going deeper, the approval of burning down the system that has resulted in the problems cops aren't willing to fix is not an advocation of "violence and destruction." Cops are violent and destructive. Why is it now a problem when the public turns on the perpetrators of violence and destruction? Was it OK when it was just the government committing violence against citizens with little fear of reprisal?
There were a great number of peaceful protests. And they were interrupted by non-peaceful cops. There will be more posts on the subject, but suffice to say, there were a non-zero number of cops willing to make the situation worse, no matter where they were located.
That's a good point. Perhaps the adjustment needs to be made along the "reasonable" line. It's long been clear that what the courts consider to be "reasonable" behavior from law enforcement officers is pretty unreasonable. And what people feel are "reasonable" responses when accosted by police officers is pretty far from the ideal the courts apply to situations like these. When a cop can claim it's "suspicious" a person walked away from a consensual encounter, there's no way regular citizens can win.
Tim Alloysius Cushing (profile), 13 Aug 2019 @ 3:34pm
Re: Umm?
Maybe I'm being a bit too careless in my phrasing. Sure, there's an ongoing investigation, but whatever roadblock a locked phone has erected in front of the FBI does not have the compressed timetable of an investigation into, say, someone's plans to engage in a mass shooting.
Putting together a timeline and establishing motive are important, but when the crime has already been committed, complaining that it will take "weeks or months" to crack a seized device is a bit much. And it probably won't take that, not when there are companies offering phone-cracking tech at prices the FBI can easily afford. This is an attempt to create leverage from nearly nothing.
Tim Alloysius Cushing (profile), 20 Jun 2019 @ 6:29pm
Re: Defending corporate EULA? Really?
I'm not defending it. I'm just saying that's how it is. That's the reality for all Twitter users. This part of the EULA is quoted in her lawsuit, so she's aware of it. Not sure how she read past that part and still thought she'd win a lawsuit.
Capitalist Lion Tamer (profile), 21 Feb 2019 @ 3:13pm
Re: Re: Re:
Basic human psychology isn't being litigated here. The accusations in lawsuit say the paper defamed the student. But the only thing the lawsuit details are quotes from people the paper interviewed. You having strong feelings about this doesn't change that fact. And I did not imply anything about human psychology in my response to Mason.
Capitalist Lion Tamer (profile), 21 Feb 2019 @ 1:49pm
Re:
You have a really low bar for recklessness. Fortunately for those engaged in protected speech, the courts aren't generally inclined to use the Wheeler Standard of "zero publication until all the facts are in" to adjudicate lawsuits like these.
The Washington Post published at least six articles about this incident, strongly suggesting it continued to update its coverage as new facts came to light. This is the opposite of reckless. The newspaper sought comments from people involved in the incident and published the diocese's condemnation of the students' alleged behavior. These are not the acts of an irresponsible press, even if you disagree with the slant of the coverage.
On the post: Let. The Motherfucker. Burn.
Re:
i have the potential for a 12" erection and yet you don't hear public officials releasing that info to the public
[visits sketchy link texted to me]
On the post: Let. The Motherfucker. Burn.
Re: Re:
going deeper, the approval of burning down the system that has resulted in the problems cops aren't willing to fix is not an advocation of "violence and destruction." Cops are violent and destructive. Why is it now a problem when the public turns on the perpetrators of violence and destruction? Was it OK when it was just the government committing violence against citizens with little fear of reprisal?
On the post: Let. The Motherfucker. Burn.
Re:
lol go fuck yourself imbecile
On the post: Let. The Motherfucker. Burn.
Re:
There were a great number of peaceful protests. And they were interrupted by non-peaceful cops. There will be more posts on the subject, but suffice to say, there were a non-zero number of cops willing to make the situation worse, no matter where they were located.
On the post: South Carolina's Top Court Decides Black Men Should Feel Free To Terminate 'Consensual' Stops By Law Enforcement Officers
Re:
That's a good point. Perhaps the adjustment needs to be made along the "reasonable" line. It's long been clear that what the courts consider to be "reasonable" behavior from law enforcement officers is pretty unreasonable. And what people feel are "reasonable" responses when accosted by police officers is pretty far from the ideal the courts apply to situations like these. When a cop can claim it's "suspicious" a person walked away from a consensual encounter, there's no way regular citizens can win.
On the post: City Of Dallas Shuts Down Business Of Man Who Called Cops Over 100 Times In 20 Months To Deal With Criminals Near His Car Wash
Re: 414 pages = 130 calls
I've fixed the headline. Thanks for catching that.
On the post: Techdirt 2019: The Stats.
Pretty sure I'm the guy giving you all the LG phone traffic.
On the post: Tennessee Deputy Who Baptised An Arrestee And Strip Searched A Minor Now Dealing With 44 Criminal Charges And Five Lawsuits
Re: How many Investigations before you are benched?
the desk also filed a complaint so
On the post: Man Sues Twitter For $1 Billion Claiming His Account's Suspension Violated His Right To Worship President Trump As A Demigod
Re:
really makes you think
On the post: CBP Official Refuses To Give Journalist His Passport Until He 'Admits' He Writes 'Propaganda'
Re: Re:
We're well aware of this, John. It was in all the papers.
https://www.techdirt.com/articles/20130513/15401423065/doj-unconcerned-about-constitution-ob tained-ap-reporters-phone-records.shtml
https://www.techdirt.com/articles/20130520/00493523143/ridic ulous-timing-obama-administration-responds-to-spying-ap-pushing-journalist-shield-law-that-wouldnt-m atter.shtml
https://www.techdirt.com/articles/20130517/16293423122/think-doj-spying-reporters-was-un precedented-think-again.shtml
Seems like we were pretty critical of the Obama Administration as well.
On the post: The FBI Can't Get Into The Dayton Shooter's Phone. So What?
Re: Umm?
Maybe I'm being a bit too careless in my phrasing. Sure, there's an ongoing investigation, but whatever roadblock a locked phone has erected in front of the FBI does not have the compressed timetable of an investigation into, say, someone's plans to engage in a mass shooting.
Putting together a timeline and establishing motive are important, but when the crime has already been committed, complaining that it will take "weeks or months" to crack a seized device is a bit much. And it probably won't take that, not when there are companies offering phone-cracking tech at prices the FBI can easily afford. This is an attempt to create leverage from nearly nothing.
On the post: Self-Described Feminist Loses Lawsuit Against Twitter For Banning Her Account
Re: What?
We're very pro-First Amendment. Not sure how you turned that into "progressive-leaning site" that banishes people for being ignorant.
On the post: Self-Described Feminist Loses Lawsuit Against Twitter For Banning Her Account
Re:
When a business reserves the right to terminate accounts for "any or no reason," it's hard to see how this could count as a "breach" of its terms.
On the post: Self-Described Feminist Loses Lawsuit Against Twitter For Banning Her Account
Re: Defending corporate EULA? Really?
I'm not defending it. I'm just saying that's how it is. That's the reality for all Twitter users. This part of the EULA is quoted in her lawsuit, so she's aware of it. Not sure how she read past that part and still thought she'd win a lawsuit.
On the post: FBI Debuts 'First And Only' Police Shooting Database That Is Neither 'First' Nor 'Only'
Re: Hyperlink
My math is all wrong. (As are my links apparently.) I will get this sorted out. Thanks for the heads up.
On the post: Catholic School Teen's Lawyers File $250M Defamation Suit Against The Washington Post; Fail To List Any Actual Defamation
Re: Re: Re:
Basic human psychology isn't being litigated here. The accusations in lawsuit say the paper defamed the student. But the only thing the lawsuit details are quotes from people the paper interviewed. You having strong feelings about this doesn't change that fact. And I did not imply anything about human psychology in my response to Mason.
On the post: Catholic School Teen's Lawyers File $250M Defamation Suit Against The Washington Post; Fail To List Any Actual Defamation
Re:
You have a really low bar for recklessness. Fortunately for those engaged in protected speech, the courts aren't generally inclined to use the Wheeler Standard of "zero publication until all the facts are in" to adjudicate lawsuits like these.
The Washington Post published at least six articles about this incident, strongly suggesting it continued to update its coverage as new facts came to light. This is the opposite of reckless. The newspaper sought comments from people involved in the incident and published the diocese's condemnation of the students' alleged behavior. These are not the acts of an irresponsible press, even if you disagree with the slant of the coverage.
On the post: Catholic School Teen's Lawyers File $250M Defamation Suit Against The Washington Post; Fail To List Any Actual Defamation
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
"Failure to follow basic tenets of journalism" is not an actionable tort.
On the post: Fatal Houston PD Drug Raid Apparently Predicated On Drugs A Cop Had Stashed In His Car
Re: Blockquote [was Re: Re: No heroin at all found]
I'll update the pull quote. I see the Chronicle hasn't bothered to inform readers the article has been updated.
On the post: Fatal Houston PD Drug Raid Apparently Predicated On Drugs A Cop Had Stashed In His Car
Re: No heroin at all found
I did mis-write. Thanks for clearing that up.
Next >>