"They were notified of a threat (DePre said of Owens. "'A day of reckoning is coming,'")"
That's not a threat. It does not imply or suggest any direct action by the speaker. It could, and in this case almost certainly did, mean any one of numerous perfectly legal things happening.
"So do more of nothing while the bodybags get stacked higher. Awesome solution!!"
Again with this? Are you actually only capable of this extremely simplistic thinking? Nobody is saying "do nothing", only pointing out that doing nothing is by definition better than doing something known to be counterproductive. The consent decree is part of the something that is being done. Improving police behavior will result in a public willing to help the police do their jobs.
Re: Re: Re: NO, stifling political opponents while PRETEND is "moderation".
"Other countries do not have an equivlanet law, and they are much more civilized."
And lots of those other countries that don't have an equivalent law are a lot less civilized. The two things have absolutely nothing to do with each other.
"What does anyone care about presumed innocence?
People want Kavaugh destroyed on accusation alone,
People want Hillary destroyed on accusation alone,
People want Trump destroyed on accusation alone,
People want Obama destroyed on accusation alone."
None of those people are in court, which is the only place you have a legal presumption of innocence. I am perfectly entitled to my opinion that the first three people on your list were terrible mistakes that should never have happened.
"Some how the left just can not understand that this has been going on since at least Lincoln."
Try not to lump half the population into one amorphous group based on one ignorant comment. Anyone familiar with asset seizure understands how long this has been a problem. Techdirt have been discussing it for many, many years.
"Or is it simply your opinion he lied and thus he is guilty because you believe he lied."
His lies were plentiful, on the record, and proven as such by multiple people. Even if you dismiss the sexual assault claim, he lied about numerous other things. Whether he's "guilty" isn't the question, only whether he proved himself unsuitable for such an important role, which he did.
Re: Anti-police Techdirt: police should NEVER de-fuse a situation.
"Peace officers -- under common law -- are supposed to find some way to stop imminent violence."
Please explain to the class why peace officers, presumably under your "common law", failed to immediately confiscate all the signs and torches being carried by those fine people protesting in Charlottesville. The outcome there was very predictable.
Re: Re: Re: Re: live in a full-bore Christian theocracy
Counter-point: Do you consider Kavanaugh's extremely partisan behavior to be appropriate for a Supreme Court that is supposed to be apolitical, non-partisan, and separate from and not influenced by the other branches of government?
"Dumping on religious figures and beliefs is a shitty thing to do..."
Dumping on non-religious beliefs appears to be a a core tenet of all religions, so it seems pretty fair to me. I have no problem with you practicing your religion, just don't impose it on me and don't think you should be some special protected class.
Re: Re: Re: But "the plain language version" you give isn't Twitter's terms.
"FIRST and foremost, the government DOES NOT MANDATE copyright."
By law copyright protection is automatically applied to anything you create, which sounds pretty mandatory to me.
"You are free to give away your own work, Masnick. Are you not?"
What do you think this site is doing?
"Has the gov't come knocking on your door and forced you to protect anything you write?"
They didn't need to knock, they just wrote automatic copyright into law.
"Now, it's not a contract, either, when one party has no meaningful input on the terms."
That's not the definition of a contract, and joining Twitter or any other online service is purely voluntary. In life there are plenty of contracts you have little input into, you get to either agree and sign up or reject it and walk away with nothing.
"First, for a person, it's hardly free if corporations get to take your creation and monetize, is it? That potentially spoils your market."
Can you provide any examples of Twitter doing that?
"Before folks feel sorry for Mr Crutcher, keep in mind that the autopsy results showed ' "acute phencyclidine (PCP) intoxication" at the time of the shooting'."
So did the officer make the informed decision that fatally shooting him was the best and only response after reading the autopsy report? Oh wait, probably not...
Your point is irrelevant because the officer's own words ("zombie-like behavior") don't describe someone dangerous at the time of the shooting. Five officers with Tasers should have been able to physically subdue and restrain him.
"This pretty much means that Mr Crutcher, prior to parking his van in the middle of the highway and starting his walkabout, had likely put the lives of hundreds or thousands of drivers and pedestrians at risk during his driving while impaired."
Did I miss the news that driving while impaired had become a capital offence? And even you must know your argument is weak when you have to write nonsense like "hundreds or thousands of drivers and pedestrians" in an attempt to justify such an excessive response.
Re: Inherent contradiction to "public domain" on PRIVATE PLATFORMS.
"But then he wants to put it on a COMMERCIAL PLATFORM where a private corporation will gain money from it! In effect charging the public for use of its own material! That's the REAL objection here, which is simply ignored."
That's an impressive display of ignorance right there. The entire point of the public domain is that anyone is free to do whatever they want with the content, including monetization. Your entire argument is a hilarious fail because you don't have even the simplest understanding of the topic.
"But there are many that feel that Mollie Tibbetts would still be alive today if immigration had been enforced, and they're probably right."
She was statistically more likely to be killed by a natural born citizen. One data point, or even dozens, does not prove anything when over over 15,000 people are murdered in the US each year.
On the post: 'See Something Say Something' Sends Philly Counter-Terrorism Unit After A Local Journalist Over A Harmless Facebook Post
Re:
"They were notified of a threat (DePre said of Owens. "'A day of reckoning is coming,'")"
That's not a threat. It does not imply or suggest any direct action by the speaker. It could, and in this case almost certainly did, mean any one of numerous perfectly legal things happening.
On the post: DOJ, Trump Decide The Federal Government Needs To Give Chicago The Police Department It Doesn't Want
Re: Re: Re: Re: States Rights?
"So do more of nothing while the bodybags get stacked higher. Awesome solution!!"
Again with this? Are you actually only capable of this extremely simplistic thinking? Nobody is saying "do nothing", only pointing out that doing nothing is by definition better than doing something known to be counterproductive. The consent decree is part of the something that is being done. Improving police behavior will result in a public willing to help the police do their jobs.
On the post: Facebook's Latest Fake News 'Purge' Terminates Several Accounts Known For Their Criticism Of Law Enforcement
Re: Re: Re: NO, stifling political opponents while PRETEND is "moderation".
"Other countries do not have an equivlanet law, and they are much more civilized."
And lots of those other countries that don't have an equivalent law are a lot less civilized. The two things have absolutely nothing to do with each other.
On the post: NYC Prosecutors Accidentally Admit They Use Bail To Deprive Presumably-Innocent People Of Their Freedom
Re: Re:
"What does anyone care about presumed innocence? People want Kavaugh destroyed on accusation alone, People want Hillary destroyed on accusation alone, People want Trump destroyed on accusation alone, People want Obama destroyed on accusation alone."
None of those people are in court, which is the only place you have a legal presumption of innocence. I am perfectly entitled to my opinion that the first three people on your list were terrible mistakes that should never have happened.
On the post: Government Moves To Seize All Backpage Assets Prior To Securing Convictions
Re: US Law
"Some how the left just can not understand that this has been going on since at least Lincoln."
Try not to lump half the population into one amorphous group based on one ignorant comment. Anyone familiar with asset seizure understands how long this has been a problem. Techdirt have been discussing it for many, many years.
On the post: Government Moves To Seize All Backpage Assets Prior To Securing Convictions
Re: Re: Re: US Law
"Or is it simply your opinion he lied and thus he is guilty because you believe he lied."
His lies were plentiful, on the record, and proven as such by multiple people. Even if you dismiss the sexual assault claim, he lied about numerous other things. Whether he's "guilty" isn't the question, only whether he proved himself unsuitable for such an important role, which he did.
On the post: Texas Cops Seize Anti-GOP Sign From Homeowner's Lawn
Re: Anti-police Techdirt: police should NEVER de-fuse a situation.
"Peace officers -- under common law -- are supposed to find some way to stop imminent violence."
Please explain to the class why peace officers, presumably under your "common law", failed to immediately confiscate all the signs and torches being carried by those fine people protesting in Charlottesville. The outcome there was very predictable.
On the post: Texas Cops Seize Anti-GOP Sign From Homeowner's Lawn
Re: Re: What?
"Having a sign implying the republican party supports molesting children seems like it would be breaking at least a few laws."
But you don't name any, so we can assume you don't actually know.
"Doesn't seem like a free speech issue when you are accusing someone of being a child predator."
Who is this "someone" you speak of?
On the post: Funniest/Most Insightful Comments Of The Week At Techdirt
Re: Re: Re: The reasons he should not have been confirmed
"We still lead the world in every way that matters."
Please provide a of list of all the ways that matter.
On the post: Funniest/Most Insightful Comments Of The Week At Techdirt
Re: Re: Re: Re: live in a full-bore Christian theocracy
On the post: Funniest/Most Insightful Comments Of The Week At Techdirt
Re: Re:
"We are all getting richer."
Out of curiosity, roughly how much richer are you personally and why?
On the post: Spanish Court Moves Forward With Prosecution Of Man Who Offended A Bunch Of Religious Lawyers
Re:
"Dumping on religious figures and beliefs is a shitty thing to do..."
Dumping on non-religious beliefs appears to be a a core tenet of all religions, so it seems pretty fair to me. I have no problem with you practicing your religion, just don't impose it on me and don't think you should be some special protected class.
On the post: Spanish Court Moves Forward With Prosecution Of Man Who Offended A Bunch Of Religious Lawyers
Re: Re: Fake Christian alert!!!
"Pay no attention to the Old Testament: it's full of Stone Age nonsense and murder.
Perhaps they should stop including it then?
On the post: Did France Just Make It Effectively Impossible To Use Twitter?
Re: Re: Re: Own your content..
"...it means giving up some control what happens to your content."
Which is true for any form of publishing, a point that seems to be completely lost on some of our more contrarian commenters.
On the post: Did France Just Make It Effectively Impossible To Use Twitter?
Re: Re: Re: But "the plain language version" you give isn't Twitter's terms.
"FIRST and foremost, the government DOES NOT MANDATE copyright."
By law copyright protection is automatically applied to anything you create, which sounds pretty mandatory to me.
"You are free to give away your own work, Masnick. Are you not?"
What do you think this site is doing?
"Has the gov't come knocking on your door and forced you to protect anything you write?"
They didn't need to knock, they just wrote automatic copyright into law.
"Now, it's not a contract, either, when one party has no meaningful input on the terms."
That's not the definition of a contract, and joining Twitter or any other online service is purely voluntary. In life there are plenty of contracts you have little input into, you get to either agree and sign up or reject it and walk away with nothing.
"First, for a person, it's hardly free if corporations get to take your creation and monetize, is it? That potentially spoils your market."
Can you provide any examples of Twitter doing that?
On the post: Ajit Pai Whines About California's Net Neutrality Effort, Calls It 'Radical,' 'Illegal'
Re: Re: capitalism is not sustainable
"You are so fucking clueless you are not even smart enough to be corrected"
That's an ironic accusation from someone completely incapable of seeing the huge number of possibilities between two extreme points.
On the post: Officer Who Killed Unarmed Man Now Teaching Officers How To Go About The Difficult Business Of Being Alive
Re:
"Before folks feel sorry for Mr Crutcher, keep in mind that the autopsy results showed ' "acute phencyclidine (PCP) intoxication" at the time of the shooting'."
So did the officer make the informed decision that fatally shooting him was the best and only response after reading the autopsy report? Oh wait, probably not...
Your point is irrelevant because the officer's own words ("zombie-like behavior") don't describe someone dangerous at the time of the shooting. Five officers with Tasers should have been able to physically subdue and restrain him.
"This pretty much means that Mr Crutcher, prior to parking his van in the middle of the highway and starting his walkabout, had likely put the lives of hundreds or thousands of drivers and pedestrians at risk during his driving while impaired."
Did I miss the news that driving while impaired had become a capital offence? And even you must know your argument is weak when you have to write nonsense like "hundreds or thousands of drivers and pedestrians" in an attempt to justify such an excessive response.
On the post: How The EU May Be About To Kill The Public Domain: Copyright Filters Takedown Beethoven
Re: Inherent contradiction to "public domain" on PRIVATE PLATFORMS.
"But then he wants to put it on a COMMERCIAL PLATFORM where a private corporation will gain money from it! In effect charging the public for use of its own material! That's the REAL objection here, which is simply ignored."
That's an impressive display of ignorance right there. The entire point of the public domain is that anyone is free to do whatever they want with the content, including monetization. Your entire argument is a hilarious fail because you don't have even the simplest understanding of the topic.
On the post: Research Paper Shows Militarized SWAT Teams Don't Make Cops -- Or The Public -- Any Safer
Re: Re: Re: Displays of power make conflict less likely
*"Or are you just wasting everybody’s time with a stupid example that no one would take seriously."
Not really since that has actually happened numerous times.
"Of course force, overwhelming or not, should be used carefully and only against those who require it."
No shit, the entire point of the article is that it's not being used carefully and only against those who require it.
On the post: Trump's Anti-press Rhetoric Is Dangerous, But His Actions Are Worse
Re: Re:
"But there are many that feel that Mollie Tibbetts would still be alive today if immigration had been enforced, and they're probably right."
She was statistically more likely to be killed by a natural born citizen. One data point, or even dozens, does not prove anything when over over 15,000 people are murdered in the US each year.
Next >>