Hit & Run

Pot Goes Mainstream, SWAT Your Enemies, Big Tax Take: P.M. Links


  • We're not just for over-the-top law enforcement and dangerous acts of vindictiveness -- we also do birthday parties!

    Across the U.S. a bumper crop of marijuana legislation is loosening restrictions on the popular intoxicant. The laws frequently seek to take advantage of pot's medicinal properties, but with a solid majority of Americans favoring outright legalization, many measures go further.

  • Soaring yields on Spanish bonds because of fears over that country's financial stability are fueling concerns over Italy's economic health, as the eurozone's woes grow worse.
  • States expect to collect more tax revenue this year than they've seen since before the recession -- partially as a result of economic recovery, and partially due to hiked tax rates. Spending is also expected to increase, but to remain below pre-recession heights.
  • Stuxnet and Flame — two malware programs believed to be state-sponsored attacks directed at Iran — share enough commonalities that their creators appear to have cooperated early in the development process, says Kaspersky Lab. U.S. officials have confirmed that Stuxnet was a joint American-Israeli effort.
  • Criticism of convicted bomber and progressive political activist Brett Kimberlin has resulted in targeting of conservative bloggers for SWAT-ing attacks — elaborately staged bogus calls that have resulted in the dispatch of armed paramilitary police to their homes.
  • Having shut down file-sharing company, Megaupload, and denied the firm's customers access to their data, U.S. government officials say they'll permit people to retrieve their files — if they pay. Meanwhile, it turns out FBI officials took evidence in the case from New Zealand despite a judge's instructions to the contrary, and Megaupload head Kim Dotcom won praise from the court.
  • At Southwest Florida International Airport, five TSA supervisors are being fired and 38 face suspension for failing to perform random screenings at security checkpoints. Meanwhile, a new study says backscatter "nude" scanners pose no health dangers — but the study looked at TSA-supplied data, and not the actual machines.
  • Cops in Prince George County, Maryland, allegedly handcuffed and roughed up a couple of teenagers — apparently, pretty much just because they could. (HT sloopyinca)

Do you want hot links and other Reason goodies delivered to your inbox twice a day? Sign up here for Reason's morning and afternoon news updates.

NEXT: Ask a Libertarian: What About Sweden, Which Seems Like a Great Place to Live?

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. "The issue is that the process of identifying, copying, and returning Mr. Goodwin's data will be inordinately expensive, and Mr. Goodwin wants the government, or Megaupload, or Carpathia, or anyone other than himself, to bear the cost."

    If the government initiated the action that denied users access to the data, therefore the burden is theirs. If the government didn't want to bear the cost of their actions they shouldn't have taken them.


      (catches breath)

      That was good one, dude. You're on fire today.

      1. That was two and a half hours ago. The world was a different place back then.

        1. I don't know you any more.

  2. Cops in Prince George County, Maryland, allegedly handcuffed and roughed up a couple of teenagers...

    Plus, the coppers stole one of the kids' bikes and took it home with him.

      1. He showed up on the Costco thread.

        1. And ran like a little bitch when the facts didn't fit his narrative.

          1. He's getting his ass kicked in the comments over at PJ Media.


            1. Unfortunately, that's not our pet asshole. Ours works in the Seattle area. He hasn't been in LA since the great Winter Nationals Surfing Championship some years ago when he performed the first double front flip while riding a pipe.

              It was either then or it was when he was on his last world tour before a sold out Hollywood Bowl, rocking the fuck out of some Angelenos.

              Haha. I'm kidding obviously. We all know it was when he and his wife, Morgan Fairchild, renewed their nuptials on the grounds of their Malibu summer house with Steven Spielberg, Bill Gates and some kid he tutored in physics that turned out to be really smart...I think his name was Brian Schmidt or something like that...in attendance. It was a bitchin' affair.

              1. I was hoping that it was 'our' Dunphy.

                The comments there give me hope, even neo-cons are sick of police thuggery.

        2. So the signal works then, because it was turned on there as well.

          1. The proper, P Brooks homage:

            **Lights Dunphy Signal**

      2. Cops in Prince George County, Maryland, allegedly handcuffed and roughed up a couple of teenagers...

        I don't get it. This has been SOP for PG's finest for at least the past half-century.

  3. Really? Just "Sloopyinca?" No "Fertile Commenter Sloopyinca?"

    1. The word you are looking for is 'fecund': (Adjective)
      Producing or capable of producing an abundance of offspring or new growth.

      1. "Prolific" works nicely as well.

        1. I'm just glad you're no longer pissed at me.

          1. When was I ever, sloop? 🙂

  4. http://www.spa.usace.army.mil/.....COE_SS.JPG

    That is all. SFW.

  5. U.S. officials have confirmed that Stuxnet was a joint American-Israeli effort.

    I bet it was a joint American-Israeli effort that put all that porn on my computer!

  6. Apparently, we are all closet racists.

    1. duh!

  7. Calling in SWAT teams on someone whose speech you don't like. . .hmmm, sounds kinda brown shirtish to me.

    1. You know who else used brown shirts?

      1. UPS?

        1. Damn you Pro L!

      2. UPS?

        1. The hell you say!

    2. Politco calls it just a practical joke. And their brain dead liberal comenters seem to be of two camps. First, is that it must be a false flag operation or these people are lying. And the other is that since Breitbart killed ACORN, the Right can dish it out but can't take it.

      Yeah, they are that scary stupid.

    3. Isn't there a man beloved by Democrats, calling fake SWAT raids and filing bullshit lawsuits, right this minute?

      Speaking of scumbag Brett Kimberlin...


      1. The comments to that are scary.

        1. Sorry, I'm not a scumbag right-winger. I am a decent defender of the progressive faith against you "conservative" animals.

          Says the guy who wants to call SWAT on commenters he disagrees with.

          1. Yeah, that commenter must work for Rahm Emanuel.

            Here's another scary link:


            The number of people defending Kimberlin, alone, is troubling.

            1. By any means necessary, right?

            2. One more:



              1. Well, shit. I just posted the same link Reason used.

                The internet. How do it work?

  8. Where's BP? I've been waIting to hear his explanation for THIS

    1. I hope that has nothing to do with Sidney Crosby and/or Jaromir Jagr.

      1. They're lesbians - that's different

        /Wings fan


        Yes, you go there you get the caps.

        1. I'd rather get caught with a gun in Costco than watch Sidney Crosby involved in a sex act.

          Darren McCarty maybe, but not Sidney "Concussion King" Crosby.

          /also a Wings fan

    2. Yeah, the Adelies really get off on freaking out the squares.

      Among other things.

  9. It's pretty funny when 2Chilly links to a story that Riggs already reported earlier and gives sloopy the HT. So JD, did sloop offer you Banjos' services or his own?

      1. Shouldn't have fucked with Armstrong, dude. Now it's open season on you.

        1. I wasn't even 18. For all intensive porpoises, those records should be sealed.

          1. They will be. . .in your tomb on the Moon.

          2. Unless they'res a Pacific reason to do so, I think yore gonna be flustrated - that's smoke out the chimley now...

            1. That is bone of hide, bee on the pail.

  10. http://www.businessinsider.com.....ina-2012-6

    Poll shows Obama losing 1/5th of black vote in North Carolina. Maybe it is an outlier. But if that is even close to being true, Obama is done. And the only reason I can even imagine it being true is gay marriage.

    1. No wonder there are so few Black libertarians. Perhaps we should refocus on getting the state out of the marriage business altogether.

      1. Blacks are very socially conservative. And generally are not particularly liberal except in regard to affirmative action.

        and for the hundredth time, unless you plan to shut down all of the family courts and refuse to enforce any agreement related to marriage in court, the government will always be in the marriage business.

      2. Get to work on that, SIV. Put me down for a fiver once you setup the nonprofit. But only if you oppose all state-sanctioned marriage, instead of conveniently and transparently opposing expansion of marriage to teh gays.

        1. Tonio,

          If a government agrees to enforce an agreement in its courts it is effectively sanctioning that agreement. Even if we got rid of the dreaded marriage license tomorrow, you still would have people going to court to settle disagreements over property and children and such. And the courts would still have to decide what kinds of agreements they would and would not recognize. And we would be right back to arguing over the same issues.

          1. Recognize/enforce the contract but get rid of the gov't benefits.

            1. What government benefits? The right to pay more taxes? The only real benefit is immigration status. But if you got rid of government recognition of marriage, no one would get that benefit of bringing in their significant other into the country. I doubt open borders libertarians would be happy with that result.

              1. SS survivor benefits etc. There is more to marriage than just taxes.

                Why can't it just be treated like any other contract?

                1. If you want to make SS benefits an actual property right that is inheritable, I am all for that. But you don't have to change marriage law to do it.

                  And marriage is treated like any other contract. The only real difference is that in a marriage contract, you have to get a court to record you ending it. But in the age of no fault divorce, that isn't much different than filing a release of lien.

                  I just don't see how having a contract marriage system solves any of the problems you guys are concerned about. You can prohibit gay marriage and polygamy or anything else under a contract marriage system just as easily as you can now.

              2. How do you pay more in taxes? You get a larger deduction to start with - is it that you both are working and so you pay a larger *amount* but at a lower effective *rate*?

                And other benefits, off the top of my head you get a huge bump in your ability to adopt compared to a single person.

                1. It is called the marriage penalty. If you have two incomes, you pay the top tax rate of the combined incomes. If you file as single people, you pay the lower tax rate of each individual income. And if you are filing single, you each get a single deduction. So you don't get a bigger deduction for being married.

              3. Wrto at least one very narrow area: I'm starting to think that the correct policy on immigration is that everybody gets to sponsor one non-blood-related person per lifetime. If you happen to be gay and they are your significant other, or they happen to be a mail order bride, or just somebody who you think is a cool penpal, so be it. But a strict limit of one per customer, and no take backs.

                A separate system will be needed for how to deal with blood relations, but that is beyond the narrow scope of what I am talking about.

                1. What happens if you sponsor someone, say a future spouse, with kids?

              4. But if you got rid of government recognition of marriage, no one would get that benefit of bringing in their significant other into the country.

                You would just have to prove that your significant other can do things for you that no American can.

          2. But at least then we'd be arguing them on a case by case basis, John. Codifying who can and can't enter into a contract, as long as they both consent, is immoral and should be unconstitutional.

            1. Codifying who can and can't enter into a contract, as long as they both consent, is immoral and should be unconstitutional.

              There is nothing unconstitutional at all. Governments do it all of the time. Minors and incompetents can't lawfully enter into contracts in most states. Many states have usury laws that prohibit certain kinds of loan contracts.

              Even under a contract based marriage system, people couldn't contract away their obligation to raise their kids. The courts would not recognize marriage contracts signed by minors or between brother and sisters or polygamous contracts and so forth.

              That is what contract law is, what contracts made by whom under what conditions are enforceable.

              1. 1: Minors and incompetents can't consent.
                2: Those usury laws should be struck down if both parties consent to the terms.
                3: Raising kids is an obligation to the kid, who can't consent to the parent that doesn't want to raise it.
                4: On minors marrying, see above on minors not being able to consent.
                5: A brother and sister can give consent and should be able to marry.
                6: Ditto polygamous relationships.

                Why do you not want consenting adults with different interests than you to be able to enter into contracts you currently have a right to?

                1. That is what you like and think. And good for you. But there is nothing "unconstitutional" about states prohibiting polygamy or passing usury laws. Wrong doesn't mean unconstitutional.

                  1. Wrong doesn't mean unconstitutional.

                    It does when there's an Equal Protection Clause.

                    1. The equal protection clause doesn't mean that sloopy. Polygamy was illegal when the 14th Amendment was passed. And no one who drafted the Amendment thought it mean that. To say it means that now is to say that we can change the Constitution to mean whatever we want it to. No thanks.

                    2. To say it means that now is to say that we can change the Constitution to mean whatever we want it to.

                      And the 1A, 2A, 4A and 5A had strict meanings when they were written. Hasn't kept state and federal governments from perverting the fuck out of them, has it?

                    3. Sloopy,

                      If it was wrong to pervert the meaning of those Amendments, it is just as wrong to now pervert the meaning of the 14th.

                      Just because it for once gives Libertarians their pony, doesn't make it right.

                  2. Yes, actually there is. Contrary to the courts opinion there is nothing in the Constitution that makes marriage a state responsibility, allowing the state to define what is and isn't allowed.

                    On the secular side marriage is just another way for people to group together and share finances and property to the groups benefit.

                    1. Contrary to the courts opinion there is nothing in the Constitution that makes marriage a state responsibility, allowing the state to define what is and isn't allowed.

                      Yes there is. Don't laugh, the 10th Amendment. It really does mean something even today. And what it means is that there is no federal police power.

              2. r polygamous contracts

                Why not, under a contract based system?

                1. Because people hate polygamy and the state would pass a law making them unenforceable and against public policy. That is my point. That under a contract based system, we end up having the same debates that we are having now. There is no getting the government out of marriage.

                  1. There is no getting the government out of marriage.

                    Sure there is. You pass a constitutional amendment granting equal rights for anyone of majority age to enter into a civil union with any one or more people also of majority age with all the rights and privileges to adoption, beneficiary and communal property that go with it.

                    Actually, it would be pretty simple to get them out of it.

                    1. No sloopy. The government is still involved in marriage under your hypothetical. The government will be enforcing those provision. And we through the political process will have decided that it will be that way. That means that it is open to change. Once again, we will still be having the same arguments that we are having now.

                      How can you say you want to get the government out of marriage but then want to amend the constitution to get the government to enforce what you think marriage ought to be?

                    2. Notice I took pains to remove any reference to "marriage" in my proposal? Civil Unions for all. State sanctioned marriage for none.

                      Who are we, the majority, to impose our version of right and wrong on others that have different yet not harmless to us beliefs.

                      People made the same arguments you are using to keep interracial marriage illegal, John. It was as much a loser then as it is now.

                    3. Sloopy,

                      It only became a loser when the majority of the population decided interracial marriage was not a bad thing. And unless and until the majority decides that about gay marriage, things will not change. And they are never going to change about polygamy. Forget it. The country is never going to agree to it and arguing for it is a waste of time and does nothing but discredit Libertarians.

                      If people think the goal of libertarians and the gay rights movement is to destroy marriage, they will never listen or agree to it. Arguing that state sponsored marriage should end is nothing but a way to ensure that gay marriage never happens.

                    4. It only became a loser when the majority of the population decided interracial marriage was not a bad thing

                      So the U.S. is a Majoritarian state now? I thought one of the purposes of a republican form of government was to protect the rights of the individual or the few from the majority.

                    5. HM,

                      How is there a right to gay marriage when the people who wrote the Constitution would have never conceived that it protected such a right? If you read gay marriage into the Constitution, why can't liberals read the right to free shit into it as well?

                      Gay may be a great thing and something that we should embrace. But it is not a Constitutional Right.

                    6. I didn't say there was a "right to gay marriage" in the Constitution. My argument is that the rights of the individual is protected from abuse via majority rule, I didn't specify a particular right. However, one could argue that "marriage" (without adjectives) is one way to "pursue happiness" and such, is one of the "unalienable rights" mentioned in the Declaration of Independence and retained by the people.

                    7. John|6.12.12 @ 5:39PM|#|?|filternamelinkcustom

                      How is there a right to gay marriage for women to vote when the people who wrote the Constitution would have never conceived that it protected such a right? If you read gay marriage women's suffrage into the Constitution, why can't liberals read the right to free shit into it as well?

                      Gay Women's suffrage may be a great thing and something that we should embrace. But it is not a Constitutional Right.
                      How does that read now, John?

                    8. In reality, you're probably right. Since our politicians appoint politically reliable people to the bench, this majority rule crap will continue to be enforced.

                      I guess, "good for interracial couples" then, because they are finally getting treated equally. Too bad other consenting adults are locked out of the game by narrow-minded bigots.

                    9. Look at it this way Sloopy, the vast majority of people in this country either are married or would like to some day be married. I can't think of a more counter productive way to advocate for gay marriage than the say that marriage is some kind of special benefit and those who partake of it are welfare queens and thus the whole institution should be abolished.

                      That is what the SOCONS all accuse the gay marriage advocates of doing, trying to destroy marriage as an institution. It is nuts to associate yourself with that. Better to argue that marriage is a great institution and should stay the same except that that the 2% of the population who are gay (many of whom won't even want to get married) should be able to take part in it. That is the only argument that is necessary.

                    10. That is the only argument that is necessary.

                      Yeah, if you don't really care about equality. This leaves out all kinds of groups of consenting adults.

                      I am not here advocating for gay marriage. I am advocating for marriage equality. And they aren't nearly the same thing.

                    11. People made the same arguments you are using to keep interracial marriage illegal, John.

                      Interracial marriage was a very different situation, requiring much more arbitrary state discrimination. They had laws specifying whether 7/16 black people could marry 9/16 black people.

                    12. It is not that I disagree with your vision of marriage Sloopy. It is that in the end you are going to get that vision by getting the people via the government to agree to it. There is just no way around that.

                    13. It is that in the end you are going to get that vision by getting the people via the government to agree to it.

                      It got forced down our throats in Canada, and we are better for it. When The End didn't come as SoCon bed-wetters were predicting. Liberty by dictate if necessary. If Canada can do it, a republic should. Fuck the people.

                  2. There is no getting the government out of marriage.

                    This is a case of John repeating something in the hopes that by saying it often enough it comes true. I find conservatives do this a lot.

            2. It's not a contract in the normal sense, sloopy. We've been over this before.

              1. Yeah, and you were wrong then as well.

                1. No, you were wrong. Nyah.

    2. You're probably right, John. But you may see some movement in those poll numbers before November.

      1. I find it hard to believe that he would lose 20% of the black vote. So the poll is probably a statistical anomaly. But if it is not, gay marriage has to be the reason.

        1. More rural blacks vote more republican than urban blacks- same goes with whites. So though 20% seams high, getting greater than the usual 10% for the gop candidate isnt unusual.

          1. That's racist, straight up

        2. Obama's economy has been especially hard on minorities and racial solidarity goes only so far.

    3. Gay marriage *might* be part of it, but I think the biggest reason is the shitty economy.

  11. In 30 years the jackass who is setting bombs around Phoenix will be either a tenured professor or a Dem political operative, or both.

    1. And the Dem candidate, who held a political fundraiser in the bomber's house, will accuse his opponents of playing politics for pointing this out.

  12. Record labels paying students to narc on other students who pirate music.

    People who do tattle to these companies should be given a pair of concrete shoes and tossed into the Hudson.

    1. They should be punished for helping protect property rights? Nice.

      1. Ratting out people that violate a government monopoly are not enforcing property rights.

        1. Uh, pretty sure record companies don't have a monopoly on music. They do own songs though.

          Remember, all property is intellectual property. All of it.

          1. Bullshit.

            "IP" is nothing more than a government granted monopoly.

    2. Nah. Just have their pictures and names posted on the internet in a few easily googleable locations.

  13. Today, I was doing one of my yearly mandatory substance abuse training things, and the guy giving the lecture was telling us how he believes marijuana is the most dangerous substance out there. Said that pot use was on the rise and cigarette use was down. What's the big deal? How many people have died directly from using marijuana (not including doing stupid shit under the influence)? Put that up against people who died from diseases caused by smoking cigarettes.

    The lecture was pretty entertaining up until that point. Then he just pissed me off, and I don't even smoke pot, nor have I ever.

    1. Obviously MJ is the most dangerous of the illegal drugs. It causes people to realize that the authorities are full of shit.

    2. 14,000 people die every year from legal opiate overdoses. How many die from pot overdoses again?

      1. "legal" with a permission slip from the rent-seeking guildsmen quacks

        1. Ahem.

          1. Gesundheit!

            1. Danke!

        2. I don't think he's accusing you of rent-seeking, GM.

  14. The Democracy is Over crying dude apparently called a talk show. Hilarity ensued.


    1. I feel like I need to watch/listen to this as soon as I get home from work.

    2. It says "This video is private."

      1. Sorry about that.

        1. You need to fix this before I get home. You have about 45 mins.

      2. It worked fine for me.

        1. That's because you're a Sergeant

  15. Law Professor Calls for Denying Tax Exemptions to the Catholic Church, Orthodox Synagogues, and Other Groups That Discriminate Based on Sex


    1. Yeah, they should have laid as low as possible until the trial.

      1. When the state is determined to get you, there is very little you can do.

        1. Sure, but they shouldn't be presenting the state such low hanging fruit.

    2. Fuck Florida. What a fucking police state.

      1. Plus - old people.


      2. Hey, now! That's Sanford, not the whole state.

        1. Where the hell is the State AG? The prosecutor is clearly out of control here.

          1. I wouldn't be surprised to see something blow up here, as the whole country is going, "Is that right?"

    3. Was just coming in to post a link to that, tarran. For those of you who practice criminal law, is it common to ring a family member of the accused up for perjury for statements they made in a bail hearing? I get that misstating things to the judge/magistrate is a bad idea, but I wasn't aware that perjury charges usually came out of it.

      Sure looks like they really want Zimmerman to plead to something. Anything.

      1. I have never heard of that. Everyone lies at bail hearings.

        1. Yeah, I've never seen a judge spend this much time on one bail issue. The judges we deal with set bail and move on.

      2. They don't have a case for the charge levied; it seems very apparent now. I was fairly ambivalent towards this case, for the most part, but now Zimmerman has my sympathies. He is being railroaded, and for political gain to boot.

        1. What you said, Groovus. I was all, "I'll take a picture wearing a hoodie cause that wannabe-dunphy-cop-fucker brought this on and ended up killing that little boy....wait. What? He's 17, 18? Zimmerman has smash marks on the back of his head and a broken nose? NBC fucked with the tape? Everything keeps changing, and not in favor of the prosecution? Huh?"

          Motherfucking lying sacks of shit. Fuck Florida and the race baiters and the DA and the courts and the cops and...

        2. James Gordon Jr.: Why's he running, Dad?
          Lt. James Gordon: Because we have to chase him.
          James Gordon Jr.: He didn't do anything wrong.
          Lt. James Gordon: Because he's the hero Sanford deserves, but not the one it needs right now. So we'll hunt him. Because he can take it. Because he's not our hero. He's a silent guardian, a watchful protector. A dark knight.

          1. Slow clap.

      3. I'm no criminal lawyer, but the whole business stinks to high heaven. They're well aware of how bad this case is.

      4. Didn't they have lawyers at this point? Why didn't the lawyers tell them to disclose every scrap of money that they could possibly have access to for any reason?

        It's true they're being railroaded. But that means they should have been far more careful.

        1. As far as I can recall, the defense fund was brought up by the prosecutor during the bond hearing. The judge used it when determining what to set bond at. This is a railroad job, pure and simple.

          (Relevant) Question for Floridians: are either the prosecutor or judge on a ballot this fall?

          1. Hell if I know. It's a big state. Anyone from Sanford?

          2. According to one article, she made several sub 10k withdrawals to transfer funds before the bond hearing, then testified that she didn't know how much money there was. Certainly a no-no, although I don't disagree that they're trying to fuck them using whatever angle they can.

    4. Eric Holder can lie under oath in front of a Congressional committee and refuse to turn over evidence that has been subpoena'd in an investigation about a program that has resulted in countless deaths of foreigners and at least one USBP agent where we illegally flooded a sovereign nation with guns, and this woman is arrested because she said they personally had no money and some existed in a separate legal defense fund?

      You're right, tarran. Except it's not just them that are fucked. It's all of us.

      1. That's. Different.

        Get over it, racist.

      2. And Corzine can steal a billion dollars from the little people without even a slap on the wrist.

    5. If I married that I'd be spending my nights patrolling on neighborhood watch too.

      1. Eh. She wouldn't be bad if she lost some weight.

  16. In case you've forgotten, PROMETHUES SUCKS.

    1. Where's the edit button I was promised?

  17. Fuck.

    That is all.

  18. From the "SWAT-ing" article:
    "There's been hundreds of SWAT-ing instances where SWAT teams have come up to innocent third parties," he said. "It's putting innocent people at risk. It's just a matter of time that we believe someone could get hurt."

    Perhaps if the police didn't use a SWAT team for every fucking call...

    I understand having a SWAT team in reserve, especailly if there was a report of violence already being committed, but why not have a regular patrol officer knock on the door first to assess the situation? Why go in with a SWAT team with (probably) itchy trigger fingers?

    Granted, I'm no expert on police tactics, but God damn, whatever happened to "serve and protect"? /rhetorical question

    1. They're not calling in poker games or doobie parties. The stuff they're calling in is likely to be a hostage situation where time and stealth is of the essence (you know, the purpose of SWAT teams in the first place).

      1. The stuff they're calling in is likely to be a hostage situation where time and stealth is of the essence

        Yes, dangerous stuff like cockfighting.

        1. And the selling of raw milk, let's not forget.

        2. That wasn't a fake call...

          Yes, SWAT is overused in many cases. I'm just saying that in this story there isn't any SWAT abuse on the part of the police.

          1. Fair enough.

    2. No matter how you slice it, there will always be a set of circumstances where deploying a SWAT team first is the doctrine.

      People who wish to send a SWAT team into someone's house will set up their spoof so those circumstances are met.

      Last but not least, the percentage of call-outs that are the product of SWATTing will be such a small fraction, that sending people out to assess the situation will usually be wrong.

      1. "Last but not least, the percentage of call-outs that are the product of SWATTing will be such a small fraction, that sending people out to assess the situation will usually be wrong."

        Well, not if the AG lets it go because of political convenience, and especially not if SWAT teams were only used for true hostage situations or gun rampages or whatever.

  19. So it looks like Sandusky's lawyers are going to base his defense around the idea that he supposedly suffers from something called "Histrionic personality disorder". I have no idea what the hell that is, but it sounds to me like something that Snookie or Kim Kardashian would be more likely to have than this dirtbag.

    And it now looks like former president Graham Spanier is probably going to be facing perjury charges as well in addition to Gary Schultz and Tim Curley. What a filthy rats' nest that place is.

    1. Obama has Historic Personality Disorder too.

    2. I thought Sandusky's lawyers were going to claim all the accusers were lying. That would be tough given how many they are. It's not like they were young kids during the incidents like the kids in the 80's day care scares.

      I haven't finished reading all the coverage at the CDT, but my impression from what I've read so far is unless Sandusky has an ace hidden someplace, he's fucked.

      1. He's fucked anyway. The only way he doesn't see the inside of a cell is if that "ace" is a .45 round and he hides it in his skull at a high velocity.

        1. Discriminating Pennsylvanians that believe in doing the right thing use a .357 magnum:


  20. So Zimmerman's wife gets arrested and he gets thrown back in jail for a potential bail violation. Meanwhile, if you're a cop in Florida, it's more like a "three strikes and you're out" bail program.

    Fucker faces 30 years and got a bail of $2k...and the judge didn't revoke it until his third strike.

    Fuck Florida's system of "justice."

    1. WTF, dude? Even Balko only nutpunched once a day at most.

      1. sloopy's on the warpath.

    1. I instantly regret ^^this.^^

      Please disregard until sarcasmic posts it tomorrow morning.

  21. So, taking bets.

    1) Who thinks the perjury charges are a hostage taking bargaining tactic to force Zimmerman to plea because otherwise the state has no case against him?

    2) Who thinks it will work?

    That said, I don't know if prosecutors have the authority to make plea deals on two unreleated cases (seems ripe for abuse). Although that could just mean it was an offer made in bad faith.

    1. 1: I doubt it unless they think the stick is a better tool than the carrot.

      2: No way. He can read a newspaper and see that the plan isn't going over too well with the general public. Besides, if her lawyer is worth a damn, they'll tell her to fight it. Perjury is a lot easier to charge than to prove. And I'd be shocked if she maliciously moved any money around from a legal defense fund that was public knowledge to their account because they had actually incurred legal expenses.

      Two words: Witch. Hunt.

  22. Kos: "Abuse me with roughness. Treat me like the whore that I am."

    I asked Daily Kos founder Markos Moulitsas if he was worried about the level of despair at the conference. He replied, "The administration should be worried about the level of despair here." Like many attendees, he brought up the failed recall election in Wisconsin. The Republicans, he pointed out, sent all sorts of surrogates to the state to campaign for Gov. Scott Walker. "Obama stayed away," he says. "Why? Because he would be embarrassed if he lost. I'll tell you what. If he shows that he's going to fight for the things that I care about, I will fight twice as hard for him." And if he doesn't? "Then I'll vote for him," says Moulitsas.


  23. Bret Easton Ellis casts porn star James Deen and LiLo in The Canyons, set to film next month. LiLo to go full frontal.

    The best part: The Canyons, previously being developed as a TV series, will be directed by veteran screenwriter Paul Schrader - who wrote Taxi Driver, Raging Bull, and wrote and directed American Gigolo.

    Ellis fans rejoice!

  24. Will Obama get to claim this guy on his list of "accomplishments" a second time when he has a drone dropped on his house, killing him, his entire family and all the kids on the next house?

  25. A group from the Columbia School of Law investigated an execution in Texas and believes the executed was innocent:


Please to post comments

Comments are closed.