It's especially ludicrous when you consider that under federal law, any rights violation you could sue over in federal civil court and win is also a violation of the criminal side of the law.
Since federal courts consider possessing a firearm while committing a crime to be an armed crime (even if the victim never became aware of the gun during the crime) and uniformed cops are almost never unarmed, this means that a rights violation by an armed officer is nearly always a felony. And if someone dies as a result of the violation -- even an officer being killed in self defense by his victim -- it jumps to a capital crime!
Re: There's setting the bar low, and then there's throwing it out
"If people come to believe that surrendering to the police has good odds of getting them killed then they are going to be much more likely to do everything they can to escape, up to and including attempting to shoot if not kill the officer(s) in question, and that's not a good outcome for anyone sane."
By both the letter and spirit of self defense laws in the US, that belief would allow a person to lawfully shoot and even kill a police officer.
The King's Men, being his Hands, are as above the law as the King is. Only the King can revoke their status, and no one else can demand they do anything at all.
Our entire legal system here in the US was designed to prevent that from happening. But it presumes that any sane person will act to prevent it, and that turned out to be wishful thinking.
So we have judges that create things like the doctrine of qualified immunity out of thin air despite the fact that the judicial branch cannot create laws, or the fact that an actual law that does what QI does would be instantly struck down as unconstitutional at the first challenge.
And the King's Men are once again above the law, even though there is no King.
You could make this backfire on the politicians that pass it very easily.
If there is no penalty for a mistaken or even fraudulent takedown, then nothing prevents any random person from forcing the takedown of anything.
If something being taken down once means it must stay down forever with no way to appeal unless the person who triggered the takedown changes their mind, then it would not matter that the original poster owns the copyright, it would stay down.
Taken together, you make the law backfire by taking down EU government and MEP personal sites at the registrar level.
Care to guess the ethnicity of native-born Palestinians? Semitic. They're descendants of Hebrews who converted to Islam when the Muslim nations had control of Jerusalem.
So if it's anti-Semitic to support Palestinians over Israelis, it's equally anti-Semitic to support Israelis over Palestinians. Judaism is a religion, not a race.
Given that Palestinians are also a Semitic people (the main difference between them and Israelis is religious not ethnic), I don't understand how supporting them over Israel is in any way anti-Semitic.
The US plans to ignore cyber security by means of the NSA and the 'going dark' narrative the DoJ is pushing.
The EU is considering measures (such as the link tax) that would intentionally and substantially damage the general availability or integrity of the public core of the Internet.
Overall, pretty much every signatory is already in violation, and every non-signatory too.
Of course, a truly CLEVER corrupt politician would arrange for that 100% of the vote to go to his most dangerous opponent in the race. No amount of claims of innocence would save that guy's political career.
And since the election was obviously rigged, there would be a new election held, in which all the fence sitters would be angry about the election tampering...
Whether he's a corrupt politician has nothing to do with being a Republican or Democrat. It has to do with being a politician, and deciding that negotiability is more important than right and wrong.
Problem: Tide keeps rolling in. Solution: Have the King wade out and order it to stop. Result: Tide keeps rolling in, but now the water is a traitor.
Mandating back doors by law won't stop people from encrypting things without those back doors if they want real security (and I bet there will be a nice fat exemption for government secrets in any such law), and it won't protect the security of people who comply with the law -- and I bet anyone trying to sue the government as a party to any resulting security breaches won't get anywhere due to sovereign immunity.
Why an employee of the people who merely represents them rather than owning them (as a noble or king does) has sovereignty against their complaints of malfeasance has always eluded me.
Are the students members of the university or not?
When it comes to university policy, the administration of almost any university would insist that their students are members of the university -- they'd be hard pressed, after all, to claim students were subject to university rules and policies if the students weren't members.
But then the school turns around and does something akin to what ISU is doing -- treating the students as if they were completely separate from the university.
Those legislators have a very bizarre idea of how police gun possession works.
Police are required to take a test once a year to prove they can use a gun properly, but the difficulty level is set so low that it's not unusual for cops to hit with only one bullet out of TWENTY when actually using their guns outside of a target range. And they're allowed to keep trying the test over and over at taxpayer expense until they pass.
Police are exempted from almost every state gun control law, from assault weapon bans to magazine limits to being allowed to carry guns in places any non-cop is prohibited from doing so.
Convicted felons are prohibited from being police, yet some police departments have been ordered to reinstate officers who were fired after being convicted of felonies.
When a police officer fires 200+ rounds in the very vaguely general direction of their target and only hits their target with 1 out of every 20 (the other 19 out of 20 hitting random buildings, trees, people and animals) the officer is not liable for any civil penalties. A non-cop who did that would be 100% liable for every shot, including the ones that hit their target -- even if the shooting was fully justified, the person you shoot can still sue you and win, while cops cannot be sued in most cases.
Hmm. That sounds like something worth doing. I wonder if we could convince those legislators to pass a law that imposes the same restrictions on non-cops that cops have to follow with regard to gun ownership?
On the post: Appeals Court: No Immunity For Shooting A Man Who Had His Hands Up And Twice Said He Surrendered
Re: Re: Re: but who do you sue?
On the post: Appeals Court: No Immunity For Shooting A Man Who Had His Hands Up And Twice Said He Surrendered
Re: Re: Re: Re:
Since federal courts consider possessing a firearm while committing a crime to be an armed crime (even if the victim never became aware of the gun during the crime) and uniformed cops are almost never unarmed, this means that a rights violation by an armed officer is nearly always a felony. And if someone dies as a result of the violation -- even an officer being killed in self defense by his victim -- it jumps to a capital crime!
Don't believe me? Here's a link about it, right on the DoJ's website: https://www.justice.gov/crt/deprivation-rights-under-color-law
On the post: Appeals Court: No Immunity For Shooting A Man Who Had His Hands Up And Twice Said He Surrendered
Re: There's setting the bar low, and then there's throwing it out
By both the letter and spirit of self defense laws in the US, that belief would allow a person to lawfully shoot and even kill a police officer.
On the post: Dear EU Politicians: You Really Don't Have To Wreck The Internet
Re:
On the post: Sheriff's Dept.: The 1,079 Privileged Jailhouse Calls We Intercepted Was Actually 34,000 Calls
Re: Why is it anti law enforcement?
Our entire legal system here in the US was designed to prevent that from happening. But it presumes that any sane person will act to prevent it, and that turned out to be wishful thinking.
So we have judges that create things like the doctrine of qualified immunity out of thin air despite the fact that the judicial branch cannot create laws, or the fact that an actual law that does what QI does would be instantly struck down as unconstitutional at the first challenge.
And the King's Men are once again above the law, even though there is no King.
On the post: Not Even Hiding It Any More: EU Council Explicitly Pushing For Mandatory Upload Filters
Re:
If there is no penalty for a mistaken or even fraudulent takedown, then nothing prevents any random person from forcing the takedown of anything.
If something being taken down once means it must stay down forever with no way to appeal unless the person who triggered the takedown changes their mind, then it would not matter that the original poster owns the copyright, it would stay down.
Taken together, you make the law backfire by taking down EU government and MEP personal sites at the registrar level.
On the post: UCLA Flails Amid Pro-Palestine Group's Planned Conference, While L.A.'s City Council Goes Full Stupid
Re: Re: Re: Arabs Are Semites Too
On the post: UCLA Flails Amid Pro-Palestine Group's Planned Conference, While L.A.'s City Council Goes Full Stupid
Re: Arabs Are Semites Too
So if it's anti-Semitic to support Palestinians over Israelis, it's equally anti-Semitic to support Israelis over Palestinians. Judaism is a religion, not a race.
On the post: Pennsylvania Attorney General Sends Broad, Unconstitutional Gag Order To Gab's New DNS Provider
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: You SKIPPED GoDaddy dropping Gab for no valid cause.
On the post: Judge Lets NRA's 1st Amendment Lawsuit Against Andrew Cuomo Move Forward
Re: Is BDS Protected As Well?
On the post: The US Refusing To Sign 'The Paris Call' Is Not As Big A Deal As Everyone Is Making It Out To Be
Re: Half and Half
The EU is considering measures (such as the link tax) that would intentionally and substantially damage the general availability or integrity of the public core of the Internet.
Overall, pretty much every signatory is already in violation, and every non-signatory too.
On the post: Funniest/Most Insightful Comments Of The Week At Techdirt
Re: NRA Tells Doctors To “Stay In Their Lane”
On the post: Funniest/Most Insightful Comments Of The Week At Techdirt
Re: Re: Covfefe!!!!
On the post: Georgia's Brian Kemp Decides To Dox Absentee Voters, Revealing Why They All Voted Absentee
Re:
On the post: Georgia's Brian Kemp Decides To Dox Absentee Voters, Revealing Why They All Voted Absentee
Re: Re:
And since the election was obviously rigged, there would be a new election held, in which all the fence sitters would be angry about the election tampering...
On the post: Georgia's Brian Kemp Decides To Dox Absentee Voters, Revealing Why They All Voted Absentee
Re:
On the post: Manhattan DA Cy Vance Says The Only Solution To Device Encryption Is Federally-Mandated Backdoors
The true nature of legislating against reality
Solution: Have the King wade out and order it to stop.
Result: Tide keeps rolling in, but now the water is a traitor.
Mandating back doors by law won't stop people from encrypting things without those back doors if they want real security (and I bet there will be a nice fat exemption for government secrets in any such law), and it won't protect the security of people who comply with the law -- and I bet anyone trying to sue the government as a party to any resulting security breaches won't get anywhere due to sovereign immunity.
Why an employee of the people who merely represents them rather than owning them (as a noble or king does) has sovereignty against their complaints of malfeasance has always eluded me.
On the post: Iowa State Students Make Demands Over School Trademark Policy Public, Plan Possible First Amendment Lawsuit
Are the students members of the university or not?
But then the school turns around and does something akin to what ISU is doing -- treating the students as if they were completely separate from the university.
On the post: New York Lawmakers Want Social Media History To Be Included In Gun Background Checks
Re: Re: Re: Re: Just because they hide it from you
On the post: New York Lawmakers Want Social Media History To Be Included In Gun Background Checks
Re: Guns! Guns for EVERYONE!
Police are required to take a test once a year to prove they can use a gun properly, but the difficulty level is set so low that it's not unusual for cops to hit with only one bullet out of TWENTY when actually using their guns outside of a target range. And they're allowed to keep trying the test over and over at taxpayer expense until they pass.
Police are exempted from almost every state gun control law, from assault weapon bans to magazine limits to being allowed to carry guns in places any non-cop is prohibited from doing so.
Convicted felons are prohibited from being police, yet some police departments have been ordered to reinstate officers who were fired after being convicted of felonies.
When a police officer fires 200+ rounds in the very vaguely general direction of their target and only hits their target with 1 out of every 20 (the other 19 out of 20 hitting random buildings, trees, people and animals) the officer is not liable for any civil penalties. A non-cop who did that would be 100% liable for every shot, including the ones that hit their target -- even if the shooting was fully justified, the person you shoot can still sue you and win, while cops cannot be sued in most cases.
Hmm. That sounds like something worth doing. I wonder if we could convince those legislators to pass a law that imposes the same restrictions on non-cops that cops have to follow with regard to gun ownership?
Next >>