Police Abuse

Pa. Cops Beat Up 17-Year-Old Girl Caught Out After Curfew

|

war on women?
via WTAE

A 17-year-old girl in Clairton, Pennsylvania says she was brutally beaten by cops after getting caught outside after curfew. Merceedez Wright says she and her friends were walking home from an ice cream parlor just a few minutes after the 10p.m. curfew when they were approached by police. Wright admits to running away from cops when they exited the car. "I was scared because of how he got out of the car. He didn't just walk out, he jumped out of the car and started chasing me, so my first instinct was to run,"  she told local news station WTAE.

WTAE describes the attack based on Wright's friends who witnessed it as well as a portion caught on surveillance video:

"(The officer) ran full force at her and she ran from him," said Destiny Hester. "They pounced on her, then started kicking her and pulling her hair."

"I hear her screaming, I run over there and she's on the ground. They're over there beating her up, kicking her, pulling her hair," said witness Bryon Clifford.

Surveillance cameras across the street from the scuffle show Wright and an officer run into view, before the officer grabs her, spins her around, and throws her to the ground.

What happened next is not clear because the officers and Wright are behind a car, but two minutes later police appear to stand the teenager up before a new struggle begins.

The video shows one of her arms had come free, not in handcuffs, and she seems to pull away from the officers before they take her to the ground again.

One minute later, they again try to walk her to their car, but she appears to resist and pull in the opposite direction. One officer then uses a forceful move to push her down. She then is moved out of the view of the surveillance camera.

Wright is now recovering in the hospital with injuries to her trachea, esophagus and neck, plus several cuts and bruises.

Wright admits to resisting the police too, saying she tried to free her arms to protect herself after cops knocked her to the ground.

You can watch the surveillance footage included in the WTAE segment here.

NEXT: Why We Should Decriminalize Prostitution

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. For awhile I thought I was just sad because life wasn’t going the way I thought I would, then I realized it’s not that. It’s the depressing stories I read and the sickening videos I watch on Reason everyday.

    1. Seconded. I’m really beginning to wonder if this isn’t greatly contributing to my awful moodiness lately!

      1. It’s not that time of the month?

        [this is why there are no female libertarians….]

        1. Thanks to the wonders of birth control, there is no such thing anymore!

          1. Child killer!!!

  2. The video shows one of her arms had come free, not in handcuffs, and she seems to pull away from the officers before they take her to the ground again.

    One minute later, they again try to walk her to their car, but she appears to resist and pull in the opposite direction. One officer then uses a forceful move to push her down. She then is moved out of the view of the surveillance camera.

    I’m dead serious when I say she is lucky they didn’t kill her or beat her into a coma. Noncompliance and resistance justifies a summary execution on the spot from these animals.

    I can’t even do snark about this shit any more. It happens all the goddamn time.

    1. +1 Eric Garner Chokehold. šŸ™

  3. Is quack remedy illegal?

    “WEST LAFAYETTE [Ohio] ? Darin Welker is facing a citation and a hearing in Coshocton Municipal Court for owning 14 ducks, as they are in violation of a village ordinance.

    “Welker, who lives on Grandview Street in West Lafayette, was cited June 23 with a minor misdemeanor. He said he uses the ducks for therapy after being wounded in 2005 in Iraq and should be allowed to keep them.”

    http://www.marionstar.com/arti…..-t-allowed

    1. Just keep them out of the beer and whiskey. They just can’t handle it.

    2. Are the Muscovies? If so, I hope the city confiscates every one of them and does something horrible to them.

      Fuckers are the debbil!

  4. How exactly is a curfew even remotely legal or constitutional?

    1. Same way beating a 17yo girl is.

      FYTW!

    2. The fact is there is no SCOTUS jurisprudence that says it isn’t a violation of a minor’s constitutional rights. It’s pretty much the states’ discretion to decide whether such laws are permissible under their own constitutions.

      At best you could infer from previous cases that minors still possess their Constitutional rights no matter what the curfew law says. So a minor walking to and from church or a political protest probably would prevail under current doctrine.

      1. So, can a state impose a curfew on an adult?

        1. The only case that deals with that was from 1942 regarding one imposed on Japanese-Americans and SCOTUS said it was okay because it was wartime.

          So probably only during emergencies and times of public danger.

          1. I believe that curfews are pretty standard during wartime.

            1. Pretty common during a hurricane aftermath as well.

              1. Yep. I had a shotgun pulled on me at point blank range when I was 16 for the horrific crime of standing in my own front yard in the aftermath of Andrew in 92.

                Of course standing inside was dangerous for our health at this point because the walls were covered in mold and mildew from everything having been soaked, and, being Sepetember, was hot as fuck.

          2. The problem is that SCOTUS has passed on appeals of Circuit Court cases that ruled for curfews.

          3. Um, isn’t that this new thing called ALWAYS according to law enforcement?

            1. Well they did shutdown Boston unilaterally to find one wounded terrorist.

              Boston Strong my ass.

    3. “How exactly is a curfew even remotely legal or constitutional?”

      Not a fan of them, but what part of the Constitution would it violate?

      1. 9th amendment.

        1. Oh, please.

          1. While assembly might apply, it seems questionable. If freedom of movement isnt covered by the 9th, I cant imagine what is.

            Law students are stuck in a rut. No creative thinking at all.

            1. The P&I Clause is often thought of as protecting a freedom of movement, but its the freedom to move across the states.

              1. And you can’t do that if you have a fucking curfew.

        2. Yeah, it doesn’t violate the 9th amendment.

          I think it clearly violates the right to peaceable assembly.

          1. But assembly requires two people. Curfew is unconstitutional for a hermit too.

            1. That’s a good point, but the kid can always say they were going to assemble with someone else.

              1. The kid can, a hermit wouldnt have that argument, hence the specific example I gave.

                1. So doesn’t one man have the right to peaceably assemble to protest in front of an abortion clinic?

            2. But assembly requires two people. Curfew is unconstitutional for a hermit too.

              So it is legal to assemble but they can send in the riot troops once you disassemble?

              I think assembly by implication has to be pretty broad.

              I mean the girl in the above case was on her way to assemble with her family. A curfew does inhibit assembly by virtue of preventing travel to an assembly.

              You can’t say a people have the right to assemble then make it illegal to do the things necessary in order to assemble.

          2. Yeah, it doesn’t violate the 9th amendment.

            OK, I’ll bite. Show me where the Constitution gives the federal government — and thus by extension all lower levels of government — the power to tell citizens that they must remain in their dwellings unless government gives them permission to leave.

            If freedom of movement isn’t an unemerated right under the 9th, WTF is?

            1. I asked the same question and got a nonsrnse answer.

            2. Perhaps we should not be asking if curfews violate people’s right, but rather what part of the constitution empowers government to enact them.

              Even if, as Bo contends, the 9th refers to people’s right to move between states, are you still free to do so if the govt tells you when you may?

              “Yes, you may move to Montana. You are granted a permit to do so between 9:00 am and 9:30am on June the 1st, 2025.”

              I am gonna say they are unconstitutional, and more than that they are extremely undesirable.

            3. “Show me where the Constitution gives the federal government — and thus by extension all lower levels of government”

              The Federal Constitution tells the Feds what they can, must and must not do. The States can then pass laws that do not violate what the Fed Constitution says it must not do (your rights.) It does not cover what the states may do but says that all other matters are up to the states to administer as they see fit.

              So you have to point out where the Constitution is violated by curfews, not where it gives its permission.

              1. The only problem with this analysis is that it ignores the doctrine of incorporation under the 14th Amendment.

      2. Depending on the circumstances, it could violate the right to peaceful assembly, or the protection against unreasonable search and seizure.

        Use your imagination.

        1. I think it violates both. If 17 year olds want to get together after curfew, that’s clearly a peaceable assembly that is being prevented by curfew legislation.

        2. I don’t see a 4th Amendment violation, stopping and arresting someone doesn’t become unreasonable because the law is a silly one. SCOTUS upheld arresting a woman for not wearing her seatbelt for crying out loud.

          The peaceful assembly one might be stronger. For myself, I’ve always thought that probably has a more limited meaning (protests), but I’m happy to entertain that it has some broader ‘association’ right. But assembly laws are subject to time, place and manner restrictions, and when you put that together with the diminished nature of rights for minors I don’t see that working.

          1. Yeah, I don’t know if curfew laws necessarily violate constitutional provisions, provided they’re passed by the state.

            I do think that they’re sickening and should be abolished. I just don’t think that due to constitutional reasoning. I think that because it is totally immoral to arrest someone for being outside at a time when the government decides they shouldn’t be.

            1. I think they are quite stupid laws, like fighting speeding by banning driving.

              1. parents can empower their children with direct orders. ‘go to the store on the corner and buy some milk’, and they are invested with whatever missing capacity their minority inherently has.

                putting laws like this, based on age, interferes with parental rights and is age discrimination.

            2. I think that because it is totally immoral to arrest someone for being outside at a time when the government decides they shouldn’t be.

              Can you name a better way of corralling the darkies?

          2. stopping and arresting someone doesn’t become unreasonable because the law is a silly one.

            I was thinking more of probable cause for a search. During daytime, if a police officer stops me when I was just peacefully walking down the street, I can legally refuse a search other than a patdown, no? If I were out during curfew, the officer could argue that he has probable cause for a search just from the fact that I was out after curfew.

            1. The probable cause would be probable cause you are breaking a law, like the curfew law.

              1. Right. And it’s not beyond belief that a municipality might legislate a curfew law to unduly burden a particular population. It’s the same line of argumentation that people use to criticize NYC’s stop-and-frisk program. You might not agree with the premises of the argument, but many do. And it is possible that sometime in the future, such a case might be argued on that argument.

                1. Sure, if its found to be unequally applied you’ve got a EP case.

          3. Where in the constitution are these time place and manner restrictions listed.

            Have you actually read the fucking document?

            1. Where is freedom of movement listed?

              1. 9th amendment.

                1. To borrow your phrase, have you read the 9th Amendment?

                  1. Yes. It covers every natural law right not mentioned previously, ie, freedom of movement is fucking specifically covered.

              2. Bo, the Constitution, and most state constitutions, explicitly say that the government only has the powers given to it by the constitution and that the citizenry maintains rights not explicitly granted to it.

                Since restrictions on freedom of movement are not granted to the state, freedom of movement is a right.

                1. “most state constitutions, explicitly say that the government only has the powers given to it by the constitution”

                  I don’t think that’s correct, is it? Mine (SC) doesn’t have such a statement.

                  1. That’s because no State constitution says this. States have to deal with minutiae. It would be impossible for for a constitution to cover all those details.

                    Article 29839(a) Plumbing regulations.

      3. Show me the part of the Constitution that grants government the power to impose curfews.

        1. That’s a good argument for Federal Government curfews, but state or municipal government is a different monster.

        2. 10th Amendment, the powers reserved to the states included traditional police powers. Remember, these are state/local curfews.

          1. Is curfew a traditional state power?

            And did the 14th curtail that?

            1. The police power doesn’t work that way, what’s asked is, is it a law which falls into the traditional areas the police power falls into (health, safety or morals).

            2. Protecting public safety is a traditional state and local power. So a curfew is a means towards that end.

              1. Does a curfew protect public safety?

                1. That’s usually a question for elected officials who make such laws (or not).

                  1. Bullshit, its a question for you. I didnt ask the legislature.

                2. I’m sure the town would argue it does. Presumably to prevent juvenile delinquency and petty crime.

                  Unfortunately courts tend to defer to legislators when it comes to The Childrenz.

                3. If you’re under 18 and out after curfew you might get hurt or beaten. This case proves it.

                  1. [G:]
                    I’m gettin jacked, I’m breakin myself
                    I can’t believe they taking Warren’s wealth
                    they took my rings, they took my rolex
                    I looked at the brotha cops said “Damn, what’s next?”

                    [Nate:]
                    They got my homey hemmed up and they all around
                    ain’t none of them seeing if they going straight pound for pound
                    I gotta come up real quick before they start to clown
                    I best pull out my strap and lay them busters down

                    [G:]
                    They got guns to my head
                    I think I’m going down
                    I can’t believe this happenin in my own town
                    If I had wings I could fly
                    let me contemplate
                    I glanced in the cut and I see my homey Nate

                    [Nate:]
                    Sixteen in the clip and one in the hole
                    Nate Dogg is about to make some bodies turn cold
                    now they droppin and yellin
                    it’s a tad bit late
                    Nate Dogg and Warren G had to regulate

                    1. Little known fact: Many Buddhist monasteries use this as meditation music.

                    2. I think you’re confusing that with this

                    3. Wow, I can feel my oneness with the universe increase with every beat.

                    4. I used to be able to rock that on karaoke night without looking at the monitor. And I have flow.

        3. Bingo. Even better than my answer. Bthe constitution grants powers, so if it aint listed, they aint got it. Of course, that really only applies to feds not states. So maybe Bo has a point, if he wants to argue the 14th doesnt apply.

          1. So maybe Bo has a point, if he wants to argue the 14th doesnt apply.

            You don’t understand. The 14th amendment only counts when it extends state power.

            When it limits state power it doesn’t count.

          2. I will say this about robc’s approach: one would think freedom of movement is at least, if not more, as rooted in the ‘concept of ordered liberty’ or ‘our nation’s history and traditions’ as the right to privacy (and I say this as a big fan of privacy).

            1. The 9th was designed to cover every single natural law right nit otherwise listed.

              I dont know what they teach in law scholl but that is so fucking obvious it shouldnt need to be stated. It aint my approach, credit Madison or somebody.

              1. On my phone I spell like John. Ugh.

                1. Better than smelling like him.

              2. I dont know what they teach in law scholl but that is so fucking obvious it shouldnt need to be stated.

                Why would they teach something obvious to the rest of us in law school. How else do you extort money from your clients if you can’t creatively interpret law and twist it until it mean anything at all?

            2. Im a bigger fan of privacy than most privacy advocates. It extends at least as far as the pocketbook. The W2 violates the right to privacy.

      4. Interesting question. IANAL, so work with me here. Are you contending, and I’m not judging you if you are, that there’s essentially nothing in the Constitution that protects a person’s right to occupy public property? I mean, essentially, when you initiate a curfew you’re saying that no one is legally permitted to be outside, which is probably more to the point of being outside off of private property.

        Here’s my problem. There’s something obviously and inherently wrong with saying that a person doesn’t have an absolute right to be in a public place when that doesn’t imply trespassing. It’s one of those things that’s so obviously fucked up you wouldn’t even think to encode it in law. So, that it might not be enshrined in the Constitution is more a reflection of how far we have fallen as a society than anything else.

        1. There’s something obviously and inherently wrong with saying that a person doesn’t have an absolute right to be in a public place when that doesn’t imply trespassing. It’s one of those things that’s so obviously fucked up you wouldn’t even think to encode it in law. So, that it might not be enshrined in the Constitution is more a reflection of how far we have fallen as a society than anything else.

          It’s even worse than that. Curfew implies that you don’t have the right to be on * private * property either, other than your own, enclosed private property. It means you can’t be in a business that’s still open. Or, arguably, in an unfenced area of your own front yard. Or in a neighbor’s enclosed private property if you intend to walk home from there rather than getting a car ride home.

          Second, curfew is plainly prohibited by the Ninth Amendment, despite the Ninth Amendment not rambling on for 10,000 pages listing every conceivable unenumerated right. Enumerated powers are all the federal government has, nothing else, SCOTUS decisions to the contrary be damned.

          And the Tenth Amendment does not allow the states additional intrusions on the unenumerated rights retained by citizens by the 9th. The 10th says that the state government and the citizens are protected from the federal government doing things to them that aren’t enumerated federal powers.

          1. To clarify — the 10th amendment, like the 1st thru 9th, is entirely a restriction on governmental power. It does not give state or local governments even the tiniest bit of power not explicitly already granted to the federal government.

            To say that any portion of the Bill of Rights was intended to give any level of government even the tiniest, most incremental additional bit of power is to grossly misunderstand the purpose of those amendments.

            1. This is what I was wondering. I think I understand Bo to be saying (and I may be misunderstanding, and I’m not judging even if that is his interpretation, I am also not a lawyer) that the U S Constitution is only binding on the Fed Gov.

              But if you look at 10A, “The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.” that looks like it’s saying that the Constitution can prohibit “the States” from doing certain things. And I would likewise interpret 9A’s “unenumerated rights” as being something that 10A prohibits the states from infringing.

              But, well, I think a lot of things that are not how “the law” actually works, so…

      5. Fifth and Fourteenth Amendments. Given that, traditionally, one of the core elements of “liberty” has been the right to come and go as you please, curfews are deprivation of liberty without due process of law.

        1. 5th? What, due process maybe? I mean, if the curfew theoretically applies to everyone, it’s fair by definition, so you don’t run afoul of equal protection. Maybe the 14th, though.

          I think the 9th is the real crux here. It seems to be the one that basically says, “We’re not sure in which novel and retarded ways our children will twist this document and abuse state power to do terrible things, so, since we can’t anticipate the details, we’re saying that individuals have all conceivable rights unless otherwise noted in the Constitution.”

      6. Wouldn’t the first place we look be the 14th Amendment? All other exceptions to equal protection are addressed with amendments (voting immediately comes to mind for,people based on age alone, which curfews are).

      7. Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.

      8. I can’t believe I am going to reply to MNG here but here goes:

        The constitution does not grant rights PERIOD. It exists to restrict the authority of the government. There is no express authority in the Constitution giving the government authority to impose a curfew ergo unconstitutional. NOW, to argue about federalism is a legitimate approach however I doubt any state constitution provides that authority either.

  5. Well, I guess they taught HER why she shouldn’t be out after curfew.

  6. What fucking curfew? How that fuck is that even allowed?

    1. Because it de facto only applies to, ahem, “those people”. You know, the ones in the malls “decent people” used to go to. Look at the girl in the neck brace. Read her name.

      If she’d been blonde haired, blue eyed Kacey Smith, the cops would have smiled and tipped their hats.

      1. Oh good race-baiting

        1. Dude, if you knew me, you’d know how funny that accusation is. I’m very racially insensitive. I do not give a fuck about racial grievance mongering.

          So when I say I don’t believe for a second that this pig would have assaulted a white girl like that, it means a hell of a lot more then if Al Sharpton said it.

          1. Well that, and this is Pittsburgh we’re talking about. VA’s observation is kind of assumed.

          2. yeah i am not big on race bating.

            But the shit i saw cops do to any black kid on the side walk after dark in Portland Oregon and yet only 20 blocks away left the white hipsters completely alone i have to say i completely agree with you and you nailed it.

            She was beat up because she broke the blacks only curfew.

      2. I do recall the pigs tackling a blonde, blue eyed jogger for having her earbuds in and not hearing a pig who wanted to get her phone number or something…

        It was a few months back.

        -jcr

      3. Yep, except they would not have tipped their hats at Katie Smith, they would have tried to get her phone number.

  7. Such bravery. Wow. We’re not worthy to be in the presence of them.

        1. Pigecoin should be something you can use for bail.

          1. Woe. So free. Much court date.

          2. Pigecoin? brand stoolpigeon payoff currency.. The #1 currency of choice for stoolies and informants nationwide! Ask your handler about Pigecoin? today!

  8. Heroes!

    Beating up 17 year-old girls.

    Feel safe now?

    1. “I captured a wee girl! I’m the greatest hero in English history!”

  9. Moving along to other Constitutional issues: Stephen King chides conservatives for not abiding by the well-known Separation of Church and State Clause of the Constitution

    The Tea Partiers claim to love our Constitution, but seem a bit foggy on the separation of church and state stuff.

    Is he right?

    1. No, but it’s hard to stay mad at Stephen King.

      How to defeat a vampire (SPOILERS):

      “Her small hands clasped themselves around my neck and I was thinking: Well, maybe it won’t be so bad, not so bad, maybe it won’t be so awful after a while – when something black flew out of the Scout and struck her on the chest. There was a puff of strange-smelling smoke, a flashing glow that was gone an instant later, and then she was backing away, hissing. Her face was twisted into a vulpine mask of rage, hate, and pain. She turned sideways and then. . . and then she was gone. One moment she was there, and the next there was a twisting knot of snow that looked a little bit like a human shape. Then the wind tattered it away across the fields.

      “‘Booth!’ Tookey whispered. ‘Be quick, now!’

      “And I was. But not so quick that I didn’t have time to pick up what he had thrown at that little girl from hell. His mother’s Douay Bible.”

      http://www.krypta-smierci.neos…..ks/Stephen King – Night Shift – One For The Road.html

      1. King’s always been a bit of a nut, politically. I’m a fan, although his best days are, I fear, behind him, but his political views have typically been poorly informed and not especially sophisticated. That describes many of my friends, though. If you don’t compartmentalize that shit, it becomes difficult to hold on to friendships.

      2. “You want to test your faith against me? What, do you think this is a Dracula movie or something?” Susan’s dark silhouette laughed as she batted her glowing eyes. “I’m way out of your league, honey.” Milo Anderson closed his eyes and bowed his head, the lower half of his face disappearing into his bushy beard. He appeared to be praying. He did not move as Susan slowly walked toward him. Not even a tremble of fear, nothing. “Open the gate! Hurry!” Julie pleaded. “Milo, run!” “Dude! Get down!” Sam shouted. “Move, you idiot!” The faithful Hunter raised his head, smiled at us and winked. “Don’t worry, guys. It’s going to be okay. You had better get that portal opened, ’cause it’s going to get real exciting up in here.” He raised one arm as if to wave good-bye. Susan charged forward, her black shape disappearing in a blur as she surged toward Milo. He said something quickly as the vampire reached for him. There was an explosion of bright light, blinding all of us, searing right through our eyes and into our brains. I saw Milo’s skeleton through the flash. Good versus evil. Light versus dark. The cavern shook and dust and rock fell from the roof. Cracks appeared in the columns. The earth shook and I was thrown backward into Julie.

    2. Eh, I’m inclined to side w/ King against all the nitpickers saying “separation of church & state isn’t in the Constitution.” Sure, those exact words aren’t in it, but the 1st Amendment essentially expresses that exact concept.

      “You’re not wrong, Walter, you’re just an asshole!”

      1. The government isn’t allowed to establish a state religion; that isn’t saying that people in government cannot express individual religious preference. I say this as an atheist. The Progs frequently play fast and loose with the law. We, atheists included, gain much more from calling these fuckers out when they’re wrong about the details of the law than we do from supporting opinions with which we might happen to be sympathetic.

        Also, laws don’t work that way. Exact wording is important, otherwise they’re just suggestions.

        1. that isn’t saying that people in government cannot express individual religious preference.

          Who is saying that? That’s not what “separation of church and state” means and I’m sure that’s not what King (or others of his ilk) means either. I’d imagine his point is more that advocating, say, anti-abortion legislation because your particular invisible man in the sky said so (which, let’s face it, is actually a perspective unfortunately adopted by many Tea Partiers) runs contrary to at least the Constitution’s spirit, if not its exact letter.

          If we want “Progs” to take the Constitution at its word we ought to expect the same of socons.

          1. “advocating, say, anti-abortion legislation because your particular invisible man in the sky said so”

            IOW, “I can’t possibly imagine how someone could rationally believe that living human beings are entitled to the protection of the law, so I’ll just assume it’s some eccentric religious hangup!”

            1. There are some people who are opposed to abortion for entirely secular reasons, sure. Plenty of others who want to legislate it because their pastor told them to.

              1. Good for the pastor, then!

                It’s better than being for abortion because all your cool friends think it’s fashionable.

              2. Because their pastor told them so or because they made a conscious decision to live by a particular moral code. A decision, I might add, that they came to after years of observant and living.

                Or are only atheists the kind of people smart enough that they can come to conclusions on their own?

                No offense, but that’s pretty retarded, sir.

              3. There are some people who are opposed to abortion for entirely secular reasons, sure. Plenty of others who want to legislate it because their pastor told them to.

                And their desire to legislate based on this is not an example of the violation of separation of church and state.

                If I want to outlaw abortion explicitly because of my religion in no way does that violate the first amendment. It only violates the first amendment if I straight up attempt to force people to join my religion through government action.

                Agitating in favor of a law because it is consistent with your religious beliefs cannot conceivably be considered a violation of the first amendment. If that were the case, then a religious person could never make any political arguments since all arguments are at least partially founded upon your metaphysical beliefs.

                It is fundamentally impossible to have any religious belief that does not impact your political beliefs in a large number of instances.

            2. I would *love* to be able to claim that support for the rights of the unborn is a monopoly of religious believers, because I would then be able to cite this fact in defense of religion.

              But unfortunately for such an argument, there are nontheists who support the rights of the unborn:

              http://www.realclearreligion.o…..06498.html

              and

              http://www.secularprolife.org/

              1. Well, that and there the fact that different religions have different views on the subject. For example, even Orthodox Judaism is quite liberal when it comes to abortion, compared to Christianity. the Talmud straight up states that a fetus isn’t considered a full person under Jewish religious law. Likewise, Islam allows for abortion up to the 120th day. Compare this to Buddhists and Hindus, who have always strongly condemned the practice on the grounds of ahimsa.

                1. go on…

                    1. Sure, if you have nothing better to do, please elaborate.

                    2. Well ahimsa basically means “don’t do harm to living beings”. So whereas Judaism and Islam approach the subject from where personhood begins, the Dharmic religions are unconcerned with personhood as they feel it is a sin to harm a living thing, person or not.

                    3. I’m glad for the educational opportunities I get here.

                    4. I’m happy you found it interesting.

                    5. That’s very interesting. So in a country like Thailand I imagine abortion is a thousand times more stigmatized than it is here due to religious views.

                      And yet you’d never hear a critique of that from the feminists and atheists types who obsess over “Christian sharia”.

                    6. When I was in Thailand they had just recently passed a new abortion law. Until 2006-ish, abortion was completely illegal. After the new and very controversial law, abortion was permitted in cases of rape or severe threat to the mother’s health. Of course, saying that abortion is illegal in Thailand is the same as noting that prostitution is also illegal in Thailand. Still, you are correct that it is very stigmatized.

                    7. Yeah, I Googled the subject and discovered this article:

                      Thousands of aborted fetuses found in Buddhist temple

                      This is generally why I am pro legalized abortion even though I find it morally uncomfortable.

                      Still though, I like that I could point out to a feminist or atheist that there are millions of atheists in the world firmly opposed to abortion on moral grounds.

                    8. Yeah, that is also related to something extremely fucked up in Thai culture, the kuman thong or “golden boy”. Basically, in Thai animist belief, the most powerful magic amulet can be made by drying a dead fetus over a fire. I guess it then becomes like a magical homunculus or something. Everyone knows this because its a big part of the Thai national epic Khun Chang Khun Phaen (Sir Chang and Sir Phaen) where the hero, Sir Phaen, knocks up some broad (a Lao princess, actually) causes her to miscarry and then uses the dead fetus to create his Golden Boy who is like his sidekick genie for the rest of the story. Long story short, some corrupt Thai Buddhist monks will attempt to make money on the side by doing this crazy shit. They can actually get like 10,000 dollars per kuman thong, if they can prove it was a real fetus.

                    9. This is generally why I am pro legalized abortion even though I find it morally uncomfortable.

                      I frankly don’t understand this position. Why would the physical location of the discarded fetuses have any bearing on the rightness of discarding them in the first place?

                    10. It’s not the location, it’s the knowledge that women end up doing it themselves or hiring some butcher to do it.

                      I make no pretense of it being a morally consistent position. Abortion is difficult for me.

                    11. They are butchered either way, legal or not. Or, there was nothing of moral consequence to butcher in the first place.

                    12. I am one of those atheists who finds abortion as birth control morally and ethically repugnant.

                    13. I am one of those atheists who finds abortion as birth control morally and ethically repugnant.

                      I’m an atheist who thinks abortion early in the pregnancy may be justifiable but anyone seriously arguing in favor of 20 week+ abortions is completely ignoring all evidence of fetal development.

                      If you’re arguing in favor of abortion at the 26th week, which is what many feminists are seriously arguing, you’re arguing in favor of flat out infanticide.

                      At a certain point it clearly becomes murder. The question is at what point.

                    14. It’s also important to note that unlike the Abrahamic religions, there is no concept of “be fruitful and multiply”, so contraception is actually encouraged as the moral choice for those who don’t want to get pregnant.

              2. “…there are nontheists who support the rights of the unborn:”

                Yes, many, of which I am one.

          2. That’s not what “separation of church and state” means and I’m sure that’s not what King (or others of his ilk) means either. I’d imagine his point is more that advocating, say, anti-abortion legislation because your particular invisible man in the sky said so (which, let’s face it, is actually a perspective unfortunately adopted by many Tea Partiers) runs contrary to at least the Constitution’s spirit, if not its exact letter.

            No, King’s point is that things like the Hobby Lobby decision, in which the government tried to abuse religious believers without regard for their religious beliefs, was terrible because the religious weren’t forced to adhere to the dictates of the state.

            The left has expanded the separation of church and state to essentially mean that religious liberty does not exist and the government can force any religion to do whatever it wants. Essentially, church can have no impact on state, but state can abuse churchgoers in any way it wants to.

            The left, of which Stephen King is a stupendously mindless fellow traveler, doesn’t want a ‘wall’ between church and state. They want a two-way mirror in which religion has no capacity for defense but the government is always watching.

          3. What if I advocate for anti-abortion legislation without believing in any invisible man in the sky?

            Not only is that retarded, but saying people can’t be inspired by their religious conscious when deciding on legislation IS unconstitutional, you’ve got it completely backwards.

            1. What if I advocate for anti-abortion legislation without believing in any invisible man in the sky?

              Not only is that retarded, but saying people can’t be inspired by their religious conscious when deciding on legislation IS unconstitutional, you’ve got it completely backwards.

              + Infinity. This is exactly right.

              The logic here is idiotic because he’s essentially arguing that the reason you agitate in favor of a particular law is what determines that laws constitutionality. This is an argument barely distinguishable from thought crime.

              Christopher Hitchens was an atheist who was anti-abortion. By the logic presented above, Hitchens’ anti-abortion arguments are constitutional, but the arguments of a religious person against abortion are not.

              Either abortion can be outlawed or it can’t. You can’t argue that it can be outlawed by non-religious people but not religious people.

    3. My mother had him as instructor for some English class she took while at UMO, she also was seated with at some reunion/homecoming event she went to 15 or so years ago. She said he is “a moron whose solitary, but significant, talent is in relaying his own warped neuroses in the written word.”

      That is all.

      And yeah, what Irish said below. The Left’s obsession about “church and state” comes from their desire to use proxy violence to punish those icky Christ-fags.

  10. Thank god we have these brave men to beat up girls when they get a chance.

    Any chance of the hard-line feminists taking up this issue, or are they too busy screaming “rape” when someone asks if they want coffee?

    -jcr

  11. Ya know, I wasn’t going to check Reason again today. I was just gonna get some quality Skyrim time in and enjoy the rest of the weekend but no. No I had to look in one more time and there this is.

    Fuck.

    It feels like it has been a solid two weeks of constant nut-punches around here.

    What the fuck is it going to take?

    1. Has there been any good dlc’s released since dragonborn? Before you start screaming about PC mods, I’ll have you know that I played on a 360.

      1. No, Hearthfire, Dawnguard, and Dragonborn were it. That’s plenty of content though.

        If you are looking for interesting Skyrim stuff I’d suggest the character archives at the Skyrim Blog. Great concepts along with some really cool and game-enhancing glitches, exploits, and skill/equipment combos. Try this one out for a start.

  12. What’s with all the gayness with ball players acting like pussies when hit by a pitch now?

    Watching the Dodgers-Cardinals just happened.

    1. What’s with everybody gathering together at home plate as though they just won the World Series every fucking time there’s a game-winning hit?

      1. What’s with everyone not wearing suits to the ballpark anymore? And what’s with all the Negros on the field?

        1. Negritos playing y beis-a-ball?

        2. Those are negros? I thought they were niggers.

          1. Canucker please!

            1. I couldn’t resist.

              Aren’t Canuckians absolved from saying the n-word?

              1. N-word? You mean nigger?

                1. No. Nugiperous.

                  http://www.worldwidewords.org/…..w-nug1.htm

                  Of course nigger.

                  Let’s see how far we can keep this thread going with that word.

                  1. This is certainly a great idea which I will never regret!

                    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NG2EGOB9-lc

                    1. Which raises an issue which, as a linguist, you may be able to shed some light on. Is it “honkey” or “honky”?

                    2. I find the etymological arguments that trace its origins as a shortened version of “honky-tonk” to be the most convincing.

                    3. It’s hard to get riled up, as a white person, at being called “honky” or “cracker.”

                      So basically I have no characteristic which can be subject to nasty insults!

                    4. So basically I have no characteristic which can be subject to nasty insults!

                      Says the katlick.

                    5. This list is less colorful than I had imagined:

                      http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/L…..#Catholics

                    6. Here in NYC I hear cracker in heavy usage. As a Florida native, I was always told that cracker is correctly applied only to those of us who hail from Florida or Georgia. It smarts a bit to have it genericized so.

                    7. The end of this thread is near!

                    8. Can a Mediterranean be a ‘honky?’

                    9. [something about looking all the same]

                    10. Pretty sure it’s honky, you porch monkeys.

    2. Are they throwing their hands up and then falling to the ground and clutching their ankles?

      1. No but they act like they’re in a saloon looking to fight.

    3. Most of them are not fit to wash Chase Utley’s jock. That man can take a pitch.

    4. We should send in Biggio to beat all those pussies to death. Then we should raise them as zombies and send them to beat the HOF voters to death for not putting Biggio in the hall yet.

    1. BAH! Everyone knows Destro and The Baroness are a clarinet duo:

      http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RkPEHM38_DA

  13. The Internal Revenue Service has just settled a lawsuit…accusing it of insufficient political harassment of churches.

    According to the plaintiff, the Freedom From Religion Foundation, the IRS has agreed to more closely monitor churches and religious groups to make sure they don’t endorse political candidates. The Lyndon Johnson Amendment of 1954 banned explicit political partisanship by nonprofits.

    The one fly in the ointment:

    “Church audits will not begin immediately because the IRS now has a broader moratorium in place on investigation of any tax-exempt organizations because of the Congressional investigation of its alleged targeting of conservative groups for adverse treatment.”

    http://religionclause.blogspot…..n-non.html

    1. Nothing better to foster trust in the government than by fucking with folk’s churches.

      1. Also, GKC, you’re so prolific at posting these things why don’t you have a blog? Or at least link to it if you do?

        1. Thank you, but I would be competing with this guy:

          http://religionclause.blogspot.com/

          1. If I increase my online presence, I will be sure to alert all the good folks at H&R!

          2. Looked at it, I think you could do a more accessible version.

            1. Let me give that some thought.

              I’m doing a bit of work on some tangentially-related matters; I’ll see how that turns out.

  14. Rerun: Parrot sings “I see you baby, shaking that ass”

    (best after 50 seconds)

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QvT0KtQcoZU

  15. I have three American friends and we got to talking about this thing that they have to declare income to the IRS. It’s fucking evil when you put a face to it. Apparently there’s been a crackdown under Obama.

    No kidding. When you give free shit out you need to rape and steal as much money as you can.

    1. No stop signs
      Speed limit
      Nobody’s gonna slow me down
      Like a wheel
      “Gonna spin it
      Nobody’s gonna mess me around
      Hey satan
      Payin’ my dues”

      Always sang the last line as ‘hey now, Jews!’

      Hey. Give me a break. I have poor hearing out of one ear and very average on the other.

      1. That’s the Hamas version.

        1. You just summoned Bo.

    2. One good turn deserves another; please enjoy the Red Star Belgrade arrangement.

      http://goo.gl/LaOPD7

      1. That’s pretty good.

        Here is one of my classic links: Kermit the Frog’s love song to Miss Piggy:

        https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=isMFxOLbiro

        1. Wifey and I are in hysterics; not sure we should share it with our 4 year old, the Muppet fanatic.

  16. Nitpick for Ed. The link to the local site is 404’d. Can you please fix it in the story if it’s been posted wrong or post to a current story if the news site arbitrarily took the original story down?

  17. The Beatles perform their best song:

    (CAUTION: might be considered offensive to normal people)

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pQdAO9UsWho

    1. You should send this to Marcotte.

      Didn’t realized The Beatles preceded hip-hop.

  18. Japanese girl band covers the Beastie Boys

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qgBnhVeXosM

  19. Lounge singer Richard Cheese covers Vanilla Ice:

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=W21LW8SQ8I0

    1. Dick Cheese?

      1. There’s more where that came from:

        https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=n9VDJ3v4w48

    2. His rates for playing private party/ corporate event are on his website. Pricy but reasonable.

      1. Are you a shill for Big Dick Cheese?

        1. Big Cheese Dick. C’mon!

          1. So…how did it go?

  20. Jesus. St. Louis nailed Yasiel Puig on the hand and now their closer just likely broke Hanley Ramirez’s wrist on a 99MPH fastball.

    This being the same team that fractured Hanley’s rib in the NLCS last season and took out our best hitter.

    1. This episode of EconTalk immediately sprang to mind.

      Michael Munger of Duke University talks with EconTalk host Russ Roberts about the role of formal rules and informal rules in sports. Many sports restrain violence and retaliation through formal rules while in others, protective equipment is used to reduce injury. In all sports, codes of conduct emerge to deal with violence and unobserved violations of formal rules. Munger explores the interaction of these forces across different sports and how they relate to insights of Coase and Hayek.

      http://www.econtalk.org/archiv…..sport.html

  21. The entire lefty kerfuffle is prolly only understandable to those of us who live in the People’s Republic of the Bay Area, but it is now becoming amusing.
    Suffice to say an “eco-wonderful” oyster bizz has been told to go out of bizz by the Feds, ’cause, uh, snail darters or something of the sort. Search “Drakes Bay Oyster Co.” if you want the entire background.
    One lefty columnist says that’s fine, since people in west Marin (where it is) much prefer making nice to keeping Juan’s job (since Juan really isn’t a west Marinite; takes bucks to afford the limited supply):
    “When these bonds are frayed, the necessary trust breaks down.”
    http://www.sfgate.com/entertai…..620964.php
    Well, fuck you, Jon, and richly so, you asshole:
    “Last night, a handful of Bay Area restaurants joined forces to file an emergency suit to stop ? or delay ? the scheduled July 31 closure of Drakes Bay Oyster Company.[…]Among those on the plaintiff roster are Tomales Bay Oyster Company, Sir and Star in Olema, Osteria Stellina in Point Reyes Station, Saltwater Oyster Depot in Inverness, Cafe Reyes in Point Reyes Station, and Hayes Street Grill in San Francisco”
    http://insidescoopsf.sfgate.co…..r-company/
    So maybe Jon won’t be so welcome in the restaurants where they give the tomatoes first names before they are served.

    1. Hey Sevo, we missed you today at the meet-up. It was fun. My work as an evil minion here finally paid off in wine and poutine.

      1. Just got back (from W Marin); sorry I missed it too. Did anyone rag Nick on living in Oxford?

        1. Nick was fine. I didn’t see anyone ragging him. I had a long chat with him. Nice guy.

  22. And, amazingly, nature says ‘screw you’ to lefty plans:
    “Drought hinders state’s emissions goals”
    http://www.sfgate.com/science/…..hc-bayarea

    Why, look at that! Lefties are stuck between the predicted (not happening) temp increase and the lack of rains as a result of their failed predictions!
    What could be wrong?!

  23. And then, still looking at cruises in Europe; take a look at what the ‘captain’ sees:
    http://www.marinetraffic.com/e…..RIMA#first

    1. Thinking of doing a Viking river cruise?

      My mother and aunt have done a couple of those and really enjoyed the experiences. Their favorite started in Amsterdam and ended in Bucharest, took them close to a month I believe. Sounded pretty fantastic, but those cruises are on the spendy side for me.

      1. “those cruises are on the spendy side for me.”

        Me too, that’s the reason I’m asking. I think I can swing it, but I’m hoping for info to make sure it’s worth it. Or not.

  24. OK these are the kind of PUNK COPS I just LOVE to hear about in the news getting clipped in the line of duty!

    http://www.AnonToolz.tk

  25. I’m a little late to the “What part of the constitution do curfews violate?” party but I’ll say the 13th.

    Persons not free to travel public ways who are not subject to the criminal justice system are chattels.

  26. I’m against abortion unless God does it.

  27. 1.) She’s a violent, spoiled brat.

    2.) Curfews for kids aren’t unconstitutional as they’re not adults.

    3.) She illegally resisted and fought the police.

    4.) She ran from the police.

    5.) She’s faking her nonsense injuries and that ridiculous neckbrace. The worthless parents are trying to get their payday.

Please to post comments

Comments are closed.