I doubt they'll enjoy it much when they finally meet a good person with a gun. They want to play soldier? They can experience what being downrange is like.
This is why our Founders were so hung up on standing armies and the militia. This is why armed protests are becoming a thing - police don't like shooting at crowds that outnumber them, outgun them, and are able to shoot back.
Legally speaking, if you fire a 'less lethal' round at a cop, he is justified in drawing his firearm and returning fire. If you live, you will be charged with attempted murder of a cop, not merely assault.
This is because there is a crucial difference between less-lethal and non-lethal.
Police have exactly the same right to use force in defense of self or others as you or I do - they have the right because they are citizens not because they are cops. Being cops gives them the ability to seek out danger and still claim self defense, while non-cops can at most stand their ground.
Keep the above in mind the next time you see someone aiming a 'less lethal' weapon in your direction.
You wrote: "Then they did nothing when people carrying actual guns marched on government buildings to demand access to restaurants and haircuts. "
Wow. Way to drink the kool-aid there.
Propagandists love the fact that any protest movement attracts very loud, very crazy fellow travelers. They love it because it lets them have lurid images and insane sound-bites that allow them to paint the entire movement as being nothing more than those crazies.
Every Black Lives Matter member is a flag-hating black supremacist by that standard. Every feminist is a castration-crazed misandrist. Every civil rights activist is a mindless anarchist.
Want to know why they 'stormed' that capitol building to peacefully petitition for redress of grievances while armed? Because Right-leaning protestors have noticed something Left-leaning protestors are studiously ignoring: When a crowd has the means to return fire, the police are very loath to fire indiscriminately into that crowd!
Consider two protests - one in Michigan, one in California. Both as close to identical in every way as you can imagine, protesting the same things and organized by the same groups. One protest was attacked by police and dozens of arrests were made, many of them false arrests. They were unarmed because the law said they had to be. Then there was the other protest, armed in a place where the law said they had a right to be - and there, the police were professional, respectful and law-abiding.
Law-abiding, you ask? It's a felony for two or more cops (or a lone cop armed with a firearm) to violate rights using their official authority. Cops do it every day, and they know that they'll almost never be prosecuted for it. They know that if they are sued for it, they won't ever pay a penny out of their own pockets no matter the outcome.
But police that will gleefully attack helpless victims will be professional and respectful if the potential victims are not helpless. They can still make arrests - Right-leaning protestors often hand actual criminals over to the police - but they don'tt make FALSE arrests. They don't attack people unlawfully. They don't fire indiscriminately into crowds - remember, less lethal isn't the same as non-lethal.
THAT is why some protestors are armed these days. And just look at what happens to protestors who AREN'T armed!
The federal statute that criminalizes violations of civil, statutory and constitutional rights by government officials in the USA does not have a territorial limit - by the letter of the law, if a US official does something that would violate rights to anyone anywhere, they have committed a federal crime.
The conspiracy version includes wording that makes it only apply within US borders, but the individual version of the law places no such limits on enforcement.
Yeah, but it WAS Democrats who refused to release the exact findings of either of the CDC studies on gun violence that have been done in the past 25 years.
The first (officially unpublished but available through FOIA) is the source of the pro-gun claim that there are over 2 million good uses of guns every year.
The second was published, but they didn't cite actual numbers, just made a vague statement that their earlier study appeared to still be true.
Both parties have a bad habit of burying facts that undermine their ideology.
Sure you can. I own one. It has no 'smart' features but has multiple HDMI and USB ports that allow me to add dongles to customize it. If I want to be absolutely sure it isn'tt sending video anywhere, I disconnect the camera.
Re: Re: Re: '... you want me to explain what now?'
Falsely claiming that someone is a plagiarist is bad enough out in the greater world, but in the fanfiction community it's one of the most vile accusations to make.
Merely being accused is enough to make the accusation fact in many people's minds, and they frequently don't care that there might be another side to it or that the accusation might be false. They trust their favored author, and that's that.
That sort of reputational damage is EXACTLY what defamation claims are for - while defamation claims can be abused, this is not an abuse of them.
Indiana's own Constitution also includes a prohibition of cruel and unusual punishment, which means that even if the 8th Amendment to the US Constitution doesn't apply to Indiana, the forfeiture is STILL illegal.
Mr Fisher's taking the SCOTUS decision to the Indiana Supreme Court is utterly bizarre - a lower court has no authority whatsoever to overturn the ruling of a higher court.
I wonder how Mr Fisher would react if someone took a decision on one of his state court cases to a city court and the city court ordered it overturned? Would he obey the order of the city court, or laugh at the stupidity and hubris of a lower court issuing orders it lacks the authority to issue?
This is a clear cut case of criminal contempt of court on the part of Mr Fisher.
Violating Title 18, Section 1519 of the US Code carries a 20 year prison sentence. The requirement to be guilty under it isn't destroying evidence that is being investigated, it's worse than that - what triggers 1519 is the mere potential that a federal investigation might someday be interested in the information.
As a result, if this bill passes, if you ever wipe your browsing history you are a felon. If a company makes a browser that has a button to wipe the browser history, they are guilty of aiding and abetting a felony. And heaven help you if you need to wipe the history to resolve a bug in the browser!
If you used a Magic Eight Ball to 'detect' drug hides, everyone would know that it was sketchy. And the Ball is more reliable than a poorly trained dog.
On the post: Cops -- Newly Wary Of Looking Like Authoritarian Assholes -- Open Fire On, Arrest Journalists
Re: Rebel Yells for everyone!
I doubt they'll enjoy it much when they finally meet a good person with a gun. They want to play soldier? They can experience what being downrange is like.
This is why our Founders were so hung up on standing armies and the militia. This is why armed protests are becoming a thing - police don't like shooting at crowds that outnumber them, outgun them, and are able to shoot back.
On the post: Cops -- Newly Wary Of Looking Like Authoritarian Assholes -- Open Fire On, Arrest Journalists
Re:
Legally speaking, if you fire a 'less lethal' round at a cop, he is justified in drawing his firearm and returning fire. If you live, you will be charged with attempted murder of a cop, not merely assault.
This is because there is a crucial difference between less-lethal and non-lethal.
Police have exactly the same right to use force in defense of self or others as you or I do - they have the right because they are citizens not because they are cops. Being cops gives them the ability to seek out danger and still claim self defense, while non-cops can at most stand their ground.
Keep the above in mind the next time you see someone aiming a 'less lethal' weapon in your direction.
On the post: Let. The Motherfucker. Burn.
Hypocrisy and bias
You wrote: "Then they did nothing when people carrying actual guns marched on government buildings to demand access to restaurants and haircuts. "
Wow. Way to drink the kool-aid there.
Propagandists love the fact that any protest movement attracts very loud, very crazy fellow travelers. They love it because it lets them have lurid images and insane sound-bites that allow them to paint the entire movement as being nothing more than those crazies.
Every Black Lives Matter member is a flag-hating black supremacist by that standard. Every feminist is a castration-crazed misandrist. Every civil rights activist is a mindless anarchist.
Want to know why they 'stormed' that capitol building to peacefully petitition for redress of grievances while armed? Because Right-leaning protestors have noticed something Left-leaning protestors are studiously ignoring: When a crowd has the means to return fire, the police are very loath to fire indiscriminately into that crowd!
Consider two protests - one in Michigan, one in California. Both as close to identical in every way as you can imagine, protesting the same things and organized by the same groups. One protest was attacked by police and dozens of arrests were made, many of them false arrests. They were unarmed because the law said they had to be. Then there was the other protest, armed in a place where the law said they had a right to be - and there, the police were professional, respectful and law-abiding.
Law-abiding, you ask? It's a felony for two or more cops (or a lone cop armed with a firearm) to violate rights using their official authority. Cops do it every day, and they know that they'll almost never be prosecuted for it. They know that if they are sued for it, they won't ever pay a penny out of their own pockets no matter the outcome.
But police that will gleefully attack helpless victims will be professional and respectful if the potential victims are not helpless. They can still make arrests - Right-leaning protestors often hand actual criminals over to the police - but they don'tt make FALSE arrests. They don't attack people unlawfully. They don't fire indiscriminately into crowds - remember, less lethal isn't the same as non-lethal.
THAT is why some protestors are armed these days. And just look at what happens to protestors who AREN'T armed!
On the post: District Court Mostly Refuses To Terminate The Litigation Testing The Copyright Termination Provision
Re: I guess there's always Takedown claims to Youtube
A more interesting avenue would be a takedown claim to their domain registrar or network backbone.
On the post: German Constitutional Court Says Unjustified Surveillance Of Foreign Citizens Is Illegal
Fun Fact
The federal statute that criminalizes violations of civil, statutory and constitutional rights by government officials in the USA does not have a territorial limit - by the letter of the law, if a US official does something that would violate rights to anyone anywhere, they have committed a federal crime.
The conspiracy version includes wording that makes it only apply within US borders, but the individual version of the law places no such limits on enforcement.
https://www.justice.gov/crt/deprivation-rights-under-color-law
On the post: Florida Government Decides To Fire Its Data Chief Rather Than Be Honest About Its COVID Numbers
Re:
Yeah, but it WAS Democrats who refused to release the exact findings of either of the CDC studies on gun violence that have been done in the past 25 years.
The first (officially unpublished but available through FOIA) is the source of the pro-gun claim that there are over 2 million good uses of guns every year.
The second was published, but they didn't cite actual numbers, just made a vague statement that their earlier study appeared to still be true.
Both parties have a bad habit of burying facts that undermine their ideology.
On the post: Trump, Twitter, And Free Speech
Re:
Orange One, Horse's Ass...it's hard to tell the difference sometimes.
On the post: Our First Greenhouse Topic: Privacy
Re: Re: "Dumb" Items should be offered
Sure you can. I own one. It has no 'smart' features but has multiple HDMI and USB ports that allow me to add dongles to customize it. If I want to be absolutely sure it isn'tt sending video anywhere, I disconnect the camera.
On the post: Our First Greenhouse Topic: Privacy
Re:
And once you've created a new standard for the industry, how do you get the industry to all follow yours instead of theirs?
https://xkcd.com/927/
On the post: How A Feud Among Wolf-Kink Erotica FanFic Authors Demonstrates What The Copyright Office Got Wrong In Its DMCA Report
Re: Re: Re: '... you want me to explain what now?'
Falsely claiming that someone is a plagiarist is bad enough out in the greater world, but in the fanfiction community it's one of the most vile accusations to make.
Merely being accused is enough to make the accusation fact in many people's minds, and they frequently don't care that there might be another side to it or that the accusation might be false. They trust their favored author, and that's that.
That sort of reputational damage is EXACTLY what defamation claims are for - while defamation claims can be abused, this is not an abuse of them.
On the post: The Great Pizza Arbitrage Scheme Of 2020 Is Spotlighting The Strangeness Of Food Delivery Services
Re: Re: Trademark issue?
And if the pizzas truly are coming from a source other than the business, the lawsuit will be open and shut.
On the post: Philippines Government Uses Cybercrime Law To Arrest A Citizen For Calling The President An 'Asshole'
Thereby proving that the statement was true - and the statement being true is a defense against a libel charge.
On the post: Minnesota's Top Court Says Hotel Guest Records Are Protected By The State's Constitution
"But you can't get a room without giving up this information"
Or put another way, since vagrancy is a crime in a lot of places, if you don't give up your ID you are guilty of a crime.
That's not a voluntary act.
On the post: After Seven Years And A US Supreme Court Victory, Tyson Timbs Is One Step Closer To Finally Getting His Car Back
Indiana incorporating the 8th is irrelevant
Indiana's own Constitution also includes a prohibition of cruel and unusual punishment, which means that even if the 8th Amendment to the US Constitution doesn't apply to Indiana, the forfeiture is STILL illegal.
https://www.law.indiana.edu/uslawdocs/inconst/art-1.html#sec-16
Mr Fisher's taking the SCOTUS decision to the Indiana Supreme Court is utterly bizarre - a lower court has no authority whatsoever to overturn the ruling of a higher court.
I wonder how Mr Fisher would react if someone took a decision on one of his state court cases to a city court and the city court ordered it overturned? Would he obey the order of the city court, or laugh at the stupidity and hubris of a lower court issuing orders it lacks the authority to issue?
This is a clear cut case of criminal contempt of court on the part of Mr Fisher.
On the post: One Vote Short: FISA Amendment Requiring Warrants For Browser & Search Data Fails
20 year prison sentences for everyone!
Violating Title 18, Section 1519 of the US Code carries a 20 year prison sentence. The requirement to be guilty under it isn't destroying evidence that is being investigated, it's worse than that - what triggers 1519 is the mere potential that a federal investigation might someday be interested in the information.
As a result, if this bill passes, if you ever wipe your browsing history you are a felon. If a company makes a browser that has a button to wipe the browser history, they are guilty of aiding and abetting a felony. And heaven help you if you need to wipe the history to resolve a bug in the browser!
https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/18/1519
On the post: Reuters Report Shows How The Supreme Court Has Turned Qualified Immunity Lawsuits Into A Rigged Game
Re:
Brazil to name one.
On the post: North Carolina Supreme Court Overturns Awful Decision By Appeals Court, Says Giving The Finger To Cops Isn't A Crime
Re:
Inside the court room the judge is presiding over it would be contempt of court. Outside? Protected speech.
But I bet he'd end up with a bench warrant for doing it outside the court house anyway.
On the post: Federal Court Says Every Drug Dog In Utah Is Unreliable
If you used a Magic Eight Ball to 'detect' drug hides, everyone would know that it was sketchy. And the Ball is more reliable than a poorly trained dog.
On the post: Amazon Sued For Saying You've 'Bought' Movies That It Can Take Away From You
Re: Re:
I think this deserves to be Last Word on the matter too.
On the post: Senator Wyden And Others Introduce Bill Calling The DOJ's Bluff Regarding Its Attempt To Destroy Section 230 & Encryption
Re: Re: Is it enough?
Exactly. They have a set budget that includes funding for certain required actions. They spent the budget but didn't do those things.
So having proven they don't need that portion of their budget, they should lose it.
Next >>