NFL

Reason Morning Links: FBI Sends 20 Armed Agents After Alleged Teen Hacker, DOJ Retracts Evidence Clearing Bruce Ivins, Sheriff Concludes Murder of David Lee "Deacon" Turner Was Justified

|

New at Reason.tv: "The Battle For Brooklyn: Eminent Domain Abuse Gone Wild"

NEXT: Death is the Most Effective H.R. Manager for Federal Employees

Editor's Note: We invite comments and request that they be civil and on-topic. We do not moderate or assume any responsibility for comments, which are owned by the readers who post them. Comments do not represent the views of Reason.com or Reason Foundation. We reserve the right to delete any comment for any reason at any time. Report abuses.

  1. Thanks to six seconds of missing surveillance tape, a Kern County Sheriff’s officer has been cleared of any wrongdoing in the murder of former NFL star David Lee “Deacon” Turner.

    Surprising no one.

    1. Sometimes reality is inconvenient.

      1. The reality is the camera cut out for the exact 6 seconds of importance? Please.

        1. So during the time the cop says he was attacked, the motion activated camera turned off. Thus implying that there was no motion at that time thereby exonerating the police officer as he simply reacted to the motionless attack.

          1. I’m sure the tape will be examined for tampering as the civil suit moves forward. If there was indeed tampering, it will be quite easy to detect. Is it the original tape? Yes? So far, so good. No? Red flag. Are there a few seconds “missing” (e.g. erased or spliced out) or does the scene before the shooting scene move immediately to the time following the shooting with no “missing” tape? Any signs of tampering with the time stamp? Etc etc.

    2. The camera verified the office struck first.

      It “missed” whether Turner struck back or not, but it doesnt matter, he was legitimately defending himself.

      Murder.

      1. Again, the question of when, how long, and under what circumstances a policeman can detain you is not addressed.
        The issue at hand was whether “someone” was buying liquor for minors. Unless someone identified Turner, or possibly that Turner would confess, there was no reason to stop him (he was not observed handing over booze to anyone). Also, apparently he was not under arrest. So he was not officially in custody. The police apparently didn’t like that he exercised his constitutional right to walk away, at which point they assaulted him.
        It is not even brought up as an issue.

        1. Unless someone identified Turner, or possibly that Turner would confess, there was no reason to stop him (he was not observed handing over booze to anyone). Also, apparently he was not under arrest. So he was not officially in custody.

          “Terry stop”. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Terry_stop Middle ground between “You’re under arrest” (and I must therefore Mirandize you) and “You’re free to go.” What do you need as a LEO, to be justified in performing one? “Reasonable suspicion” of you being involved in criminal activity. (Not sure if it includes cases where the police think that you have information about someone else’s criminal activity) What’s reasonable suspicion? From ‘da wiki:

          police must be able to point to “specific and articulable facts” that would indicate to a reasonable person that a crime has been, is being, or is about to be committed. Reasonable suspicion depends on the “totality of the circumstances”, and can result from a combination of facts, each of which is by itself innocuous.

          So, not free to go. Have fun trying to prove there was no reasonable suspicion for the stop.

          As far as your question of “when, how long, and under what circumstances a policeman can detain you? I don’t know. It can be awhile (re: cases where motorists are detained by roadside for an hour while drug dog is summoned). Is that bullshit? Not if you’re a criminal judge.

          The following article in Law and Order magazine asks your question, and the answer is, “It depends on your jurisdiction.” http://www.hendonpub.com/resou…..?ID=207559

          1. Have fun trying to prove there was no reasonable suspicion for the stop.

            The police have to prove it, they are responsible. As you quoted: police must be able to point to “specific and articulable facts”.

            If they cant, then the officer assaulted Turner. If the officer assaulted Turner, then his self-defense is legitimate (assuming it even happened, no footage). If his self-defense is legitimate, the other officer committed murder.

            If Im DA, that is order of operations. First officer goes on trial for assault. His only defense (since the clubbing is on film) is the Terry stop one. I dont know how he meets that standard. If he doesnt and is guilty of assault, his partner is going away for a long, long time.

            Of course, that assumes the legal system is remotely logical.

            1. My statement you quoted was more of a lament that proving reasonable suspicion is going to be trivial. He’s leaving a convenience store at 0-dark thirty with booze and his children (not sure how old they were.). There’s already a crowd of young people around the store, and the complaint is that they’re underage and soliciting people to buy them alcohol. Not in the article, but from the POV of the D.A., it seems reasonable for the cops to walk up to him, ask him if that’s booze in the bag, ask him if those are his kids, or whose are they, ask him for ID/check for warrants: all of the other stuff LEOs use as justification for stopping you on the street and asking you questions. Buying booze + 1 AM + crowd of kids soliciting alcohol = reasonable suspicion of buying booze for minors. (Add additional observational factors to the report—“individual’s presence in high crime area”; “nervous, evasive behavior of suspect”; until facts>threshold for Terry stop.)

              The LEOs then start questioning the kids, the shopkeeper, whoever, seeing if his story checks out. (I wouldn’t be surprised if they’re just fucking with him at this point—it still remains they have a colorable reason for not ending the stop.) Turner waits, eventually gets irritated—considering he’s a multiple ex-con, I’m guessing his irritability threshold at 1 AM is low—picks up his stuff, goes.

              So, how I see the situation proceeding in shoes of Sheriff’s Department:
              1) Terry stop,
              2) Suspect leaving Terry stop w/o authorization
              3) Defying order to stop leaving. (Not in article, but I’d be stunned if one of the LEOs didn’t demand he stop walking away.)
              4) Arrest for defying lawful order/resisting arrest/however-the-fuck CA does it in its Penal Code, Maybe even combine “flight” with rest of investigation to get to P.C. to charge him with buying booze for minors.
              5) Baton strike to effectuate arrest, (Not sure how that’s O.K., as I’m not up on when LEOs may initiate physical force on a suspect.)
              6) Assault on peace officer with beer bag (lethal force, per dunphy),
              7) Self-defense of officer from lethal force, by other officer utilizing lethal force.

              And when you put it that way, with qualified immunity shielding everybody, if every step is good, you have legal justification each step of the way. Grade of F on deescalating the situation by officers, but that’s not against the law. I’m not defending their shooting Turner. I’m just trying to lay out what I see is the legal logic they used to justify the shooting. I’m definitely not saying that the same legal logic could be used by you or me to evade liability if we shot someone under similar facts.

              1. I think you have done a good job of layng out the circumstances and putting forth reasonable and logical arguements.
                However, I would come back to this – after Turner has denied any involvment, it really boils down to arrest him or let him go. I don’t think he was arrested because the police THEMSELVES knew they hadn’t a leg to stand on. As you yourself say, “I wouldn’t be surprised if they’re just fucking with him at this point…”
                As someone with a libertarian bent, my view is that the gubermint does NOT have a right to just fuck with you. Nor does it have a right to manufacture circumstances to detain you – even for a second. It was ok to ask him about giving alcohol to minors. He answered. That should have ended the confrontation.
                I’m sure this Turner guy was pretty surely and all that. But I am also pretty sure that there was no evidence, and no reasonable expectation that any evidence could be found, that he was supplying alcohol to minors (I could be wrong on this – and in my view that would be exculpatory for the police). But right now it seems like Turner was assaulted for “disrespect of a cop.”
                I don’t believe the police should be able to enforce the death penalty for this infraction.
                And the six seconds? I didn’t know Rose Marie Woods was still working…

                1. no, after turner denies involvement, per terry they can maintain the detention for a reasonable period of time, usually defined as about 15 minutes absent other factors.

                  what the cops can and should do

                  1) turner denied it. seperate turner from the kid(s) and get their side of the story
                  2) ID turner and check him for warrants/probation/parole status
                  3) have an officer go inside the store and speak to the clerk and see if they have anything to add
                  4) the warrant check, etc. often takes 5 or more minutes or so. perfectly fine to detain him

                  terry authorizes detention for (no bright line) but usually about 15 minutes or so. longer and it can turn into a constructive arrest and thus require PC at that point.

                  but the idea that if turner denies it, he can simply walk away is not consistent with the law.

                  i realize fresno dan you are just speculating on terry stops and don’t know the law, but you are speculating incorrectly.

                  fwiw, the cops would not have needed reasonable suspicion to just ASK him about the alcohol. the reasonable suspicion is required to DETAIN him, regardless of his answer to investigate.

                  hth

                  1. Thanks for the primer – good information.
                    What if the person doesn’t have ID on themselves?
                    What is “…constructive arrest and thus require PC at that point”

                    1. a person doesn’t need id, they just need to answer as to name, dob etc. when asked. if they have ID, obviously that will suffice.

                      constructive arrest means that if the parameters of a terry stop exceed time or manner restrictions, it can be the functional equivalent of an arrest, which means if there is not PC, any subsequent evidence will get thrown out (fruit of the poisonous tree doctrine) and it can also result in civil liability.

                      one way to exceed terry limitations is time of the detention

                      another way is force used. a terry stop of an armed robbery suspect could be done at gunpoint (i was stopped at gunpoint once based on terry suspicion of robbery), but a terry stop of a shoplift suspect would exceed the reasonableness factor and thus be a constructive arrest (as well as excessive force, generally speaking)

              2. actually, i didn’t say “lethal force” was the bag. i said that under most penal codes (and under tenn. v. garner) one can use deadly force when presented with force that can cause death OR serious bodily injury.

                and if you don’t think getting stoved in the melon with a 24 oz beer can swung inside a bag can result in death or serious bodily injury, then ask an MD hth

              3. you mean evade CRIMINAL legal liability. whether the officer evaded civil liability has not been determined yet

                and yes, imo and ime anybody (cop or not) would generally evade criminal liability given the same facts and circ’s

                1. Slight disagreement, I don’t have the right to hit someone leaving the area from behind regardless of the circumstances.
                  Unfortunately because the cop has the right to detain someone under certain circumstances that makes proof beyond a reasonable doubt that much harder. That said if the motion activated camera was not active meaning that there was no motion that puts a real problem on the cop saying he was attacked.

                  1. actually, it depends on the circ’s … a cop (or you) DOES have the right to hit somebody from behind in certain circ’s, assuming arguendo that’s what happened.

                    generally speaking, that would only be justified if the person was fleeing after committing a crime involving the use of force (threatened or used) and a # of other factors.

                    a shoplifter running away? no

                    a shoplifter who fought with store security? yes

                    mercer island shot a bank robber in the back after he robbed the bank with a gun and refused to stop. justified? sure

                2. You know even better than I do that establishing civil liability with the officer’s QI, outside of a finding the officer was criminally liable, is not going to happen, absent some section 1983 cause of action. He’s not going to be successfully sued. If he is sued, his union will provide counsel, and I can see a good argument that he’d be entitled to OT defending against the suit. They aren’t similar situations; he doesn’t bear anywhere near the same jeopardy of losing his stuff that John Q would.

                  Again, your statement that anybody would evade criminal liability on these facts is simply not true, particularly in CA. The facts are challenging to apply to John Q., simply because it’s hard to carry a deadly weapon in CA if you aren’t a LEO. But I guarantee you that if I tried to detain someone on the street, because I suspected them of theft, let’s say, they hit me with a bag of beer over the head, and I drew a weapon (knife, gun) and killed them with it, I am going to jail. I am probably going to stay there. If I only got convicted of involuntary manslaughter, (the unlawful killing of a human being without malice…in the commission of a lawful act which might produce death, in an unlawful manner, or without due caution and circumspection.) I’d be overjoyed. I would not expect to be no-billed. No reasonable criminal lawyer would expect me to be, absent fear for my life or serious bodily injury, or other unusual facts (I’m a senior citizen, the assailant goes 6’6 330, etc…)

                  Go look at the videotape; it’s posted now in the “When Ignorance Is the Best Excuse” thread.

                  1. i didn’t say ANYBODY would evade criminal liability.

                    my point is that the credibility of a person when a prosecutor decides to weight various statements against each other is often important. that holds for cops, and ANYBODY else.

                    a guy who , for example, has previously been convicted of crimes of dishonesty and/or violent crimes is going to be given less weight of credibility by a prosecutor making charging decisions vs. joe average law abiding citizen

                    of course when and if a case IS charged, a JURY determines how to rate a witness’ credibility and generally speaking, they tend to believe cops. that’s also a reality and a reason why many cops ARE acquitted (or hung juried) where many people would not be

                    “But I guarantee you that if I tried to detain someone on the street, because I suspected them of theft, let’s say, they hit me with a bag of beer over the head, and I drew a weapon (knife, gun) and killed them with it, I am going to jail. I am probably going to stay there.”

                    there is a substantial distinction here. non-leo’s generally should not detain based on SUSPICION. store security knows that. they have a different standard when it comes to the standard where they can detain. cops operate under reasonable suspicion. non cops generally act under the “in fact committed” and/or “probable cause” standard.

                    if store security (private person) suspects you of theft, but don’t have PC, they detain you, and you struggle and get hurt, at least in my state, you got an awesome lawsuit

                    store security won’t (here) detain without solid PC for that reason.

                    but given a fact pattern of you have PC of believing a guy was committing theft, and you tried to detain him and he attacked you and you shot him, at least where i live you would most likely NOT get charged.

              4. btw, your first paragraph perfectly demonstrates why there was RS.

                its not even a close question

                nature of the call and the fact that he left the store in the company of a minor child AND in possession of alcohol is EASILY reasonable suspicion

          2. most people here don’t understand RS, as you point out. i suggest none of them have actually READ terry v. ohio or any other relevant cases.

            you are correct. the RS standard is a relatively low standard. certainly, given the nature of the call and the fact that he left the liquor establishment apparently after purchasing beer and in the presence of a minor child that would establish RS.

            i’ve made hundreds of terry stops in my career and had to testify in dozens of 3.5 and 3.6 hearings in regards to them so the parameters are pretty well known to me

            1. Care to speculate on the six missing seconds of video?

              1. speculate? no. i would simply say if the cops tampered with it, then they deserve prosecution to the fullest extent of the law.

  2. Have we won in Libya yet?

    1. And related, has Reason saved Cleveland?

      1. And where is that beef that everyone’s been looking for?

      2. And what about that MOSQUE?!?!?

    2. Days, not weeks.

  3. So when is Chupacabra going to post his/her hot sauce recipe?

      1. If it makes goats’ blood taste good, I’m assuming it’s fantastic.

        1. Shit, I’m out of town, and don’t have my cooking notebook with me.

          I’ll post for it for you later this week.

        2. And it does taste good on goat.

  4. The biggest recipient of campaign contribution from News Corp is (drumroll, please)…Obama.

    Hmm. Gonna be tough for MSNBC to peddle that one.

    1. They’ll just ignore it like the rest of the MBM.

    2. He used the NewsCorp money to get abortions for his teenage mistress and pay his Michael Moore fan club membership dues.

    3. obama needs to donate all news corp funds to charity.

      1. Maybe he should just redistribute them.

      2. Why should he do that?

        1. So some charity can give you a sense of humor.

          1. Wow, you deduced that I have no sense of humor from that comment? Yoo r teh awsumz!

            1. See if you can find a charity to give your a sense of perspective as well.

      3. I am the charity we’re looking for.

      4. Re: OO,

        obama needs to donate all news corp funds to charity.

        Yeah, to the “Reelect Obama” charity.

        Yuk, yuk, yuk!

        1. h aha very funy old mex now pls stop spoffin my handlle in teh othre threds kthx

    4. They paid the campaign contribution to get the voice mailbox password for Dennis Kucinich. Rumor is that he slept with Rachel Uchitel before tiger woods, and they want the scoop.

      1. Dennis slept with tiger?

        1. Only after he slept with Rachel Uchitel.

  5. 42nd Anniversary of the 1st Moon Landing, no closer than we were 21 years ago to going back.

    1. On the contrary dear chap, we are much closer than ever.

      1. Call me when you leave LEO.

        1. China is dating Leonard DiCaprio? That’s beyond polyamory… that’s MEGA-AMORY!

        2. My first thought was:
          wait… China is a Law Enforcement Officer? Actually, that makes a lot of sense…

          1. You guys suck at space geekery.

      2. Nah, we’ll be back before anyone else goes first. New Space is here to meet your spacefaring needs.

    2. Cynic! You got something against Tang?

      1. Wish I had “something against Tang” right now!

        1. Camera worn out?

  6. Hopefully when Deacon Turner’s family takes Kern County to court, the jury is going to see right the ol’ “missing surveillance footage” excuse. That’s become “the dog ate my homework” of Law Enforcement excuses.

    Oh… and Roku users want Reason.TV, damnit!

    1. I’d love to see someone try to duplicate the motion sensor’s shutting down the camera while someone is being beaten tomahawk-style with a bag of beer. That seems like a pretty motiony scenario to me.

      1. I especially like how the motion sensor was able to pick up the lifeless body and start recording again.

        Are they gonna call Jon Lovitz to the stand to tell that whopper? And will he bring his wife, Morgan Fairchild?

        1. The first sheriff’s deputy perpetrated an assault and battery upon Turner. That alone, in my view, justifies the termination of his cushy, parasitic sinecure along with forfeiture of his pension.

          Turner was justified in responding to the first deputy. He had every right to swing the package at the cop and if the blue bellied bolzhevik died as a direct and proximate result of Turner’s blow, GOOD FOR TURNER AND EVEN BETTER FOR LIBERTY!

          The coward who murdered Turner should have been immediately lynched.

          1. “The coward who murdered Turner should have been immediately lynched.”

            Bad cotton crop this year, Mike?

            1. Winner!

          2. Libertymike|7.20.11 @ 9:59AM
            The first sheriff’s deputy perpetrated an assault and battery upon Turner.
            Turner…had every right to swing the package at the cop…GOOD FOR TURNER AND EVEN BETTER FOR LIBERTY! The coward who murdered Turner should have been immediately lynched.

            Oh “Libertymike”. Nobody here takes you seriously. Well, maybe one or two of your fellow anarcho-libertarian violence-fantasy fetishists. But your hysterical commentary is entertaining, in a thuggish, adolescent, sad sort of way.

        2. Yeah, that’s the ticket!

        3. Yeah, that’s the ticket!

    2. Mr. DNA – I looked for Libertydrome last night and couldn’t find it. Where is it located?

      1. If you’re logged in to your Roku account, simply Click here.

        The channel is private right now, so it doesn’t show up in Roku’s channel lineup, although anyone with the access code can add it to their channels.

        I’m going to make it a public channel once I’ve got things put together, aesthetically speaking.

    3. Roku users want Reason.TV, damnit!

      Why don’t they just click the links like the rest of us humans?

  7. Rep. Ron Paul still wants TSA privatized.

    He apparently wants to fire someone.

    1. Is DONDEROOOOOO working for the TSA these days?

  8. “President Obama endorses the Respect for Marriage Act.”

    If this statement from Wikipedia is true, that it “is a proposed bill in the United States Congress that would repeal the Defense of Marriage Act and allow the U.S. federal government to provide benefits to couples in a same-sex marriage; the bill would not compel individual states to recognize same-sex marriages.” I wholeheartedly support it. This may be one of the few good things Obama has ever done.

    1. I love “Respect for Marriage Act”; that’s sort of the “Peacekeeper Missile” of social legislation.

      1. They should have just called it Caylee’s Law.

      2. Do you believe that this “disrespects” marriage? Or are you arguing (as some libertarians do) that government should not recognize ANY marriage and that the marriage biz should be entirely privatized?

        1. Neither. I’m doing nothing more than mocking obfuscatory euphemism in political nomenclature.

        2. I think straight people have done enough damage to marriage. Why not let the LGBT community take a whack at the pinata?

          1. I could always use more billable hours!

        3. I believe that the Respect for Marriage Act, like the Defense of Marriage Act, disrespects the fact that nothing in the Constituition delegates to Congress the power to define or regulate marriage, a power that is reserved to the several states.

          1. a power that is reserved to the several states.

            or the people, respecively.

            I go with the latter.

          2. This is a bill repealing another law that restricted the privileges and immunities provision of the Constitution.

      3. When I read the link description, I thought it was some kind of anti-adultery legislation.

    2. I like the idea, but let’s admit that Obama was too much of a political coward to say this during the campaign.

      1. True, I agree with you on that. He was too busy pushing his version of Romneycare at the time.

        1. Of course, the buried lede in the story is that in 2008, all the Dems believed they had to pretend to object to gay marriage or lose the election.

          In 2012, supporting gay marriage could help you win an election–or at least not be a liability.

          1. It is not as effective of a wedge issue. Glenn Beck, not long ago, said that gay marriage was “not a threat to the country”. This shocked Bill O’Reiley who was interviewing him (or was Beck doing the interviewing, either way …).

            1. Bill O’reilly used to wear a monocle, but he was “shocked” so much, he couldn’t afford to keep replacing it.

      2. But on the other hand, if Obama’s support for states allowing gay marriage equals his earlier support for states allowing medical marijuana…all you gay couples out there should be very, very afraid.

  9. In trying to minimize USAMRIID’s liability, government lawyers have had to walk a fine line, because the FBI says Ivins produced the anthrax powder at the facility while the civil lawyers seemed to suggest it could have been prepared elsewhere.

    In a statement Tuesday, department spokesman Dean Boyd said that Civil Division lawyers had submitted “inaccurate information” and that “the Justice Department and FBI stand behind their findings that Dr. Ivins had the necessary equipment in the containment suite” to produce the spores.

    It seems like it would be cheaper for the government for the FBI to admit they might have pulled another Richard Jewell than to risk large payouts for anthrax victims. Do the math, assholes.

  10. Anyone want to lay odds on how the “Gang of Six” deal will work out?
    http://www.reuters.com/article…..CK20110719

    1. “In another politically risky move, the Gang of Six plan would achieve significant savings in healthcare programs, Conrad said. The specific spending cuts would be decided later by congressional committees.”

      Laughable and pathetic.

      1. The specific spending cuts would be decided later by congressional committees.

        It is truly sickening how much legislation involves kicking the tough decisions down the road to bureaucratic officers or committees.

        1. you mean “All legislation”. there hasn’t been a hard decision made since the Harding era.

          1. I made quite a few decisions while hard.

      2. “C’mon Charlie Brown, kick the football of bipartisian compromise again.”

        1. You should do the Friday Funnies.

          1. Anything would be better.

      3. I’ll gladly pay you Tuesday for a hamburger today.

    2. The House will never go along, so it’s dead. The president is trying to latch on to it, but that is more likely to hurt rather than help.

      1. It could hurt the bill, but that will help the Democrats next year. The fundies are getting more and more marginalized on this issue. It’s a brilliant strategic move on the President’s part to get a new wedge issue up and running before the primaries even start.

        1. I don’t think so. It’s a distraction that won’t work and will be forgotten.

          1. Ah, but distractions often work in politics. It’s the nature of the beast: get your side riled up about something trivial, so they don’t get riled up about something more important.

            1. Yes, no doubt, but I don’t think this particular trick will work.

  11. Thanks to six seconds of missing surveillance tape, a Kern County Sheriff’s officer has been cleared of any wrongdoing in the murder of former NFL star David Lee “Deacon” Turner.

    The fucking System- how does it work?

    1. These days, not well at all.

    2. What about the eyewitness testimony that Turner didn’t assault anyone?

    1. Saw it, started to read it, then it said it was full of spoilers so I stopped.

    2. Because winter’s coming? I am told the coming endless summer is the biggest threat to our national defense.

      1. I’m sure that someone out there thinks Martin is a climate change denier.

        1. Why is that one on the end not looking at the camera? In wedding picture context, does this signify something? This intrigues me.

        2. Nice muffs. Very nice.

    3. So I finally finished A Dance with Dragons. Fuck me, I didn’t see any of that coming.

      1. Yup. I hope Winds of Winter doesn’t take 6 years.

      2. A Game of Morons

    4. Damn you and DAMN your quick fingers!!!

      I’ll get you next time, Gadget!!! NEXT TIME!!!!!

  12. If I were Deacon Turner’s family, I would at the very least file a civil suit and get my hands on the camera in the discovery process.

    If there is a 6 seconds of erased gap on the recorded media as stored it:

    1. Directly proves a lie on the part of the police, because something made it to the storage device and was subsequently erased
    2. May be recoverable if it was done inexpertly by some ham-handed genius within the police department

    I wonder if the camera would somehow be “lost” when ask for ?

    1. Most modern systems record leading and trailing footage when they detect motion. They all have a temporary archive, they use the motion detection to determine what gets archived for the longer period.

      1. Exactly my thinking.

        … and if there is a post-hoc erasure in the longer term archive (i.e. a gap), instead of seamless sequntial recording as the data is written, what would this say about the police story ?

        Dollars to donuts, missing data looks fundamentally different than a post-hoc erase in the long term archive. It’s possible that the police are telling the truth, but sadly I think it is unlikely and would want a look at that archive.

    2. If there is no camera footage to contradict the word of god the police, then god’s the policeman’s word stands as truth.

      1. With current technology, it really should be the other way around. There is no reason why police should not have audio and video recording of every interaction they have while on duty. The presumption should be that if there is not a recording, then the police are making shit up. How the fuck are people not aware that cops routinely lie and make shit up, even when they don’t have to?

        1. People aren’t aware that the police routinely lie and make shit up until they have the misfortune of having to deal with them, and by then it is too late.
          If people knew how dishonest and manipulative the police really are, the entire system would break down.
          But then you have to think, what kind of person seeks out a job that involves carrying a club and a gun with the power to use the courts to ruin peoples’ lives?
          An asshole.

        2. I like pointing this out to people. Every time a cop writes you a ticket for 5 under what radar said, he’s lying in official court documents. Cops do this all the time, and we don’t complain because it’s in our favor. But if cops lie about something so fundamentally petty, why wouldn’t cops lie when the stakes are higher? And why wouldn’t cops lie against you instead of for you?

          I like using this on people and watching the light dawn. I get about 3 in 10 this way. The other 7 pull the “but that’s different”, yet strangely can’t articulate why.

          1. I have never in my life known of a cop writing a ticket for less than what the person was traveling.
            I personally was written a ticket for more than I was traveling because I didn’t show proper respect to the asshole.

            1. To be fair, both tickets I have received were for less than I was travelling. I’m not sure if it’s because it’s Texas, where you can get a jury trial for anything, and underciting makes it less likely that you’ll contest the citation.

              Contrast with my experience in Nassau Bay (suburb of Greater Houston), where I got pulled over for going 25 in a 25. I managed to not receive a ticket when I repeatedly pointed out that I realized it was 25, and I was going 25, to the officer. As the whole town seems to have a 25 speed limit once you get off Rte 1, I recommend avoiding the town if you’re ever in the area.

              1. Once I was hit by a car while on a bicycle. The kid who hit me was fifteen years old, had had his license for less than a week, and had a carload of friends.
                I had started to travel in the crosswalk when the light changed, and the traffic beside me started to move as well. Then the traffic slammed on the breaks as this Ford Explorer whipped in front of them making a left turn. I didn’t see him coming and went over the hood.

                I had had a few drinks and blew a point o eight.

                Even though the threshold for DUI was point one, I was charged with DUI. On a bicycle. After getting hit by a car that ran a red arrow.

                I ended up having to pay to fix the car that hit me, and my shoulder has never been the same.

                Needless to say I have nothing but contempt for the police.

                1. That is in addition to having my home broken into and the cops coming, searching me, running me for warrants and leaving.

                  Once had threats of violence whispered into my ear.

                  Was given a speeding ticket for more than I was traveling.

                  My favorite was the day I was walking with some friends and I turn around to see a cruiser with the blues on and a cop pointing to me and motioning that I come to him. When I did I noticed “Gang Task Force” on his name tag. I wasn’t aware that there were gangs in Boulder Colorado. Anyway he quizzed me on what I was doing, where I was going and such. Searched me. Asked me if I had any warrants. Threatened to charge me for littering because I pitched a cigarette butt into a mud puddle in addition to any warrants I might have as he ran my ID. No warrants of course. Finally let me go. What a fucking dick.

                  1. Sounds like you have the kind of jib that cops don’t like the look of.

            2. I got pulled over for doing 85(ish) on an interstate late one night coming back from the airport. He obviously was suspicious that I was drunk and when it became fairly evident that I wasn’t, he wrote the ticket for some kind of no-points “obstructing traffic” offense. So, it does happen.

              Of course, they still got their $200 or whatever it turned out to be after all the bullshit “administrative” fees got tacked on to the nominal fine.

              1. The one time I got pulled over for DUI, I hadn’t been drinking. But they wanted me to be drinking so bad, they had other officers bring them two extra Breathlyzers. While they waited, they frisked my passengers, ran warrants on them, and searched my car by threatening to arrest me if I refused.

                Four tests later, they gave me a bogus tickets for speeding (which was not why the shitheel pulled me over and I was not speeding) and a citation for open containers of alcohol (a few half empty bottles I was taking to a party) that were legally stored. At least I got that last one thrown out.

                Now this is the part you guys won’t believe… I was perfectly polite and cooperative. They just really, really wanted to bust someone for DUI, I guess.

                I’m amused when they wonder why so many people hate them.

                1. Sugarfree are you black? That’s the only plausible explanation.

                  1. German-Irish… I’m so white, I’m pink.

                    1. I’m half German as well. I wonder if that has something to do with it.

                    2. I guess I can see where your special animus with the police comes from. But it is almost pathological. I guess the first time a cop truly fucks me over I might be with you, but I’ve never had a bad interaction.
                      *knocks on wood*

                    3. The police have earned every bit of the fear and contempt that I have for them.

                    4. I guess the first time a cop truly fucks me over I might be with you, but I’ve never had a bad interaction.

                      Not sure of SugarFree’s car, or maybe it was “fulfill our DUI goal” week, but I got bothered a lot less by LE when I grew middle-aged and drove a nicer car. 17 year old white boy in beater + midnight = LE attention. The LEO tactic of following your car with their brights on, is a particularly annoying one. When I pulled over to let him pass, thinking he was just a clueless asshole/drunk, then the discos came on.

                      Middle aged house owner with newish sedan = lot less hassle.

                      God help you if you’re black, even in Houston, judging by my coworkers’ stories. You might even get shot driving your family’s car. http://abclocal.go.com/ktrk/st…..id=7426486

                    5. 22 and my car was less than a year old. I still don’t know that night was all about.

                      The cop that tried to throw me through a wall was provoked, at least. I proved he was being an idiot in front of bunch of people. (Don’t scream about underaged drinking and threaten arrest to a guy holding an IBC root beer.)

                    6. I haven’t had much interaction with police in the last few years.
                      But I assume that the personality type that seeks out the job has not changed.

                    7. I’ve had several tickets, a few accidents, no arrests. Cops were always professional, if not bored. I’ll have to assume that mine were isolated incidents, as I was never shot or tasered. Maybe it’s because I’ve never owned a dog.

            3. It’s common in my area to get undercited. They don’t want to make it reckless driving because you’re much more likely to challenge it in court. So they cite you for going 79 instead of 82, knowing you’ll probably just pay the state off.

  13. A rare sighting of Steve Smith and his ward?

    http://www.youtube.com/watch?f…..NNb1pgQlQo

    1. That is so fucking awesome.

      1. And because you were fulsome in your praise, I give you his legendary battle with the Six Million Dollar Man. 🙂

        http://www.youtube.com/watch?v…..r_embedded

        1. I remember that one. I saw it when it first came on TV; me and Steve Austin were besties.

          “Dude, that was a shaved bigfoot and Steve Summers in a wig made out of shaved bigfoot.”

          1. Did it not bother anyone else that Austin did not have the skeletal reinforcement to handle the stress of overturning a car? How did his spine not snap? Totally unrealistic. Rudy Wells was so full of shit.

            1. His arm would have fallen off long before his spine snapped.

        2. Those bell-bottoms are so fucking stain-resistant.

        3. Was the show a spinoff of The Six Million Dollar Man? I remember Bigfoot appearing with Lee Majors, and I have a vague feeling I’ve heard of Bigfoot and Wild Boy.

          1. They both were on ABC. And the timeframe lines up, but I can’t find anything that says they were an acknowledged spin-off.

            Bigfoot and Wild Boy was a Sid and Marty Krofft production.

            1. Oh, it was one of those live-action shows for Saturday morning. Okay. Like Isis, Ark II, or Electra Woman and Dyna Girl.

              Okay, here’s where the Internet proves its value:

              In Fall, 2000 the WB network commissioned a pilot to be made of a new Electra Woman and Dyna Girl to be set in contemporary time. The plot was advertised as the once world-famous superheroine Electra Woman who, since the departure of Dyna Girl to become a supermodel, has become a disillusioned, foul-mouthed, trailer-park alcoholic. Judy Bennett, a journalism student rescued as a child by Electra Woman and Dyna Girl returns the favor by getting Electra Woman back in action and becoming her sidekick Dyna Girl.

              The pilot starred Markie Post as Electra Woman and Anne Stedman as Dyna Girl.

              The WB optioned not to pick up the pilot as a series for the 2001-02 season. As of now, there are no plans for any other netowrk to pick up the show. If you are looking for a copy of the pilot, it is making the rounds through ebay and other collectors.

              How awesome is that? The WB was stupid not to pick up this series.

              1. That would have been awesome. I am sad now. Of course, I had a big ole crush on Electra Woman as a wee lad.

                1. True story: When we lived in Tallahassee, the twin sister of the actress who played Electra Woman lived in our apartment complex. Also living there at different times were Paula Hawkins (did some sort of cleaning for her once for $10–think this was before she was senator) and Dick Howser (he had an apartment there before he managed FSU–got a baseball from him signed by the Yankees through my mom, who was the manager of the apartments).

                  Anyway, my chief memory of Twin of Electra Woman was her serving candied apples for Halloween. Boy, was she popular.

            2. Bigfoot and Wild Boy was a Sid and Marty Krofft production.

              They so missed out on not having an HR Pufnstuf connection.

    2. His… ward?
      There is a Robin to his Batman?

      1. Ward is correct, assuming “ward” means “orphan with a sphincter blown-out like an old tractor tire.” Which is does.

        1. That certainly describes Robin.

        2. “You’ve sent the charred remains of Wonder Boy to his beloved Captain Sunshine?”

    3. So, whatever happened to Monika Ramirez? She was quite good in “Tales of the Nunundaga”.

      1. Raped into obscurity by her co-star?

    4. Little known fact: “Wildboy” is a young Alan Vanneman.

    5. SWEEEEEEEEEEEEEET!!!!!

  14. Apparently Bernstein doesn’t mean that kind of phone hacking.

    “This is a massive abuse of power, much like Nixon abused his power? journalism is not a license to abuse a free press.” He went on to say the “Murdoch enterprise has acted like thugs, not like reporters, somewhat like a mafia outfit.

    Berstein on the Merdoch phone hacking.

    Bernstein had several sources in the Bell system. He was always reluctant to use them to get information about calls because of the ethical questions involved in breaching the confidentiality of a person’s telephone records. It was a problem he had never resolved in his mind. Why, as a reporter, was he entitled to have access to personal and financial records when such disclosure would outrage him if he were subjected to a similar inquiry by investigators?

    Without dwelling on his problem, Bernstein called a telephone company source and asked for a list of Barker’s calls. That afternoon, his contact called back and confirmed that the calls listed in the Times had been made. But, he added, he could not get a fuller listing because Barker’s phone records had been subpoenaed by the Miami district attorney.

    Page 35 and 36 of All the President’s Men.

    Read more: http://dailycaller.com/2011/07…..z1SeUwSJ14

    1. Why, as a reporter, was he entitled to have access to personal and financial records when such disclosure would outrage him if he were subjected to a similar inquiry by investigators?

      Because, as a reporter, he’s special and superior to regular people and the rules he applies to others doesn’t apply to him. Duh.

    2. Merdoch! He who hath slain our hero with his evil wizardry.

    3. Rejoice, brave Sirs! Defeat of the Dark Lord Murdoch is near at hand!

      1. Hey, I was going to post that! No fair!

        1. That explains how I botched the link, then. All you have to do is think about it.

          1. BEHOLD!

            1. PERHAPS MORE THAN IS HEALTHY.

              1. Contact your physician if you loom large for more than four hours.

                1. But what can I take for my Looming dysfunction?

                  1. LD can be treated with Liagra.

        2. Hey, I was going to post that! No fair!

          :-\

          1. JW, that was so fucking awesome, it was awesome. Thanks. It now resides on Facebook, among others of its kind, where it belongs.

            “You think I’m guilty?” she taunted…FUCK YEAH!!

  15. “President Obama endorses the Respect for Marriage Act.”

    Apparently all the pressing issues facing the nation have been solved for Obama to waste political capital on this.

  16. Just another case of “suicide by cop”.

    Nothing to see here.

  17. Woman attempts to sell baby at Taco Bell for $500.

    See, in this economy, you can’t even sell your baby at McDonald’s.

    Stupid Facebook COO and her idea of individually directed achievement for women.

    See, if we start believing that individuals can change the world, why would we need the collective?

    1. And a person’s failures would also be (gasp) their own doing. Honestly, these people’s lives are so sad that if they need to believe in a patriarchical conspiracy to not jump off a bridge, I’m glad they do.

    2. In the Gospel of Sandberg, individual women must find partners who will share the load and negotiate fiercely, overcome their own guilt about not being able to be fully present parents, and “lean in” to their careers despite the lack of structural or systemic supports that might make that feel even slightly safe or rewarding.

      If that’s the Gospel of Sandberg then hallelujah, I BELIEVE!
      On the other hand, I’ve seen the TED talk that she links to and it was fairly thought-provoking.

      1. Yeah, I mean, next thing you know, we’ll expect from women the same thing we expect from men for years- to spend less time with their families and more at work.

    3. Re: Au H2O

      Woman attempts to sell baby at Taco Bell for $500.

      I wonder if that was the asking price.

      She was arrested on “price gouging” charges.

      1. Well, now we now what the “beef” in those Tacos really is!

        1. Eewww!!

    4. Anobdy who buys babies or eats at Tacky Bell should be shot

      1. But what if I buy the baby at Taco Bell, but eat it outside the premises?

    5. I mean, that women has no class. She could have at least brought it to a real Mexican place, like Chipotle.

      Old Mexican, why are you laughing uncontrollably?

    6. Why, I myself fetched $30,000 on the black market. And that was in 1954 dollars.

  18. Let me know when the Ascended One endorses a “Respect for Citizens Act”.

    1. You know how these bills are named, do you really want to even contemplate what monstrosities a bill with that monicker would contain?

      1. slightly worse than the Republic Senate’s “Privacy Invasion Bill”?

  19. Wouldn’t there be even more motion than the supposed tomahawking?

    The description appears to say that the guy put the bags down to consent to the search and then walked away. So he’d have to walk back, pick up the bags, walk away again, and THEN tomahawk chop people.

    1. Nothing to see here.

  20. On Anthony Bourdain, Capitalism, and Haiti

    Really interesting article, including the anecdote at the beginning showing why many poverty fighting programs don’t work.

    We’re going broke, but we have the money to spend on this shit? Vol. 3: NIH decides to do study on gay male penis size.

    Apparently, the more hung you are, the more likely you are to top, which is odd, because you would think that, with the anal cavity being the size it is, you’d want to go for smaller, not bigger. Any gay Reasonoids care to weigh in on this, and enlighten me?

    1. Re: Au H2O

      From the link above.

      The rest of the show takes us through shanty towns, markets, art shows, festivals, and parades ? and interviews all kinds of people who know the lay of the land. This is not a show designed to tug at your heart strings in the conventional sort of way. Yes, there is obvious human suffering, but the overall impression I got was not that. Instead, I came away with a sense that Haiti is a very normal place not unlike all places we know from experience, but with one major difference: it is very poor.

      […]

      With all these enterprising, hard-working, and creative people, millions of them, what could possibly be wrong with the place? Well, for one thing, the earthquake destroyed most homes. If this had been the United States, this earthquake would not have caused the same level of damage. This led many outsiders to think that somehow the absence of building codes was the core of the problem, and hence the solution is more imposition of government control.

      But the reality shows that this building-code notion is some sort of joke. The very idea that a government could somehow go around beating up people who provide shelter for themselves while failing to obey the central plan is simply laughable. Coercion of this sort would bring about no positive results and lead only to vast corruption, violence, and homelessness.

      The core of the problem, says Robert Murphy, has nothing to do with a lack of regulations. The problem is the absence of wealth. It is obviously true that people prefer safer places to live, but the question is: what is the cost, and is this economically viable? The answer is that it is not viable, not in Haiti, not with this population that is barely getting by at all.

      The point is that, without wealth (that would be SAVINGS, for the economics illiterate folk out there) you cannot build long term projects; and without private property rights (which are severely lacking in a country where the government is the biggest criminal of them all) you cannot accumulate savings in order to build or invest in new long term projects – like housing.

      Haiti is the PERFECT example of the anti-capitalist society: One where the little wealth there is, is TAKEN and consumed, instead of being saved. Let there be a lesson for all you Obamanites.

      1. I thought shared poverty was romantic.
        I mean, there’s nobody to envy.
        Every time someone gets ahead a little bit, the envy police come and confiscate the ill gotten gains.
        The rich pay their fair share, evidenced by the fact that there are no rich people.
        Heaven on Earth for an Obamanite.

      2. Is this why we can’t have nice things, Old Mexican?

        1. Re: Almanian,

          Is this why we can’t have nice things, Old Mexican?

          No, it’s because I am such a miser.

  21. The Tale of Two Star Trek societies.

    One is good and communist, one is evil and capitalist… damn you, Jean Luc, and your goddamn little soap box!!!

    BALKOBOTS, ASSEMBLE!!!! Mom convicted in death of her son because he got away from her for a second while crossing the street, was hit by a drunk driver.

    Seriously, read it. It is the most bullshit case of the fucking year.

    1. It never made sense to me that replicators took so long to develop after transporters. It you can teleport things by breaking them down, sending the energy somewhere and then assembling it, you’ve already made a replicator.

      Of course, even giving them all their premises, they are basically admitting that communism works great if you have fictional technology that functions with no labor inputs.

      1. That’s because the Joos Ferengai refused to sell the technology to them.

      2. Honestly, two things bug me: In TNG, the Enterprise is the flagship of the fleet. And yet you allow the Holodeck to stay on it for seven seasons, despite trying to kill you numerous times, the fact that every member of the command staff has fallen in love with a holodeck projection, and that people get addicted to it.

        It’s like letting people sell meth on the ship because, “well, if we ban the meth dealer who occasionally shoot up the ship, morale will plummet!”

        No 2: The fact that after season 3, they completely forget about the battle bridge, meaning in every encounter they are going in to it with women and children in danger. Hell, they even have a whole episode revolving around a kid being orphaned, but it’s okay because his parents were “doing their duty” (which is kind of creepily fascist). Hell, the US won’t let family members serve on the same ship for just this reason. Also, once again, WOMEN and CHILDREN.

        HOW HAS NO ONE LOST AN ELECTION OVER THIS?

        1. It’s much worse than that.

          They want us to believe that a society with replicators and the Holodeck wouldn’t turn into Seth MacFarlane’s Ireland in about an hour.

          Yeah. OK.

        2. The holodeck was a horrible narrative crutch. Make less episodes rather than shitty ones.

          1. I thought the Moriarty episodes (at least the 1st one) were a bit more interesting than the rest of the holodReck eps.

            1. I would trade the experience of having watched the Moriarty episode to have the Barclay ep wiped from my memory.

              1. Right, but the Barclay ep sets up the episode where the alien probe makes him into SuperBarclay, which is a fantastic episode.

                And the Doctrine of Eternal Recurrence says that if you like the SuperBarclay episode, you must love all episodes that lead to it.

                1. I didn’t like any of the Barclay eps. It made no sense that he would have made it through Starfleet. Even as genius in his field, a military outfit that keeps him around doesn’t pass the suspension of disbelief. Maybe if he was a civilian consultant.

                  1. Im still disappointed Wesley didnt get sent to New Leavenworth.

                  2. I thought that at one time – that since Star Fleet is competitive, he would have been psych-evaluated out of there.

                    But now I think the entire fleet would be made up of Barclays.

                    If you’re Riker, and you live in a post-scarcity economy, why risk your ass flying around on some stupid space ship? To explore? The whole sector is jam-packed with empires, that whole damn place has been explored. Riker and Picard would be off somewhere getting laid and the only people in Star Fleet would be near-autistic defectives like Barclay, because to them being on a space ship would still be “cool” and “neat”.

                    1. And I’d be the Captain.

                      A ship full of Barclays with me in the big chair.

                      That’s what Star Fleet would be.

        3. In the future, life is cheap. Comes with Communism.

          And also, how can they have a flagship without a flag officer? I call bullshit.

      3. Well, I suppose a relevant question is whether capitalism as we know it is even possible or necessary in a post-scarcity world.

        1. But Star Trek isn’t post-scarcity. There’s still energy needed to run those replicators. There’s still only one captain of the ship, etc.

        2. I don’t think it would be, in a true post-scarcity society. If nothing required labor inputs and property was unlimited, capitalism would be hard pressed to survive.

          But then true post-scarcity is unimaginable without magic.

          1. I suppose that’s true. Absolute lack of scarcity would have to be magical. But a practically unlimited source of energy (as there seems to be on ST) gets you pretty close.
            ST doesn’t seem to get into the organization of regular civilian society too much.

          2. Trek must be, in some respects, capitalist.

            Otherwise, why the fuck build a starship? Why the fuck get up every morning, go to the dock, and build it?

            Hell, a lot of those things were built in orbit, which means radiation and all sorts of nastiness.

            Seriously, you have a holodeck, and all the shit is provided for you. Why not just wake up every morning and load, “2 chicks at the same time.exe” instead of hauling ass to the station at Farpoint to repair the goddamn Enterprise AGAIN?

            1. There is obviously some sort of reputation economy, given the “celebrity” scientists that show up occasionally. And the fierce competition for Starfleet Academy indicates it must confer some sort of status.

              Maybe being a grease monkey on Utopia Planitia gives you chicks with less bumpy faces.

            2. Re: Au H2O,

              Trek must be, in some respects, capitalist.

              Not in SOME respects – it HAS TO BE capitalistic in total. You cannot build things without CAPITAL (i.e. savings)

              Before you can run a replicator, you must have stored energy to run the damned thing. Also, what exactly would be the incentive to get into a ship you can barely escape from in the case of an accident and take orders from badly-dessed martinets, if you already have a piece of equipment that can replicate for you a PS3 with Call Of Duty MW3, hotdogs, beer and chicken wings?

              1. Well, to be fair, they do have a weird thing going in TNG where the entire society has gone vegan, because they just synthesize all protein.

                Jean Luc’s brother, as I recall, does eat meat, and apprently the real thing is a shit ton better than synthesized crap (see Sythol, or, “You’re telling me that a Frenchman, raised on a vineyard, is okay with fake booze? Pull the other one, Star Trek, it’s got bells on.”)

                1. And there are things that cannot be replicated, which is the whole point of gold-pressed latinum.

                  In The Three Stigmata of Palmer Eldritch the only thing that can’t be replicated is truffle skins. So they replace money.

      4. Serious point here, Even with no labor inputs society is inherently capitalistic. See R.A. Radford, one of the best papers on the topic. A NAZI prison camp economy with and exchange, trading, profits, losses, and growth. Fascinating shit.

        It all goes to my point: Capitalism isnt a theory or opinion or even a method of organizing an economy. Capitalism is just the way the world works…Like gravity. Even in the most oppressive “communist” society the economy is capaitalistic (underground for sure and badly distorted but there nonetheless).

        1. That is a very good point and one I often try to impress on my silly lefty friends. Capitalism is not an ideology or a system that you can choose. It is individuals making decisions on what is valuable to them and how they can make exchanges that are to their benefit. Too many people seem to think that capitalism is just another system that is imposed on people like communism, socialism, fascism or whatever other isms you might want to define, when it is just people doing what people do.

        2. Seriously this paper NEVER gets old…I love it.

    2. Seriously, read it. It is the most bullshit case of the fucking year.

      I saw that yesterday and was equally dumbfounded.

      We really need to bring tar and feathering back into the culture.

    3. I would be more furious with the second link if their defense had been fact-based as opposed to emotion-based.

      First…why would a jury have had to ride a city bus to be able to decide a case? Why would they hade had to miss a transfer, or take three kids to WalMart to shop for groceries to be able to decide? Why would they (tear) have to have a shitty and hard life to be able to determine guilt?

      Did the drunk driver break any other law, or was he traveling the speed limit in his own lane and hit a kid that happened to jump into it from the median? The speed limit was 50 mph, after all.

      My rage is tempered here by the facts of the case. It’s a shame the kid got run over, but once you leave emotion out of it, it seems like she was negligent a lot more than the driver, whose BAC is never mentioned, btw.

      Then they go on to try to attach blame to the city planners, and anybody else they could. Hell, they even play the race card to evoke some sympathy. Who cares that she was black and 30? How does that affect the facts of the case? Who cares that she has missed transfers and had to sit for 90 minutes with three hungry kids (and why were they hungry if they were stuck after buying groceries? Give em a fucking apple or a banana for fuck sake)? It has no bearing on the case.

      Shit, Goldwater. I can’t believe you got sucked into the emotional argument here. Factually, I don’t see where the blame should be placed except where it has been. VM may be a bit excessive, but I could easily see Wreckless Endangerment on her part.

      1. I mean, my main problem is that, a kid can wriggle free of your grasp. You’re standing on the media, you’ve taught your kid not to do it, but as a parent, you can loose control of one of your three kids.

        Also, from the original news article, which takes some linking:

        Guy confessed to having consumed “a little” alcohol earlier in the day, being prescribed pain medication and being partially blind in his left eye, said David Simpson, his attorney.

        “This still effects [Jerry] to this day,” Simpson said. “It is tragic all around.”

        Guy was originally charged with hit and run, first degree homicide by vehicle and cruelty to children. Charges were later dropped to just the hit and run charge.

        Court records show that Guy was previously convicted of two-hit-and-runs on the same day, Feb. 17, 1997.

        Yeah, that’s the person who hit her kid. Someone who is blind in one eye, had been drinking, and was on pain pills. I’m sorry, but if someone is at fault here, I’m gonna say it’s him.

        Yeah, the class baiting is bad. But by this logic, everyone should have their kids on one of those retarded leash things.

      2. People like you are part of the problem.

        We have lowered the bar on criminal negligence to the point where anyone who diverges in any way from the hypercontrolling nest of regulations that now covers every aspect of daily life is a murderer if anyone around them is in an accident.

        All of those other factors are relevant because the simple fact of the matter is that anyone who has ever had to trudge through all of those things will occasionally jaywalk if they think it looks safe and will save them some time.

        As far as I am concerned, no one who has ever jaywalked under any circumstances whatsoever (including in the middle of the night in the middle of the desert with no other people around for hundreds of miles) has any right to sit on a jury and call this woman a murderer by dint of negligence.

        Especially when we have another party who broke a more significant law and who was (you know) actually driving the damn car.

        1. I guess I should have been more clear in my comment. I just said she was a lot more negligent than the driver. I should have clarified that that certainly didn’t mean she was guilty of anything worse than reckless endangerment. The VM charge and conviction are bullshit.

          That said, in California, a jaywalking charge can only be made if one is within 150 feet of a crosswalk. Not sure what the law in GA is, but I find it hard to believe one can be compelled to make a 1/3 mile trip just to get to a crosswalk. That should have been her defense to a charge that never should have existed.

          What I was trying to say, and obviously didn’t do a good job of it, is that I cannot see where else blame could have been affixed based on the article and the linked piece from it. I’m not condoning her conviction of this charge in any way. That said, I don’t see any other guilty parties here. The fact that the guy left the scene of two accidents 14 years ago is a big “Meh” to me. If he was a danger to other drivers because of his partial blindness, then why did the state issue him a license. Was his BAC over the limit? Were drugs in his system? If the answer to these is “no,” then he did no wrong and needs to be compensated for the damage to his vehicle.

          1. Eh, I see your point about the guy, though some jurisdictions hold that pedestrians always have the right of way.

            1. One of the first things they teach you when you are trying to get a motorcycle license: do not try to contest the right of way, even if it’s technically yours. You will lose. Or as we used to say in the Army: the biggest vehicle has the right of way.

              Physics is a stone bitch. Walk out into the road 100 feet in front of a car going 50 mph. Absent evasive maneuvers, you’re gonna get hit, right of way or no.

              1. Sail always has right of way over Power…An aircraft carrier takes about a mile and a half to come to a complete stop…you go right ahead and contest the right of way in your 30′ Olsen.

                1. An aircraft carrier takes about a mile and a half to come to a complete stop

                  No it doesn’t. Unless your lower level watches in both MMR’s screw up and quench the DFT’s in both plants simultaneously when the throttlemen open the astern throttles. And, unless you are in a narrow channel, say just west of Whidbey Island :(, you can always turn until you lose steerageway below ~3 knots.

                  1. ^^^What he said.

                    Hyperbolic point was hyperbolic…and it still stands.

          2. Also, why does anyone necessarily have to be at fault? Can’t we accept that sometimes, shit just happens, and that it’s terrible, but not illegal?

            1. I completely agree with this. Both in a criminal and civil context. Sometimes shit just happens and nobody is at fault enough to shovel out $$$. Even if they are a big mean corporation/doctor/City.

            2. No, we can’t.

              People want to punish someone, to make them feel better.

      3. I agree with you to some extent. But I don’t think anyone should be blamed. It’s the kid’s fault, if anything. Accidents happen. It sucks.

  22. But the video cuts out just before the fatal shotting, omitting a crucial six-second segment.

    Huh. Didn’t see that coming.

    1. I have misplaced my shocked face.

  23. Does the FBI have unarmed agents?

    1. Q: What do you call an unarmed agent with no legs, head or torso?

      A: Dick or Muffie.

    2. Does the FBI have unarmed agents?

      Seriously, even Skinner was issued a gun. (What? X-files wasn’t a documentary? *disbelief*)

    3. In the beginning FBI agents were not armed. It was a body of investigators and it hadn’t occurred to anyone that in simply gathering evidence and questioning people they could be in danger.

      Agents were permitted to carry their own weapons for personal protection anywhere that it was permitted by law.

      It was only later as J Edgar pushed for a more public profile and “in your face” interactions with bank robbers etc that the Bureau instituted a formal policy to arm agents.

  24. http://www.benningtonbanner.co…..ost_viewed

    This is an interesting gay marriage story.

    In Vermont (which does not have gay marriage but has civil unions) the state is suing an inn on behalf of two lesbians. The inn refused to host their lesbian civil union reception.

    But they’re doing so using plain old public accomodations discrimination law, which in Vermont includes sexual orientation as a protected class.

    So this innkeeper would actually be SAFER from litigation under most gay marriage laws I’ve seen (which specifically protect service providers with religious objections from litigation) than they are under standard public accomodations discrimination law in a state without gay marriage.

  25. Rachel Uchitel to Elin Nordegren, “I own you bitch”.

    http://www.suntimes.com/657682…..tress.html

    1. Back when the Tiger story broke, I lamented the fact that his mistresses all seemed to be worn-out looking skanks. Being a billionaire athlete should get you a better class of mistress, I complained.

      John was kind enough to explain to me that since Tiger was married, he was limited to the pool of women he could fuck and run, and that meant that many of them would be fucked-out looking skanks that resembled post-op transvestites with breast implants.

      But now we have a SINGLE rich guy who was fucking this Rachel Uchitel person, who is one of the worst of the lot in terms of not looking like she ever showers in anything but cum.

      How is this possible?

      I’m telling you, there is something going dangerously wrong with the system if we have a collection of rich guys who think that Rachel Uchitel is the best they can do.

      I think we need to get an NIH study up and running soon.

      1. Some men will fuck anything. Even if something better is available with a little bit of effort, they will take the effortless ugly chick every time.

        I can’t explain it either. But that is how it works with some guys.

        1. Dude, you’re missing the obvious here: Tiger is probably one kinky motherfucker.

          I’m talking whips, chains, pissing on chicks, etc. etc. For people like that, it doesn’t matter if they’re hot, but that they’re willing to dress up in a furry outfit and let you slip their dick in them.

          1. That is probably the case. The question is why does Nordegren keep going for kinky guys if she is not kinky herself?

      2. …who were claiming Uchitel’s contacts with TMZ and her appearances on “Celebrity Rehab” violated the terms of her confidentiality agreement with Woods. That’s the deal signed when Woods paid Uchitel a reported $10 million settlement to keep quiet about their affair.
        Uchitel denies she violated the agreement but reportedly was persuaded by Allred to pay back most of that settlement ? believing she’d risk it all if Woods’ team sued and she lost.

        Ten Million for a couple appearances on Celeb Rehab?? OK, can we agree that this skank is almost as stupid as Tiger himself?

        And, please, would someone just spray some Raid on Gloria Allred?

        1. Anyone that would hire Allred as their attorney is stupid.

          1. Unless they want to get on TV. For some reason, Allred gets herself and her clients on the tube.

            1. Like bulls, reporters are attracted to red.*

              * Yeah, I know.

            1. I believe this John person just raped me.

      3. I know I’m probably hopelessly naive here, but maybe, just maybe, he likes her enough not to be overly concerned with her looks.

        1. Right, because she seems to have a great personality.

          1. I am proud to have no idea who this person is or what her personality might be like, so I am sure you are probably right.

  26. It’s easier to outlive a federal employee than it is to fire him:
    http://www.usatoday.com/news/w…..rity_n.htm

    1. And on top of that he makes more money than you. And gets more leave.

      Don’t worry, though. You work harder than he does.

  27. Today’s edition of: Come to the Libertarian Dark Side, gays- we have cookies!

    An Armed Society is a Polite Society. Also, Gay friendly.

    The comments are lulz. Apparently, it is racist to mention that the group of people who assaulted you just happened to be black.

    Lesbian couple kicked out of museum for holding hands. In San Fran.

    Question, because I always screw this up: Did MSNBC use irony correctly in the sub headline?

    1. One of the comments:
      “Every single person who has complained that Jimmy described his attackers and their appearance as a racist comment is practicing deflection. Would you have had the same issue if his attackers had been white skinheads and he described them as such? I daresay you wouldn’t. The article wasn’t about the race of his attackers; he merely described their appearance. He described his experience, something that many crime victims are unable to do after being assaulted. Get off your high horse and either answer the debate rationally or just walk away.
      My friend, unless you can turn stones into bread or water into wine, you cannot ask for such a marvelous miracle when it comes to leftist boobs.

      1. Yeah, it’s amazing how many gays are offended at the very idea of someone being both right-wing and gay. Now, I’m no Republican, but I love the idea that anyone from certain groups (blacks, gays) who isn’t a Democrat must be a self-loathing, self hating member of their own race, to be laughable.

  28. Comedy becomes reality: Baltimore Mayoral Candidate actually proposes Chris Rock’s idea of bullet control.

    As an amateur stand up, this shit sucks. All your jokes are already made by politicians these days.

    George Lucas is an evil monster, planning a Boba Fett spin off.

    If I told you about this in 1985, you’d be dancing. If I tell you about this now, I’m afraid I’ll need all your sharp objects, your car keys, and any means you have to get to the Skywalker Ranch.

    1. Ye gods, enough with that side character already! He’s not interesting! He just has a neat outfit!

    2. History (the original trilogy) repeating itself first as tragedy (the Phantom Menace, Attach of the Clones, and Revenge of the Stitth) and now as comedy (the Boba Fett spin off).

      1. Wait a second. You mean that Lucas made the prequels? I always thought they were a Star Wars parody. Ye gods.

        1. There is that theory that Micheal Bay kidnapped Lucas in the mid 1990s and implanted a mind control device.

          1. No, in the future, Michael Bay goes back in time and REPLACES Lucas.

            Lucas is needed to direct the propaganda films that will ultimately help us win the war against the G’kak species of the Horsehead Nebula.

            1. What we really need is another Star Wars Christmas special.

              1. If Lucas wasn’t totally corrupted by the Dark Side, he’d have run that on a major network after Bea Arthur’s death, as a tribute to her willingness to fulfill her contractual obligations, regardless of how bad the script was. A true professional.

    3. Also, let’s just mention this: A Bullet Tax? Seriously?

      Detetctive Rock is on the case (NSFW, probably, with all the cussing).

    4. what’s to keep people from going out of the city/county to buy their bullets? All it will do is hurt local businesses.

      1. Smugglers blues? Depression might keep ammo mules in bed all day.

  29. Why Spending Doesn’t Tell us the Size of Government.

    It ignores regulation and any number of ornerous shit the government can do.

    BBC moves to silence climate change skeptics.

    SCIENCE IS SETTLED!!!!1!!!!!

    1. Opponents of global warming should be given less coverage by the BBC than the climate change lobby, the corporation will rule.

      The BBC is set to publish a report tomorrow on its science output announcing changes to rules on impartiality.

      Change? What is the BBC changing, anyway? They have been parroting the AGW mantra since 1987.

    2. BBC moves to silence climate change skeptics.

      Why can’t they just use that blowy-uppy Easy Button??

    3. I think I stopped reading the BBC news page when they turned their Science section into Sci/Environment–with emphasis on environment of course.

      1. That kind of shit is getting too pervasive. Science should be science and it should never be driven by an agenda. Even supposing the science is settled on global warming, there is nothing scientific about specific policy proposals to do something about it and it should be kept separate from actual science reporting. People seem to have a hard enough time understanding what science is without all of this bullshit added on top.

  30. In regard to Deacon Turner, dunphy pwnd the fuck out of us last night.

    dunphy|7.19.11 @ 8:08PM|#|show direct|ignore
    nice case here. note the reasonmeme(tm) is “if a guy who wasn’t a cop did this, he would be ARRESTED” yet again proven false.

    homeowner fights with intruder, intruder dies in struggle (note: no taser needed), homeowner NOT arrested

    “but there’s a double standard. cops are the only ones who don’t get arrested when stuff like that happens” bla bla

    the investigation is ON GOING (wow, sound familiar?)

    http://www.komonews.com/news/local/125847603.html

    reply to this

    1. He’s off his fucking rocker, man. His constant harping of this “reasonmeme(tm)” smacks of paranoia.

      Read his comment again, he’s quoting imaginary people and countering them with non sequiturs.

      Crazy man, just crazy.

    2. PW’NED

    3. I am confused. So, dunphy’s argument is that a 67 year old guy, at his own home, who calls the cops first and then defends his property from a 20-something thief, w/o a weapon, where 20-something thief dies w/o signs of visible trauma is the same as a cop getting off for shooting a guy wielding a bag of with two tallboys in it? (Not that we actually see what happened, thanks to the video gap.) He’s right, those are totally similar cases.

      The thing that bugs me about dunphy is that he comes off as knowledgeable and levelheaded, and still defends ridiculous statements such as LEOs getting the same scrutiny as you and I would, when they use lethal force. Or that cops don’t lie in the course of their day to day work. Out and out trolls, I can discount (and place in the reasonable circular bin) but there’s something infuriating about someone who can see what actually is, who’s often—to paraphrase Pauli—“not even wrong”, and still insists that the piss rolling down your leg is actually rain.

      1. So, dunphy’s argument is that a 67 year old guy, at his own home, who calls the cops first and then defends his property from a 20-something thief, w/o a weapon, where 20-something thief dies w/o signs of visible trauma is the same as a cop getting off for shooting a guy wielding a bag of with two tallboys in it?

        Uhm, yes?

        Because, “isolated incidents” of citizens defending their own life and property, and not being punished for it, is an example of the magnaminous nature of law enforcement.

        When they gun down some dude with a “threatening” paper bag… well, obviously the guy should have been more ‘compliant’.

        The REASONMEME I guess is that cops arent special. He finds that offensive.

        1. no, my POINT is that people can and do die in STRUGGLES with or without taser and 1) it doesn’t mean the taser caused the death and 2) contrary to the reason-meme it doesn’t only happen when cops fight/;taser people nor when non-cops do it are they automatically arrested (as per the reason-meme) as this case is an example of

          1. I thought you were all about waiting for the facts to come in? Changed your tune when you found something to support your claims, didn’tcha. Don’t want to wait for the autopsy report?

            Come back when they use excited delirium as the cause of death. That’s the “reason-meme” (although, as far as I can tell, I’m the only one saying it. Never been an article that I know of addressing it). When someone dies in police custody, and it’s not easily attributable to the perp’s own actions (this includes being tased), they use a fake diagnosis known as excited delirium.

            I’m gonna be laughing my ass off when it turns out he died of a brain embolism or suffocation.

            1. anybody who says excited delirium is a fake diagnosis isn’t being serious on the facts.

              1. What facts? The fact that it only occurs when police are involved? Or maybe the fact that coroner’s offices get sued into altering autopsy reports to insert it whenever tasers are involved? Are those the facts I’m not being serious about?

                1. it does NOT only occur when police are involved. it generally occurs when RESTRAINT is involved…

                  “The literature review conducted to date confirms that Excited Delirium death, associated
                  proximal to restraint, is not just a phenomena experienced by law enforcement, but also
                  in psychiatric and geriatric care facilities (Joint Commission for Accreditation of
                  Healthcare Organizations, 1998). In this published report, researchers found a total of 20
                  deaths associated with physical restraint in hospitals, psychiatric care facilities, as well as
                  geriatric care facilities in the United States. A further report found in the Cormorant
                  (Weis, 1988) reported about 145 deaths in chronic care facilities. As well, in a report
                  authored by The Office of the Ombudsman for Mental Health and Mental Retardation in
                  Minnesota (Office of The Ombudsman For Mental Health and Mental Retardation,
                  2004), they located 142 “reported” restraint associated deaths in mental health facilities
                  between 1988 and 1999. As can be appreciated, sudden and unexpected death proximal
                  to restraint is not just a policing concern, but rather an important factor for any
                  occupation where the restraint of those experiencing Excited Delirium is a reality; some
                  of those fields of work include; paramedics, fire first responders, emergency room staff,
                  as well as psychiatric and geriatric care workers.”

                  here have been signficant clinical reports of death all the way back to the 1800’s (some stuff to follow). what was key was that medical technology advanced such that, in a clinical setting immediate medical care was available. note also the ExdEl spiked in the mid 80’s just when… wait for it… stimulant use was spiking
                  http://www.css.drdc-rddc.gc.ca…..5-02_e.pdf

                  A further report from the UK (Paterson et al., 2003) outlined the following information
                  specific to death proximal to restraint in medical institutions:
                  ? In mental health, before effective treatment for the acute phase of mania or
                  psychosis was available, death as a consequence of exhaustion in patients was not
                  uncommon.
                  ? In a South Carolina hospital from 1915-1937, there were 360 deaths in which the
                  cause was listed to be, “Exhaustion due to mental excitement”.
                  ? In 1946, Dr. Shulack appears to be the first medical professional to describe this
                  phenomenon as “sudden exhaustive death in excited manics”.
                  ? In a 1952 study by Bellak et al, they describe the onset and symptoms of this
                  syndrome as:

                  1. From your first example:
                    In 40 percent of the cases, the cause of death was asphyxiation. The remainder of the cases were caused by strangulation, cardiac arrest or fire.

                    None of those were excited delirium. The causes of death were known. I don’t have time to go through the rest now, but rest assured I will. If you’re right, I’ll freely admit it. But seeing as how some of your first examples were fucking burned to death in a fire while smoking, I wouldn’t hold my breath.

                    It’s odd. The cop who wrote the paper you linked to supposedly read that study (he cited it) but included it anyway. We’ll see how the rest pan out.

                    1. Upon further reflection, I think I might just sit back and make you find an autopsy report with the words “excited delirium” for someone who died when LEOs or tasers weren’t involved.

                      You know, like when you demanded I find one with the word electrocution involving a taser?. I found one, remember? It’s time for you to prove some shit. As noted above, you’re not off to a good start. The burden of proof is definitely in your court, seeing as how the neither the AMA nor the APA recoginize it’s existance. Nor is it found in any medical textbook.

                    2. you are absolutely correct that neither the AMA or the APA recognize it. i never said otherwise. neither the AMA or the APA deal with the dead, though. coroners do.

                      the TERM excited delirium is relatively new. the SYNDROME is not. restraint related deaths happen to both cops and others who routinely restrain people in fight/flight situations. the only autopsy reports i routinely have access to are police related, btw, but if i can find one non-police related referencing excitdelir i’ll let you know. that’s a fair challenge. i can respect that.

                      i also know btw, that i PERSONALLY witnessed a near excited delirium death. i’ll never forget it. 5 minutes (or less) of wrestling into handcuffs and when we turned him over he had stopped breathing. he was revived, but it very easily could have been yet another statistic of this “made up” syndrome.

                    3. jesus, i can’t believe i didn’t mention this.

                      cardiac arrest is not inconsistent with excited delirium, btw.

                    4. It’s not inconsistent with a heart with clogged arteries, either. Again, the burden of proof falls to you.

      2. you are lying. i never said “cops don’t lie” what i said is that cops lying is a rarity and is not par for the course. you can play games all you want, but i have readily conceded that some cops lie, and some cops are frequent liars.

        cops get roughly the same scrutiny in use of lethal force cases as “joe average law abiding citizen gets”. they certainly get more benefit of the doubt than “scumbag multiple convicted violent felon” gets, but that’s true of NON-cops who use lethal force ALSO

        i once questioned a guy who was accused of brandishing his firearm (a misdemeanor) at a youth. the guy gave a great post-miranda statement of self-defense to me. he also happened to be an attorney and had never even been accused of the crime

        did the prosecutor take his credibility into account when deciding NOT to charge? sure

        if he had a prior conviction for armed robbery or murder or something would the prosecutor give his claim of self defense less weight ? of course!

    4. If the homeowner had walked up to a random guy at a convenience store and accused him of buying beer for minors, then hit him in the back of the leg with a club when he tried to walk away, then had a friend shoot him in the back, and neither one got arrested, then dunphy might have a point.

      1. again, this has nothing to do with the turner case.

        it has to do with the concept that yes people die in struggles (cop or not) that no taser is required, that just because a taser is used doesn’t mean it caused the death, and that contrary to claims, when non-cops are involved they are not automatically arrested

    5. The thing I find most disturbing about this story in particular is that the cops don’t even seem to be trying to make themselves look better. The attitude seems to be “fuck it, we do what we want”. Even if the official story of the police is completely true and complete, they still are fucking murderers who had no good cause to kill this man. Sorry, that is not a proportionate response to the threat that getting knocked on the head with a can of beer. He really couldn’t have yelled “look out, he’s going to whack you with his bag” or pushed him down on the ground instead of shooting?

      1. it is proportionate and entirely legal.

        since i suggest you don’t KNOW what is legal under the use of force doctrine, what is the point?

        1. How is it proportionate? Is it reasonable to think that Turner would have killed the other officer with a single blow from a couple cans of beer? No, it’s not.

          1. the term “proportionate” btw is not (generally) used in civil use of force analysis (it’s more a war thang)

            try reading tennessee v. garner (lethal force is not lawful when used to apprehend a mere fleeing felon)

            1. But the moment that fleeing felon (a.k.a. “suspect” or “citizen”) takes a swing at another officer, lethal force is lawful? Is that what you are saying?

              1. takes a swing how? with a hard object to the head? sure.

                i could cite the relevant statutes, but in brief, deadly force is authorized (by police officer or general dood) when a person commits a crime involving deadly force or threatened deadly force. after the crime is committed, deadly force is generally authorized to prevent fleeing when there is some cause (not hard to establish btw) that future danger exists if the subject is not apprehended or he is continuing his threat, etc.

                i could give a metric assload of case examples (i teach firearms use and deadly force to other officers), but that’s it in brief.

                1. I guess I have no more to say other than “I’m scared.” Is anyone else scared that cops can shoot you if they think you might hit them with a beer can?

                  It seems like you have a very loose definition of deadly force. Can you shoot a world-class boxer for trying to punch you? Can you shoot an AIDS infectee for trying to smear blood on you? Can you shoot a smoker for blowing second-hand smoke in your face? What about mere verbal threats against your life?

                  1. this is not MY definition. this is case law.

                    if you want to play silly rhetorical “what if” games, i’m not interested.

                    have cops (and others ) lawfully shot pro boxers after they started punching them and it been held up? sure, btw.

                    regardless, the reality is that cops VERY rarely use deadly force. last i checked, it was less than once every 12 yrs of patrol.

                    think about how many hundreds of arrests, felony stops etc. do NOT result in force.

                    so, all wanking aside about what you are ‘scared’ of, the reality is that the average person has an almost infitinitessimally small chance of being shot at by police.

                    a violent felon trying to kill an officer has significantly greater chance.

                    btw. last i checked the CDC hadn’t found a single documented case of a health care worker (including cops) catching AIDS from a needle stick, let alone the smearing of blood.

                    1. btw, here’s a cop lawfully shooting a boxer…

                      http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eQxzrErec8U
                      (ironically, i’m just about to leave by a party put on by a MMA fighter, whose coach just won a UFC fight!

                    2. You keep calling people felons. Was Turner a felon? He hadn’t even been arrested, much less charged or convicted.

                      Also, the average person has a very small chance of being killed by a bear. That doesn’t mean the average person shouldn’t be afraid of bears, even though most bear encounters end peacefully.

                    3. i said convicted felons.

                      turner was a convicted felon. my point, repeated constantly is that the people who tend to assault/shoot at police are ALMOST ALWAYS convicted felons, of violent felonies.

                      did turner match this description? yes

                      he had convictions for spousal abuse, assault with a deadly weapon, dui, drug offenses, etc.

                      which is entirely par for the course for the kind of people that generally assault police necessitating a shooting. there are RARE exceptions, but people with this kind of extensive record are a small %age of the population, but a substantial majority of people who are shot by police.

                      as well as a substantial percentage of those who end up killing police

                      ThAT’s my point.

                    4. the bear encounter analogy is silly. the average person can go his entire life and never SEE a bear, let alone interact with one.

                      that’s not true of police officers. hth

    6. had NOTHING to do with turner

      it was a riff on the reasonmeme that people only die in struggles with cops (not true), that it’s the fault of the taser (not true), that when a citizen kills somebody in a struggle, they are automatically arrested (not true), etc.

      bad guys often tend to be decidedly unhealthy, on polydrug combos, etc. and are MUCH more likely to die in a fight / flight situation than an average joe, even a 67 yr old one. cop or non-cop doesn’t matter

      it had NOTHIGN to do with turner, but i realize that logick ™ is not yer strong point

  31. The Devotion of Marriage Act is going to overturn the Respect for Marriage Act, the Marriage Affinity Act will undo that, the Passion for Nuptials Act will reverse that, and the Leg Humping of Matrimony Act will replace that. (The Soft Spot for Wedlock Amendment to the final marriage legislation standing will simply require oral servicing on one’s birthday.)

    1. The Wet Spot for Wedlock Amendment

  32. Angry parent posts on Reddit: “FBI raided my house with a search warrant today (20 agents, guns drawn) because they seem to believe my 13 year old son was an integral part of the ANON ddos attack on Paypal”

    Hey, they saw what happened in Die Hard 4. You think they’re gonna take a chance on something like that?

    1. Casting Kevin Smith as a 13-yr-old hacker was a bit of a misstep.

  33. Why The Democratic Party is Doomed.

    Their coalition is built on money, and we don’t have a lot of that.

    And this last link going out to Sugar Free: Catfight at Jezebel over the idea of a romantic league.

    You’ll have to look for it, but one chick bitches about her friends telling her to settle, other people agree with her friends, she storms off in a huff, and I have lulz.

    1. One of the little phrases they love:

      Does society make all this shit more difficult for people who aren’t conventionally attractive?

      If attractiveness is–as they constantly suggest–is merely a social convention, the phrase “not conventionally attractive” means “unattractive.”

      1. Unless she’s maimed or deformed somehow, it’s very difficult for a young woman to be actually ugly. So what it really means is “fat”.

        1. But “non-conventionally attractive” is where their bullshit gets fun. Take the constant complaint that all the women in movies are too hot and that movies should star more plain women or fat woman. But they also will. not. admit. that any woman is unattractive, merely “non-conventionally attractive.” They rig the game so they can never have their demands satisfied.

          1. Doesn’t it just mean fat with a pretty face?

        2. Unless she’s maimed or deformed somehow, it’s very difficult for a young woman to be actually ugly.

          I guess you haven’t been young in a while.

          1. ^This.

            If it was possible to travel in time and shoot your current brain back into your 19 year old body, the best part of that would NOT be that you could buy really cheap Microsoft options or bet on every World Series.

            The best part would be that to your fucking fossil brain 80% of the chicks in your peer group would suddenly be well worth chatting up.

      2. This is one of those situations where the Randism that the very use of the word “society” is inherently deceptive comes into play.

        “Society” isn’t making anything difficult for anyone.

        Individual people making individual decisions about who they want to date makes things “harder” for “people who aren’t conventionally attractive”.

        So anyone who says, “Society makes it harder for people who aren’t conventionally attractive” is actually saying (once you translate out the BS), “The unfortunate fact that we still let individual people make their own judgments about what is attractive leads to a situation where it is harder for ugly people to get dates with people they’re really attracted to.” Wow, really? No duh.

        1. Will SF have to lecture you about false consciousness and the patriarchy, or should I?

        2. Stop mansplaining to us.

          As a society, we can’t rest until hot men are forced to date fat, ugly women against their will.

    2. From the catfight:

      Wow. So my friends think I’m ugly. That’s nice. Thanks for that uplifting thought! YOU DON’T EVEN KNOW WHAT I LOOK LIKE.

      I think this entire thread was the push I needed to stop wasting time on Jezebel for awhile. I’ve got a lot of work to do.

    3. Feministing and Jezebel can be a rich source of lulz, but I find it’s rarely worth the effort of actually wading through their misandrist, perpetual-victim, hivemind bullshit.

      Especially amusing on those sites are the self-hating “men” who frequent them.

      1. Oh, you missed the ultimate quisling yesterday, on a thread about questions you wished you could ask a potential mate.

        Some guy went through and answered all of them… let me see, give me a sec… ah, yes, here it is:

        Dear ladies of Jezebel,

        This post is in regards to your first date questionnaire thread. Please consider this to be my formal application for the position of having a first date with the ladies of Jezebel.

        In response to your ad:

        1. Yes – have you by any chance watched this season of Louie? Not a requirement, btw, just a…thing.
        2. No. I will kill spiders and wasps on sight, no reprieves. Everything else is live and let be.
        3. The last time I watched The Iron Giant…pretty much every time I watch that film. Otherwise I don’t really cry much, even at funerals. I’m not sure why that is – please don’t hold it against me.
        4. No kids, most of my exes are fine.
        5. Yes/Yes. Currently reading Picking Bones from Ash by Marie Mutsuki Mockett. Amazing read. My favorite books are the Scott Pilgrim graphic novels, A Free Life by Ha Jin, and anything by Stefan Zweig. I really don’t read much non-fiction anymore, though.
        6. Yes, but they’re not as good as Reagan Youth. ba-dum-ting No? Nothing? Okay, yes, very big on politics and current events even though the regressive meanness and stupidity of modern American times gets to me and sometimes makes me wish I could be one of those that just ignores politics.
        7. I am very competitive against men I don’t know, but not against women, children, or male friends. I know this is a personal flaw, sorry.
        8. Yes. Also a 401k. Not the best with money but I do what I can.

        Bonus Round 1: Dinos and Nachos and Cadillacs, oh my!

        1. Are you a Yankees fan? (If no, proceed to question #2).

        No. I like baseball but have never really adopted a team. I do wear Astros gear but that’s because of my love for red stars.

        2. Do you have a car? What is it’s name?

        Yes, ‘Storm Shadow’. Because it’s white and because I drove through a three-hour tornado cluster a week after getting it. Previous car names: Buzzbomb, De Jesus.

        3. Will you use your powers for good or for awesome?

        Can’t it be both?

        4. Cake or Pie?

        Strawberry milkshake.

        5. Do you have at least one friend who will bail you out of jail and at least one friend who would need to be bailed out with you?

        Yes and yes.

        6. How have you prepared for the coming zombie apocolypse?

        I’ve begun voting Republican in the hope that, like Fry’s brain slug, any zombies who nom me will die of starvation.

        7. Have you ever used the words “manscaping” “man cave” or “mandals”?

        I don’t believe so, but TBH I’m not sure what a ‘mandal’ is.

        8. What is your position on the Oxford comma?

        Who gives a fuck about a- oh you mean grammatically. I heartily support and use it. crickets chirping…okay, okay, no more attempts at humor, I promise!

        9. Toilet paper-over? Or under (but only because you have cats/children)?

        Neither – I set it on top of the roller.

        Bonus Round 2: Electric HeartRateRapid Boogaloo:

        -Do you like Ayn Rand?

        No. Terrible writer and worse thinker.

        -Are you pro-choice?

        Yes, I believe it should be legal.

        -Does your mom do everything for you and the rest of your family?

        No. Well, for my grandmother and her brother yes but she won’t listen to me.

        -Can you cook?

        Yes, mostly Indian and Mexican. Sadly apartment = no grill = no BBQ. :-/

        -Are you always immediately skeptical/judgmental when you hear or read about a rape case?

        No, as a life-long Steelers fan I have no doubt the bastard’s guilty. At least twice. Maybe more.

        -Do you like to travel and/or are you an adventurous eater?

        Yes and yes. My parents raised me on standard midwestern fare so I love anything spicy and enjoy trying new things. In an alternate universe I hope I have Andrew Zimmern’s job. And I love travel, esp if it involves Central/Eastern Europe.

        Bonus Lightning Round:

        How do you feel about those who treat service employees badly?

        I think a cook or waiter has to just be trying to be an a-hole to get mad at. My general POV is that if I wanted something exactly how I wanted it I’d have done it myself.

        Thank you for your time and consideration regarding this application.

        1. It is appropriate and manly to cry watching Iron Giant.

          1. SU…PER….MAN!!!!

          2. Also, if you do not cry at this video, you are clearly a robot.

            A Boy and His Frog.

            See, now you can date the women of Jezebel.

            You’re welcome, Reason.

            1. See, now you can date the women of Jezebel.

              Even this chimp wouldn’t stoop that low.

              A Chimp and His Frog

          3. OK, I didn’t cry, but there might have been a little welling up. Just a little, dammit.

            Glad to know it’s not just me, though.

        2. This is what an evolutionary dead end looks like.

        3. Translation of that post:

          I can’t get girls in real life to look at me twice, but maybe if I post desperately enough to lots of women on the internets I can finally get to first base.

          1. It’s the law of large numbers.

        4. Acting like a pussy in hope of getting pussy is such a fucking fail move.

        5. grill does not equal bbq. fuck this loser.

          1. Both have their place. But yeah, grilling /= BBQ.

            +Lockhart, TX

          2. Since when does being in an apartment stop you from grilling? All you need is a window and a fan…

    4. The other thing that bothers me about that article is that she is annoyed at the person who admits that they date other people they consider 3’s.

      “Those people deserved to date someone who thought they were hot!”

      Um…whut?

      Can someone explain this to me?

      I was under the impression that all ugly people in two-person ugly relationships were well aware that their counterparty was ugly and that was simply part of their arrangement.

      Because if the people dating 3’s aren’t aware that they are dating 3’s, all I can say is Thanks for nothing, God. Next time give me this magical inability-to-see-ugliness gene. It would have made my life a lot simpler.

      Honestly, wouldn’t a person who thinks that 3’s are 10’s basically be the luckiest person alive?

      Seriously. Somebody tell me this lady is crazy and that all the ugly couples I see out there really are self-aware.

      1. Have you ever seen a couple perfectly matched in attractiveness? They are so rare that something must be going on in the human brain that drives those mismatches.

        I have always punched far, far above my weigh in dating in terms of raw attractiveness, for example.

        1. Truly, Sugar Free, you are the Manny Pacquio of dating.

          You are able to go up weight classes… if y’know what I mean.

        2. Have you ever seen a couple perfectly matched in attractiveness? They are so rare that something must be going on in the human brain that drives those mismatches.

          Well, I always thought it was pretty simple–even people as shallow as H&R commenters must agree on the reality that things like money and personality do have relevance here? How attractive is the hot girl who is a crazy bitch, at least after a few weeks/months? I know chicks are the ones who are supposed to care less about looks in favor of things like money and power, but even if you do think looks are really important, other stuff has got to count for something.

          But, like Fluffy, I do want some assurance that these people are self-aware. I will be kinda scared otherwise.

          1. Nicole, I am happy to entertain the notion that power and money can overcome a lack of attractiveness. At least for men.

            My main issue here is the idea that the author thinks a 3 can date a 3 and not know.

            When a female 9 is dating a male 3 due to compensating factors like the ones you list, they know that’s what they’re doing. They’re thinking, “This guy is a 3, but damn it’s fun to ride in the front seat of his Mercedes.” She’s not thinking, “Gee, this guy should star in the inevitable Green Lantern reboot.”

            1. Yes yes, I was just saying that I thought Sugarfree shouldn’t have such a hard time understanding the phenomenon as a whole.

              Dudes care about other stuff too I am sure–like our ability (or lack thereof) to not spend all of that money on shoes.

              1. No, no… I get all that… I’m arguing that raw attractiveness must not be the only evaluating factor, so the Jezebel analysis is simplistic.

                1. the Jezebel analysis is simplistic.

                  Tautology alert!

            2. Sure they know, but they will still feel the attraction. Not in the same way, maybe, but it’s obviously often real.

        3. I read some article recently where the happiest couples in their sample were the ones where the woman was more attractive.

          Don’t have a link for you, sorry.

          1. Seems to have worked out for me and my wife. 🙂

      2. I don’t think they’re wrong on the main point. You shouldn’t settle. Be honest with yourself and only go after women you actually find attractive. I’ve learned that people don’t become more physically attractive just because they seem to like you. It’s way more satisfying to hunt than to scavenge.

        In my latest and happiest relationship we both thought we were hunting each other. Predators are a better fuck anyway.

        1. But I think that (for some people at least) people do come to be more physically attractive if you like them. I’ve been with a few women who I thought were pretty plain and unremarkable before I really knew them, but who became very attractive to me once we got more involved.

  34. If some asshole whacks you across the legs with a stick from behind, what is your natural reaction likely to be?

    And, of course, David Turner’s murder was originated by the heinous crime of “children” (that is, individuals in every sense adults: able to marry, vote, sign binding contracts, or go to far-off lands in the uniform of their country and die in combat) apparently attempting to get somebody to buy them some beer.

    This country is fucked.

    1. One police supporter held up a hand-scrawled sign that read, “Do you really hate the police?”

      Um…

      1. Here’s the money shot:

        “I used to watch him come home at night and cry because of how he was treated ? a grown man, with a gun, crying

        1. That caught my eye, too. I don’t even know where to begin making a joke about it.

          1. This is like when Cartman’s funny bone got broken.

            “I just saw the funniest thing ever…and now nothing is funny.”

          2. At first I thought it meant he was crying because of the way the public treated him.

            But then I figured out he was crying because he got demoted from being a plain clothes detective to wearing a uniform again.

            I can see being upset about that. But crying in front of your kid? Dude. Lame. Your kid shouldn’t have to see that.

    2. From the comments

      MKadyman wrote:

      The council pushed this email thing out to make it sound like that was the main issue. Its not, but it sounded good. The police department now has the power to change an officers schedule overnight and not have to pay the officer. They can also transfer an officer with no notice and pretend that it is not punitive.

      The reporter made no attempt to look into the real issues that were affected.

      My God it is like the county is their boss or something.

      1. Is shit like this really what unions fight over nowadays?

          1. And it’s sad. My grandfather was a railroad union secretary-treasurer back in the eraly to mid-20th century. Back then it was about safe working conditions and compensation for women widowed due to work accidents.

            Unions are no longer necessary.

          2. as a union member, i can state absolutely they do

        1. Emphatically yes.

          We’re just heading into bargaining. The “big issues” are all shit like this. Why? Cause the REAL issues (wages, working conditions) were addressed years ago.

          But they gotta have something to argue about….so it’s all bullshit. Fun stuff.

          1. Bingo. All the important stuff unions were useful for that mattered to workers were eventually all codified into law. At that point there was no need for unions to exist anymore. But Organization Man will see that his organizations continue to exist and grow even if there is no need for them anymore.

            There’s the best reason that corporations were chartered for a fixed period of time and were to then dissolve.

            1. imo, the primary reason unions exist is making sure that due process is followed in re actions regarding members.

              they have appealed and won several times when due process wasn’t followed.

              our employer has pretty broad latitude as to work assignments etc. union or not

        2. Schedules and working a certain area where huge issues here in Columbus a few months back when the PD wanted to reshape a couple of districts.

    3. One nightmare scenario was working a late shift and then being called in a few hours later by a punitive or unreasonable boss.

      Well, I guess “nightmare” doesn’t mean anything any longer.

      1. These nancy-boys need to talk to some hospital nurses sometime about scheduling, overtime, and shifts.

      2. My heart pumps piss for him. He should pull a few 12hr shifts in an ER. If memory serves we called that the “business as fucking usual scenario.”

        1. My heart pumps piss for him.

          Consider this stolen.

        2. and of course overlong ER hours contributes to iatrogenic deaths, but those aren’t nearly as troublesome as when cops cause deaths, so who care?

      3. Whaa?

        Every one who’s ever worked graveyards knows that things like meetings, get-togethers (i.e. teambuilding bullshit), etc…are always held for the convenience of the day shift. It sucks. It is not a nightmare. Jesus, just put in for the OT and STFU.

        All of this PubSec bitching makes me wonder whether ditching the spoils system was a mistake.

    4. In a world where a shift commander can call you in at a whim, the living will envy the dead.

  35. Obama hardly endorses the checks he receives. The fact that News Corp gave him money is there problem, not his

    1. Weeeeaaaaak.

      1. Next Reason fundraiser I’m sending a check from the
        Lobotomize Libertarians Association
        I bet epi’s ass, they will cash it

  36. Chris Christie Headed to Iowa
    http://www.weeklystandard.com/…..77153.html

    Weird news, after the MM issue. Could he run in 2012, or just preparing way early for after next

    1. Re: rather,

      Weird news, after the MM issue. Could he run in 2012, or just preparing way early for after next[.]

      Lew Rockwell is of the opinion that Christie is going as a countermeasure against Ron Paul, which sounds plausible.

    2. Hmmm, somehow I do not think he will run in 2012 – at least not seriously. He would be a more effective contender if he had served two – or at least One and a Half terms.

  37. http://armsandthelaw.com/archi…..est_le.php

    The most impressive revelations are of data that Acting Director Melson gave them. ATF was ready to cooperate until it was gagged by the Deputy Attorney General. They informed the Deputy AG that they had documents that contradicted the “official story” Justice was giving out. A memo describing an important meeting — held to convince a cooperating gun dealer who was getting worried about allowing all these suspicious gun buys — was actually written over a year later, after the controversy broke. Melson says there is a memo that is a “smoking gun,” which Justice is still refusing to reveal to the Committee.

    1. Either you or R.C. hit it on the head in an earlier thread. Just how the fuck was BATFE going to profit from this scheme?

      Step 1: Twist arms of FFLs to allow massive straw purchases to suspected felons.

      Step 2: Watch arms with mostly-non functioning GPS trackers go to Mexico.

      Step 3: Track where some of the guns go.

      Step 4: ??????

      Step 5: Profit!?

      I mean, WTF? You can’t extradite these guys for drug running, so you’re going to add charges for arms trafficking and also not extradite them?

      Also hilarious is that literally 10s of thousands of Mexicans have died in this violence, often hideously, and it wasn’t a concern until two idiot ICE agents decide to drive through Northern Mexico at night, stop at an illicit checkpoint, roll down the fucking armor plated window of their Suburban/tank, and get snuffed through said gap in window with one of these guns.

      It’s true: we are all really little people by comparison.

  38. Is shit like this really what unions fight over nowadays?

    The mission; it creeps.

    1. If you’re a pubsec union, you’ve already got just about all the money there is to get. So there’s nothing left to fight over except making sure your members get that money in perpetuity for doing less and less.

      1. as a pubsec union member, i generally agree. that’s a BIG part of it. another substantial part is fighting against cases where due process wasn’t followed.

  39. Poor George. He seems a little upset that he can’t manipulate this market. Maybe buy some more politicians?

    “I find the current situation much more baffling and much less predictable than I did at the time of the height of the financial crisis,” Soros, 80, said in April at a conference at Bretton Woods organized by his Institute for New Economic Thinking. “The markets are inherently unstable. There is no immediate collapse, nor no immediate solution.”

    1. He just can’t figure out how to profit from it. That’s all he means when he says baffling.

    2. Politicians are a depreciating asset with built-in uncertainty and escalating upkeep cost during their useful lifetime.

      well, in a perfect world, one with term limits and such.

  40. On the Turner shooting, let me see if I understand things here:

    1. Police arrive at convenience store because a concerned citizen made a report of under-age folks trying to get someone of legal age to buy them beer.
    2. Police approach Turner as he is leaving the store. He sets his just-purchased beer down and answers some questions from the police.
    3. After a short time, Turner is tiring of the questioning and asks if he is under arrest.
    4. The police say he is not under arrest so Turner grabs his beer and starts to walk away.
    5. Because Turner left before the officers were finished and said he could go, one of them attacks him from behind, striking the back of Turner’s legs with a baton.
    6. Because of the officer’s attack, Turner allegedly struck the officer with his bag of beer and was alleged to be attempting to strike a second blow.
    7. Second officer shoots Turner to stop the second alleged blow.
    8. County authorities determine the shooting was within departmental guidelines and therefore justified.

    That’s the gist of what comes out of the news reports I’ve read so far.

    Several questions:

    If the officer(s) had more questions for Turner, why didn’t one of them just jog around and get in front of Turner and ask him to answer just a couple of more questions? Wouldn’t that be the prudent thing to do versus attacking the man from behind by striking his legs with the baton?

    What were the questions the officers asked Turner? What other questions were so important to ask Turner that the officers in question deemed it necessary to stop Turner by striking him from behind in the legs?

    If Turner was not under arrest, what ordinance or statute allows the police to strike a person the way the officer did? Why is it justified for police to escalate the situation by attacking a man from behind that was not under arrest?

    Given the circumstances, it would appear that Turner’s alleged acts of violence were done in reaction to the baton attack from the police officer. If so, why aren’t his alleged violent acts considered self-defense?

    If one starts at the point where one officer shoots Turner before he can allegedly strike the other officer a second time, the shooting might be justified.

    If one starts at the point where the police question and then attack Turner as he is walking away causing Turner to react the way he is alleged to have done, the two officers’ actions as a whole seem unjustified.

    It seems quite obvious that the Kern County officials opted to judge the situation after the officer’s baton attack and not before.

    For the most part, the police in this country operate in a “heads, I win, tails, you lose” world. How nice for them. Not so nice for Mr. Turner and the rest of us.

    1. In answer to the question, the shorter version from the cops is STOP RESISTING!!!!!

      Surely you’re in no danger if you did noting wrong. Just STOP RESISTING!!!!!

    2. Good summary, but you left out this part:

      The surveillance video conveniently didn’t capture the part where Turner allegedly struck the first officer. Therefore, following the rules of logic in such cases, the officers’ word trumps the word of eyewitnesses, events unfolded as the officers related them, and the shooting was “justified”.

      1. what about hospital records? this is something i haven’t seen mentioned. did he have a lashka on his head from being stoved in the melon?

        1. Would be informative, no doubt.

  41. Too much Trek in this thread.

    Anyway, DS9 is the best Trek. Voyager is the worst. There shall be no debating this. If not for Jeri Ryan in a skintight suit, nobody, anywhere, would have tolerated Voyager.

    1. The Trek is deep in this one

    2. You liked Enterprise over Voyager? Anyway, TNG is the best.

      1. I did not like Enterprise, but since it was put out of its misery relatively quickly, I don’t despise that show like I do Voyager.

        Enterprise also mercifully lacked Voyager’s retarded holodeck episodes, went lighter (though still close to full retard) on contrived, incoherent time-travel plots, and was actually starting to redeem itself when they shot it in the head.

    3. That alone makes Voyager one of the best, though.

    4. Am I right to assume that folks here are talking so much about Trek lately because it was recently made available on Netflix Watch Instantly?

      Anyway, I will give y’all some shit to bash me for until the end of time: Voyager is my favorite series and I almost always love holodeck episodes. Who’s going to come take away my monocle and decoder ring?

      I do have an actual argument for this though: despite their many flaws in “logic” in all series, I always prefer the “logical” characters, and Voyager has more than most: Tuvok, Seven, and the Doctor. TNG (while obviously empirically the best series, yes) doesn’t even have a resident Vulcan, no matter how good Data is. Yeah, I think I am probably doin it wrong if the Dr is one of my favorite characters.

      1. “Am I right to assume that folks here are talking so much about Trek lately because it was recently made available on Netflix Watch Instantly?”

        no. it’s because they (we) are nerds. hang around sometime when Epi and SF get together and Trek out. Wow-just-wow

        1. I just feel like there’s been a surge lately. But it could be that I’m noticing it more because of the Netflix thing.

        2. We can’t help it. You should take pity on us.

          Also, Voyager had the dumbest episode of any Star Trek TV show ever. Ever.

          1. I think you may be right about this. But the competition is stiff.

      2. Robert Picardo and Jeri Ryan were two good things about Voyager, yes.

  42. More hilarity from Kern County Sheriff’s Department. I find it useful in helping me determine how thorough their internal investigations usually are.
    Sheriff’s sergeant won’t face criminal charges after accusation of compromising investigation
    http://www.bakersfield.com/new…..gn=synapse

    Grandma accuses daughter of stealing. Sheriff’s dept. sergeant assisting investigation shows up, later begins relationship with daughter’s daughter. Investigation is stalled; grandma pissed; no criminal sanction against sgt.

    Those allegations stem from an investigation [Sgt.] Martinez worked on from October 2009 to March 2010 regarding alleged embezzlement of property and $30,000 from [Grandma] Moody, according to documents filed in Kern County Superior Court. Moody’s daughter, Donna Martinez, was the suspect.

    Vince Martinez apparently fell for Donna Martinez’s daughter, Samantha Martinez, when he served a search warrant at Donna Martinez’s home on Oct. 8, 2009. A senior deputy present during the search wrote in a probable cause statement filed in court that Vince Martinez appeared infatuated with Samantha Martinez. Vince Martinez is not related to the other Martinezes.

    The two began dating, and Vince Martinez posted pictures of Samantha on his Facebook page and took her to a sheriff’s department promotion ceremony, the statement says. He also sat with the Martinez family during a civil hearing between Moody and her daughter.

    Moody has said the criminal investigation into the embezzlement went nowhere after Martinez started dating her granddaughter.

    Seriously, you can’t make this shit up. Even if you don’t charge him with obstruction or interfering with an official investigation, how in the hell is this guy still a cop? This would be one of the 0.0001% bad ones, right? Sloopy, isn’t this your neck of the woods? Are things truly this fucked up in Bakersfield?

    1. Thorough. Investigation. By. Top. Men.

      TOP. Men.

      1. there apparently is no CRIMINAL violation. most certainly it’s a violation of dept. policy.

    2. Oh, yes, also….

      This would be one of the 0.0001% bad ones, right?

      DUH! “Isolated Incident?”!!

      1. it’s called bad judgment, not criminal behavior, which is why he wasn’t criminally charged

  43. Oh GOODY! More Garrett Epps!

    This time on the 17th Amendment

    1. That’s a tricky one, since it’s more about what the Constitution ought to be (and why) than it is. Wouldn’t even bother arguing it.

  44. Yeah, I’m having a hard time with a motion-activated video camera not activating when somebody gets hit on the head with a bag of beer bottles.

    1. it should be relatively easy to check up on. stand at the same distance, under the same lighting etc. that the man was at when he allegedly swung the bag , swing it the same way and check in multiple trials what %age of the time it activates the camera

      empirical evidence: it’s what’s for breakfast!

Please to post comments

Comments are closed.