I don't think this specific judgment applies to games. Music and graphics in games can be (and probably are) copyrighted elements independently from the overall game, so the output itself is under copyright here. There might still be ways to stream your games legally, but this is not it.
And most cheats do change a game code, which was a point mentioned here:
if it were not up to the user to decide whether and how to execute a legally acquired program, as long as the user does not modify the program itself...
So, wrong judgment to fix this problem. We'll have to wait for a different case.
We contacted the service (@linkbusters), & they acknowledged their mistake, and promised to send a retraction notice to @Google.
"... sometime between now and the heat-death of the universe."
Link-buster is sloppy and unreliable if not outright fraudulent. Does anyone expect them to actually send a retraction notice since they are at no risk of legal trouble?
The least this needs is a regular follow-up to apply pressure on them but I'm not sure even that would bother them.
They might have a point on some elements.
A frying pan is a pretty generic item with few differentiating features when looked from afar, but this one with double spouts and handles could be used an example of cloning...
There are way too many other examples of "identical" items that are clearly not identical though. Not to mention the items that not copyrightable elements to begin with.
I really pity lawyers who have to go through this list of garbage statements to make sure there is not at least one valid claim in an overall frivolous lawsuit.
As for the fact that these two games are similar overall, that is not a good copyright claim in itself. You can implement a game by copying another game's feature list point by point and not infringe on their copyright. It depends on several completely unrelated factors.
So we're back to the list of frivolous claims that might or might not include a few valid ones... probably by accident.
But legal entities are only looking at creation date, and whether the authors gave credit to the other party. Anything else is simply irrelevant and this is why PUBG will win this fight.
Right, if that was all there was to copyright litigation, I'm pretty sure there wouldn't be tons of texts and armies of lawyers on the subject.
Good luck with that plan. My lawyers will surely respond to it with the following battery of arguments: [...]
Ah, there they are. The lawyers, the defense points that you just said were "simply irrelevant". Funny how copyright litigation suddenly becomes a little more nuanced when you're the target, huh? You even listed one defense point as "that's not copyrightable" (math concepts).
Without at least a little bit of consistency, you're just exposing your hypocrisy.
Much like Krafton in their own lawsuit when they show two different things (sometimes not even vaguely similar except for the base concept: e.g. picture of body armor) and pretend they're exactly the same, or when they argue that non-copyrightable elements infringed on their copyright.
I would really like to see you get sued under your own standard of "date + reference to source". This would be entertaining. But it wouldn't be based on real laws.
BTW, your little overly-simplified standard here is also very easy to use as a defense: "Yes, I copied their material point by point... but I mentioned them in my own work so they can't sue me." It's not only naive, it's plain stupid.
Again assuming this is accurate, this is, to put it mildly, fucked up.
I wouldn't be too surprised one way or the other.
either Google is a greedy entity,
or the state of Texas is lying.
We've seen examples of both sides being the bad guy.
Now, I would still be a little surprised to see Google directly defrauding people as described in the "Bernanke" scheme. Pretty sure this is illegal enough that they would have trouble wriggling out of this one. I would be less surprised with the first scheme being confirmed, which is more of a manipulation of market than a direct "pocket undue difference in a muddled transaction between two other partners". Because the examples we've had before were more about leveraging their position to reinforce their hold on a market than outright business lies which can be easily documented.
On the other hand, Texas officials (including at least one bought-and-paid-for prosecutor) have been getting away with some outrageous lies, and have proven several times how shameless they are in their attempts to take down Google... among other things. So them lying about this wouldn't surprising at all. Also, they might have twisted something real but benign into an apparently criminal scheme.
I guess we'll have to see how this all turns out. If I had to place a bet, I think Texas is most likely to lie here than Google's Bernanke system being as the lawsuit describes it.
Re: 'Of course I'm anti-crime, that's why I'm going after the co
Funny how being a "tough on crime" politician must exclude "tough on police crime".
The rhetoric is that being "tough on crime" means you support cops unconditionally, even the criminal ones. Funny, that reminds me of a quote from a dusty old book: "Slaves, obey your masters, even the cruel ones." There might be a reason that the people who love to loudly refer to this book as their "source of morality" are so often the same ones who profess their unconditional love for cops.
So, I think the police departments should enlist the help of Niantic.
Make Pokemon pop up where a crime is taking place, and cops will rush there anytime.
Right, airline companies are so famous for honoring their contracts.
Which incidentally always include a line that they are allowed to not honor their contracts. Because overbooking is a thing.
It's like I promise to not punch you in the face unless I really want to punch you in the face.
Contracts and TOS these days are so unbalanced, I'm amazed they are worth the paper they are printed on. (Oh right, it's all paperless now.)
Note: I'm not talking about legal matters here.
I'm not a lawyer. Trademarks and origin labels are a complex matters that I'm not too mindful of as long as there is still a visible distinction somewhere between the original (e.g. "Champagne" from the actual Champagne region) and the generic (e.g. "Champagne" as a random sparkling white wine). If you're the latter but intentionally label yourself as the former, I think there is a problem. (e.g. using "made in Champagne, France" or "AOC" labels)
I'm discussing the common use of these words.
I don't mind some using them as generic terms, but I don't mind some correcting it or using them "properly" either. If you get irritated so easily, think about something else that you care about being mislabeled. Your car, your favorite sports team, anything. Wouldn't you correct others if they started using generic terms to represent them or, more on point here, if they called something you deem inferior by the same name?
Let's say your neighbor buys a Toyota and keeps telling you about his "Ferrari". You tell him: "That's not a Ferrari" and he replies "I swear, one more people telling me that my Ferrari is "just a car", I'll punch him". What would you think of him?
I don't drink alcohol... but I would still like "champagne" to be actual Champagne.
Otherwise, what's the point of naming wines?
If I go in a liquor store and shift bottles around on the pretext that they don't have any difference anyway, I'm pretty sure people will start complaining.
So, at what point does "Champagne" become "any sparkling white wine"? What's the difference between Pinot (Noir), Bordeaux, Beaujolais... They're all red wines. What' the difference between Scotch and Whisky? Or Vodka and Tequila? Or beer and ale?
For me they're all simply "alcohol", so if you want to drink beer and I serve you vodka, you won't complain, right?
Interesting that they still considered it a threat after investigating it.
Their conclusion, read as is, is still that a threat was made, just that the student didn't have the means or intent to execute it. Either they believe this, or they're not careful with their words. In both cases, this could be dangerous if the report shows up sometime later in his life.
Which leads to the obvious question: why can't this be the norm?
I see two main reasons the situation here solved itself without "intellectual property".
First is the goodwill generated towards the original creator. He was popular for the quality of the game and his generous attitude. (In both not monetizing the creation and not aggressively enforcing his IP.)
Second is that the creator of the rip-off shot himself in the foot by publicly bragging about the obvious cash-grab over a rip-off of a well-liked game.
I'm not sure this situation would have developed in this way if he didn't bring attention on it. Otherwise it would probably have stayed in the shadows for a while longer, possibly indefinitely. Also, if there was no attempt at IP enforcement, Apple had no reason to take it down from the AppStore. The app was, as they said, "awful but lawful": an immoral attempt to parasite the success of the original game, but without violating a trademark that didn't exist. Apple acted this way because of the public attention brought by the author of the rip-off himself and the negative feedback from the public. It basically did what we often complain about with copyright overreach: taking down something legal, even if this case morals weigh more on the side of the original creator (actual clone + obvious commercial use).
I personally feel pretty conflicted in the way this situation turned out. For once, someone avoided the heavy-handed approach to "imaginary property", but "the world" (i.e. Apple) still reacted as if he did. If I published something and didn't enforce my rights over it, I don't think I would like someone else to do it on my behalf. But maybe that's just me.
The concept of a duration of "life of the author + X years" was bad from the beginning, and the copyright lobby is still not satisfied that "X" is finite... despite getting close to an additional lifetime already. If the author creates a work in his younger years, several generations of people will be locked out of reusing the work for new creations. When a work is created, the copyright is as good as "permanent" for all the people alive at that point, and their children... and possibly their grand-children too.
Also, if medical science progresses to the point where we can maintain someone's life indefinitely, then copyright will become permanent with the existing law. Going by the current constitution, if such a medical advancement is made, then Congress would have the obligation to amend existing copyright laws... or the Constitution.
The only saving grace - for the moment - is that "for a limited duration" is actually written in the Constitution. It would require a constitutional amendment to make copyright explicitly permanent. Then again, I'm not positive that lobbies would not be able to gather a super-majority in Congress. (Or the Courts could decide that copyright is naturally limited in time because it will expire once we reach the heat-death of the universe.)
Trrademark holders' dream: make everyone liable for everything, then push them into expensive litigation over any accusation - event the most groundless ones. Basically, it's the exact opposite of section 230: create a presumption of guilt, burden platforms with heavy requirements (that barely do anything to protect them) and deny them any way to toss out the case early.
Making anything on the internet a liability is obviously not how you promote innovation, but stating the obvious isn't enough to fight bribery... sorry, "speech" from large corporate donors.
"Warrior training" has been banned in Minneapolis since 2019 (and I think the state of Minnesota), at least as far as public funding goes. The police union moved to offer it at their expense to off-duty cops.
So it has not been banned.
Just removed from the official training.
"Banned" would mean that cops getting or offering this training get penalized, ideally fired. This is definitely not happening.
At first, I thought the same thing.
But remember that AGs don't necessarily retire back into anonymity.
He might want attention in order to kick off a political career.
However, I agree with That One Guy above: it may or may not be done for attention, but regardless of his motives, there is enough material for the AG to start the case. What the town engages in here is a simple ad hominem so they don't have to address the content of the lawsuit.
Trademark: inform consumers about the origin of goods... by allowing the distributor to monopolize some art and/or language (in theory: this is a narrow monopoly)
Patent: allow the public to understand how to make a new product... by allowing the inventor to monopolize the right to manufacture it (or grant the right to do it)
Copyright: encourage broadcast of knowledge (and art... and random speech... depending on the interpretation)... by allowing the creator to monopolize its distribution (or grant the right to do it).
The first one is kind of ok, as long as the art + language used is unique enough. Problem is when litigation occurs on very broad trademarks (e.g. a single common word), or with similarities you can only figure out if you look at the brand logos during a foggy night from miles away.
The last two of these concepts start from the same nice idea (encouraging distribution of knowledge/culture), but are implemented with a deliberate paradox: granting the originator a way to limit the distribution. The way to solve the paradox was to set a reasonable time limit on this monopoly. You give something to the public in exchange for an exclusive right to make money out of it for a limited time (which is very explicitly mentioned in the Copyright Clause).
The problem is that both the scope and the duration of these concepts has become absurd. The scope of copyright is basically: "anything done on the internet". The scope of patents is getting dangerously close to "anything", thanks to convoluted definitions that mask how overly broad they are.
Also, neither is supposed to cover "a concept" or "an idea", but they are getting pretty close to it thanks to over-generous judges (e.g. Blurred Lines) or, once again, convoluted patent descriptions (and generous judges... Sorry, one generous judge).
As for durations, it's been extended (retroactively) several times by different means. Copyright by legal extensions with an already absurd baseline of "life of the author". And patents can be extended indefinitely by filing a derivative patent. (In pharma, that's explicitly allowed... encouraged even; in other patents, it's not supposed to be, but the language of patents often obfuscates the fact that it is exactly what happens.) Entire generations can be locked out of using and expanding on a work or invention.
Patents and Copyright share a lot of similarities, and both should be reformed, not reinforced with more exemption to basic common sense. They should be brought back to what they were originally advertised at: a way to broadcast knowledge, not restrict it.
I have the highest respect to people who manage to make money out of their works without locking out others. "Would you patent the sun?" is a memorable quote. Too bad the IP maximalists nowadays would unashamedly answer "YES!".
Funny enough, they have an easy way to avoid having to publish such a list.
That is firing bad cops.
No bad cop, no list.
I'm amazed that I'm apparently the first person in history to think about it. (/sarcasm, obviously)
Seriously, why are these cops even still employed? If they are unreliable, they are basically useless. Worse than useless even: if you put them on desk duty somewhere, they might still find a way to harm innocent citizens. So just kick them out.
"Excited delirium" taken off the cops' training. Nice, one down.
Could we move to also strike off "warrior training", "killology", and Hitler quotes too?
On the post: The Internet Wins: Adblocking (And Other Extensions) Don't Violate Copyright Law In Germany
I don't think this specific judgment applies to games. Music and graphics in games can be (and probably are) copyrighted elements independently from the overall game, so the output itself is under copyright here. There might still be ways to stream your games legally, but this is not it.
And most cheats do change a game code, which was a point mentioned here:
So, wrong judgment to fix this problem. We'll have to wait for a different case.
On the post: Totally Bogus DMCA Takedowns From Giant Publishers Completely Nuke Book Review Blog Off The Internet
"... sometime between now and the heat-death of the universe."
Link-buster is sloppy and unreliable if not outright fraudulent. Does anyone expect them to actually send a retraction notice since they are at no risk of legal trouble?
The least this needs is a regular follow-up to apply pressure on them but I'm not sure even that would bother them.
On the post: PUBG Corp. At It Again: Sues Garena, Apple, And Google For Copyright Infringement Over 'Free Fire' App
They might have a point on some elements.
A frying pan is a pretty generic item with few differentiating features when looked from afar, but this one with double spouts and handles could be used an example of cloning...
There are way too many other examples of "identical" items that are clearly not identical though. Not to mention the items that not copyrightable elements to begin with.
I really pity lawyers who have to go through this list of garbage statements to make sure there is not at least one valid claim in an overall frivolous lawsuit.
As for the fact that these two games are similar overall, that is not a good copyright claim in itself. You can implement a game by copying another game's feature list point by point and not infringe on their copyright. It depends on several completely unrelated factors.
So we're back to the list of frivolous claims that might or might not include a few valid ones... probably by accident.
On the post: PUBG Corp. At It Again: Sues Garena, Apple, And Google For Copyright Infringement Over 'Free Fire' App
Re: PUBG will win...
Thanks for this little piece of humor.
Right, if that was all there was to copyright litigation, I'm pretty sure there wouldn't be tons of texts and armies of lawyers on the subject.
Ah, there they are. The lawyers, the defense points that you just said were "simply irrelevant". Funny how copyright litigation suddenly becomes a little more nuanced when you're the target, huh? You even listed one defense point as "that's not copyrightable" (math concepts).
Without at least a little bit of consistency, you're just exposing your hypocrisy.
Much like Krafton in their own lawsuit when they show two different things (sometimes not even vaguely similar except for the base concept: e.g. picture of body armor) and pretend they're exactly the same, or when they argue that non-copyrightable elements infringed on their copyright.
I would really like to see you get sued under your own standard of "date + reference to source". This would be entertaining. But it wouldn't be based on real laws.
BTW, your little overly-simplified standard here is also very easy to use as a defense: "Yes, I copied their material point by point... but I mentioned them in my own work so they can't sue me." It's not only naive, it's plain stupid.
On the post: States' 3rd Amended Antitrust Complaint Against Google Looks A Lot More Damning
I wouldn't be too surprised one way or the other.
We've seen examples of both sides being the bad guy.
Now, I would still be a little surprised to see Google directly defrauding people as described in the "Bernanke" scheme. Pretty sure this is illegal enough that they would have trouble wriggling out of this one. I would be less surprised with the first scheme being confirmed, which is more of a manipulation of market than a direct "pocket undue difference in a muddled transaction between two other partners". Because the examples we've had before were more about leveraging their position to reinforce their hold on a market than outright business lies which can be easily documented.
On the other hand, Texas officials (including at least one bought-and-paid-for prosecutor) have been getting away with some outrageous lies, and have proven several times how shameless they are in their attempts to take down Google... among other things. So them lying about this wouldn't surprising at all. Also, they might have twisted something real but benign into an apparently criminal scheme.
I guess we'll have to see how this all turns out. If I had to place a bet, I think Texas is most likely to lie here than Google's Bernanke system being as the lawsuit describes it.
Guess I'll go buy some popcorn. :D
On the post: Pennsylvania Says Legal Medical Marijuana Means Cops Can't Just Sniff Their Way Into Warrantless Searches
Re: 'Of course I'm anti-crime, that's why I'm going after the co
Funny how being a "tough on crime" politician must exclude "tough on police crime".
The rhetoric is that being "tough on crime" means you support cops unconditionally, even the criminal ones. Funny, that reminds me of a quote from a dusty old book: "Slaves, obey your masters, even the cruel ones." There might be a reason that the people who love to loudly refer to this book as their "source of morality" are so often the same ones who profess their unconditional love for cops.
On the post: Court To Cops Who Caught Pokemon Rather Than Robbery Suspects: That's A (Justified) Firin'
So, I think the police departments should enlist the help of Niantic.
Make Pokemon pop up where a crime is taking place, and cops will rush there anytime.
On the post: Court Says That Travel Company Can't Tell Others How Much Southwest Flights Cost
Right, airline companies are so famous for honoring their contracts.
Which incidentally always include a line that they are allowed to not honor their contracts. Because overbooking is a thing.
It's like I promise to not punch you in the face unless I really want to punch you in the face.
Contracts and TOS these days are so unbalanced, I'm amazed they are worth the paper they are printed on. (Oh right, it's all paperless now.)
On the post: US Court To Gruyere Cheese People: No, You Can't Ban People From Calling Their Cheese Gruyere If They Aren't Your Neighbors
Note: I'm not talking about legal matters here.
I'm not a lawyer. Trademarks and origin labels are a complex matters that I'm not too mindful of as long as there is still a visible distinction somewhere between the original (e.g. "Champagne" from the actual Champagne region) and the generic (e.g. "Champagne" as a random sparkling white wine). If you're the latter but intentionally label yourself as the former, I think there is a problem. (e.g. using "made in Champagne, France" or "AOC" labels)
I'm discussing the common use of these words.
I don't mind some using them as generic terms, but I don't mind some correcting it or using them "properly" either. If you get irritated so easily, think about something else that you care about being mislabeled. Your car, your favorite sports team, anything. Wouldn't you correct others if they started using generic terms to represent them or, more on point here, if they called something you deem inferior by the same name?
Let's say your neighbor buys a Toyota and keeps telling you about his "Ferrari". You tell him: "That's not a Ferrari" and he replies "I swear, one more people telling me that my Ferrari is "just a car", I'll punch him". What would you think of him?
On the post: US Court To Gruyere Cheese People: No, You Can't Ban People From Calling Their Cheese Gruyere If They Aren't Your Neighbors
I don't drink alcohol... but I would still like "champagne" to be actual Champagne.
Otherwise, what's the point of naming wines?
If I go in a liquor store and shift bottles around on the pretext that they don't have any difference anyway, I'm pretty sure people will start complaining.
So, at what point does "Champagne" become "any sparkling white wine"? What's the difference between Pinot (Noir), Bordeaux, Beaujolais... They're all red wines. What' the difference between Scotch and Whisky? Or Vodka and Tequila? Or beer and ale?
For me they're all simply "alcohol", so if you want to drink beer and I serve you vodka, you won't complain, right?
On the post: Pennsylvania Court Reverses Student's Expulsion Over A Snapchat Post, Reminds School Students Still Have Rights
Interesting that they still considered it a threat after investigating it.
Their conclusion, read as is, is still that a threat was made, just that the student didn't have the means or intent to execute it. Either they believe this, or they're not careful with their words. In both cases, this could be dangerous if the report shows up sometime later in his life.
On the post: The World Handled A 'Wordle' Ripoff Just Fine Without Any IP Action
I see two main reasons the situation here solved itself without "intellectual property".
First is the goodwill generated towards the original creator. He was popular for the quality of the game and his generous attitude. (In both not monetizing the creation and not aggressively enforcing his IP.)
Second is that the creator of the rip-off shot himself in the foot by publicly bragging about the obvious cash-grab over a rip-off of a well-liked game.
I'm not sure this situation would have developed in this way if he didn't bring attention on it. Otherwise it would probably have stayed in the shadows for a while longer, possibly indefinitely. Also, if there was no attempt at IP enforcement, Apple had no reason to take it down from the AppStore. The app was, as they said, "awful but lawful": an immoral attempt to parasite the success of the original game, but without violating a trademark that didn't exist. Apple acted this way because of the public attention brought by the author of the rip-off himself and the negative feedback from the public. It basically did what we often complain about with copyright overreach: taking down something legal, even if this case morals weigh more on the side of the original creator (actual clone + obvious commercial use).
I personally feel pretty conflicted in the way this situation turned out. For once, someone avoided the heavy-handed approach to "imaginary property", but "the world" (i.e. Apple) still reacted as if he did. If I published something and didn't enforce my rights over it, I don't think I would like someone else to do it on my behalf. But maybe that's just me.
On the post: How The Financialization Of Music Could Lead To Demands For Perpetual Copyright
The concept of a duration of "life of the author + X years" was bad from the beginning, and the copyright lobby is still not satisfied that "X" is finite... despite getting close to an additional lifetime already. If the author creates a work in his younger years, several generations of people will be locked out of reusing the work for new creations. When a work is created, the copyright is as good as "permanent" for all the people alive at that point, and their children... and possibly their grand-children too.
Also, if medical science progresses to the point where we can maintain someone's life indefinitely, then copyright will become permanent with the existing law. Going by the current constitution, if such a medical advancement is made, then Congress would have the obligation to amend existing copyright laws... or the Constitution.
On the post: How To Destroy Innovation And Competition: Putting SHOP SAFE Act Into Innovation And Competition Act
Trrademark holders' dream: make everyone liable for everything, then push them into expensive litigation over any accusation - event the most groundless ones. Basically, it's the exact opposite of section 230: create a presumption of guilt, burden platforms with heavy requirements (that barely do anything to protect them) and deny them any way to toss out the case early.
Making anything on the internet a liability is obviously not how you promote innovation, but stating the obvious isn't enough to fight bribery... sorry, "speech" from large corporate donors.
On the post: Minneapolis Oversight Board Says Police Department Should Ditch 'Excited Delirium' Training
Re: Re:
So it has not been banned.
Just removed from the official training.
"Banned" would mean that cops getting or offering this training get penalized, ideally fired. This is definitely not happening.
On the post: PD Whose Officers Brutalized A Black Soldier For Driving To A Well-Lit Area Sued By Virginia Attorney General
Re: Re: 'Look over there, a distraction!'
At first, I thought the same thing.
But remember that AGs don't necessarily retire back into anonymity.
He might want attention in order to kick off a political career.
However, I agree with That One Guy above: it may or may not be done for attention, but regardless of his motives, there is enough material for the AG to start the case. What the town engages in here is a simple ad hominem so they don't have to address the content of the lawsuit.
On the post: Senator Tillis Holds Secret Meeting With IP Maximalists To Discuss A Single US 'IP' Agency
Trademark: inform consumers about the origin of goods... by allowing the distributor to monopolize some art and/or language (in theory: this is a narrow monopoly)
Patent: allow the public to understand how to make a new product... by allowing the inventor to monopolize the right to manufacture it (or grant the right to do it)
The first one is kind of ok, as long as the art + language used is unique enough. Problem is when litigation occurs on very broad trademarks (e.g. a single common word), or with similarities you can only figure out if you look at the brand logos during a foggy night from miles away.
The last two of these concepts start from the same nice idea (encouraging distribution of knowledge/culture), but are implemented with a deliberate paradox: granting the originator a way to limit the distribution. The way to solve the paradox was to set a reasonable time limit on this monopoly. You give something to the public in exchange for an exclusive right to make money out of it for a limited time (which is very explicitly mentioned in the Copyright Clause).
The problem is that both the scope and the duration of these concepts has become absurd. The scope of copyright is basically: "anything done on the internet". The scope of patents is getting dangerously close to "anything", thanks to convoluted definitions that mask how overly broad they are.
Also, neither is supposed to cover "a concept" or "an idea", but they are getting pretty close to it thanks to over-generous judges (e.g. Blurred Lines) or, once again, convoluted patent descriptions (and generous judges... Sorry, one generous judge).
As for durations, it's been extended (retroactively) several times by different means. Copyright by legal extensions with an already absurd baseline of "life of the author". And patents can be extended indefinitely by filing a derivative patent. (In pharma, that's explicitly allowed... encouraged even; in other patents, it's not supposed to be, but the language of patents often obfuscates the fact that it is exactly what happens.) Entire generations can be locked out of using and expanding on a work or invention.
Patents and Copyright share a lot of similarities, and both should be reformed, not reinforced with more exemption to basic common sense. They should be brought back to what they were originally advertised at: a way to broadcast knowledge, not restrict it.
I have the highest respect to people who manage to make money out of their works without locking out others. "Would you patent the sun?" is a memorable quote. Too bad the IP maximalists nowadays would unashamedly answer "YES!".
On the post: Maryland Court Says Baltimore Prosecutors Can't Hide Their 'Do Not Call' List Of Bad Cops From The Public
Funny enough, they have an easy way to avoid having to publish such a list.
That is firing bad cops.
No bad cop, no list.
I'm amazed that I'm apparently the first person in history to think about it. (/sarcasm, obviously)
Seriously, why are these cops even still employed? If they are unreliable, they are basically useless. Worse than useless even: if you put them on desk duty somewhere, they might still find a way to harm innocent citizens. So just kick them out.
On the post: Minneapolis Oversight Board Says Police Department Should Ditch 'Excited Delirium' Training
Quick reminder, the "Hitler quote" is not a joke.
It happened.
On the post: Minneapolis Oversight Board Says Police Department Should Ditch 'Excited Delirium' Training
"Excited delirium" taken off the cops' training. Nice, one down.
Could we move to also strike off "warrior training", "killology", and Hitler quotes too?
Next >>