Tsarnaev Found Extremely Guilty, Officer Who Shot Walter Scott Fired, Afghan Soldier Fires on U.S. Troops, Killing One: P.M. Links

|

  • Most predictable verdict in American judicial history?
    FBI

    Dzokhar Tsarnaev has been found guilty of many, many charges for his role in the deadly Boston Marathon bombing and could possibly be put to death. The same jury will determine his ultimate fate.

  • Angry protests in South Carolina have followed the release of the video showing North Charleston Officer Michael Slager shooting Walter Scott to death as Scott was running away. The mayor of North Charleston said today that Slager, who faces murder charges, has been fired from the police force.
  • Elsewhere in South Carolina, another police officer is facing charges for shooting and killing a man who was in his car in his own driveway following a police chase in 2014. Justin Gregory Craven has been charged with discharging a firearm into an occupied vehicle in connection with the death of Ernest Satterwhite.
  • Remember how we still have troops in Afghanistan? An Afghan soldier opened fire on them today, killing an American soldier.
  • A day after declaring his candidacy for president, Sen. Rand Paul is still the subject of media buzz. Read more Reason analysis today here, here, here, and here.
  • Russian hackers reportedly have penetrated the White House's and the State Department's computer networks, but no classified information was accessed. That's what the White House says, anyway.

Follow Reason on Twitter, and like us on Facebook.  You can also get the top stories mailed to you—sign up here. Have a news tip? Send it to us!

Advertisement

NEXT: Sursursursurreply briefs

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. Dzokhar Tsarnaev has been found guilty of many, many charges for his role in the deadly Boston Marathon bombing …

    Nail biter.

    1. Hello.

      Remember the victims I say.

    2. As much as I didn’t like how Boston responded to this attack, the little fuck deserves what he gets. Not much doubt he and his brother did it, after all.

      1. Who’s mostest guiltiest, this guy or Aaron Hernandez. Wasn’t Hernandez hanging around in MA while he was shooting all those people also?

        1. You need to ask?

          1. Well, since Hernandez has shot and killed at least 3 people and shot another guy in the face and left him for dead, yeah I have to ask which of them is most evil.

        2. The Tiger Beat guy, I think. He’s on tape pretty much doing the deed, right?

          1. Yep. *He* won’t be getting folk songs written about how he got railroaded.

            1. I guess the whole Hispanic thing isn’t really working out for Hernandez as much as he might have hoped. Points off for being a jock? I dunno how that all works.

              1. And he’s from Connecticut. If he were from Florida, he’d have been freed already, living in sin with Casey Anthony.

                1. As long as he wraps it up. Too soon?

      2. Kill it, kill it, kill it.

        Here’s a star of David for you, ProL. L’chaim.

    3. We’ll be lucky if Caliph Obama doesn’t pardon him.

      1. What happened to Block Yomamma?

        1. He’s learning, don’t interrupt the process. It takes a while…

        2. Him too.

      2. Just be glad he didn’t describe it as ‘Sports place violence.’

    4. hang him high

  2. The mayor of North Charleston said today that Slager, who faces murder charges, has been fired from the police force.

    He can use the eventual back pay for his legal bills.

  3. Remember how we still have troops in Afghanistan? An Afghan soldier opened fire on them today, killing an American soldier.

    Accident or workplace violence?

    1. Lack of trigger warning.

  4. Justin Gregory Craven has been charged with discharging a firearm into an occupied vehicle in connection with the death of Ernest Satterwhite.

    That’s it? A charge of discharging a firearm, as opposed to murder?

    1. Two murder charges in one day would spoil your appetite.

      1. One murder charge must be balanced with one nutpunch, lest the plebes begin to think they’re winning.

        1. The real nutpunch is that this is the upgraded charge. Per the article the family had to push for the “discharge of a firearm” felony charge when he was originally charged with “misconduct in office” – not even a felony.

        2. Winning????

          One bone thrown our way does not constitute winning.

    2. Shots were fired.

      1. The gun went off.

        1. Count ourselves lucky it didn’t chase a grandmother down the street and ravish her.

    3. In other news, Tsarnaev was found guilty of setting off a bomb in a public place and Aaron Hernandez is on trial for discharging a firearm into the body of another person.

      It is just fucking appalling.

      1. John, clearly the prosecutors wanted to charge him with murder, but after the body decomposed, and the bullet holes rotted away, the only evidence they had was bullet holes in the car!

      2. Hernandez apparently has shot 3 people dead and shot another guy in the face, but that guy lived.

        I was watching a special about him on CNN a couple nights ago. Seeing this guys history of violence going back to his early college days, I don’t know how the Patriots or anyone else did not see this coming.

        1. And also, it’s like Hernandez is not even careful about murdering people, except for when it apparently comes to getting rid of the murder weapon.

          He was quite apparently completely out of control. A guy who thought he could get away with anything, including multiple murders.

        2. The CNN special was nuts.

        3. I think it is one of t hose cases where he was such a psycho that no one really believed how bad he was. It is like a Reason column on Iran. Well he couldn’t be that bad, he is just talking. No. Sometimes people really are that bad and Hernandez apparently was.

          1. I know he’s never been tested for roids and confirmed that he was using them, but I suspect roid rage, as I do in a lot of these cases with cops.

            Hernandez should have been a cop, he could have gotten away with a few murders.

            1. Yeah, but even the cops tend to draw the line at three….

              1. even the cops tend to draw the line at three….

                A day?

            2. I don’t think it is roid rage. I think it is idiocy. I wouldn’t even call him a sociopath. He seems to genuinely care about some people. He is just really stupid and decided that his identity was being a tough guy gangster and started shooting people living that fantasy. He killed the first two guys because “he was tired of people bumping into him and disrespecting him”. He whacked the last guy because he thought he was going to rat.

              1. Ya. With sociopaths, if you read enough about them you get to a point of “shit, he is like a completely different evil species walking around impersonating a human, and doing a good job”. It’s scary. Hernandez is scary too, but just because he is a big evil shit head who thought he could get away with anything. Not the same kind of scary at all.

                1. There’s an additional problem that arises when the sociopath happens to also be an elite athlete. An athletically gifted sociopath can get away with all sorts of crap in high school and college. Lots of people are happy to look the other way, some will tolerate misconduct as “boys being boys” and, in the cases where they don’t, others are there to cover up for misdeeds. Instead of just consequences for misdeeds, the only feedback this sociopath gets is praise for his awesome athletic prowess. It would be easy for an imperceptive sociopath in this situation to think he could literally get away with murder.

                2. There’s an additional problem that arises when the sociopath happens to also be an elite athlete. An athletically gifted sociopath can get away with all sorts of crap in high school and college. Lots of people are happy to look the other way, some will tolerate misconduct as “boys being boys” and, in the cases where they don’t, others are there to cover up for misdeeds. Instead of just consequences for misdeeds, the only feedback this sociopath gets is praise for his awesome athletic prowess. It would be easy for an imperceptive sociopath in this situation to think he could literally get away with murder.

                3. It should be noted that most sociopaths aren’t violent; you run into them every day without knowing it.

                  1. * narrows gaze *

              2. I wouldn’t even call him a sociopath. He seems to genuinely care about some people.

                That’s the exact difference between (frank) psychopaths and sociopaths: the former is congenitally unable to ‘care about’ (feel empathy for) anyone, while a sociopath is able and does ‘care about’ (feel empathy for) some people.

      3. Speaking of Hernandez, apparently one of the arguments as to why he would not have killed the guy is because the guy was such a great blunt roller and Hernandez loved a perfectly rolled blunt.

        1. Did he have a public defender or something?

        2. Sounds to me like he would kill anyone for the slightest of slights, good blunt roller or not. I don’t think psychos think much about things like that when they’re in a murderous rage.

          1. Let’s see, one of the other arguments was that the other two guys were in a pcp induced psychosis when they killed him and Hernandez just panicked afterward.

    4. Hey, they could have just called it an “accidental discharge” and been done with it.

  5. A day after declaring his candidacy for president, Sen. Rand Paul is still the subject of media buzz.

    All thoughtful analysis, to be certain.

    1. Nothing says thoughtful like an abortion thread.

      1. I saw that a when I got back from court, did not read the comments.

    2. And to think H&R has been underplaying coverage of Paul’s announcement.

      1. I began to wonder if anything would ever happen again which could not be linked directly to Rand Paul.

        1. Lou Reed could die.

          1. Hamster: “I began to wonder if anything would ever happen again which could not be linked directly to Rand Paul.”

            Ted: “Lou Reed could die.”

            It’s early: Writers at Salon and Rolling Stone are working on a link (or two).

            1. “How Lou Reed’s Death Les to Rand Paul’s Run”

          2. Lou Reed could never die.

        2. Reason are just doing an experiment to see if they can subliminally cause any thread to be hijacked by Rand talk, through some unknown subliminal message hidden in the alt text.

          So, in effect, all threads are about Rand.

  6. Remember how we still have troops in Afghanistan? An Afghan soldier opened fire on them today, killing an American soldier.

    another day another workplace disturbance.

    1. The training is paying off. When we got there, they couldn’t hit a company standing in formation.

  7. Scores of angry protesters chanted “Black lives matter” and “All lives matter”

    So, CofC students and racists huh?

  8. Russian hackers reportedly have penetrated the White House’s and the State Department’s computer networks, but no classified information was accessed.

    This is why Hillary kept her own server.

  9. A day after declaring his candidacy for president, Sen. Rand Paul is still the subject of media buzz. Read more Reason analysis today here, here, here, and here.

    The buzz I’m hearing is about how he was “whitesplaining” the civil rights act to a black audience at Howard University, and how all his talk of criminal justice reform and other “liberal” causes are just a ruse to push us towards a Koch Libertopia.

    1. At least that’s some sort of “topia” as opposed to the total heat death of the polity they’re aiming for.

  10. I watched the movie Rubber on Amazon Prime last night.

    A homicidal car tire, discovering it has destructive psionic power, sets its sights on a desert town once a mysterious woman becomes its obsession.

    Everyone should watch it. Not because it is good, but because it is the best movie with a homicidal tire as the villain I think you will ever see.

    1. Replace “homicidal car tire” with “gun”, and you have the Left’s real-life animism!

      Long live fun control!

    2. Is this like The Car, only with more car parts, then?

      1. No. It is just the tire. Without a rim. It wanders around and psychokinetically causes things/people to explode, for no apparent reason.

        1. Only with fewer car parts, I meant, but okay.

      2. “Is this like The Car…?”

        I hope not, PL, for as you well know “There’s no where to turn, no where to hide, no way to stop… The Car”

        https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PoAD3kUmN9s

        1. I didn’t like him killing the French horn player, as I played it when I was a kid for a while. Brought the idea of autonomous demon hearse death close to home.

    3. The plot sounds like a “so awful it’s funny” movie.

      1. Anyway, how’s your sex life?

        1. So awful it’s funny?

      2. It think it’s “stylistic suck” because the movie also contains an audience of people watching the movie and complaining about how bad it is.

        1. It MST3K’ed itself?

    4. ” it is the best movie with a homicidal tire as the villain I think you will ever see.”

      Well, in Christine, the tires were *accomplices*

      1. Nobody needs four tires!

      2. heh. You have a point, but if I remember Christine correctly (it has been a while) the body count is not as high as Rubber.

        Therefore, the Nameless Tire is the more fearsome killer.

      3. What, do you blame shoes on murderers?

    5. I stumbled across that movie on cable a few years ago while I was really, really high. I honestly thought I’d hallucinated it and can’t believe it’s a real movie…

      1. That and ‘Eraserhead’.

    6. this movie is old. Invited a date to watch this movie at my place, banged after.

      She’s my wife now lol

      1. You romantic dog, you. She must love that description of how you two ended up together.

        1. what can I say, a movie about a tire turned to conversations about rubbers and then my magic took us across the finish line.

          So many puns but I will let this one ride.

          1. You know who else let one ride?

    7. And when you’re done with that, you can traumatize your kids by asking if they want to watch Frozen and…

      http://www.imdb.com/title/tt1323045/

  11. We’ve learned what it takes to get fired from a police department – get caught on video shooting a man to death while he’s running away then drop your tazer next to him so you can pretend he stole it.

    1. And…we’re all impressed by that.

    2. At last, a bright line we can all agree upon. This much, and no further.

    3. And what have the police learned from this?

      To make sure you don’t look too casual when you gun someone down who is running away from you.

      1. Maybe a sad face? Can the union create a sad face exemption?

        1. I haven’t heard anything from a union about this.waiting for the dust too settle?

      2. And, make sure you arrest the guy videoing.

        1. I’m still shocked that the person who recorded this made it out safely with his phone/camera intact.

          1. ^This. And as long as he never stops running, he’ll be okay.

        2. Arrest? Sure, after the beating. Oh, and the tazing.

  12. Russian hackers reportedly have penetrated the White House’s and the State Department’s computer networks, but no classified information was accessed.

    Shackford forgot to give us a TRIGGER WARNING before using a loaded word like “penetrate”.

    1. Meh. It’s not like Hilary followed the word.

  13. Russian hackers reportedly have penetrated the White House’s and the State Department’s computer networks, but no classified information was accessed. That’s what the White House says, anyway.

    I lol’ed. Did anyone else lol? Coz I lol’ed.

    1. You see Hillary was right to store her emails on a more secure server in her basement.

      1. I bet some true believers start spouting that sort of nonsense, even though the lack of real security on her end is pretty apparent.

        1. The best news would be that the hole they used to penetrate came through the Clinton Server Farm.

          1. Apparently the claim is that some State schmuck clicked on a phishing link and that’s how the Russians (brilliant hackers who nonetheless leave their spoor everywhere) got into a secured but non-classified network. Those BIGGER*COCK emails are more then a mere nuisance, it seems.

    2. Look, man, they can’t even manage to get a contractor supplied health care website functional. You think their internal IT is going to be any better?

    3. I would but I’m convinced they’ll blame Snowden sooner or later so then I cried.

      1. Well Snowden is in Russia, so that might be enough “evidence” for some.

  14. Russian hackers reportedly have penetrated the White House’s and the State Department’s computer networks, but no classified information was accessed. That’s what the White House says, anyway.

    I never believe the victims of a hack attack when they say “the hackers only got x”. If the hackers are skilled enough to get in, they’re also skilled enough to prevent you from finding out what they got. It’s not like you can search your network like a living room to see what’s been touched.

    1. ^THIS.

    2. I haven’t read anything, but are we sure this is anything more than an attack on their public websites? I doubt there’s shit of a classified nature at all accessible from there, though I hesitate to impute competence on those who so often prove otherwise.

      1. My understanding is the White House, like other Federal departments that handle Classified info have two networks and only the unclassified one was hacked.

        1. Well, then, this is a nonevent.

    3. Your conclusion — I never believe the victims of a hack attack when they say “the hackers only got x” — is correct but your support — If the hackers are skilled enough to get in, they’re also skilled enough to prevent you from finding out what they got. — is not; it is a non sequitur. It always depends on the circumstances, of course, but it can often be much easier to exfiltrate data than it is to hide the fact that you’ve done so, if the latter is even possible.

      1. much easier to exfiltrate data than it is to hide the fact that you’ve done so, if the latter is even possible

        Well said. In order to download data without leaving a trace, the hacker would have to upload a low level disk access and network SW stack … and even the execution of those SW would leave traces in at least the scheduler / process control part of the OS.

      2. Um, I had assumed that they were just lying about the “No classified information” part, since, you know, the White House.

      3. Um, I had assumed that they were just lying about the “No classified information” part, since, you know, the White House.

  15. Russian hackers reportedly have penetrated the White House’s and the State Department’s computer networks, but no classified information was accessed. That’s what the White House says, anyway.

    Honest question: what are the chances Hillary’s private server is more secure?

    1. About the same probability of my wife buying me a night with Kate Upton as a birthday present.

    2. Honest question: what are the chances Hillary’s private server is more secure?

      Continuing today’s theme of penetration, should we assume that Hillary’s privates are impenetrable?

      1. You are a terrible person.

        1. Does anyone need a bit of mind bleach?

          I keep extra near at hand for just such occasions.

      2. If you’re persistent like me…

        1. Haaaaaa.

          +1 no mere locked door can withstand…

      3. I assumed that it just stitched itself closed over the years with interlocking skin tags.

        1. I think you need to write a more detailed description.

          1. No!

          2. Imagine that each side of her blackened, shriveled labia grew dozens of little cuntmeat fingers and they were holding her vagina closed by interweaving their crooked “knuckles.”

            1. Go on…

              1. *applies mind bleach, begins productive tasks*

            2. … wow. Nope, didn’t need to eat ever again anyway.

            3. That could be made into a cheesy ‘B’ horror movie. Attack of the Killer Vagina Dentata or something.

              1. That could be made into a cheesy ‘B’ horror movie. Attack of the Killer Vagina Dentata or something.

                Yeah…about that…

                1. Suck it, Marvin! First! First! First!

              2. It’s times like this when I wish I could draw.

                1. I think that might destroy the fabric of spacetime. Or summon Cthulu. But I repeat myself.

            4. Well, if I couldn’t remember what I had for breakfast this morning, I sure as shit know now.

            5. If she ever feels the need to use it again, I’m sure the teeth are more than able to chew their way through.

            6. Wholly Jeebus, dude.

              The only thing you could’ve done to make that comment worse would be if you’d added a link…

    3. Assuming it was an actual private server and not a cloud service, the chances are zero. A private server not part of an organization, setup merely to avoid scrutiny, likely wasn’t as well administered as government systems.

      1. -1 Send emails from SOS demanding access / credentials for other systems.

    4. That’s really hard to answer. Anyone who has experience in IT knows that even private companies often have dismal, inept security. Now, one would think that the government would have good security because of the nature of the secrets they would contain, but…it’s the government. However inept and incompetent you might guess it is, multiply that times ten and you’re probably still not there.

      Depending on who set up Hilary’s server, it could actually have been pretty secure. Or it could have been horribly unsecure. And we will never know which.

      1. Given Hilary’s history or lack thereof of competence, be honest, which way would you bet if you had to?

        1. Oh, with anyone in the government, my bet is always on incompetent.

          1. You left out “evil and.”

        2. A server with only two users is generically much more secure than a server with 2,500 users. In fact, if you were specifically setting it up to be a blackberry server for Hillary (and Hubby, but he doesn’t use it) and only for her blackberry and her desktop, you could set up pretty strict network level security that would make them as safe as anything connected to the internet might reasonably be expected to be.

          Dunno if they did any of that, but if I was a paranoid politico who was trying desperately to hide my tracks, I would.

          1. All she had to do was actually pick someone competent to set it up. That’s entirely possible, or it’s entirely possible she didn’t for any number of reasons. It’s impossible to tell without seeing the actual setup.

            1. And maintain it; it got patched right away for POODLE, Shellshock, Ghost, Heartbleed, etc, right? right?

              1. The general point (“patch your shit”) stands; however, it was running Windows Server 2008 R2, so Shellshock, GHOST (which was not worth the hype anyway), and Heartbleed would likely not have effected it unless it was set up in a particularly exotic manner (e.g., with a *nix mailserver running on Cygwin — but that would be stupid).

                1. Yeah, I’m not a Windows guy so I don’t know their vulnerability de jure but you got my main point – servers need care and feeding.

            2. You mean all she had to was pick someone who was capable of picking someone competent. I doubt she would want direct contact with anyone with as grubby a job as computer system designer.

    5. She gets a B on her SSL configuration because she’s using a weak SSL signature (SHA1), only supports TLS 1.0, supports the compromised RC4 cipher, and is vulnerable to decryption of capture packets because the server doesn’t support PFS.

      The White House, on the other hand, gets an A. They’re only dinged for SHA1 signature.

  16. A spokesman for the Law Enforcement Division declined to discuss the footage of the shooting or any specifics of the investigation, citing the ongoing case.

    Just like they do for anyone they arrest?

    1. I saw part of the press conference that the mayor/police spokesman/police chief gave today and they were pretty good. They seem to be handling this well, exactly the opposite of the Ferguson goons.

      All three guys appeared to be genuinely appalled at what happened, tactfully told all they knew and have turned it over to an independent agency already. There were hecklers, who were not thrown out of the conference, trying to instigate but they were not shaken by them. I have no doubt the town will be over run with the same agitators that hijacked the Ferguson protests, but these guys seem like they can handle it. I don’t expect teargas or an army of goons cursing and pointing rifles at people or Bearcats.

      I was impressed and I am hopeful someone will show how it should be done. Keep your fingers crossed.

      1. Done.

    1. Dammit, I should have seen the URL. I’m on my government work computer. I do not need to be going to Al-Jazeera

    2. Sandalgate?

    3. At least he didn’t call them “thongs.”

      1. Good, that’s a microaggression against women with body image issues.

    4. I know they had to change the name, but it still strikes me as such an obviously dumb move. Own it! It’s playful and funny!

    1. If I have to abandon diet pop in my never-ending quest to regain my abz, I’ll be pissed. I love pretending Diet Dr. Pepper isn’t bad for me.

      1. Pop? You truly are a monster.

        1. LOOK AT ME I’M BRETT L I’M A DIPSHIT AND I SAY SODA LIKE A DIPSHIT LOOK AT ME SODA SODA SODA SODA LOOK AT ME

          1. I say Coke, no matter what flavor because I’m right.

            1. Oh. You’re one of those.

            2. I occasionally do that just to troll people.

            3. Must be southern. Around here is the only place I have seen that convention.

              Stop at a store and I ask my wife “Would you like a coke?”

              Her answer; “Sure’

              Me; “What kind?”

              Her; “Diet Pepsi”

          2. Pop is a better word for the stuff.

        2. The midwest is the worst place on earth

          1. Sody water?

            What kinda coke you want?

    2. Yeah, I saw that when it came out. I’m very skeptical. The proposed mechanism would require that the gut bacteria react to different sweeteners that are in completely different chemical families in the same way, even though they don’t have anything in common chemically other than the fact that they attach to the “sweet” taste receptors in the mouths of humans.

      So from prior plausibility the odds are pretty low. Not zero, but low. Then you have a look at the evidence, and it isn’t the strongest thing ever, either. Not complete garbage, mind you, but not the most airtight study in history either.

      My prediction: a couple of groups try to replicate and get conflicting results. Further studies are designed that are each better than the last, with the effect slowly melting away until it finally disappears.

      1. Sounds like another assertion that is all the rage these days.

      2. 1) if you take a fat mouse and give it a skinny mouse’s gut bacteria, what happens?
        2) if you take a skinny mouse and give it a fat mouse’s gut bacteria, what happens?
        3) if you change a mouse’s intake of artificial sweetener, but don’t let it gain or lose weight, does the contents of its gut bacteria change?
        4) is you force a mouse to gain or lose weight while consuming the same amount of artificial sweetener, does the contents of its gut bacteria change?

      3. Devils advocate, since I think it’s far more likely to be explained by shoddy research:

        What if the gut flora get out of balance since they are starved of the nutrient they need?

        If they live on sugar, and you replace sugars with non nutritive artificial substitutes, then they would die off, causing the imbalance.

    3. I lost about 60 pounds last year and for most of that time I guzzled Coke Zero. But then one day I just happened to run out of Coke Zero and it was late at night. Man, nothing would satisfy me until I had some actual aspartame-containing drink. I surmised that I was addicted in some way to aspartame. So I gave it up. I feel better (I think) but it didn’t do anything as far as weight loss goes. I didn’t lose any extra weight or at any special rate than before and I certainly haven’t gained any weight since then. I don’t think aspartame does much in the way of your sugar/insulin cycle. BUT it is somehow addictive and you’ll go through withdrawals if you stop drinking aspartame drinks cold turkey.

      1. You weren’t addicted to aspartame, you were addicted to caffeine.

        1. You continue to be a fucking idiot.

    1. Someone needs to mansplain to Carly that merely being a woman isn’t enough to get the GOP nomination. If all you’re offering is identity, go blue.

      1. How is explaining why the FCC takeover of the internet is bad only offering gender?

    2. Fiorina gets the Palin treatment in 3…2…

      1. Already here. There was a link that called her Palin 2.0.

        1. I’d bet a lot that Carly can name a newspaper.

        1. And in the middle of that article is a link titled “Hillary Clinton Needs to Be More Fake.” TNR is trying to outdo Gawker.

        2. And in the middle of that article is a link titled “Hillary Clinton Needs to Be More Fake.” TNR is trying to outdo Gawker.

  17. This is old too, but it’s the best april fools article I’ve seen.

    The Libertarian Republic Gives Up: We Couldn’t Figure Out Who Would Build The Roads

  18. Some guy named Michael Walsh tells the depressing truth.

    How? Simple. Give the police near-total immunity for their behavior as “public servants,” instruct them to bring in money by just about any means necessary, rely on the conservatives to support almost any excess, enjoy the blessing of the state and federal courts, and provide them with enough weapons ? not just guns, but tasers, nightsticks, huge flashlights, etc. ? to take down and out anyone who resists. We can sort out guilt or innocence later, possibly posthumously. Joseph K. had a better chance at justice in Frank Kafka’s The Trial.

    America 2015: where everything you have, including your life, belongs to the state. Who won the Cold War, again?

    Read more: http://pjmedia.com/michaelwals…..z3WkiX4B7Q

    1. I was watching the trailer for the 1976 John Carpenter Assault on Precinct 13 the other day, and I was struck by how it was clearly plausible at the time that a gang of homicidal street toughs could actually surround and assault a police precinct without there being a trillion other cops showing up with enough gear to invade Canada. Now, the idea is laughable. They can’t arrest someone on the side of the road without eight other cops as backup now. Or that all they had for their defense in the precinct were revolvers and shotguns.

      1. Define ‘with enough gear to invade Canada.’

        1. Three rowboats, two hatchets, and some nice winter gloves.

          1. They’re going to need a toque.

            1. “Look out! They’ve got chainsaws!”

          2. You already lost. We will rely on you invading in January.

            1. Well at least we won’t be bogged down in the mud. Worked with a pipeline driller service company. Never thought about moving heavy equipment being easier when the mud is hard frozen before.

          3. +5 gold rings handcuffs

          4. Don’t forget the donuts!

      2. When Charles Whitman started shooting people on top of the Tower at UT, the Austin police had to put out a call to the public for hunting rifles because they didn’t have any weapons that had the range to shoot him. He was up there with an M1 shooing with impunity. Even then, a single deputy and a very brave civilian went up on the tower and shot him.

        Today, he wouldn’t have lasted two minutes. And that is not a good thing all and all.

        1. Several faculty and staff returned fire from the ground with rifles. Most had served in WWII and/or Korea and understood they were just keeping his head down. But then you could have your rifle in your faculty office or behind the checkin counter at your dorm.

          1. We were a better and more civilized and rational country in many ways back then.

            1. and in so many ways not

              what am I talking about? I wasn’t even born then

          2. I went and looked at that tower once. I could have hit the guy, but not everyone has burned up over a million rounds in practice.

            1. Shooting up at a sharp angle with a guy who is shooting through crenelations? Thats about four inches of exposed flesh. Don’t doubt your skills, but its a nearly impossible shot, even with a “good” scope in 1961.

        2. Today, he wouldn’t have lasted two minutes.

          You assume the cops would be a good enough shot to take him down that quickly. And that they wouldn’t set up a perimeter and wait until he ran out of bullets, spending most of their effort on roughing up people who try to get past the roadblocks.

          1. You assume the cops would be a good enough shot to take him down that quickly.

            You assume the cops wouldn’t just set the tower on fire.

            1. Winner!

            2. Come on, 1-in-a-million chance to use an MRAP vehicle? They’d drive that fucker right into tower until it collapsed.

              Or park it couple thousand yards away, then start unloading .50 cal into it until there’s nothing left of the whole structure?

              1. Hey, if a fiery death was good enough for some religious nuts in Waco, it’d be good enough for some nut in Austin.

      3. If I remember that movie correctly a bunch of heavily armed cops did show up. They were the bad guys.

        1. Assault on precinct 13. Damn weird ass threads.

  19. December 2014 = War in Afghanistan Ended

    March 2014 = Obama: “Ended” is too strong a word. Call it “Transitioning to Training and Advisory Capacity”

    April 2014 = US Troops Killed While Training and Advising

    1. Words have magic power. He said he ended the war. Therefore the war is ended, body bags or no.

      1. And Obama’s going to catch hell the way Bush did after the “Mission Accompl-“…wait…no,….I cannot even finish that sentence sarcastically.

        1. Hey, at least Obama closed Guantanamo.

  20. OH NOES SUPPLEMENTS HAVE DRUGS OR DRUG LIKE THINGS OR SOMETHING IN THEM!!!

    “Whenever you buy a weight loss product, the best you can hope for is that it doesn’t work. But why I would strongly caution against it is that the risk of getting a drug, and maybe even a drug that’s never been tested in humans, is real,” says Pieter Cohen, MD, an assistant professor of medicine at Harvard University.

    Maybe if the weight loss drugs that we know work weren’t illegal, people wouldn’t be trying crazy new drugs to lose weight. Just a thought.

    1. Cocaine is illegal?

    2. Maybe if the weight loss drugs that we know work weren’t illegal, people wouldn’t be trying crazy new drugs to lose weight. Just a thought.

      You underestimate the power of hope. And stupid.

      “Head On” was a stick of wax that never even promised to do anything. They just said “apply it directly to the forehead”. And people bought the stuff to the tune of tens of millions of dollars.

      So yes, people will buy homeopathic preparations of ginseng and ginkgo biloba extract for weight loss and bunions and anything else they can think of. Even if they didn’t even bother to start with any real ginseng or ginkgo biloba. Or even if the supplements actually have a little herbs and some anabolic steroids in them.

      But to your point, if drugs were not banned and manufacturers were free to make preparations that actually had a chance of working as advertised, we’d be better off. I certainly would prefer a world where I could work with my doctor to decide which of the various HGH/Steroid preparations will best help me stave off the effects of aging. But you can’t, because….. well, I’m not sure what the rational is. But you cant.

      1. Or even if the supplements actually have a little herbs and some anabolic steroids in them.

        Those are the supplements you want. They actually do something.

      2. The funny thing is that anything that actually works is an immediate candidate for banning or scheduling. Just like so many sadistic killjoys hate people getting high for fun, they also hate the idea of people being able to lose weight without much effort. It’s all part of the same mentality: suffering is good.

      3. various HGH/Steroid preparations will best help me stave off the effects of aging. But you can’t, because….. well, I’m not sure what the rational is.

        Remember. Regular doses of female hormones for free for all women is a right. Doses of male hormones are illegal.

    3. Maybe if the weight loss drugs that we know work weren’t illegal

      I don’t think it’s what you’re referring to, but I was reading about DNP a few weeks ago, and damn, that stuff sounds nasty.

      1. Take some harmless amphetamines or cocaine or clenbuterol or winstrol. STAY. AWAY. From that shit.

        1. Yeah, I know. Even beyond the whole “possibly dying because you and/or your seedy online store got the does wrong” thing (minor detail, right?), from everything I’ve read it just flat out sucks to be on.

          1. It literally gives you an artificial fever. Insanity.

    4. Mmmmmm…benzadrine…

  21. File under = *what the fuck*?

    Woman Murders Son With Salt
    Because? = Wanted to Get Attention on Social Media Over Her “Sick Son”

    For those who think “mental illness is some made-up shit”, i think you have a pretty awesome case here

    “The judge described her as mentally ill and identified her condition as “Munchausen by proxy syndrome,” in which a caregiver fabricates a medical problem for someone in their care.”

    I dont even what.

    1. Not every homo sap is human. Sadly.

    2. You’ve never heard of Munchausen by Proxy before?

      1. I’ve seen The Adventures of Baron Munchausen

        1. That’s Gilliam by Proxy.

        2. Same Munchausen. Telling wild tales to get attention – whether it’s about your sick kid or your fantastic adventures – is a sign of some kind of crazy.

          1. This one time I went to a frat party and was totally gang raped. Through a glass table. And they grabbed my leg.

          2. DON’T TALK SHIT ABOUT TIME BANDITS

      1. Great scene. Great show, minus the last ten minutes. And goodness is he a golden god.

        1. Yeah, totally unsatisfying ending to the show, but worth watching nonetheless.

        2. “And goodness is he a golden god.”

          He is a clown. His job it to entertain us. He is good at that. If you like him entertaining you never ever watch him being him. He is an awful douchebag.

          1. Apparently you have not seen Fool’s Gold.

          2. Not a fan of Lincoln commercials, I take it?

          3. I don’t give trigger warnings. I will give advice however. My advice – don’t click this link.

            https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fIT9LE_eIFo

    3. “mental illness is some made-up shit”

      You just provided a perfect example. Parents hurt and kill their children because they are evil, or “sick” in the metaphorical sense. She doesn’t have an illness which caused her to poison her child for attention.

      1. “You just provided a perfect example. ‘

        Isn’t that what i said?

        I was pointing out that this probably doesn’t deserve a “insanity” plea

        Whereas i’m often trying to point out to people that Schizophreia is in fact a real disease… while this shit is kind of a joke. i’m not a fan of the “spectrum” disorder view where people characterize a wide range of behavior as ‘symptomatic’ of mental illness. I think there’s a hard-line that needs to be crossed, and that its a real thing.

        1. My apologies. I didn’t read past “for those of you who think…”

  22. Rand Paul on abortion: Why not ask the DNC if it’s okay to kill a 7 pound baby in the womb?

    “Should there be any exemptions or not?” asked NH1 reporter Paul Steinhauser, citing the DNC attack.

    “What’s the DNC say?” asked Paul. That landed like a joke?the room holding the press conference also contained some Paul supporters waiting for photos?but he was serious.

    “Here’s the deal?we always seen to have the debate waaaaay over here on what are the exact details of exemptions, or when it starts,” said Paul, waving his hands to the left. “Why don’t we ask the DNC: Is it okay to kill a seven-pound baby in the uterus? You go back and you ask Debbie Wasserman Schultz if she’s OK with killing a seven-pound baby that is not born yet. Ask her when life begins, and you ask Debbie when it’s okay to protect life. When you get an answer from Debbie, get back to me.”

    1. That is a fantastic answer. If he is going to be confrontational with the press he going to make this process very fun.

    2. And here’s Debbie’s rebuttal:

      UPDATE: After this item was published, the Democratic National Committee sent Bloomberg News a statement from party chair Debbie Wasserman Schultz.

      “Here’s an answer,” said Schultz. “I support letting women and their doctors make this decision without government getting involved. Period. End of story. Now your turn, Senator Paul. We know you want to allow government officials like yourself to make this decision for women ? but do you stand by your opposition to any exceptions, even when it comes to rape, incest, or life of the mother? Or do we just have different definitions of ‘personal liberty’? And I’d appreciate it if you could respond without ‘shushing’ me.”

      So abortion until the moment it leaves the magical birth canal, Debbie? I mean no government involvement, period, end of story sounds a lot like that.

      1. And I’d appreciate it if you could respond without ‘shushing’ me.”

        Cunty. I guess it plays well to her audience.

        1. War on Women!

      2. “I support letting women and their doctors make this decision without government getting involved. Period.

        So Schultz is now calling for the end of federal subsidies to Planned Parenthood?!!

      3. “I support letting women and their doctors make this decision without government getting involved.”

        Of course, the father of said child has no say in the matter. Unless its born, in which case he’s got to pay for it for the rest of it and his life.

        1. Some fellow in South Carolina took the easy way out of that

      4. When did paul “shush” her?

        or is that a thing? “I WOULD ALSO APPRECIATE IF YOU STOPPED MAKING “THOSE LOOKS” AT ME. YOU KNOW WHAT LOOKS I MEAN.”

        1. He shushed some woman who was talking over him on a talk show one time, or something like that. Team Harpy has a long memory for male impertinence.

          1. It’s an obvious, simple ploy to pander to the TEAM sheep. It’s basically implying that he’s a misogynist who thinks women should shut up and be mansplained to.

            It doesn’t surprise me in the slightest that she busted it out.

        2. Paul shushed some other woman this morning in an unrelated incident.

          1. This morning? For some reason I thought it was a long time ago.

            1. There was one a while ago too. It looks like it might be a habit for him.

              1. SHUSHGAZI x10

          2. I watched that. I’m sure that The Today Show will grill Hillary just as hard on her flip-flops the day after she announces.

          3. Yeah, Paul needs to not be so thin-skinned and a bit more tactful when he gets a question he doesn’t like.

          4. The “shush” heard ’round the world.

        3. I’m going to conclude every dialogue I have for the remainder of the week with “I would also appreciate if you stop sodomizing Tickle Me Elmo dolls underneath an alter to Jonathan Chait” or something along those lines.

      5. I’m pretty annoyed that folks on the right are now saying DWS is for no restrictions on abortion. She clearly still wants a member of a state-backed cartel to be involved somehow.

        1. As an aside, I consistently misread ‘DWS’ as ‘DWTS’ and have a brief “what does Dancing With The Stars have to do with this?” half-thought (and I’ve never even seen that show).

          Also, how does President Wasserman Schultz grab you, at a mere 80/1 shot?

        2. At the very least some kind of a pay off to the government or a political group.

      6. So if I follow correctly…

        Is it okay to kill a seven-pound baby in the uterus?

        Yes, I support letting women and their doctors make this decision .

        When does life begin? When is it okay to protect life?

        Do you stand by your opposition to any exceptions, even when it comes to rape, incest, or life of the mother? Or do we just have different definitions of ‘personal liberty’?

        1. Yeah, if I’m reading this right, Rand Paul said ‘is it okay to kill a 7 pound baby’ and DWS responded ‘yes, absolutely.’

          I expect this to get 0 media play.

          1. The shushing will get a lot of play fer sure

      7. “I support letting women and their doctors make this decision without government getting involved.”

        DWS voted against Obamacare?

      8. “Here’s an answer,” said Schultz. “I support letting women and their doctors make this decision without government getting involved.

        So the answer to the question “Would you kill a 7-pound baby that is still inside the uterus” is a resounding “Yes!”, Mrs. Schultz.

        That’s ALL I needed to know, you creep.

        1. I would like Rand to make a response to her saying: Y’know Debbie, it’s a good thing you’re not a fucking doctor AND I AM!

    3. That is fucking awesome. I am surprised the reporters didn’t riot or something. How dare he speak the truth like that. Doesn’t he know that isn’t allowed?

      1. The really funny thing is all the big media reporters who think he gave a bad answer. Uh no, embarrassing reporters and Democrats when they deploy loaded questions will make him a hero to the conservative base.

        You can tell he’s been rehearsing that answer. He looked awfully pleased with himself afterwards.

        1. Everything they say is a lie. So if they say its a bad answer that is because it is in fact a very good one.

      2. Between him and Walker, I hope this becomes SOP for dealing with journalists during election cycle.

    4. The breathtaking thing is, DWS answered “yes”.

      I’m in the squishy middle on this one, but RP played this well.

      1. And a really snotty yes, complete with an insult. Rand kicked her ass thoroughly here.

        1. Is it too much to hope that he thought while saying this “Who’s the craziest Democrat with a national stage?”

        2. It still feels a little guilty. Like tricking a retarded child into eating poop. She is making me revise my opinion that Sheila Jackson Lee is the stupidest person in Congress. DWS thought she was going to talk Bill Nelson into running for governor so she could run for Senate. It was stunningly stupid and venal, even for her.

          1. And her hair is worse than his, too. BURN

      2. That’s a creepy position to take, too, as there aren’t many people on either side that are for killing babies that far into the viability range.

        1. I think when they do the actual polls, even strongly Pro-Choice people get really weak about it in those cases.

          1. And there is a defensible libertarian position on abortion. If you think at some point the baby is a human being (a legal person), then that point is when it has rights of its own. Obviously, where that line is drawn is the $25,000 question, but that’s really all this is about, as even most pro-abortion zealots aren’t in favor of post-birth infanticide. Most.

            1. I’ve been saying this for years. Both pro-life and pro-choice camps accept, implicitly, that it all comes down to drawing some line, on one side of which a nascent creature is deserving of the rights and protections we afford to fully-developed human beings, and on the other side of which it isn’t. The drawing of that line is necessarily an arbitrary thing, and even though people within each camp often find themselves in stark disagreement on where to draw the line, the one thing they can agree on is that everyone *not* in their self-defined camp is just crazy and/or evil for drawing it someplace else.

              1. No, for pro-lifers it’s a matter of *recognizing* an existing line – the time a living human being comes into existence. How can this *possibly* be any later than conception.

                Medieval philosophers had the excuse of ignorance when they speculated that the early-stage fetus was a non-living lump of flesh until it was “quickened” (literally becoming alive) and moved in the womb.

                But what excuse do all the “I fucking love science” people in this 21st century have for pretending that what is conceived in the womb *isn’t* a living human being?

                This is why the sophisticated choicers are falling back on the trespasser/violinist argument, an argument which at least doesn’t require a reversion to medieval science.

                “a nascent creature”

                You mean a living human being at the earliest stages of life? When did you stop being “nascent?” At birth? At 5 years old?

                1. Eddie, I probably agree with you on this issue a lot more than you would suspect, but you’re basically demonstrating my point.

                  No, for pro-lifers it’s a matter of *recognizing* an existing line – the time a living human being comes into existence. How can this *possibly* be any later than conception.

                  Hey, why not earlier? A sperm is a living cell, and an egg is a living cell–were they not both still “me” before the act that joined them resulted in my conception? Why don’t we grant every sperm the same dignity that we assign to human beings?

                  1. Sperm and egg aren’t human beings. They are separate entities. Only when they join does a human being result.

                    I was never a sperm. I *was* a zygote.

                    1. Sperm and egg aren’t human beings. They are separate entities. Only when they join does a human being result.

                      I was never a sperm. I *was* a zygote.

                      What specific quality does a zygote possess that a sperm doesn’t that grants it human rights, and why is that specific quality the determining factor?

                    2. The “human rights” debate is separate from the “is it a human” debate.

                      If it’s human, then we get to discuss whether there is a category of living human beings who are excluded from the rights of personhood.

                    3. If it’s human, then we get to discuss whether there is a category of living human beings who are excluded from the rights of personhood.

                      I don’t think this is debatable, as, broadly speaking, there is already general agreement that there exists such a category: those that are brain-dead or unrecoverably comatose, for one.

                    4. There *is* debate over that very issue.

                    5. 23 more chromosomes for a start.

                      A zygote is a complete individual organism. A spermatozoa is not, nor is a skin cell.

                    6. I’m fairly certain the thing a zygote contains that a sperm doesn’t is a guarantee of having an X chromosome.

            2. This is SPARTA.

              But yes. This is at the heart a question of when ensoulment, for lack of a better term, takes place.

    5. Debate dodger!!11!

      1. but seriously, great reply

    6. cmon.

      You could make a libertarian case as to why it’s OK to kill a 7 pound completely viable baby in the name of privacy. But you’d have to try real hard.

      1. What if the baby demanded a cake be made for his in utero gay wedding?

        1. Question for super-conservatives: Is it okay to abort a baby if you know it’s gay?

          1. “No. Because God hates the *sin*.”

          2. And reverse the question for progs.

            1. “Is it OK to abort a baby if you know it’s not gay?” Is that the reverse of the question?

              1. If you found out a baby was gay, would it no longer be OK to abort it?

                You homophobe!

            2. That’s been answered by “gender-selective” abortion debate.

              Yes, they can abort at will. However, doctors must be forbidden from revealing gender (or, in your case, sexual orientation) by law.

              Then you just expand the list as needed so it doesn’t look like icky eugenics.

          3. “Question for super-conservatives: Is it okay to abort a baby if you know it’s gay?”

            That’s a joke, right?

            Or does “I don’t believe in the government giving your behavior the Good Housekeeping Seal of Approval” equivalent to “I want to kill you”?

              1. I should have known – but there *are* progs who seriously think it’s a “gotcha” to conservatives.

  23. Judge to Obama = Don’t Mess With Texas

    ” A federal judge in Texas has refused to lift a temporary block on a White House immigration plan that would have shielded millions of illegal immigrants from deportation, court documents show.

    U.S. District Judge Andrew Hanen in Brownsville, a city along the border with Mexico, rejected a U.S. Justice Department request to remove a ban on the plan he issued in February.

    Twenty-six U.S. states filed a lawsuit alleging Obama had exceeded his powers with executive orders that would let up to 4.7 million illegal immigrants stay in the country without threat of deportation”

    1. Judge to Obama = Don’t Mess With Texas

      Cut Alaska in two and make Texas the third-biggest state.

  24. FBI will order police to let criminals walk in order to keep Stingray device a secret

    Good to know. All I need to do is figure out some super secret device and threaten to spill the beans if I get arrested. lol
    That’s my bulletproof logic!

  25. “Remember how we still have troops in Afghanistan?”

    NOOO!
    The Bringer of Light ended all that, didn’t He?!

  26. “OK, Tsarnaev, you see this Death Row cell? It will be your home for the next thirty years!”

    1. I have not checked. Isn’t he going to Supermax? Supermax seems much worse than death row.

      1. I am sure he will and yes it is much worse than death.

        1. But you got the joke, right?

      2. Yeah, supermax seems to creep way over the “cruel and unusual punishment” line when they ship people off to have no human contact for decades. At that point it makes a lot more sense to just create another Australia and ship them off to live a ‘lord of the flies’ existence – if the point is to remove people who are too violent even for prison.

      3. I have not checked. Isn’t he going to Supermax? Supermax seems much worse than death row.

        The test of that is if tsarnsyev fights the death penalty after spending some time in a super max.

        Say what you will about the death penalty, people sure seem to prefer life in prison over it.

    2. I just woke up after a 50 year nap. Why is Bob Dylan going to prison?

      1. Two words: gay pizza.

  27. Angry protests in South Carolina have followed the release of the video showing North Charleston Officer Michael Slager shooting Walter Scott to death as Scott was running away.

    None of those protests were ever about justice. There will be justice, so why protest? Because they were never about justice.

    1. There will be justice, so why protest?

      Because the only justice that can be achieved when a black man is gunned down by a cop is looting the local retailers of course!

      1. Ahem…I think you mean “expropriate the expropriators” or “liberate these exploiters from attachment to their property.”

    2. This time, the video actually makes the cop look guilty.* Unlike the Ferguson “oops, the cop was innocent after all” incident.

      There’s been speculation that the agitators focus on the borderline cases, where the cop might actually be in the right, in order to polarize the blacks and whites – which is harder if the cop actually seems guilty, because then the whites might support the protests.

      *Note to potential jurors – ignore my comment, I’m aiming my remarks at other people.

  28. That video is just sad and disturbing. The guy shot him 8 times in the back and then screamed “Get your hands behind your back” What…. the hell? A sequel to the Kelly Thomas incident.

    But as even Reason admits, violence that involves the police has been declining.

    https://reason.com/blog/2015/01…..or-decades

    The protesters say they want civilian conflict resolution groups to replace cops. Why not have such entities take over mundane duties like writing parking tickets and resolving minor domestic disputes?

    I still say unarmed surveillance drones operated by a third party can prevent a lot of these tragedies. Just send a drone anytime someone reports some random guy walking around with a gun. Drones will get there faster.

  29. The mayor of North Charleston said today that Slager, who faces murder charges, has been fired from the police force.

    What about teh polize younyen?

    1. I’m guessing that South Carolina is less unionized than New York. Pure speculation on my part.

    2. Lots of bad cops get fired. Most are quietly reinstated after arbitration and everyone has forgotten what got them in the news.

      I take it you’re new to this game.

    3. My understanding is South Carolina doesn’t have police unions, so firing is possible.

  30. Sometimes man you jsut have to roll with it.

    http://www.AnonGO.tk

  31. Russian hackers reportedly have penetrated the White House’s and the State Department’s computer networks, but no classified information was accessed. That’s what the White House says, anyway.

    The good news is Hillary didn’t have any emails on that network, so there’s that.

Please to post comments

Comments are closed.