pm

Only on Techdirt do people rsi against keeping police alive.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
- Anonymous Coward, 28 May 2017 @ 9:38am
  
  Re:
  Derp
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
David, 28 May 2017 @ 2:51am

What I don't get:
How is the us-vs-them narrative and justice actually supposed to mitigate danger against policemen?

I mean, if you want to minimize bad consequences for yourself, killing the police and trying to escape becomes the most reasonable course of action: if they get you, you are dead anyway. So where is the point in settling for less?

What incentive for deescalation would police be able to offer?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
- That One Guy (profile), 28 May 2017 @ 1:25pm
  
  Re: What I don't get:
  "Give up! Yes doing so guarantees that you will be executed, but if you make it easy for us we might not 'accidentally' smash your face in and break a few bones bringing you in!"
  
  Yeah, putting a desperate person in a position where they've got nothing to lose and the only chance they have to survive is to escape at any cost(because there is nothing they can do to make their situation worse) is a really stupid move and is pretty much guaranteed to cause serious problems.
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
  - This comment has been flagged by the community. Click here to show it
    
    Anonymous Coward, 28 May 2017 @ 4:58pm
    
    Re: Re: What I don't get:
    Quick question - is your "That One Guy" name a wish or a reality? The reason I ask is your argument sounds like something my ex-wife would say a few days before her period. Are you another male-posing lady in this lady-dominated forum? This is just not a "guy" argument.
    
    Not that it is TOTALLY without merit, it just has so little it is hardly worth mentioning, let alone responding to. Hint: silly lady arguments are pretty obvious to all us guys.
    [ link to this | view in chronology ]
    - Stephen T. Stone (profile), 28 May 2017 @ 5:06pm
      
      Re: Re: Re: What I don't get:
      For someone who claimed to respect women, you sure like to insult people by comparing them to women.
      [ link to this | view in chronology ]
  - Anonymous Coward, 28 May 2017 @ 11:12pm
    
    Re: Re: What I don't get:
    And why is this person desperate? Because they are a criminal and are about to be caught, right? So instead of giving up, they try to kill the cop trying to arrest them. One of two things happen then:
    
    The cop wins and the criminal gets caught and or killed, or caught then killed by a death sentence and you guys shit on the cops here on TD.
    
    Or
    
    The criminal wins and kills the cop and all you guys get to celebrate about it here on TD.
    
    Pretty much a win/win for you either way.
    [ link to this | view in chronology ]
    - Stephen T. Stone (profile), 29 May 2017 @ 1:13am
      
      Re: Re: Re: What I don't get:
      We criticize a police officer when they violate the law, then escape their due punishment. Only a handful of fools who post here celebrate an officer’s death, and they do not represent the community in general.
      [ link to this | view in chronology ]
    - That One Guy (profile), 29 May 2017 @ 5:02am
      
      Re: Re: Re: What I don't get:
      And why is this person desperate? Because they are a criminal and are about to be caught, right?
      
      Maybe, maybe not.
      
      It could be that they're in that position because they deliberately broke the law and knowingly killed a cop, or it could be that it was just a string of bad choices on their or the police's part. Perhaps they were a criminal but didn't mean to kill, a no-knock raid in the middle of the night startles an armed homeowner who thinks they're being burgled, or some other similar situation occurs.
      
      So instead of giving up, they try to kill the cop trying to arrest them.
      
      That's the thing though, if they're already facing death if they get arrested because they killed another cop, accidentally or not, doing so won't make their situation any worse, but it might make it better at least in the short-term by allowing them to escape.
      
      This is one of the reasons the law is so stupid, because it makes it so that people in that position have nothing to lose. They will be executed if they're caught, so why wouldn't they do whatever they could to try to escape? If someone knows that surrender will result in death then why would they ever do so?
      
      A desperate person is likely to make rash, stupid decisions, and you'd be hard pressed to find a factor more likely to make a person desperate than the knowledge that they are going to die.
      
      As for the strawman you threw together, starting with the first scenario...
      
      If the person in question deliberately killed someone, cop or not, and they get caught, then they've demonstrated that they are a very real threat to those around them, so incarceration is absolutely justified I'd say, though death might not be(haven't really put much thought into death as a punishment, though just tossing the idea around for a bit offhand I'd lean away from it in general unless the prisoner chooses it), so 'shitting on the cops', not so much.
      
      If it wasn't a deliberate murder on the other hand then I'd be hard pressed to agree that execution is justified, given it takes an action that is normally likely to get some prison time(or possible even none) and instantly turns it into a death sentence simple because the person killed has a badge. Such blatant double-standards like that I most certainly don't agree with, though even then I'd be critical of the law and the legal system that applied it, the cop(s) likely wouldn't even enter into it.
      
      And now the second...
      
      Starting again with the case of deliberate murder, then a terrible thing is doubled, so nothing to celebrate, though if the only reason they killed again was because of the law then a terrible act was compounded for a stupid reason and there's certainly grounds for a feeling of disgust on top of regret for a death.
      
      If it was the case of manslaughter, again terrible thing, and once again if the only reason they killed again is because the brilliant law put them in a position such that they had nothing to lose then it's doubly unfortunate that two people died.
      [ link to this | view in chronology ]
      - This comment has been flagged by the community. Click here to show it
        
        Anonymous Coward, 29 May 2017 @ 6:02am
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: What I don't get:
        There are two sides to the brain, I get that, a logical side and an emotional side. Both are useful, and in general, they should be deployed together. On both sides, we should try to organize our thoughts by considering what is more true and relevant and what is less true and relevant, and to keep this order in mind. For example, when you say "or it could be that it was just a string of bad choices". Well, obviously it was a string of bad choices by any rational standard, right? Always. So, for the purpose of reasoning, this means nothing at all, it is simply unimportant. We need to protect and support our police. That goes to the top of the list for both sides of the brain, we have a logical reason to do so (indirect self-preservation) and an emotional reason to do so (brothers in arms). Top of the list, get that? The rest of your rational discourse just does not merit anywhere near the importance of protecting and supporting our police. When you say "if the only reason they killed again is because the brilliant law put them in a position such that (blah blah)", again, unimportant. Not relevant. Not part of the conversation that matters. Protect and support the police. That matters.
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
This comment has been flagged by the community. Click here to show it

Anonymous Coward, 28 May 2017 @ 5:22pm

I did not disrespect women at all. I disrespected the comment and the poster (poser) and maybe my ex-wife. I disrespected stupid arguments, which often flowed from my ex-wife just before her period. That's a fact that anyone who knew her could attest to. Read the article if you would like to see MAJOR disrespect towards sitting US Senators and the proud American Police Force. In fact, read pretty much ANY article from TechDirt, almost uniform in their disrespect for someone or something. That's pretty much what they peddle to their anonymous donors. Shameful, really. Read the article. Shameful. I'm just trying to bring forth legitimate criticism of shameful articles.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
- Anonymous Coward, 28 May 2017 @ 5:32pm
  
  Re:
  Hamilton for the last time, go get professional help.
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
  - Stephen T. Stone (profile), 28 May 2017 @ 5:36pm
    
    Re: Re:
    He has professional help. Too bad his lawyer cannot serve as his therapist.
    [ link to this | view in chronology ]
    - This comment has been flagged by the community. Click here to show it
      
      Anonymous Coward, 28 May 2017 @ 8:04pm
      
      Re: Re: Re:
      Wow, that's deep. Are you imagining again that I am Shiva and my professional help is Charles Harder? Well, if you are, consider this: Charles is living the life few ever dreamed of, right? I mean, publicly defending the honor of FLOTUS, and winning against formidable foes. Imagine if he was a musician, and wrote a song about it. You'd probably cry, right, I mean, if you were a lady (as most of you are). Or a movie of his life, wow, I mean, he's bigger than life, right? He is entrusted with perhaps the most precious thing to the most powerful man in the world, and knocks the skin off the ball, setting it on fire as it shoots over the far fence like a comet. Incredible. What will he do next? Oh, yeah, that Shiva guy. Personally, I think Melania came up with that "fake indian" stuff, and she's pushing his agenda. I think she likes him. I mean, platonically, you know. And she's powerful, yes she is. Just watch what happens. But Charles, he's really something, don't you think? Probably could be a therapist, like you say.
      [ link to this | view in chronology ]
      - Stephen T. Stone (profile), 28 May 2017 @ 8:09pm
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re:
        Oh, you dirty bird, work the shaft.
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        This comment has been flagged by the community. Click here to show it
        
        Anonymous Coward, 28 May 2017 @ 8:51pm
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
        If you want to know more, I think that guy Shiva and Melania could be good for each other, like a couple. I mean, think about it. I love President Donald J. Trump, the Magnificent, but every now and then, don't you think he casts a little bit of English bulldog image? Proud, Fierce, no doubt, but a little spit flying at this and that. And well, from the wrong angle, a little ugly (sorry Donald). Usually handsome and fierce, but you know what I mean. Now compare him to that guy Shiva. Younger, polished, careful, well spoken, well liked, doesn't drool or spit on hardly anyone, not that I've seen. Nice, right? Like Melania, close to perfect, at least in public. And the two of them as a couple? Diverse, right? So what about this: Let Donald serve his eight years, and then let's vote in Shiva to be both President and First Husband to Melania. Ok, I know it won't actually be her first husband, but leave that aside for a minute. This would be real female empowerment, right? 16 years for Melania, who could top that, not even a man! Donald would be OK, he loves Melania and would want her to be happy. Hmm. I think Shiva is married (don't remember) but that can be worked out somehow, they're all basically good people, and could sacrifice for the good of their country. What do you think?
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        This comment has been flagged by the community. Click here to show it
        
        My_Name_Here, 28 May 2017 @ 9:18pm
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
        Fran Rescher separated from him last year. Her loss. If I could have a womb for Shiva to occupy with his babies, I would.
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        Stephen T. Stone (profile), 28 May 2017 @ 9:42pm
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
        Damn. When you give someone head, you give them your whole fuckin’ head!
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        This comment has been flagged by the community. Click here to show it
        
        Anonymous Coward, 28 May 2017 @ 10:13pm
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
        Well, ignoring your sexual innuendo, which I don't like at all (please stop it), there are some interesting concepts in this little fantasy, right? Sometimes women change their minds about their husbands, right? Sometimes men do, too. It happens. Women can be ambitious and powerful, right? They decide who they will marry and divorce, right? Completely in the hands of the individual decider and their conscience, right? And think of the pressure on Melania. Do you think she likes those drapes? Those are Donald drapes, the big gold ones, I'm pretty sure. Her taste is more subtle. I think she needs new drapes, and when you get new drapes, ask any lady, sometimes you need a new man to match. And the whole country loves Melania, they would support her in anything she wants to do. Except the haters, of course. But even some of the haters would come over to her side in support of a new husband. A change agent. An anti-old-president, for eight years in the future. Keep Melania, switch out Donald. Not completely beyond belief, right? Women are as powerful as they want to be, and we all respect that. No doubt.
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        Stephen T. Stone (profile), 28 May 2017 @ 10:39pm
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
        Did you lose your mind, or did it walk out on you alongside your ex-wife?
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        This comment has been flagged by the community. Click here to show it
        
        Anonymous Coward, 28 May 2017 @ 11:18pm
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
        Well, that's not very kind, is it. Another important point: maybe we could combine the swearing in ceremony with the swearing to ceremony in one big television spectacular. Think about it: Melania's new husband could first swear to uphold the constitution, and a breath later, swear to stoop and fetch for Melania for the rest of his natural life. Pretty empowering female display, no? First one president, and then another, ready to do anything to keep her attention. I mean, that's life for a beautiful, well educated and powerful woman, right? If ya got it, flaunt it, right? I think it would speak to some of the important underpinnings of our society that reflects the actual balance of power between men and women. Women always win, in the end, but they usually do it quietly. In this case, it would be on direct display for all the world to see. Kind of beautiful, no?
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        Anonymous Coward, 29 May 2017 @ 4:12am
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
        You seem to overlook one small detail. Shiva Ayyadurai was born in Bombay, India.
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        Anonymous Coward, 29 May 2017 @ 6:16pm
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
        Shhh. Don't bother him with facts or logic at this point, you will only serve to slow down this jerk-off session he's working on.
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        This comment has been flagged by the community. Click here to show it
        
        Anonymous Coward, 29 May 2017 @ 8:45pm
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
        There is a lot of use of sexual metaphors on this site - not very attractive, in fact, downright creepy. Please stop it. Probably you're all just the same poster under a different name, so just stop it.
        
        But you do have a point, perhaps I should explain to the other well intentioned anonymous coward: This is an imaginary world, inspired by Stephen T. Stone imagining that I was that Shiva guy. He inspired this whole thing with his first leap out of reality. We just took a short romp around the Monte Python area of my mind using Stephen T. Stone as our inspiration. Personally, I think my imagination tops his, what do you think? He imagines I am Shiva, and lying about it. How cowardly his imagination is, I don't think the future Senator Shiva is like that at all. I think he's quite an upstanding fellow, and would never need to hide his opinion under a false name. Not like TechDirt posters do. It looks like a lot of different people, but I think it's just one or two nasty ones handing off to each other. Not like Senator Shiva at all. I don't know why you imagine such a nice fellow would be so deceptive. Could it be a mirror into your own mind and character?
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        This comment has been flagged by the community. Click here to show it
        
        Anonymous Coward, 29 May 2017 @ 8:58pm
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
        And yes, I know what you are going to do next, you nasty posters. You're going to point out that when I imagined I was Shiva, what did I do? I married Melania. So what does that say about me? Ok, you got me, I love her. But don't disparage her just to make me feel bad, Ok? And don't forget that my friend Charles will totally KICK YOUR ASS if you do!
        
        Have a nice day. :)
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        This comment has been flagged by the community. Click here to show it
        
        Anonymous Coward, 29 May 2017 @ 9:17pm
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
        Wow, Tonto, do you hear that? Quiet, in every direction. Silence like I have never heard before in this terrible place. Even the crickets are quiet.
        
        Kimosabee, you said THE NAME. It was written long ago in the stars that there would be one, and only one, who when you said THE NAME of the one, defamation would case. Also stupid comments would not appear. And besides that, the market would go up.
        
        Tonto, that's amazing! Oh, yeah, I said THE NAME. Of course, that's it. CHARLES HARDER. Wow, Market up again? (looks like)
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        Stephen T. Stone (profile), 29 May 2017 @ 10:16pm
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
        Did you have to work at achieving this level of stupid, or was it gifted to you at birth?
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        PaulT (profile), 30 May 2017 @ 12:16am
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
        That's one possibility.
        
        The other is that the only one stupid and desperate enough to be repeatedly posting on this article, on a day that was a public holiday on both sides of the Atlantic, is you. Everybody else had lives, family, reality to address instead. While you were trying to make up bad Lone Ranger fanfic in response to yourself, people were out contributing to the world or surrounding themselves with people who matter to them.
        
        I wish that would be enough for you to re-evaluate your life choices and your mental state but, alas, you'll probably just declare that this means you "won" something.
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        This comment has been flagged by the community. Click here to show it
        
        Anonymous Coward, 30 May 2017 @ 12:29am
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
        Yeah, you're right, it was a gift at birth. Bright blond hair (almost white), bright blue eyes, everybody fussing over me all my childhood because I was so cute and so clever. It's a heavy burden to bear, but I got through it OK, thanks for asking.
        
        And about contributing to the world, well, you can have your opinion and I can have mine, right? Pointing out the wretched stink of this site with its disgusting sexual innuendo (yes that means you) and moronic arguments (you again) to it is not journalism at all (not even close) does indeed seem like a public service to me, and a contribution to both the greater good and the theme of this holiday, those who sacrificed their lives to preserve the great United States of America.
        
        So, my small act of patriotism on this special holiday was to point out the stink, cowardice and stupidity spewed by many of the TechDirt "insiders" (that's you), and in this special case, your stupid ideas about victimizing criminals and demonizing the police. Hurt a cop, and the public, through the government, will hurt you back. Great idea. Think of the cops as our older and stronger "brothers in arms", united with us against a common enemy (criminals), that's the right metaphor. Respect them, support them, remember their fallen, and don't put up with foul-mouthed low-character disgusting sexual comments from maladjusted females posing as men. Happy Memorial Day.
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        PaulT (profile), 30 May 2017 @ 1:16am
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
        "Yeah, you're right, it was a gift at birth"
        
        Interesting, your comment here appears to be in response to Stephens' comment, yet the rest appears to be attacking me.
        
        Are you actually too stupid to understand that you were responding to 2 different people, or has your mental capability deteriorated so much that you now believe that everybody else posting on the site is the same person?
        
        "And about contributing to the world, well, you can have your opinion and I can have mine, right?"
        
        Yes, that's not a problem. It's the weird way that you decided to have a conversation with yourself when nobody else was paying you attention that gets concern, not that you have an opinion, no matter how deluded it clearly is. Normal people don't talk to themselves as the Lone Ranger when it takes a few hours to get a reply on a message board.
        
        "its disgusting sexual innuendo (yes that means you)"
        
        Please indicate where I have used such innuendo. Note: no matter your fantasies, I only post under this username.
        
        "many of the TechDirt "insiders" (that's you)"
        
        No, it's not. Actually, neither of the people you seem to have been responding to has an Insider badge on their profile. Is this another manifestation of your mental illness?
        
        "maladjusted females posing as men"
        
        Those hallucinations are still not real. You don't suddenly not look like a deluded idiot just because you wish that what you make up about other people was real.
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        This comment has been flagged by the community. Click here to show it
        
        Anonymous Coward, 30 May 2017 @ 1:32am
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
        Apparently the bogeyman of women posing as men makes him have a hissy fit, but not the fact that he - and My_Name_Here - are absolutely enthusiastic about writing Melania/Shiva and Shiva/My_Name_Here fanfiction.
        
        This is the tool who Shiva Ayyadurai has put in charge of his public relations department.
        
        That's genuinely scary, and not for the reasons the Hamiltonian thinks.
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        This comment has been flagged by the community. Click here to show it
        
        Anonymous Coward, 30 May 2017 @ 2:06am
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
        Wow, that sure sounds defamatory. You spelled his full name, and stated a fact known by everyone to be false. Charles!
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        Stephen T. Stone (profile), 30 May 2017 @ 2:30am
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
        
        Wow, that sure sounds defamatory.
        
        So sue them for it.
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        This comment has been flagged by the community. Click here to show it
        
        Anonymous Coward, 30 May 2017 @ 2:35am
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
        I have it on pretty good authority that the Judge does actually read this blog to help him form his opinion, which he has yet to share. Sounds reasonable, right? And spouting a reckless disregard for defamatory comments against the VERY SAME (and real) man who filed the suit JUST MIGHT not persuade the Judge in your direction. Just a thought. Might be a good time to show the better side of your manners. Just saying.
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        PaulT (profile), 30 May 2017 @ 2:42am
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
        "JUST MIGHT not persuade the Judge in your direction"
        
        Who is "you" in this case? Are you saying that Stephen T. Stone is a defendant in this case? If not, why would the judge be persuaded in his direction one way or the other? Are you saying that the judge is going to be affected in his decision making by people who are not involved in the lawsuit in any way? That sounds very strange.
        
        If the judge is reading this, I do hope he has a better grasp of reality and the difference between individual people. If he's going to let anonymous comments here affect him, I hope he also notes the character of the mentally unstable fellow who is the plaintiff's sole support.
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        Anonymous Coward, 30 May 2017 @ 3:13am
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
        He apparently believes that using a few words he finds offensive is enough to convince a judge that Techdirt needs to be shut down, but fantasizing about Melania Trump and Shiva Ayyadurai ruling the US is apparently not a sign of narcissism, delusion or insanity.
        
        If Shiva is actually affiliated with this dunderhead they have a pretty twisted understanding of how the law actually works. I mean, more twisted than the informed readership expected.
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        Anonymous Coward, 30 May 2017 @ 5:58am
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
        "convince a judge that Techdirt needs to be shut down"
        
        Why?
        Has a website ever been "shutdown" because of what you call defamation? I do not recall any such case but then I do not follow that sort of thing closely, perhaps you have information you would like to share?
        
        I thought defamation was a civil issue which possibly results in a monetary exchange - and that is it.
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        This comment has been flagged by the community. Click here to show it
        
        Anonymous Coward, 30 May 2017 @ 3:18am
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
        Well, first, it seems to me that many of the names here are fake. Without knowing who is who, it is difficult to say who is a past or "to be named" defendant. As to a "grasp of reality", read the first sentence of the article posted above. I believe this whole blog does not represent reality at all, to anyone but the tiny bubble of defamators (like yourself) credited with thousands and thousands of foul mouthed, low-character disgusting posts.
        
        Reality is NOT that I am Shiva's sole supporter. Think about that. He really is running for the senate, he has thousands of supporters already, and was recently featured on the national news. Reality is that this website is already defending itself in court against defamation. Reality is that normal people do not post here because of the hideous treatment they get, and there is no free speech here. Which you yourself point out quite clearly.
        
        No free speech here, Judge, just look for yourself. Don't buy their argument, their speech is not worth protecting. At all. By demonstration.
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        Stephen T. Stone (profile), 30 May 2017 @ 3:40am
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
        It has been a while since I have seen the “free speech for me but not for thee” argument around here.
        
        Newsflash, Shiva: The law protects speech with which you disagree.
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        PaulT (profile), 30 May 2017 @ 3:44am
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
        "Without knowing who is who, it is difficult to say who is a past or "to be named" defendant"
        
        ...but you jump straight to the assumption that Stephen is affected by the lawsuit. Why is that?
        
        "As to a "grasp of reality", read the first sentence of the article posted above. "
        
        What is untrue about that sentence?
        
        "I believe this whole blog does not represent reality at all"
        
        I believe it does. So?
        
        "Which you yourself point out quite clearly."
        
        What are you babbling on about here?
        
        "Reality is NOT that I am Shiva's sole supporter"
        
        Never said you were, only that you're the only one obsessively defending him here. It's hard to tell people who refuse to have their comments differentiated apart, which is why you insist on anonymously attacking people who provide such a distinction (even though your paranoid hallucinations lead you to believe there's only one of us actually posting). But, I believe I'm correct in saying that you are the only person doing that.
        
        "No free speech here, Judge, just look for yourself."
        
        If that were true, we'd be free of your drooling nonsense because you'd have been barred long ago. Yet, here you are, still free to act like a stalker who forgot to take his meds and rave against his perceived persecution...
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        This comment has been flagged by the community. Click here to show it
        
        Anonymous Coward, 30 May 2017 @ 3:52am
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
        Well, I did consider the last point briefly. But in the spirit of well wishing that is common in MY community, best of luck defending yourself in court. To be honest, I don't wish a lawsuit on anyone, they are horrible life experiences, no matter what the outcome. They are used only as a last resort, which it seems my friend Shiva is down to, down to his last resort, that is. I am sure he would like to make his case here, openly and honestly, as he can do pretty much everywhere else in the world (except maybe Berkeley). He would like to, but it is impossible, as "the gang" of TechDirt posters enforces their defamation to silence dissent, yet again. So, best of luck, I think your collective goose is cooked, but who knows? Of course, really it's Mike Masnick's butt on the line, isn't it, not yours at all. Wow, I hadn't considered that. Are you actually OUT TO GET Mike Masnick? That would make sense. Very good luck to you, my friend, carry on!
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        PaulT (profile), 30 May 2017 @ 4:07am
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
        "Well, I did consider the last point briefly"
        
        Which one? The point about your free speech not being blocked or the one about you acting mentally unstable and unable to deal with what's happening in the real world? Both are worth serious consideration next time you have a moment of clarity.
        
        "So, best of luck, I think your collective goose is cooked, but who knows?"
        
        How is my "goose" "cooked"? I might have to use one of the other communities I regularly frequent once if the con men, liars and frauds you support manage to take down a legitimate site for exercising their free speech to expose them? That would be a damn shame, but it hardly impacts on my real life.
        
        Or, does one of your hallucinations involve me having any relationship to this site other than as a regular commenter who likes poking at trolls and idiots when they've derailed real discussion?
        
        "That would make sense"
        
        The word "sense", as with words like "reality" seem to have very different definitions in that damaged brain of yours to the rest of humanity.
        
        I do, however, take note that you have yet again ignored direct questions in favour of barely coherent rambling and another half-baked conspiracy theory.
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        Anonymous Coward, 30 May 2017 @ 5:10am
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
        What community? You've gone on and on about how supposedly successful and rich and famous you lot are and haven't so much as substantiated anything? Is it a community of fanfiction writers who ship One True Pairings for Shiva Ayyadurai with a side order of delusions of grandeur?
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        This comment has been flagged by the community. Click here to show it
        
        Anonymous Coward, 30 May 2017 @ 5:55am
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
        Ok, I admit it, I LOVE YOU GUYS! You are just too much fun. Where else can I post my shamelessly pro-Shiva advertisements and get them distributed THROUGHOUT THE WORLD using the resources of MICHAEL MASNICK and TechDirt? I could put a yard-sign in his yard, or a sticker on his car, but this is SO MUCH BETTER! I love it, truly I do. My parting words are "Let's BE THE LIGHT & FIGHT for the American Dream to Inspire, Educate and Innovate!"
        
        https://shiva4senate.com/
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        This comment has been flagged by the community. Click here to show it
        
        Anonymous Coward, 30 May 2017 @ 5:58am
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
        Just one more thing - Shiva, can you please put a PayPal donation button on the "Support the Campaign" page? Thanks, and good luck!
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        PaulT (profile), 30 May 2017 @ 6:09am
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
        Your method of requesting an improvement to a web site is to anonymously address the owner in the comments of a random article on a different site that he's currently suing? Not to, say, contact the people managing his site or his staff on the campaign directly?
        
        Makes as much sense as acting like a lunatic to try and garner votes, or targeting an international audience for a local US election campaign, I suppose. Probably just as effective, too.
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        This comment has been flagged by the community. Click here to show it
        
        Anonymous Coward, 30 May 2017 @ 6:41am
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
        Very interesting. You are making a point that this is not an American site, it is an International site. American values and American laws do not get much respect here, is that what you are saying? I don't want to put words in your mouth, but it sounds like that is what you are saying. It would make no sense to try and garner votes here, because Americans are actually not welcome here, right, and by and large, do not hang around long because you attack them? That's what you mean? This site actually intends to and does operate well outside of the US Law, openly despises US history and customs, and is proud of that fact, yes? That's what you mean?
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        PaulT (profile), 30 May 2017 @ 7:12am
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
        No, I mean that a large number of readers here not only have no interest in the political race you're trying to promote, they couldn't vote even if they were interested. That includes a large amount of the Americans here as well. Since, I presume that nobody outside of Massachusetts would be voting either, let alone people in a completely different time zone (you do have no problems conversing with people in the CET+1 timezone during the day, though, strange).
        
        It makes no sense to try and promote the candidacy here, other than the fact that you're already here to tilt at windmills.
        
        The other "facts" are just your deranged interpretation of reality, of course. But given that you can't keep straight who you're actually talking to, it's a given that you also don't know what you're talking about either.
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        Anonymous Coward, 30 May 2017 @ 5:59am
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
        Your name is fake.
        Your outrage is fake.
        The money you probably earn from posting bullshit is real.
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        Anonymous Coward, 30 May 2017 @ 6:01am
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
        " their speech is not worth protecting"
        
        To hell with the constitution you say. Only speech you agree with is worth protecting, typical tyrant right there.
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
- Anonymous Coward, 28 May 2017 @ 7:45pm
  
  Re:
  
  I disrespected stupid arguments, which often flowed from my ex-wife just before her period. That's a fact that anyone who knew her could attest.
  
  I don't think that you know what the word fact means. You assert your ex wife's arguments were stupid, which is a subjective adjective. Facts are objective. Unless you meant that as an alternative fact. MAGA indeed lol.
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
  - This comment has been flagged by the community. Click here to show it
    
    Anonymous Coward, 30 May 2017 @ 12:59am
    
    Re: Re:
    Hello again, Wendy. Did you know my ex-wife? I don't think so. To refute the fact of her stupid arguments, you would have to have every heard at last one of her stupid arguments. I heard hundreds of them, you didn't. I am a rational man, you are a pissy poster in a poor disguise. Short version - you're an idiot, and I'm happy my ex-wife is making her stupid arguments to someone else now. Why don't you follow suit?
    [ link to this | view in chronology ]
    - PaulT (profile), 30 May 2017 @ 1:08am
      
      Re: Re: Re:
      "I am a rational man"
      
      Facts not in evidence.
      [ link to this | view in chronology ]
      - Anonymous Coward, 30 May 2017 @ 2:22am
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re:
        Fair enough.
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
      - Wendy Cockcroft, 1 Jun 2017 @ 2:46am
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re:
        Wendy not in evidence; I always post as myself. I'm not interested in some random troll's personal life.
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
    - Anonymous Coward, 30 May 2017 @ 3:55am
      
      Re: Re: Re:
      Nope, that's not how this works. Stating that an opinion is a fact doesn't make it so. I don't need to have heard any of your ex-wife's arguments to discern that your characterization of them as stupid is an opinion and not a fact. The only thing you could factually state about her arguments is that they are invalid due to logical fallacies but I doubt you could actually do that seeing as how distinguishing between fact and opinion is a skill that seems to have eluded you.
      
      As an example you have a tendency to make ad hominem (or maybe more accurately, ad feminam) arguments. A specific example is when you stated, "you are a pissy poster in a poor disguise." In case you aren't familiar with the term, the ad hominem fallacy is an attack on an opponent's character or personal traits in an attempt to undermine their argument. While they tend to work quite well in politics due to short attention spans and a bias towards equivalence in media reporting, anyone who knows anything about logical debate will immediate see your fallacy and recognize it as undermining your own argument since it is a technique frequently used to distract from the attacker's own indefensible arguments.
      [ link to this | view in chronology ]
      - This comment has been flagged by the community. Click here to show it
        
        Anonymous Coward, 30 May 2017 @ 6:13am
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re:
        Oh, well, then, I see. You make a great point. Wait a minute... If you scan the posts above, you will see someone (Wendy I think) trying to prove that cutting down a tree is more dangerous than trying to apprehend an armed criminal. That's a little fantastical, isn't it? I mean, wildly far from any truth anyone outside THIS FORUM would comprehend or defend, right? Another crazy argument: People who kill police should not be held accountable because they "made a series of bad choices". Wow, that's a strong argument, right? Turning the tables on those darn police with their easy and safe jobs and pointing out that the criminals who kill them may have had a difficult life.
        
        Waco Daco is what we call this stuff in Texas, but I don't live in Texas, now, do I? Not many posters from Texas, but if there were, I think they would vote Waco Daco category for most of these posts every time.
        
        "Idiot" Senators indeed (first line of the article). You guys are all pathetic losers, and should respect your betters. Leave the public opinions to the adults in the room, and quit trying to hide behind a poorly expressed English lesson to justify your stupid ideas. (See, I said Stupid Ideas, no Stupid Idiots. Give it a try - maybe you can have another kind of idea besides a stupid idea, it's possible!)
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        PaulT (profile), 30 May 2017 @ 6:18am
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
        "If you scan the posts above, you will see someone (Wendy I think)"
        
        Out of curiosity - is there anyone posting here who you *don't* think is Wendy?
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        This comment has been flagged by the community. Click here to show it
        
        Anonymous Coward, 30 May 2017 @ 6:20am
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
        Me, for sure, I'm not Wendy. My cartoons don't suck, and my writing isn't moronic.
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        PaulT (profile), 30 May 2017 @ 6:21am
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
        "my writing isn't moronic"
        
        Well, we will have to agree to disagree there.
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        This comment has been flagged by the community. Click here to show it
        
        Anonymous Coward, 30 May 2017 @ 6:27am
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
        Well, I did notice you totally avoided at least one of the points I made. Isn't it moronic to compare the danger posed from unarmed trees (likely with deep roots so they can't actually move) to armed criminals (with actual legs or motor vehicles at their disposal) and find that the tree was more dangerous? Waco Daco, right or wrong? Be man, confront the moronic argument head on.
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        PaulT (profile), 30 May 2017 @ 6:34am
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
        "Well, I did notice you totally avoided at least one of the points I made"
        
        Because the point wasn't addressed to me, and I thought that the one about everybody on this site being the alt of a woman you've developed a weird obsession over was more important.
        
        If we're on the subject of avoiding direct questions, however, you're doing a very good job of avoiding the ones I posed to you much earlier.
        
        "Be man, confront the moronic argument head on."
        
        I am. It's just that the one I chose to address was even more moronic that the one you've chosen.
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        Anonymous Coward, 30 May 2017 @ 6:46am
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
        You complain about PaulT ignoring a point you made about an argument that he never engaged in. I also find it quite amusing that you lament our ignoring one of your points when that is your entire argument style. You ignore points and change the subject when you start to lose logically, likely because your arguments are the proverbial house built on the sand and at any given time moments away from collapsing on themselves.
        
        I'm also entertained by the fact that you bring up the whole lumberjack/LEO argument again when it seems fairly well settled in that thread that you lost. You ridiculed the dangers of trees versus criminals using sophomoric humor, but never addressed the fact that a lumberjack is 39 times likelier to die on the job than a law enforcement officer. If anyone is "Waco Daco" it seems like it's you.
        
        You falsely equate passive trees to the occupational hazards of lumberjacks and then reduce the strawman you just created to a moronic argument, but you're the moron that doesn't know how to make a logical argument. I thought you were a big, bad, logical MAN, and that women are the emotionally oriented illogical simpletons you make them out to be. By your own standard you're using a feminine argument style. While I don't believe your standards since I'm not a misogynist, I hope it makes you cringe to think about how feminine your behavior is.
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        This comment has been flagged by the community. Click here to show it
        
        Anonymous Coward, 30 May 2017 @ 7:09am
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
        I'm not much of a "cringer", honey. Thanks, though for the attention, and the free advertising.
        
        Back to the point: The original article is biased, stupid, badly written and is in a form that no real American would ever accept as anything even related to Journalism. The tone is impossibly disrespectful. That's just fact. This would be an 'F' in any reasonable high school.
        
        I think you're all a bunch of decidedly ignorant foreigners posing as someone else for money and trashing American values and American laws and American customs and American history.
        
        There is no doubt that you have strayed so far away from what any American holds dear that you will receive no sympathy at all in the US, especially the Commonwealth of Massachusetts. Whether you have in fact broken a US law that can be enforced against you in civil court is in play right now. You can guess what I hope happens, I'm an American. As is Shiva, Charles, Melania and Donald (President Donald J. Trump, the Magnificent). God Bless America, American law, American culture, American values and American history.
        
        https://shiva4senate.com/
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        Anonymous Coward, 30 May 2017 @ 8:11am
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
        "I think"
        
        This is debatable
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        This comment has been flagged by the community. Click here to show it
        
        Anonymous Coward, 30 May 2017 @ 8:24am
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
        And I would just mention that I use the title President Donald J. Trump, the Magnificent because I am addressing foreigners. I do this just to help you understand his stature in the world. We don't call him that in the US, we call him President of the United States Donald J. Trump. We don't add the Magnificent part, it's not needed, because everyone here already knows he's magnificent. It would be redundant, if you catch my meaning. Not required. You understand, right? It would be like America the Beautiful. When we say America, we already know it's beautiful. But sometimes when I'm in another country, and they ask me where I'm from, I say America the beautiful, and they understand me! They even smile. So that's why. I learned it's helpful when addressing foreigners.
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        Anonymous Coward, 30 May 2017 @ 8:25am
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
        Your silly trolling is repetitive and boring.
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        Stephen T. Stone (profile), 30 May 2017 @ 9:43am
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
        I have seen better trolling on 4chan. Hell, I have done better trolling on 4chan.
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        Anonymous Coward, 30 May 2017 @ 10:17am
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
        Seconded.
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        Anonymous Coward, 30 May 2017 @ 9:42am
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
        "You ignore points and change the subject when you start to lose logically"
        
        "Back to the point: The original article is biased, stupid, badly written and is in a form that no real American would ever accept as anything even related to Journalism."
        
        Lumberjack/LEO argument? Crickets.
        
        Thanks for proving me right, tovarishch. Tell Putin to dock your pay for this round, since you're a terrible troll. Maybe spend some more time on 4chan or 9gag rustling jimmies before you come back here and try to play with the big boys again. It's a lot harder to get a rise out of adults than a bunch of teenagers.
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        Anonymous Coward, 30 May 2017 @ 8:24am
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
        "You guys are all pathetic losers, and should respect your betters."
        
        Anyone who disagrees with you is a pathetic loser - got it.
        
        Respect is earned, not demanded.
        
        Betters - just wtf does that mean anyway.
        - Better at accumulating riches?
        - Better at espousing propaganda?
        - Better at brainwashing the gullible?
        None of these means you are better than anyone else.
        I really do not care about your inferiority complex.
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
    - Anonymous Coward, 30 May 2017 @ 6:04am
      
      Re: Re: Re:
      Donald?
      Is that you?
      [ link to this | view in chronology ]
Anonymous Coward, 29 May 2017 @ 6:56am

but the USA isn't and never will be a 'Police State'!

yeah! Right! of course it isn't! of course it wont! if you dont believe me, i'll shoot you!!
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Anonymous Coward, 30 May 2017 @ 10:02am

This is a load of B.S. act.

How about this BETTER protection to the Citizan's. Far, far more getting KILLED unarmed, shot my the police and usually in the back. Then getting away with it!!!

What is even more crazy, the person is dead or almost dead and getting hand cuffs put on and then just bleeding out to death. Thank goodness for the cop just standing there and calling it in and doing a whole lot of nothing to that unarmed cuffed person that in general did nothing wrong. The police almost ALWAYS gets away with it. yet what do we need, More laws protecting the police. This is just laughable.

The simple fact is, it isn't more police getting hurt these days then in the past, it's the Citizen's getting killed because of these Militarized Police!!! It's shoot first and ask questions later. They all LIE!!! They all cover for themselves. And magically, all their camera's failed to work.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]