Police Abuse

If You Care About Police Accountability on January 6, You Should Care About It Every Day

Supporting the cause because your "side" went down is not a principled position.

|

Fox News host Tucker Carlson has been a major player in the prime-time charge against police accountability since last summer, after the death of George Floyd thrust the subject into the limelight.

In recent months, however, it appears he's had a change of heart. "So she's an unarmed protester. I don't think we execute unarmed protesters, do we?" he asked wryly on his show last night, referring to Ashli Babbitt, the woman shot and killed by Lt. Michael Byrd after she stormed the U.S. Capitol building on January 6. "Well, we just did."

It's a strange turn for Carlson. For months, he has called for Byrd's identity to be unmasked and for him to be held accountable. He partially got his wish last evening when the officer sat down for an interview with Lester Holt of NBC News.

Carlson is not alone. He's joined by Rep. Paul Gosar (R–Ariz.), for example, who is also selectively beating this drum. "Why have no charges been brought against the shooter for negligent homicide or more?" he asked in a public statement released in July.

It appears that this newfound dedication to police accountability championed by a select group of conservative pundits and politicians applies solely to the events of January 6. Which is to say that they do not actually support police accountability in any meaningful way.

Over a year ago, I wrote about Carlson's diatribe against reforming qualified immunity, the legal doctrine that insulates government officials from lawsuits for misconduct. Following Floyd's death, Congress expressed an interest in reining in the doctrine; Carlson expressed, well, the opposite, having much to say about it, almost all of it inaccurate. That didn't stop him from publicly flogging Sen. Mike Braun (R–Ind.) for introducing the only Republican bill in the Senate to curtail qualified immunity, which the senator subsequently threw away.

Floyd's fate did not receive much sympathy from Carlson et. al. Both Floyd and Babbitt were unarmed. The former furnished a counterfeit $20 bill, the latter stormed the Capitol. But Babbitt's demise has Carlson and others calling for action—declarations that are intensifying following Byrd's interview, in which he claimed that he "saved countless lives" through what he did that day.

That's a dubious claim, and one that would likely be met with much derision from the mainstream media had another officer made the comments in the context of just about any other officer-involved shooting. Most topics in the U.S. receive media coverage polarized along partisan lines, although police and police abuse tend to push that trend to the limit. To many on the left, it seems the police are always the villains; to the right, they are almost always heroes—until January 6, when everyone switched places.

But there is nuance to be had in substantive policy debates that seek to give victims recourse. Supporting those policy changes on one singular day because "your side" went down is not a principled position.

The concept should be familiar to Carlson and other conservative Republicans, a group that used to understand that any legislative decisions must be carefully considered, lest they be weaponized by the other side. It is also the party that, at one point at least, believed in limited government, and the notion that you should be able to hold rogue state actors accountable when they trample on your rights. In other words, Carlson's new support for police accountability is a sensible place to arrive—if only he'd apply it evenly.

NEXT: COVID Money Funded Ankle Monitors for Student-Athletes in Washington

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. Both Floyd and Babbitt were unarmed.

    Only one of them had a lethal dose of drugs, a bad heart, and was actively resisting arrest.

    So totally the same?

    It’s nice for this magazine to finally mention her name. It is bad the angle the took to get there.

    1. Was babbitt also using counterfeit bills?

      1. It is exactly the same. Both situations. EXACTLY the same.

        1. Start making money this time… Spend more time with your family & relatives by doing jobs that only require you to have a computer and an internet access and you can have that at your home.HNo Start bringing up to $65,000 to $70,000 a month. I’ve started this job and earn a handsome income and now I am exchanging it with you, so you can do it too.

          You can check it out here…………………VISIT HERE

          1. Fantastic work-from-home opportunity for everyone… Work for three to eight a day and start getting paid inSd the range of 17,000-19,000 dollars a month… Weekly payments Learn More details Good luck…

            See……………VISIT HERE

        2. I am making a good salary online from home.I’ve made 97,999 dollar’s so for last 5 months working online and I’m a full time student.GJy I’m using an online business opportunity I’m just so happy that I found out about it.
          I highly recommend to everyone to apply…

          Join this right now………………… VISIT HERE

      2. “That’s irrelevant because reasons.”

        1. Knock. Knock.

          Who’s there?

          Not Ashli Babbitt. Not anymore.

          Carry on, clingers.

          1. So much compassion.

            1. You left out assholery.

              1. You expected better of it?

                1. Nope, just wanted it noted.
                  Asshole bigot is certainly an asshole.

          2. Oh look, it’s Kirkland, and he’s trying to be edgy again.

          3. Gayest fed that posts here, for sure.

            1. Meh, sarcasmic gives him competition

    2. In other words, Carlson’s new support for police accountability is a sensible place to arrive—if only he’d apply it evenly.

      Evenly? Reason hasn’t applied their anti cop rhetoric evenly.

      Look. I understand reason doesn’t live in grey, that they act purely on idealism. But some form of QI needs to exist especially woth a judiciary open to forming new interpretation of rights on a whim. When the USSC changed historic president on gay marriage, not having QI would have opened every agent of the state acting under current precedent to law suits. There is a middle ground that needs to exist or it becomes a lawyers paradise for claims. Likewise reducing police unions would do far more than removing QI completely.

      I also find it odd that reason helped push abuse such as pushing the Russian and IC investigations into the former president. Weirdly reason did not stand against these invasions. And they still do not. Justifying it. So let’s not pretend Reason is consistent by any means.

      1. But some form of QI needs to exist especially woth a judiciary open to forming new interpretation of rights on a whim.

        No, QI doesn’t *need* to exist. Simply get rid of it, and a system of liability insurance will emerge for cops. Just like the case for doctors and lawyers. Good cops will have low premiums. Bad cops will have unaffordable premiums.

        1. And how will Babbit’s family get any justice from her murder? Capitol police have complete immunity. Not qualified immunity. Total. They aren’t a police force as you understand it.

          The answer is there will be no justice for it. You bought off on this, you voted for them, you answer it fatty.

          1. I will start caring about her death the moment you all stop portraying Jan. 6 as something more serious than “tourists milling around”.

            1. So your opinion a dead woman is based on how people here comment?

              That’s pretty fucked up. You should really take a break from commenting here.

              1. He can’t. It’s what he’s paid to do.

                1. I have a hard time believing anyone is stupid enough to pay lying piles of lefty shit like jeff at all.

                  1. He’s paid to disrupt and stop debate, and he’s damn good at it.

            2. It was serious. It’s illegal for the FBI to foment violence.

            3. I will start caring about her death the moment you all stop portraying Jan. 6 as something more serious than “tourists milling around”.

              NO!
              You don’t get to play that game you disgusting facist piece-of-shit.

              Their are TWO different evils that you Democratic Party shills a pulling here.

              1. That it’s totally okay for a cop to shoot an unarmed protester because look over there.

              2. The fascist Big Lie that January 6 was somehow different that the Kavanagh Senate Invasion, or the Attack on the White House earlier last year. The only thing that made it less different is that the protesters on Jan 6 were not as violent or destructive. No historic buildings got burned down.
              The day Team Blue pays for all the violence and mayhem you psychotic fucks have put the country through over the last four years, is the day you can go after the January 6 protesters.

              1. Hey, dumbshit GOP man – Kamala Harris might only be at 37% approval but it is hardly the “worst for a VP in history” like you claimed:


                Vice President Dick Cheney also leaves office amid negative perceptions, as his approval rating stands at just 13 percent. That matches his lowest approval since he assumed office.

                https://www.cbsnews.com/news/bushs-final-approval-rating-22-percent/

                I bring the facts – you bring the partisanship.

                1. Mostly though you bring the kiddie porn links.

                  1. Its why he is so enamored with Biden. They both like the young ones.

                    1. Harris 37% approval vs Dick Cheney 13%.

                      And I can’t think of a single good thing to say about Kamala Harris other than she is no Dick Cheney.

                      Why does the GOP have the worst people in it? Cheney, Dumbya, Trump, Guiliani, etc

                    2. I posted a reply to the kiddie diddler in another thread, but he was too stupid to wait:
                      https://reason.com/2021/08/27/supreme-court-says-private-property-rights-and-separation-of-powers-do-still-exist-in-u-s/#comment-9072130

                      Look at you, Buttplug. Trying to pull a fast one again.

                      From your article:
                      “Forty-four percent of Americans now view Cheney unfavorably.”

                      From ENB’s:
                      “Kamala Harris – Total negative – 46%”

                      Secondly, the quote I posted said “VP Harris has lowest feeling thermometer of any first year VP going back to Gore”
                      Which you ignored and pulled out Cheney’s rating from his eighth year. Cheney (bless his dirty heart) only had a 25% total negative rating in his first year.

                      You’re so shit at demagoging, if I were your boss at the fifty cent factory I’d can your ass.

                    3. Lies from turd – 100%

                    4. Mother’s Lament
                      August.27.2021 at 10:36 pm
                      “I posted a reply to the kiddie diddler in another thread, but he was too stupid to wait:…”

                      I’ve come to doubt an inability to deal with opposing facts are the least of turd’s issues.
                      He’s simply too stupid to understand there exists a difference between what he posts and reality; he hasn’t the mental ability to make that distinction.
                      As evidence, turd will post a lie, get called on it, and the next day will post the exactly same lie as if being called on it never happened!
                      That is NOT ‘misunderstanding’ or anything of the sort; it is simply a symptom of abysmal stupidity.
                      Simply, turd lies because he’s too stupid to understand that there’s a difference between his lies and reality. Pretty sure that’s a workable definition of a psychopathic liar.

              2. There you go. Still in delusion land. The Kavanaugh protests and the White House protests were not about trying to disrupt the peaceful transition of power because their team lost an election.

                The only reason you defend them is because you identify with them. You wish you had been there with the zip ties but had been a little faster racing to the Senate chamber to hang Mike Pence. You defend them because you AGREE with their murderous intent.

                1. 1. You guys had protesters make a run on the chambers during Trump’s confirmation, but somehow, magically, that was just youthful passion and not iNsuRrecTioN.

                  2. The invasion of the Senate during a Supreme Court Justice confirmation is totally trying to disrupt the peaceful transition of judicial power because your team lost an election.

                  As is a six-day attack on the Whitehouse that forces the duly elected president into ‘terror attack’ bunker and injuries 50 Secret Service agents.

                  3. Nobody was trying to hang Mike Pence. Nobody brought a noose or rope. Your precious zip-ties narrative collapsed when it turned out the protester picked them up at an unmanned security station inside the building and hung a flag with them.

                  In fact the only people who wanted to kill him were psychopaths like you, you idiot concern troll.

                  Conclusion: You vile fascists tried to use one of the more minor protests that year as a Reichstag Fire to institute your authoritarian countermeasures online, in the Capitol, and in the military.
                  You’re a threat to humanity, chemjeff.

                  1. There are plenty of photos of gallows set up outside the Capital that day.

                    1. Real ones or cardboard? Burning, hanging, and decapitation effigies is protected political speech cunt.

                      But I bet they were going to behead Nancy Antoinette with cardboard and silver spray paint.

                2. Hey jeff… there were protests and arrests in jan of 2017 as well dummy.democrats tried to protest that certification as well.

                  And yes jeff, confirmation of justifies is official congressional duties moron. That is the charge the doj is levying against the protestors. Not some mystical charge youre imagining so you can berate one group and not the other.

                3. ‘The only reason you defend them is because you identify with them.’ You know what is said about folks who attribute intent to others based on their own biases, other than they are assholes? They have no idea, and no means of knowing what they are talking about, just bias. This is certainly reinforced by your hysterical use of ‘murderous intent’ -you also have no idea what the people at the Capitol wanted, other than what your biases lead you to believe. This isn’t ‘radical individualism,’ it’s someone in need of deprogramming.

            4. So youre not principled then. Glad I was right this morning.

            5. “I will start caring about her death” never.

              We get it.

              Nobody will care when you die, either. Not even your cats. Not even your pizza rolls.

              1. Many fast food owners will.

            6. It was an unarmed insurrection that lasted for less than an hour. Clearly a serious attempt to destroy democracy. The insurrectionists were so stupid they did not even burn down anything or even loot much.

              1. Feet on Pelosi’s desks. Literal hitlers.

              2. Oh so it was an insurrection then. YOUR word, not mine. Well then. Perhaps you can explain to Jesse, R Mac, Mother’s Lament, buckleup, Nardz, and other assorted idiots around here which BLM protest during the entire summer of 2020 could fairly be described as an “insurrection”. Not even the CHAZ/CHOP idiots, as dumb as they were, wanted to overthrow the existing government, they wanted to secede from it instead. Wait, none of them can be described as an insurrection? So their perpetual campaign to try to draw a false equivalence between the BLM protests and the Jan. 6 insurrection was an attempt to whitewash Team Red’s despicable behavior on that day, by trying to make it seem BETTER than it actually was by comparing it MERELY to the murder and vandalism of BLM riots, ignoring the additional insurrection component.

                1. “which BLM protest during the entire summer of 2020 could fairly be described as an “insurrection””

                  Sure, this one you fascist hack:
                  https://www.thesun.co.uk/news/11752998/trump-secure-bunker-friday-george-floyd-protests-white-house/

                  As is a six-day attack on the Whitehouse that forces the duly elected president into ‘terror attack’ bunker, burns down historic government buildings and injures 50 Secret Service agents.

                  Makes your January 6 Reichstag Fire look like a happy little picnic.

                  How many buildings were destroyed January 6? How many cop cars flipped? Look at the fires burning around the Whitehouse and point out how the sixth was worse.

                  1. “No borders! No wall! No USA at all!”

                    This was literally one of the left’s standard protest chants the last 5 years

                2. I missed where I gave JohannesDinkle the right to speak for me, Lying Jeffy.

                  Sorry I didn’t read the rest of your nonsense post after you skipped that base.

                3. It wasn’t an insurrection you retarded fuck. Not even a biased DoJ is attempting that one.

                  You have no principles.

                4. Are you really so stupid you don’t remember all of the times you and your leftist friends here have called it an insurrection?

                  I mean eve the FBI can’t bring themselves to say it was an insurrection, but you feckless retards cling to it anyways.

                5. “Oh so it was an insurrection then. YOUR word, not mine. Well then…”

                  jeff is stupid enough to think this is some sort of zinger, which tells you a lot about jeff and not much about those he names.
                  Fucking lefty ignoramus….

              3. Since when do we excuse criminal acts according to how incompetently they are carried out?

                1. Isn’t that your 2016 stolen election defense?

                2. War acts now? Lol. Maybe we should give the taliban billions in fire extinguishers.

                3. “Since when do we excuse criminal acts according to how incompetently they are carried out?”

                  We do not claim “criminal acts” where they are impossible to occur, lying pile of lefty shit.
                  You cannot charge someone of “armed robbery” where they are “armed” with facial tissue.
                  This has been explained to you many, many times, but you are wedded to your lies and assholery.
                  Fuck off and die.

                4. Well, there have been exactly ZERO charges filed for insurrection.

                  LITERALLY zero.

                  So, what do you base it being an “insurrection” upon?

              4. Insurrection is insurrection and it literally lasted for hours. They probably heard the gunshot and figured maybe it was time to exit stage right. I’m glad at least some of them are headed up the river. LOL what a bunch of retards and assholes.

            7. “I will start caring about her death the moment”…

              Jeffy showing that whole “It’s wrong for cops to shoot unarmed people” mentality.

          2. Jeffy thinks all appropriate justice was achieved regarding her when she was shot dead.

            1. chemjeff is a fascist piece-of-shit. And I mean literally fascist.

              1. He calls it socialist libertarianism.

                1. Hey Jesse.

                  Have you found that quote from me yet about where I supposedly “cheered” Biden ending pipelines?

                  Have you found that quote from me yet about where I supposedly equated Trump’s tax cuts to new spending?

                  It’s got to be in your dossier there somewhere, right? I mean, you extensively copy the comments of all of the people you hate around here, to use against them later, right? I mean, you tried to do so right here in this thread.

                  You are a liar.

                  1. Hey Jeff I post many of your quotes. I did this morning. I don’t have a rolodex of your bullshit. You know you’ve said it. We know you’ve said it. Ask anybody here not named Mike. Sorry you lie about your posting history. Why don’t you go cheer on cops killing trespassers some more.

                    1. I don’t have a rolodex of your bullshit.

                      You OBVIOUSLY DO have a “rolodex” of old quotes of mine. Funny how your “rolodex” winds up empty when asked to prove specific quotes of mine that you claim I have made.

                      You know you’ve said it. We know you’ve said it.

                      You’re lying. Paste the quote where I ever “cheered” Biden ending pipelines. That was your claim. Post the quote or admit you lied and STFU.

                      You push narratives instead of argue honestly. You’re a Team Red shill. It is disgusting and embarrassing.

                    2. Everything it accuses others of is what collectivistjeff does exclusively

              2. chemjeff is a fascist piece-of-shit. And I mean literally fascist.

                So what race/ethnicgroup/nationality is jeff claiming is superior? You should know that is the central tenet of fascism.

                Like “Aryan Supremacy” for your side for example.

                1. So what race/ethnicgroup/nationality Did Mussolini claim is superior?
                  From Wiki-
                  Fascism is a form of far-right, authoritarian ultranationalism characterized by dictatorial power, forcible suppression of opposition, and strong regimentation of society and of the economy, which came to prominence in early 20th-century Europe. The first fascist movements emerged in Italy during World War I, before spreading to other European countries. Opposed to anarchism, democracy, liberalism, and Marxism, fascism is placed on the far right-wing within the traditional left–right spectrum.

                  1. The key factors used by Benito Mussolini to gain the trust of the Italian people were militarism and nationalism. Nationalism is devotion and patriotism to your country with constant glorification and promotion of the country’s values and culture. This constant promotion of the country’s values led to absolutely unjustifiable decisions that were perceived as setting standards for a country’s people, but actually inhumane acts. Mussolini promoted the cultural and political values of the Italian Fascists by using lots of propaganda across Italy. This large amount of propaganda displayed across the country is important because it made the Italian population become more focused on fascism and military power, which strengthened Mussolini’s power in his dictatorship. Mussolini used nationalism to promote the growth and need of militarism in Italy along with Italian Strength. He used the patriotism from his country to give Italy the idea that if they want to become a force as big as they were during the Roman Empire that they would need to have a strong military and constantly promote Italian values. To promote this ideal, Mussolini ordered children from ages 16-65 to enroll in the “New Empires” Military. This new side of Mussolini showed to the Italian people and the rest of the world that he was serious about making Italy the force it was back in the days of the Roman Empire. This use of militarism to enforce national superiority and strength was important because it made Italy become a large threat to neighboring countries and also threatened the balance of power and created a potential for war. These nationalistic, militaristic, and fascist values enforced and promoted by the Italians where what eventually led to Italy joining the axis powers and going to war against the allied powers.

                    https://benitmussolini.weebly.com/militarism-and-nationalism.html

                    Good definition, by the way. Fascism is a disease of the right like socialism is a disease of the left.

                    1. Your a dumb cunt

                    2. You didn’t answer the question, Turd … you only proved my point.
                      You fucking asshole Progs imagine RACISM everywhere … except in the mirror.

                  2. Fascism is neither far-right, nor opposed to marxism.
                    It is a style of marxism, entirely collectivist, and the most straightforward type of progressivism.

                  3. That’s a lie.

                    Fascism is literally Marxism with a nationalist current. Musolini literally said that when he invented it.

                    Fascism is to the far left of the political paradigm because it requires massive power granted to the government. The scale of political views is a horseshoe shape. Moderates in the middle and extremes on the ends.

                    On the left end is totalitarianism/authoritarianism/fascism then moving to the center its communist, socialist, Democrat, moderate, and independents at the very center. The size and scope of govt decreases as you go from left to right.

                    Then as it goes to the right the government gets even smaller. Independents in the center, then conservatives, Republicans, libertarians, and finally to the furthest right is anarchism.

                    The reason this scale is horseshoe shaped is because at the far left end, authoritarianism. and at the far right end, anarchism. In both of those extremes, the citizens lose all their rights. So even though that result is reached by different means, either crushing govt or no govt, the result is basically the same, hence them almost touching like the ends of a horseshoe.

                    1. There are plenty of far right groups who want authoritarianism. Check out the Trump party. Tired of regular votes when their chosen one loses, they start making up shit about “voter fraud”. People say okay, show us some evidence. then all you hear are crickets. Y’all need to take a political science class and stop making up shit about left vs right. There are totalitarians on both sides, the only difference is the economic system.

                2. Lies from turd – 100%
                  turd lies; it’s what he does and it’s the only thing at which he excels.

              3. ML is a populist moron who would have been cheering Robespierre in the French Revolution.

                1. This from the guy who reads and has actually linked to Jacobin magazine.
                  Do you know who else was a Jacobin, chemleft? What was their founders name, hmmm?
                  Historical awareness isn’t your forte, huh.

                  1. Tell us again how mob rule is so terrific.

                    1. Yeah, I’m not going to let you switch the subject, troll.
                      You didn’t know Robespierre was the Jacobin founder, did you.

                    2. Derp derp, Jeff didn’t pay attention in 9th grade social studies.

                    3. You don’t seem to have a problem about mobs running cities in 2020.

                2. Youre an oligarch supporter who thinks the elites should be able to over rule individuals when the elites feel the individual is wrong. Need that quote from you again?

                  1. You are a lying propagandist

                    1. You’re a steaming pile of lefty shit.

                    2. Answer his question, troll.
                      Do you think the elites should be able to censor individuals when the elites feel the individual is wrong?

            2. chemjeff radical individualist
              February.9.2021 at 8:56 am
              Flag Comment Mute User
              What is there to talk about?

              From a libertarian perspective, Ashli Babbett was trespassing, and the officers were totally justified to shoot trespassers. Again from a libertarian perspective, the officers would have been justified in shooting every single trespasser. That would not have been wise or prudent, of course.

              They were all trespassers trying to be where they weren’t supposed to be.

              1. Jeff is a terrible person.

                1. Worse than the Neo-Nazis here like JesseAZ, Mothers Lament, Nardz, etc?

                  1. SPB2 and chemjeff support abortion & infanticide, euthanasia, corporatism, critical race theory, censorship, political reeducation camps and indefinite political detention, but somehow everyone else here are the fascists. Not them.

                2. Collectivistjeff isn’t a person, and shouldn’t be treated as such.

          3. The shooting was readily justified. Ashli Babbitt punched her own ticket, top to bottom. She played a stupid game and won a predictable stupid prize.

            I wish she had been smarter. I wish she had had better character. I wish she had had better judgment. But the “justice” in this situation would not involve any reward for Ashli Babbitt or any punishment for the officer who shot her.

            1. Shut up turd. You’re just jealous Jeff gets more attention than you so you say nothing but dumb shit now.

              1. Artie has never posted anything but dumb shit.

                His schtick has been the same since Volokh conspiracy was at the Washington Post.

            2. Damn straight. Play stupid games, win stupid prizes.

        2. God youre dense. Cops aren’t the only ones covered by QI idiot. The marriage license clerks could have been sued for doing prior precedence prior to the USSC rulings moron.

          And I also like that your solution is more government spending on insurance. Who gives a fuck trial lawyers sue on whimsical changes from the judiciary.

          1. more government spending on insurance

            Where did I write anything about more GOVERNMENT spending on insurance? Nowhere. That is a lie.

            This is what you do. You take what I said, twist it juuust enough to transform it into something different, but not *outrageously* different, and use your twisted statement to craft a new narrative about me that your idiot friends around here find believable enough. Then you repeat it over and over again until your twisted lie supplants the truth. That is one way how you participate in socially constructing your own reality. That is how you are a propagandist and a liar.

            1. Are you fucking economically dumb? Yes, you are. If you have to require something like liability insurance, employment costs fucking rise you retarded fuck. See the costs that have risen from obstetricians due to liability requirements in the US. The requirement of insurance has nearly teipled costs for obstetricians in america as compared to even Canada.

              Are you this fucking ignorant??

          2. Cops aren’t the only ones covered by QI idiot.

            And the concept of malpractice insurance doesn’t apply only to doctors and lawyers and, in the absence of QI, cops.

            Why should there be special government protection for bureaucrats for failing to do their jobs?

            1. You really are economically ignorant.

              And the post literally describes liability against changed precedence which QI protects against dumbass.

        3. You’re an idiot

          1. Collectivistjeff is full psychotic, and pathologically dishonest.

        4. Except for doctors working in emergency situations, the comparisons of police to doctors and especially to lawyers are not analogous.

          In many cases, the police do not have the time to fully study all the legal ramifications of their actions in a crises situation. They have to act immediately. Qualified Immunity, as it presently exists, is too broad and should be modified; however, it IS necessary.

        5. I have to disagree. The problem is retroactivity.

          “I used an infrared camera to see the grow lamps through the walls because I would be allowed to use a regular camera. This just allows me to see in different wavelengths.” Is a valid argument. The problem is that with our current system, we need to wait until after they try it and it’s challenged to determine if anything novel can violate someone’s rights.

          Now, we could replace qualified immunity with a “Good Faith” affirmative defense, which I think would probably work better. If someone genuinely thought they were following the law, then that would be a better defense. This will eliminate the absurd over-specificity that the courts have gone into while also giving reasonable leeway both ways. Something with a good argument will be allowed, but any of the eye-rolling “defenses” that make it onto this site can be discarded with the scoff that they deserve.

      2. All civil suits need to be loser pays. That would protect cops and everyone else.

        1. No, because then truly poor people could not see justice served.

          1. So youre principles are based on who you view as a victim. So not principles. You would be free to set up a fund to pay the fees for poor people.

            1. If the damn Ambulance Chaser thinks he really has a case, let him put up a bond to cover Winners Costs.

            2. I don’t agree that justice belongs only to those who can afford it.

              1. So great. You believe in different forms of justice based on monetary elements. So not principled.

                Again, nothing is stopping you or groups from funding or backing your perceived injustices.

                1. You believe in different forms of justice based on monetary elements.

                  This is a lie. I believe in one standard of justice for all, regardless of ability to pay.

                  YOU are the one who wants different forms of justice based on monetary elements – only the rich get justice, everyone else gets shit.

                  1. If they have a winning case they don’t pay.

          2. Come on, ya’ll. Mockery is not a valid argument.

            However, Jeff, why do you think that it will be worse for the poor than our current system? If we go to a loser-pays system, this will provide a net benefit to the poor. They will know that if they have an ironclad case, their fees will be nonexistent.

            However, this will also eliminate many perverse incentives that have driven up the cost of law. Frivolous lawsuits filed with the sole intention of a “go away” settlement? If the companies knew that their expenses would be covered, they would actually fight a lot of these cases.

            Specific sections like copyright already have this with the intention of allowing small, independent companies to have legal recourse against mega-corps.

          3. “No, because then truly poor people could not see justice served.”

            ….they ALL file suits that lose? Not from my experience.

        2. Protect cops? lol they have plenty of protection already and the police union provides them the best lawyers. They’re doing fine.

      3. Note also that anyone only ever talks about qualified immunity for individual police officers on the ground. Nobody ever talks about the immunity afforded to police chiefs, police “intelligence”, city/county/state bureaucrats, prosecutors, or the judiciary that creates the policy, training, directives and orders that those police operate under. The classic example is the Breonna Taylor killing, where the guy that pulled the trigger is ironically the least responsible for her death, while the bureaucrats and lawyers that devised the police training, tactics, procedures, and signed off on that sort-of-knock midnight raid don’t even have to worry about a demotion for their fuck up.

        1. Judges that sign off on flimsy boilerplate bullshit are at least as responsible as the criminal cops.

      4. Reason doesn’t operate on idealism, it operates on pathetic, unconditional subservience to leftist totalitarianism

      5. “not having QI would have opened every agent of the state acting under current precedent to law suits”

        So only the people who carry guns and use lethal force as part of their job should be protected from being held liable.

    3. Did the cop who killed Floyd brag about how brave he was?
      How he saved countless lives?

      1. Did he even use a gun?

        1. Can you imagine if he just shot him in the face on camera? Then again everyone was just doing what they were paid for last summer, so it probably wouldn’t have made much difference.

          1. In only one of these cases did a cop actually act with intent to kill. But totally the same.

          2. Imagine if a cop just whipped out his piece and shot somebody watching the St. John’s arsonists, in the head.

            chemjeff and White Mike would be shitting themselves with rage. Look at how the squeal about St. Kyle of Kenosha.
            Of course the hypocrisy is the point with those two.

            1. We don’t need to imagine. Just see their reaction to the Portland courthouse arsonists getting *gasp* stopped for questioning while leaving the scene of the crime.

            2. And all of you complained day after day that the protestors and rioters weren’t being treated harshly enough.

              Well, St. Ashli got treated exactly how you asked for violent protestors to be treated.

              1. Except she wasn’t violent and was unarmed. Other than that, spot on Herr Goebbels.

              2. Can you point to anyone calling for executions of the Portland protestors (which continue to this day)? If not you ar full of shit.

                  1. I stand corrected

                    1. Why? Look at the context:

                      ThomasD
                      March.22.2021 at 11:23 am

                      Shooting them in the face would, at least appear to be on the table as well.

                      But the pants shitting on the left and here (BIRM) would be epic.

                      R Mac
                      March.22.2021 at 1:02 pm

                      Jeff would be fine with shooting anyone who trespasses in the face. Oh wait, these aren’t MAGA people, never mind.

                      James Pollock
                      March.22.2021 at 2:23 pm

                      “Shooting them in the face would, at least appear to be on the table as well.”

                      Just because it has a long history of not working very well is no reason to take it off the table…

                      Mike was trying to pull a fast one, yet again.

                    2. Only because someone did say shooting them in the face… I am “giving him the benefit of the doubt”.

                    3. Why would you give a thoroughly dishonest scumbag the benefit of the doubt?

                      And, btw, “James pollock” is a rabid leftist like laursen

                    4. Nardz it’s a joke. Read down later and you’ll get it.

                    5. OMG, you feel you have to justify yourself to Mother’s Lament and Nardz because you had the decency to admit you were mistaken when I showed you an example of how you are mistaken. Think about that — you are apologizing to a major asshole, Nardz, because you acted civilly in an online discussion. Think about who you are allying yourself with… ick.

                    6. Lol. White Mike just ignored the complete context showing his proof to be wrong. Just like he ignored cnn retracting the fire extinguisher claims.

                    7. Piss of Mike, you dishonest troll. You lied about the context to soldiermedic76 and misrepresented the statements, to try and score a cheap rhetorical point.

                      You’re disgusting.

                    8. Yea, I picked it up later. We’ll played, sm

                    9. “Only because someone did say shooting them in the face… I am “giving him the benefit of the doubt”.”

                      Please do not do that.
                      Mike is a lying pile of lefty shit who tried to head-fake a lie past you. If you let that dishonest asshole get away with it, he will henceforth claim he caught YOU in a lie as opposed to HIM attempting to slide some bullshit through.
                      Mike deserves to be metaphorically kneed in the balls EVERY TIME he pulls that shit.
                      Perhaps if enough do, he will fuck off out of here; he’s entirely too stupid to learn anything.

                  2. Wait, you’re trying to compare arsonist setting a building with people in it on fire with January 6th?

                    Were you shot in the head by a cop?

                  3. Look you dishonest fuckstick, I know reading comprehension us not your strong suit, so I’ll make it obvious

                    “Shooting them in the face would, at least appear to be on the table as well.”

                    Appear being a rather critical word in that sentence. Because the sentence is descriptive, not normative.

                    In words you can understand – I’m not advocating anything in that statement, merely describing the status quo.

                    The while thing is a reference to the fact that, at that point, Reason had shown total indifference to the murder of Ashli Babbitt.

                    You bringing it up now is actually funny. Although thinking it some sort of proof of anything other than you being a dullard is just another of your mistakes.

                    1. “…The whole thing …”

                      Funny how Binion’s headline, obviously directed outward, can be turned around an thrown at the feet of the entire Reason staff.

                      Perhaps they need to explain why it took so long to even address what happened to her.

              3. Also, didn’t you call uniformed federal agents gestapo because they arrested Portland protestors, who was wanted in connection to destruction of federal property, using an unmarked rented van? I could be wrong but I think you did. But the capitol police who shoot an unarmed protestor here, whose only crime was trespass and destruction of federal property, the same crime as the Portland protestors were arrested and released for, you are hunky dory with it and are defending the police. Some people would conclude that you don’t care about principles, that you only care about tribalism, which ironically this article is calling out, rather sophomorically.

                1. “whose only crime was trespass and destruction of federal property”

                  And breaking into the Speaker’s Lobby with apparent intent to harm the Vice President, Congress members and their staff, and their guests.

                  1. Except that never happened as the DoJs own report released earlier this week stated.

                    1. Can you cite in more detail what DoJ statement are you referring to? Her attempt to climb though the door and her being shot is even on video, for anyone to watch.

                    2. And her climbing through the window is proof she is wanting to assault someone (who wasn’t even there and wasn’t scheduled to be there because she was scheduled to be in the chamber at that moment).
                      The DoJ report that came out on Monday that said there was no evidence of any organized effort to kidnap or assault any of the congress people on January 6th. Did you miss that, because several people have linked to it since Monday.

                    3. I know about the report saying there was no organized plot. What does that have to do with Ashli Babbitt’s shooting? Did the police officer who was defending the people in the House chamber have the report in his hand?

                    4. “who wasn’t even there and wasn’t scheduled to be there because she was scheduled to be in the chamber at that moment”

                      I guess you are referring to Pelosi, who I did not mention. How would the police officers guarding the House chamber, Ashli Babbitt or the violent mob behind her know at the time whether Mike Pence, Nancy Pelosi, or whoever was or was not currently behind the Speaker’s Lobby door?

                      Why do people who dismiss the seriousness of the Capitol infiltrators’ offense keep referring to knowledge that nobody involved possessed at the time the events were unfolding?

                    5. Mike. Why do you hold on hope to your delusions to justify your politics?

                    6. Because the capitol police had already evacuated them. That is how he knew. Fuck. Keep grasping at straws.

                    7. Hmm, I’ve been reading several of your comments since the Afghanistan withdrawal and it’s clear you are very emotional about what’s going on (for understandable reasons). So, I’m going to pause interacting with you for a while.

                    8. In other words you don’t have a response so you will do this bullshit magnanimous routine and imply you don’t want to interact with me because it’s my fault. Everyone sees through your bullshit. And now I know your soul. You can’t admit you might be wrong or accept criticism so it is everyone else’s problem not yours. Goodbye I will take ML’s advice and mute you mendacious asshole self. Notice I don’t mute Red or Ken and I got quite passionate with them the other night, quite “emotional” as you label me.

                  2. The vice president wasnt in the building at this point idiot.

                    And since we are going hyperbolics…. there were trump effigies in many resistance protests. Guillotine at many blm marches. Are they all guilty of attempted murder now?

                  3. “And breaking into the Speaker’s Lobby with apparent intent to harm the Vice President, Congress members and their staff, and their guests.”

                    Mike is hoping to be the next J. K. Rolling. And failing.
                    Stupid piece of lefty shit deserves it.

                  4. “And breaking into the Speaker’s Lobby with apparent intent to harm the Vice President, Congress members and their staff, and their guests.”

                    …with no weapons or any remotely known plans to do so?

                    We do not execute based on your feelings.

              4. Cite one person asking cops to shoot protestors in the head for blm.

        2. Was he quickly forgiven of all possible guilt? Could’ve sworn Chauvin was convicted while Byrd was not even prosecuted but I could have been wrong.

      2. No his lawyer told him to stfu and say nothing. Everyone who watched that video knows in their heart he killed George Floyd with a slow chokeout.

    4. And only one was breaking and entering. Both acted terribly at the time of their demise. Neither deserved to die.

      1. The criteria for deadly force is imminent death or grave bodily harm. That wasn’t the case.

        1. Lol not in Texas. Also, trying to murder congress is an imminent threat. They shouldn’t have backed them into offices where they had no escape. Play stupid games, win stupid prizes.

      2. When is a B&E a capital offense?

        1. Q: When is a B&E a capital offense?

          A: When it is a Capitol Offense …

          And the Progs are in charge.

          Sorry.

    5. It’s essentially the same philosophy as the MSM. If something affects the left, or would give credence to the right, only mention it in a Republicans pounce style.

    6. The storming of the capitol

      Was just a no knock raid on the feds

      https://twitter.com/FreedomFritesUS/status/1431460899492032516?s=19

    7. I am making a good salary online from home.I’ve made 97,999 dollar’s so for last 5 months scx working online and I’m a full time student.EWs I’m using an online business opportunity I’m just so happy that I found out about it.
      I highly recommend to everyone to apply…

      Join this right now…………………Visit Here

    8. Only one seems to bother Reason very much as well.

      Just sayin’.

  2. There is no nuance, the capitol police is a political police force akin to the stazi.

    1. Sure buddy. And a basement is a “center of operations” as well

  3. I guess this article is a fair followup to the now well-established fact that neither BLM, Antifa or the Democrats (let alone the pan-left in general) ever gave two fucks about police accountability. So fair play.

  4. Too bad there isn’t anyone to uphold police accountability across the board.

    Well, maybe Rand Paul for all I know…

    1. They don’t exist. You’re either a Trumpy McTrumpist Q-anon chemtrailer who is suspicious of the narrative in the Ashli Babbitt shooting, but wholly supportive of the Genocide against Americas BIPOCs, or you’re a level headed supporter of Police Reform who’s fully awakened to Systemic Racism.

      There exist no group that believes in increased accountability (including BUT NOT LIMITED TO QUALIFIED IMMUNITY*) across the board.

      *the removal of QI which includes but is NOT LIMITED TO: Police, Teachers, Social Workers, and any other public official not mentioned here that has contact with the public in potentially sensitive matters.

  5. How many more Americans do you think will be killed in attacks like yesterday while Democrats are playing Taliban in Washington?

    1. When will Biden be revealed as a pro-terrorist jihadist?

      1. Last week.

          1. Look, Sevo has a new screen name.

            I don’t read German but I am sure it means something like ‘Trump is our Fuhrer’.

            1. I don’t read German

              Really? But you’re so fond of words like “papers” and “compliance” and “mandatory”.

            2. You must know the word Kindergarten

              1. That’s where he finds his … “friends”.

            3. He doesn’t get the well-known reference to minarchy, but somehow Buttplug is totes libertarian, just ask him.

              1. Seriously, can’t Media Matters send us some fifty-centers with a minimal education at least?

                1. If they had a minimal education, they wouldn’t work for Media Matters.

            4. turd, psychopathic liar, despised by nearly everyone here, assumes a new commenter must be me.
              turd is both a liar and abysmally stupid.

        1. Any day now he’s going to strap on a suicide vest while shouting Allahu Akhbar.

          Why am I not surprised that some of you actually seriously believes Biden is literally pro-terrorism.

          1. He’s pro whoever has dirt on his son.

        2. And in the next breath you have the gall to complain about all those mean meanies comparing Trump to Hitler.

          If you don’t like the offensive comparisons, maybe you shouldn’t make them.

          1. He makes fun of you for calling trump Hitler you raging obese dumbass.

            1. Post any quote of mine when I called Trump Hitler. Go ahead, bring out that “rolodex” of yours.

              I never have, because you are lying again.

      2. Lol, I bet you thought you were being all sarcastic and ironic, BUT…

  6. Oh fuck off already, you and this rag ignored nearly all that was going on last year wrt to riots and looting, and you’ve ignored the fact that many capitol selfie takers are still locked up without bail.

    Disingenuous is the new name of this place.

    Your moral preening is pathetic.

    1. 5 months for petty theft and flag burning for a proud boy. Not a peep.

      1. Flag burning … and not a word from Britches …

        Where the hell is 2chili?

      2. Don’t forget Shackford’s article.

        The one about the guy who threatened to burn down a strip club he had just been tossed out of, who then returned and lit a stolen car tire on fire in the parking lot along with a flag he had stolen from a nearby church.

        And Scotty tried to tell us the guy got thirteen years because he burned a rainbow flag.

      3. And the prosecutors did not even seek 5 months. That was the judge going “Above and beyond”

  7. If you care about police accountability every other day, you should care about it on January 6th.

  8. Seriously? She “stormed the US Capitol”? The cops have the same criteria as the rest of us to use deadly force, an imminent threat of death or great bodily harm. The video clearly shows that wasn’t the case.

    1. I believe the line is, “Police aren’t supposed to shoot guilty people either.”

      But I guess that only counts for SOME guilty people.

    2. Have fun storming the Capitol!

    3. “…She “stormed the US Capitol”?…”

      Armed with, uh, pretty much nothing, but it scared the hell out of lefty shitpile Mike!

  9. I’ve linked this before, but the following appeared in a certain libertarian magazine in 1989:

    “The Bail Reform Act of 1984 also hinders a successful defense by making it easier to hold suspects in jail *prior* to trial [emphasis in original]. This practice prevents accused persons from freely talking with their attorneys, locating friendly witnesses, and otherwise assembling the necessary information to prove their case. And as a result of the new drug law, prosecutors can seek fines and other sanctions in civil court. This means accused persons no longer will be protected by all of the procedural safeguards established for criminal trials.”

    https://reason.com/1989/03/01/trends-191/

    1. Those last two sentences aren’t relevant to the capitol protests, by the way. Sorry.

  10. Another Anti Tucker Carlson article? What is that now, three or four this week? More stories attacking Carlson then questioning Biden’s withdrawal fiasco. And wait for Sarcastic and Mike to come running to their defense.

    1. And before they do let me rebut their arguments: yes they have stated Biden has bungled this but it was always a “yes Biden fucked this up, But…..” Statement.

      1. Looks like you’ve provided your own rebuttal.

        1. You think that’s a rebuttal? Just shows to level of intellect. Don’t expect anything approaching constructive dialogue from me after the way you’ve treated and misrepresented me for the past couple of days. I tried to be an adult with you and you took me out of context, attacked me and never bothered to read my rebuttals and then continued to misrepresent what I said days later.

          1. And just for everyone who thinks Mikey actually apologized and I am being sophomoric let me quote his apology (after he called me xenophobic by taking me completely out of context):
            “I apologize for calling you xenophobic. A good argument was made below that phobia is irrational fear, so I’ll give you the benefit of the doubt that you are only rationally fearful of bringing rapists into the country, based on your German crime statistics.”
            Does anyone think this is a real apology? I am willing to entertain that I am wrong to reject this apology.

            1. Don’t worry. We’re all well acquainted with White Mike Laursen’s sophistry and dishonesty.

              1. Correct.
                Tony admits to being a lying piece of lefty shit, while trying to defend that as a position acceptable to decent people.
                Mike lies about being other than that in the hopes someone is stupid enough to buy it, and gets takers like sarc, jeff, turd and several others.

            2. It was a real apology. I was giving you the benefit of the doubt that your fears of immigrant rapists are rational, not phobic.

              Did not see that you had made a disclaimer that you were not bringing up the German crime statistics as an argument for stronger vetting.

              1. Calling someone fearful is still an insult dumbfuck.

                1. No, it isn’t.

                  1. But asking when is an insult? Come on not even you can believe that. Because ng fearful is an insult, asking a one word question isn’t.

                    1. White Mike doesn’t believe a word it says.
                      White Mike is a totalitarian shill, and a threat to you and your family.

                  2. And adding the words “I am giving you the benefit of the doubt” most people would consider an insulting comment as well.

                  3. Yes, it is, you sub-moronic dipshit.

              2. Also most people don’t feel the need to qualify a real apology. If you had just said I apologize for calling you xenophobic, I would have accepted it.

              3. Mike I’m sorry I said you fucked dead children. You may have been fucking simply corpses. I shouldn’t have assumed.

                White Mike like apologies are fun.

          2. Your words: “yes they have stated Biden has bungled this”

            1. Except they always then excused him by adding a but comment afterwards. That isn’t a real criticism. Everyone but you understands that.

              1. Yeah, except they haven’t always added a “but”.

                1. Quote me when they didn’t? I would admit I am wrong.

                  1. Quote someone’s -not- saying something? That isn’t possible.

                    1. Umm… you could easily find one article that didn’t include it dumbass.

                    2. What Jesse said. Find one article that doesn’t include that phrase or a similar phrase. You say they exist, should be easy to find one, then.

              2. White Mike screamed whataboutism for a year. He knows what it is.

          3. “I tried to be an adult with you …”

            Earlier yesterday, before the discussion about refugees even occurred, you insulted me with your “When?” comment, implying I am a Biden supporter/progressive shill. You did that completely unprovoked.

            1. Asking Only When (my entire post was exactly one word, when) is accusing you of being a Biden supporter? A leftist? How? A bit defensive.

              1. Cool, play innocent.

                1. I noticed you didn’t answer my question. And you are going through accuse me of playing innocent when you are still trying to defend your apology non-apology I quoted above? Pot meet kettle.

                2. Is the guy who is incapable of providing an actual apology (“Sorry, I thought you were an idiot and not a racist” is not an apology) is whining here?

            2. How is asking a question an insult?

              1. I doubt he will answer, he’ll just make more unfounded dispargements against me.

              2. It’s not, but White Mike is a fucking knob, so it’s to be expected.

    2. Reason is straight iNazi propaganda, and would gladly work for the holocaust if transported to 1930s Germany.
      They are active enemy combatants, and our restraint in opposing the iNazis at this point is suicidal.

    3. Twitter narrative leads straight to reason articles. And Twitter hates tucker.

    4. Tucker Carlson is an Aryan Supremacist who loves authoritarian dictators.

      I would reference a Reason article from 5-10 days ago but hell, you guys wrote it.

      1. You are full of shit. Keep it up, you don’t add anything to a conversation that even resembles intelligence. I am sorry I unmuted you to read this pile of shit.

        1. Sarah is a dumb cunt. She’s not human

          1. Why do you love fascists?

        2. Wow, I went and found the Matt Welch article which describes the Tucker Carlson love affair with the fascist Victor Orban.

          https://reason.com/2021/08/11/no-self-respecting-american-should-aspire-to-hungarian-style-nationalism/

          Fascism is not pretty and Tucker Carlson cannot resurrect enough far-right memes to put Trump back into power.

          Please denounce fascism/Trumpism while you can.

          1. I have never aupport d Trumpism as anyone here can attest to, but Trumpism is not even close to being fascism. What a stupid fucking, inflammatory statement.

            1. The pedophile is a biden cultist. He was even trying to claim no inflation the other week to defend biden.

          2. GFYS, Progtard.

            DIAF while you are at it.

            1. Why did you choose that name, Sevo?

              It just reinforces your Nazi Stormtrooper fantasies.

              1. You’ve been pretending to be libertarian here for a while and yet you don’t actually know what a Nachtwächterstaat is?

                What an amazing idiot you are.

              2. Sorry, turd, it’s not me. You are universally despised here for good reason; another commenter pointing out that you are a lying, steaming pile of lefty shit should be no surprise to you, lying steaming pile of lefty shit.
                Oh, and did I mention turd lies? turd does; it’s all he does. turd lies

    5. To be clear I am not defending Carlson, he does use inflammatory language that borders on objectionable at times, and I don’t agree with his stance on bringing in refugees, although I agree with him questioning the vetting process of non-SIV refugees. However, I don’t agree with his apparent resistance to bringing in as many refugees, who are properly vetted, as we can. I think America is pretty good at integrating different cultures and we can integrate these refugees too. I do not support, however, tac payer funding for them for life.

      1. The problem is that you are taking Tucker Carlson at face value when it comes to the Afghani refugees.

        This is what he said just three months ago:

        https://www.businessinsider.com/tucker-carlson-endorses-white-supremacist-replacement-conspiracy-theory-2021-4

        Fox News host Tucker Carlson, one of the most influential voices on the political right, explicitly endorsed the white supremacist “Great Replacement” theory during his Thursday night program.

        Carlson argued that Democratic lawmakers are “importing a brand new electorate” of “Third World” immigrants to “dilute” Americans’ political power by adding more voters to the rolls. He described his argument as the so-called replacement theory, which is a core belief of white supremacists that has motivated racist violence and mass murder in the US and around the world.

        “I know that the left and all the little gatekeepers on Twitter become literally hysterical if you use the term ‘replacement,’ if you suggest that the Democratic Party is trying to replace the current electorate — the voters now casting ballots — with new people, more obedient voters from the Third World,” Carlson told his audience, which is among the largest in cable news. “But they become hysterical because that’s what’s happening, actually. Let’s just say it. That’s true.”

        So no I don’t believe he is “just asking questions” when it comes to Afghani refugee vetting. It’s a motte-and-bailey argument. Motte: “I question the vetting process!” Bailey: “I don’t want them here at all no matter how well they are vetted!”

        1. Four months ago. You get the idea.

          1. Reading difficult for you? Reread my comment and explain how I am taking Carlson at his word. If it is to hard for you ask your mother to help you with the big words.

        2. How is the statement: ‘To be clear I am not defending Carlson, he does use inflammatory language that borders on objectionable at times, and I don’t agree with his stance on bringing in refugees, although I agree with him questioning the vetting process of non-SIV refugees.” Taking him at face value? How can you honestly make that charge based upon the thesis statement of my post?

          1. Dude, leftists are not honest brokers. There is no good faith discussion with them. Whether they think they’re doing so, as they like to delusionally claim, or are deliberately lying is irrelevant.
            Your desire to defend your statements only plays into their hands and loses you ground. Dismiss them like the parasitic insects they are, and make your arguments straight up.
            They’re waging war upon you and this country, whether you want to admit it or not.

          2. You are taking Tucker’s claim credulously that he is only “questioning the vetting process”. No, he isn’t. He is USING the vetting process in a motte-and-bailey argument to JUSTIFY his xenophobic desires to keep them out.

            1. No I didn’t I said quite plainly that he also is for limiting the number of refugees, which I disagree with him on. Reread the quote I have again.

            2. “he does use inflammatory language that borders on objectionable at times, and I don’t agree with his stance on bringing in refugees,”
              Here it is for you. So try again.

              1. What you wrote:

                although I agree with him questioning the vetting process of non-SIV refugees.

                His “questioning” should be treated for what it is: a dishonest attempt to use vetting as an excuse to keep immigrants out, and you play along with his charade in this case. That is the complaint.

                1. Why? I agree we should be questioning the vetting. I disagreed with Obama a lot too, but when he said something I agreed with , I didn’t let my past disagreement keep me from agreeing with him. It’s called being principled, not tribalist like you.

      2. Is it possible to make the charge that “To be clear, I am not defending Carlson; he does use inflammatory language on occasion, and I do not agree with his stance on providing shelter for refugees; nevertheless, I agree with him doubting the vetting procedure of non-SIV refugees”

    6. So, two critical articles about Tucker Carlson. Have you actually count how many articles there have been critical of Biden’s “withdrawal fiasco” before posting this comment?

      Are you saying you think Tucker Carlson is not a worthy target for criticism, or do you just want to make sure Reason posts more articles critical of Biden?

      1. By my count it is four that mention Carlson by name and none that actually dealt directly with the fiasco, instead they’ve all been self back patting articles about how libertarians were right all along and if they do mention Biden it is always in the form of “To be sure Biden is responsible for this fiasco but… (Trump, four presidents, he was right to end the war, it was always going to be a disaster, we can’t nation build four presidents etc).

        1. And the ignored Afghanistan for nearly 48 hrs earlier this week and the first article they ran on Afghanistan after that was an attack on Carlson and Vance.

        2. Also let’s not forget last night’s Dancing on their Graves article that Reason ran after 13 servicemen were killed. It was a disgusting and stupid take.

          1. And this article borders on a Dancing on their Graves article too. It’s the first article on the Babbit killings Reason has ran, when we got multiple articles a day on the George Floyd killing. Hell they even ran multiple article ls on the killing of the murderer, of a right wing protestor in Portland, by federal marshals.

            1. Can you quote a passage from the above blog post that can be characterized as dancing on Babbitt’s grave?

              1. The fact that after 8 months this is the first story on Babbitt that Reason has ran, and they don’t discuss the killing of a veteran who was unarmed who suffered PTSD, but only use her killing to attack Carlson is what most intellectually honest people would describe as a dancing on her grave article.

                  1. During the chaos that followed, as rioters broke into congressional offices, one Capitol Police officer fatally shot Ashli E. Babbitt, a 35-year-old Air Force veteran
                    One fucking sentence is not a story about her. Keep trying.

            2. I remember their memorial to that idiot in Texas who approached a car with a rifle and got shot.

          2. Which article is that?

            1. https://reason.com/2021/08/26/kabul-attack-is-a-vivid-reminder-of-why-america-should-leave-afghanistan-asap/
              This one right here. It had over 400 comments almost all of them condemning the article.

              1. Can you quote a passage in the article that danced on their graves?

                1. Fuck you are one unprincipled motherfucker.

                  1. That was uncalled for. There is nothing about the article that is dancing on anyone’s grave. That is purely an emotional reaction you are bringing to an article that is respectful in tone toward the soldiers.

                    1. Bullshit. It was not respectful and was completely uncalled for.

                    2. “That was uncalled for…”

                      You steaming pile of lying lefty shit, there is no condemnation of you which is not called for.
                      Fuck off and die, slowly, painfully, and don’t bother looking for sympathy; your family will be pleased.

                2. The whole premise of the article is a dancing on their Graves article. Hey 13 servicemen were killed once again proving us right. That is the whole fucking premise of the article
                  That is by definition a Dancing on their Graves Article.

                  1. The “whole premise”, yet nothing specific you can point to?

                    1. Fuck, you would defend them even if I could find a quote. It was an uncalled for take. We were right and the dead soldiers prove it was not a necessary take period. And you know it.

                    2. Okay you want a quote ‘The awful scenes from Kabul that have dominated the American news media today are a reminder of the reasons President Joe Biden is right to pull U.S. troops out of the country as quickly as possible.”
                      That is dancing on their Graves. It is see, dead bodies are the reason to do what we want. That is dancing on their Graves. And the article didn’t mention that their mission isn’t fighting the Taliban, it never says that once, but to save American lives. By ignoring what their mission is, it cheapens their sacrifice. And by pulling out as quickly as possible without completing the mission, saving American lives, it also cheapens their sacrifice. That is what I mean by the whole premise of the article. What they didn’t mention is as important as what they did mention. But all you and Reason care about is ending the war, not the 1000 American citizens who are in danger, or the thousands of western allies citizens, or American Green Card holders, or SIV holders. Just fuck them right? Who cares about the consequences. That is how we got in the war in the first place, not worrying about the consequences, and that is why we fucked up the withdrawal, because Biden didn’t worry about the consequences of closing strategically important bases before he completed the evacuation of civilians. And you and Reason don’t seem to be concerned about the consequences of abandoning 1000s of at risk Americans, Europeans and Afghanis to a terrorist organization.
                      On second thought no, you wouldn’t see this as dancing on their Graves, because all you care about is getting out as quickly as possible, to hell with getting out correctly. To hell with the collateral that will occur because the only concern from the Biden administration, Reason and yourself is to get out as quickly as possible. Who cares if a few Americans get beheaded or taken hostage. At least we stopped the US military doing the one mission it is designed for for the first time since 2002. Right?

                    3. Hey, we’re just soldiers, we aren’t as enlightened as you are after all. Thank you for being enlightened enough to tell us that abandoning 1000s of our citizens and allies to terrorist is the right thing to do because 13 people died. Thank you for being enlightened enough to show us that sacrificing 1000s is a good trade off because we lost 13 servicemen who were proud to do their duty of protecting others. I mean we are just brainwashed cannon fodder anyhow.

              2. You made 85 comments on the article. I started reading through them to try to get some inkling of what your objection to the article is. Finally found this one that seems to explain your disagreement with the article:

                https://reason.com/2021/08/26/kabul-attack-is-a-vivid-reminder-of-why-america-should-leave-afghanistan-asap/#comment-9069458

                Sorry a Reason writer has a different opinion about how quickly the withdrawal from Afghanistan should proceed, but there was no “dancing on graves” here.

                1. It has nothing to do with how quickly it occurred, hell I would have done it in May before the fighting season started. And nothing j said even indicated that I thought it occurred to quickly. I object to the need to run an article that says 13 dead service members proves once again we are right. It’s self fellating nonsense and is dancing on the graves.

                2. Oh my, I posted 85 times on something I am passionate about, on a day that was extremely painful for me on a subject that was extremely painful for me. I guess that just proves… That it is a subject that was painful and personal for me. God l, you are a dumbfuck, and yes you do deserve that.

                3. I don’t care if they have a different opinion than me. If you haven’t figured it out by now, I don’t keep myself in an echo chamber, I am open to ideas that are different than mine. I also will call bullshit when I feel it is appropriate, unlike you, who never criticizes Reason and thinks that makes him a libertarian rather than just a sycaphant.

                4. “Wow, what a take. We should not leave until all citizens, green card holders and SIV holders are out. And if we leave before that happens, the terrorist win and this will only embolden them for more attacks. As a veteran and the son of a service members, that is the job of servicemen, to put their lives at risk to protect American citizens and allies. If we flee without accomplishing the evacuation, all that will occur is more attacks and likely more forever wars, not less. Anyone who thinks differently is an idiot or purposely naive.”
                  That in no way implies I think anything but the primary mission should be to evacuate all our citizens and SIV holders and not depend on a terrorist organizations for their safety.

            2. As a veteran and the father of an Army soldier I was pissed the fuck off by the article and it’s premise. As were the vast majority of commenters. You claim to give DoL the credit of the doubt because the interpreter story is personal to him, I wonder if you will do the same to me here.

              1. Sure, I’m willing to cut you some slack (same words I used for DoL) for how you are reacting to something highly personal. But what in the world was disrespectful of soldiers or “dancing on graves” in that article?

                1. See my above response to you.

                  1. soldiermedic76
                    August.28.2021 at 12:25 am
                    Flag Comment Mute User
                    The whole premise of the article is a dancing on their Graves article. Hey 13 servicemen were killed once again proving us right. That is the whole fucking premise of the article
                    That is by definition a Dancing on their Graves Article.
                    Just so you know what response I meant.

                    1. Sorry, if you have a deep personal response to the article because of your military experience, but the article was not disrespectful to the 13 dead soldiers in any way. In fact, it is arguing against wasting any more American military’s lives.

                    2. A veteran tells you it was disrespectful and an unnecessary take and your response is that it’s your problem.

                    3. https://www.foxnews.com/politics/reps-signal-concern-uptick-veteran-crisis-hotline-calls-afghanistan-withdrawal
                      I’ll just leave this here to show how this fucked up withdrawal has impacted veterans. But who cares how we got out a long as we got out, right? Who cares about the collateral damage from a poorly planned exit, done in the way it was done for purely political reasons, that ignored the advice of generals, and instead took the advice from the same guy who thought bombing Libya and taking out Qadafi was the correct way to go (SecState Blinken)? Who cares if this just means we will likely have to put the next generation, my son’s generation, of servicemen in harm’s way again, because the important thing is we are out? No matter what.

                    4. In other words we didn’t end forever wars, we just put them on hold for a little while.

                2. Derp a derp. Learn to read

      2. “So, two critical articles about Tucker Carlson. Have you actually count how many articles there have been critical of Biden’s “withdrawal fiasco” before posting this comment?”

        One guy is a Fox News host and the other is THE FUCKING PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES!

        Slight difference.

    7. Reason and the pentagon are on the same page.

    8. Yeah cop murders unarmed protester but Tucker Carlson is the real problem here.

    9. Tucker Carlson is a piece-of-shit liar and dictator cock-smoker. There should be more articles calling out his bullshitery.

  11. One thing I can say about Trump is that he is consistent. He never gives a fuck about the character of people he endorses:

    A Texas woman told police in 2012 that when she tried to end what she said was a long romantic relationship with Republican U.S. Senate candidate Herschel Walker he threatened to “blow her head off” and then kill himself.

    The woman, Myka Dean, detailed the alleged threats made by Walker to authorities in the Texas city of Irving in a January 2012 police report obtained by The Atlanta Journal-Constitution. No charges were filed against Walker. His campaign spokeswoman said Friday that he “emphatically denies these false claims” and that he only recently learned about them.

    https://www.ajc.com/politics/police-report-herschel-walkers-ex-girlfriend-claimed-he-threatened-her-life/DBN6ONFIRBFW7GCIBHE43LVECM/

    1. Unlike with you, no charges were filed.

      But keep posting, pedo freak.

      1. I would like to see a debate between all nine different Herschels.

        1. Nothing bugs you more than an uppity Dinger walking off the Democrat vote plantation, huh.

  12. Babbitt posed a threat to the ruling progressive class — therefore, progressives view her murder as a positive development. Floyd posed a threat to regular people, and was therefore deemed to be useful as a martyr; to embolden and strengthen the criminal class which, as history has shown, acts as an the unofficial enforcement arm of government.

    The Soviet Union had a similar system. Political dissidents were treated with unrestrained cruelty. They received the longest prison sentences; the harshest labor; the most grueling and inhumane conditions. The common criminals, on the other hand, received leniency not only because they were fundamentally apolitical, but because their wolfishness kept the general population, both within and outside the mass prison system, in check.

    The government can tolerate, and even benefit from common criminals like George Floyd. It cannot, however, tolerate dissidents like Babbitt.

    1. The government can tolerate, and even benefit from common criminals like George Floyd. It cannot, however, tolerate dissidents like Babbitt.

      Václav Havel, Orwell and Solzhenitsyn have all talked about this at length. It’s astonishing at the speed at which the American establishment has adopted it.

      Even in these comments we see chemjeff, Mike Laursen and Buttplug argue that January 6 was worse than any other protest before, because it was a potential threat to the Nomenklatura.

    2. Babbit got what she deserved. She should have stayed home and not attacked my Capitol.

  13. https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pite%C8%99ti_Prison

    the experiment’s goal was to re-educate prisoners to discard past religious convictions and ideology, and, eventually, to alter their personalities to the point of absolute obedience

    1. This is exactly what we saw chemjeff and Laursen endorse last January.

  14. Remember when reason was calling for the arrest of George Zimmerman and kept speculating w/o a shred of evidence that he must have somehow initiated the violent encounter with that poor little skittle-lovin’ colored boy?

    1. Pepperidge Farms remembers.

  15. If you care about excessive force and unnecessary shootings every day, you should care about it on 1/6, you mendacious POS

  16. Supporting the cause because your “side” went down is not a principled position.

    And doing anything else will result in being beaten over the head with your principles by your equally if not even more unprincipled competitors, particularly if those competitors are Enlightened™.

    So here’s how it’s gonna be. First, my side wins. Then, maybe we talk about principles. But I’m damn well not going to stand here and get kicked in the nuts while we’re discussing the rules for the knife fight.

  17. More outrage about a cop shooting a friendly dog than about shooting an unarmed protester in the Capital.

    Progressive nirvana.

    1. The bitch had it coming.

      1. Hey good your kiddo porn personae and your Mike Asshole “both side” sock are talking. Good for you!

      2. turd not only lies, turd is your worst nightmare as to what a human being might be.

    2. I keep seeing references to her being unarmed. We all know that now, afterwards.

      How did the officers barricaded behind the Speaker’s Lobby door know whether Babbitt or the others behind her were unarmed?

      1. How many articles did Reason run condemning the Kiing of a black man in Kenosha who was armed with a knife? Remind us please.

        1. Relevance to my comment?

          1. Are you being willfully obtuse because you think that it’ll make you look less ridiculous?

          2. The fact that Reason writers condemned that killing but have yet to condemn the killing of Babbitt, in fact ignored the it until today is entirely relevant.

            1. Why would the killing of Babbitt be something to condemn? She was trying to attack people, and one of the police whose job it is to defend those people did his job and defended them.

              1. Prove she was trying to attack people? The guy killed in Kenosha was visibly trying to attack people with knives, she was climbing through a window. How is that attacking people?

                1. Tell me, where was his window?

                  1. Choose any window you want and explain how it proves intent to attack someone.

                  2. He couldn’t have backed up and arrested her after she got through the window? No he had to charge the window and shoot her. Keep grasping at straws.

              2. So let me see if I get it straight: Reason condemns cops who were called to the scene because the suspect was violent and threatening, and had a history of violence. Had a knife and was ordered to drop it, was them shot and Reason condemned it.
                Here an unarmed woman is climbing through a broken window, made no threats, was unarmed, the speaker wasn’t even in the building, and a cop shots her in the face, and reason doesn’t condemn it. And you see nothing wrong with the consistency here?

          3. And I bet if I go to those articles in the comment section I can find you condemning the cops too. Want to bet?

            1. You are wrong. You will not find that.

              1. Are you sure?

                1. Yes.

                  1. You condemned Kyle for shooting someone after her was shot with and hit in the head with a skate board.

                    1. Unless you can provide an exact quotation, no one here should believe a word that you write.

                    2. Chemjeff, no it’s you no one believes.

                    3. Soldiermedic is correct

                  2. Forgive me if I don’t believe you. Because you are nothing but. Sycophant of Reason and will give them cover no matter how bad their take is. You prove it time and time again. I’ve never once seen you criticize any of their takes. You call yourself a libertarian, but I think you are just a tribalist who blindly accepts whatever Reason says and that makes you believe you are a libertarian.

      2. Derp Mike Asshole wants to know if the girl was threatening the black guy.

      3. Reason runs a half dozen articles a week about cops killing someone who they mistakenly thought had a gun, but here you are pretending it’s a good excuse.

        1. Not all are killing.
          A lot are just about harassment.

      4. Both her hands were visible as tbey were on the window frame you retarded fuck.

      5. “I keep seeing references to her being unarmed…”

        There’s a reason for that, you steaming pile of lefty shit:
        It’s true.

      6. “I keep seeing references to her being unarmed. We all know that now, afterwards.

        How did the officers barricaded behind the Speaker’s Lobby door know whether Babbitt or the others behind her were unarmed?”

        …there were SWAT teams on the side of the door she was and they did not shoot her.

        And the cop that did shoot her hardly has a record of unblemished competency.

    3. Unarmed protestor that was committing an insurrection. She got her just desserts lol

      1. How many people charged for insurrection?

        Or a crime even CLOSE to it?

        It’s zero so far.

  18. “Supporting the cause because your “side” went down is not a principled position.”

    Yes. And refusing to continue your “cause” when it’s the other side that would benefit is equally unprincipled.

    So, do you claim to care about police assaults on people? Or do you only care about them when the person being “assaulted” is a criminal resisting arrest?

    1. It’s pretty clear that Billy Binion is calling for consistency in the above blog post. So, he is essentially saying the same thing you are.

      1. Except neither he nor the koch reason staff are consistent. And you are not as well except we know which sock you are, so fuck off.

      2. Funny that this the very first time Reason has run an article on Babbitt being killed and Bunion didn’t condemn the killing but Reason ran multiple articles condemning the killing of a black man in Kenosha that was armed with a knife. And also ran multiple articles when an Antifa murderer, who was suspected of being armed, who killed a right wing counter protestor in Portland was killer by Federal Marshals and condemned the marshals.

        1. That POS Blake is still alive unfortunately. Also, he wasn’t yet armed. He was violating a restraining order and potentially fleeing with miltople children in is van. One of which had the misfortune of watching their mother being raped by Blake.
          If rusty were competent…….
          7 shots and the faggot is now a millionaire.

  19. Hey Peanuts, tell me this.

    Why did the insurrectionists put Ashlee Babbitt in the prime “smash-windows and storm the barricades” front position?

    Are they’re not enough conservative “manly-mens”? Or were they all the infamous cucks I hear about?

    Any Peanut can reply!

    1. There is no gender order to a protest. Thanks for the strawman.

      I think you will like the manly men in prison. Unless you can afford a top shelf attorney.

    2. Hey Nutjob did you fuck your kids today, or just wack off to illegal porn.

    3. Wait, you want to make positive sexism your argument?

  20. So let’s turn this on you and the rest of the staff here.

    If any of you actually cared about police accountability, not just when convenient for the left, then you’d have written about this abuse similarly to your coverage of Floyd but instead we have seven months of silence until you can find an angle to exclusively attack people on the right.

    1. Do you notice how hypocrites are usually the first to call others hypocrites?

      1. Binion is so incredibly fvckin stupid, he can’t see the obvious

      2. Well, no, that isn’t necessarily so.

        1. And speaking of hypocrites who cries when people attack him but has no problem taking people out of context to attack them, here comes Mikey.

          1. Thanks for proving my point Mikey.

            1. You’re kind of losing it. Maybe take a break for a while.

              1. Maybe if you stopped shitposting and trolling people like soldiermedic76 and Ken, and started arguing in good faith, they wouldn’t loose it on you.

                1. But then those half dollars stop rolling in.

                2. To ML “argue in good faith” means “agree with me”

                  1. ML and I disagree often. Red and I disagree often. Jesse, Sevo, NardZ at al and I disagree often but they never treat me the way they treat you and Mikey. It isn’t the disagreement, it’s the mendacious way you two treat anyone who disagrees with you.

                    1. That’s certainly true, but the lefty squad here has, universally, the constant habit of dishonesty.
                      Frankly, it’s insulting to have any one of the lot hand out such claptrap and expect anyone to believe it.
                      But, there’s an alternative: Ken pointed out that jeff, Mike, turd, tony, the lot of them are certainly dishonest, but that’s but a symptom of being so abysmally stupid they simply do not realize they are lying. They are lacking the mental equipment to separate truth from some fantasy.
                      As an example, you can watch turd showing up with a lie, being called on it (with evidence), disappearing, only to show up the next day pitching the same, damn lie!
                      So,
                      1) Insulting, dishonest hubris?
                      2) Abysmal stupidity?

                    2. Thanks.
                      It’s the purposeful dishonesty and little tricks that chemjeff and friends try to pull all the time, that really bug me.
                      You know half the time that they don’t actually believe what they’re saying, but somehow expect others to.

                      Laursen’s targeted harrassment campaign against Ken really made me furious too. And now he’s trying to pull the same stunt with you.

                    3. “…Laursen’s targeted harrassment campaign against Ken really made me furious too. And now he’s trying to pull the same stunt with you…”

                      Pretty sure Ken and s76 will do just fine, but it’s obnoxious watching the asshole Mike continue lying, misdirecting, offering innuendo and pretty much scraping the bottom in his mendacity, while turd, jeff and sarc cheer him on.
                      Again, the evidence suggests that the dishonesty here is merely a symptom of a stupidity which is hard for competent people to understand.

              2. I am losing my patience with you because you are intellectually dishonest and labeled me xenophobic. And then rather than offer a real apology you called me fearful instead. And you still haven’t fucking apologized so I can only assume you are intellectually dishonest piece of shit who doesn’t deserve to be tr acted with respect.

                1. Why do you consider being called fearful an insult? I apologized for calling you irrationally fearful, acknowledging that you gave reasons for your fear.

                  1. First when people really apologize they don’t qualify their apology. That is the first thing to understand. And you didn’t just call be fearful you gave me the “benefit of the doubt” which most people would also find insulting. And finally, come on, are you so dense that you don’t see how calling someone fearful is still an insult? But me asking you simply “when” is an insult? Come on, no one is that dense. I am giving you the benefit of the doubt that you are smart enough to understand what I am saying.

                    1. I had already spoken about my giving DoL the benefit of the doubt, which is why I reused that phrase.

                      Calling you rationally fearful is not an insult. It is precisely what you are.

                    2. And your “When?” comment was blatantly meant to be an insulting dig. Just admit it.

                    3. Mile has no principles. He is a leftist piece of shit. He stillness about being white knight.

                    4. Still lies*

                    5. “And your “When?” comment was blatantly meant to be an insulting dig. Just admit it.”

                      You deserve insults from the time you get up in the morning until your eyes close at night.
                      You are a lying, abysmally stupid pile of lefty shit and anyone who has anything to say to you which is not an insult is badly mistaken.
                      Stuff a running, rusty chainsaw up your ass, Mike; make the world a better place.

                    6. So, you can’t admit fearful and give you the benefit of the doubt is insulting, especially the way you did it, but you want me to apologize for asking When. See no consistency on your part. I notice something about you, you always are the victim. You never admit you bring it on yourself. You are always the victim. Well, if everyone is condemning you, it isn’t that everyone else is the problem, it is that you are the problem.

              3. You’ve never had it but you keep going.

        2. And Reason ignored Afghanistan for nearly 48 hrs this week and then their first story wasn’t about the fiasco but an attack against Vance and Carlson. Thanks for proving my point again Mikey.

  21. Well the Los Angeles Times thinks her shooting was justified https://www.latimes.com/opinion/story/2021-08-24/officer-killed-ashli-babbitt
    Albeit tragic. Well, actually instead of albeit they used “to be sure”

    1. It was tragic. Reportedly, she was mentally ill.

      Still it was justified.

      1. Reportedly, the protestors were armed with assault fire extinguishers and the protest plot reportedly hatched at an Olive Garden. Reportedly.

        1. Anyone who eats at the Olive Garden SHOULD be shot! YUCKO!!!!

          1. Olive the people that eat there like it.

        2. You forgot it was planned using a Lego model, too.

          How does that square with White Mike’s other accusation that it was an impulsive response to Trump’s speech?
          It doesn’t, but he doesn’t care. The agitprop doesn’t have to make sense.

      2. How was it anymore justified than the killing of the Antifa member who murdered a right wing protestor in Portland, which Reason ran multiple stories about in protest? This is the first story Reason has ran on the Babbitt killing, an unarmed veteran with PTSD, who was shot in the face. I call bullshit on this being a justified killing. Reason runs almost weekly stories about how cops kill people with mental health issues and that is wrong, but silence until today on this case. And you always condemn the cops in the other cases but here you defend the cops. Hypocrisy thy name is Mikey.

        1. “ And you always condemn the cops in the other cases but here you defend the cops.”

          You are rambling at this point. I don’t always condemn the cops in other cases. You are making a baseless claim about my commenting history.

          1. No. He’s right and you’re lying.
            It’s time to stop trying to gaslight everyone, Mike.

          2. Should I go back and find quotes from you like I did earlier today and prove you are lying again? Everyone saw how that turned out.

            1. Sure, go ahead. You won’t find them.

              1. Sure I won’t. I totally take your word for it, especially after your heartfelt apology you have me.

                1. So, you are realizing you won’t find any such quotes, and you are trying to save face with, “Sure, I won’t.”

                  You won’t. What you are looking for ain’t there.

                  1. You ain’t worth the energy because even if I did go back and find those quotes you wouldn’t admit you are wrong. Because you are always the victim of people “picking” I you. You lack the self awareness to understand if everyone is saying the same thing about you it isn’t that everyone else is mean girls like you like to call them, it is that they are very likely correct in calling you out. I disagree with Sevo, NardZ, Ken, Red, ML, Chumby, etc quite often, but they never attack me like the attack you. Why do you think that is? Why do you think I can disagree with them, argue with them quite passionately but they give me a pass? But they won’t give you a pass? Come on get some self awareness.

                    1. You ain’t worth the energy because even if I did go back and find those quotes you wouldn’t admit you are wrong.

                      Half his challenges here bank on that fact. The KillAllRednecks sockpuppet pulled the same sort of stunt.
                      They know what an enourmous task it is to search through months and months of their garbage, and bank on us not doing it.

                    2. “…The KillAllRednecks sockpuppet pulled the same sort of stunt…”

                      Forgot all about that pile of slime! Nice that it’s gone. And the spastic hasn’t shown up recently.
                      When Hihn kicked the bucket, his family was perhaps due some sympathy, but the world is a better place for that asshole to be gone. Same is true of Tony, turd, Mike and other piles of lefty shit.
                      Die, please. I’ll be happy to piss on your graves, so long as there isn’t a waiting list; you ain’t worth it.

                  2. You don’t get it. If you criticize the cops then you’re not allowed to say they did something right. You must criticize every cop and everything every cop does. If you stray from constant criticism then it’s because you hate Trump and his followers. It’s the only explanation.

          3. Rambling implies a disorganized train of thoughts and speech. My sentence was extremely clear and to the point the opposite of rambling. Buy a dictionary.

            1. Nope, you have been ranting a lot today.

              1. You’re full shit every day.

              2. You call it ranting because I showed everyone how wrong you were. You launch unfounded personal attacks and then cry when people do the same to you, and I proved it and your delicate ego can’t take it. You don’t want to engage in constructive dialogue, you only want people to agree with you. That is why you run to the rescue of ChemJeff and Sarcastic, because they are some of the few that ever agree with you, and helm Sarcastic rarely makes any posts that aren’t shit posting. You can’t handle dissent.

                1. You can’t handle ideas being taken to uncomfortable conclusions.

                  1. Whatever. You never post anything but shit. There are no uncomfortable conclusions from you.

            2. Just block Laursen, soldiermedic76. He’s basically trying to troll you at this point.
              He did this with Ken too. Following him around, making ridiculous statements and flat out lying about what he said.

              His aim is to annoy, not engage.

              1. Final took your advise.

                1. Smart move.

              2. Prefer to have lefty piles of shit block me. They get responses which others can read.

      3. Annnd if you needed anymore evidence that Asshole Mike was a fucking FBI stooge, here’s your proof.

        1. But he’s all murder porn and black guys shooting their wad into white womyn, so yay!

    2. The LA Times think Larry Elder, who grew up in South Central, is “the black face of white supremacy”
      This is who the left is, and Reason is 100% on that team.

      1. Also from the LA Times today—If the recall of Newsom carries the day it’s the entire US who should be afraid, not just California! (I didn’t click on that one so I don’t have the link)

      2. “the black face of white supremacy”

        At this point “white supremacy” merely means anything that reflects poorly on the Democratic Party.

    3. They are correct. The minute they crossed into the Capitol and started wrecking shit was the minute they gave up the right not to be shot. They should have stayed outside and protested like civilized people .

  22. People keep comparing Babbitt with George Floyd, but a much better comparison would be the shooting of Mike Brown.

    Mike Brown – directly attacked a police officer and tried to grab his weapon. He was shot and killed. As a result, violent protests destroyed the city, and there were no less than three autopsies and four investigations (local, DOJ, private one by the Brown family with full cooperation from the DOJ, and an FBI civil rights investigation) which were fully public. The Brown family received a million dollar settlement from the bankrupt city. The officer involved was exonerated but also publicly named and can never work as a policeman again.

    Ashli Babbitt – didn’t attack the police officer, yet she was shot and killed. There were no violent protests in response to the shooting. Only one autopsy was done. A DOJ investigation and an internal probe were done, neither made public. No settlement was paid to family (although family lawyer is seeking one). The officer involved was exonerated but not publicly named and is still on the force.

    1. “didn’t attack the police officer”

      Just attempted to break through a police barricade set up to protect people, and the police protecting those people did his job and protected them.

      1. She attacked zero cops you medacious lying fuck. There were 6 cops in total around that door. 3 on each side. She has no weapons. None of the others in the hallways did either. The cops on her side of the door were so fearful they had their weapons not drawn.

        Youre a disgusting piece of shit.

      2. The asshole Mike is a prime example of how Binion’s headline is backwards: Most everyone who objects to that cop murdering that woman also objects to murder-by-cop elsewhere.
        Steaming piles of shit like Mike find all sorts of lies to justify that 1/6 murder and then, hypocritically, whine about others.

        1. But but Carson, that proves then right because Mikey is just a Reason sycophant who thinks that makes him a libertarian. Oh and he voted Libertarian. I disagree with Reason often over the past five years, but been a reader since 2001, and also voted Libertarian the last two elections, but I guess Mikey wouldn’t consider me libertarian enough because I don’t blindly go along with every position Reason writes. He thinks it’s wrong for me to criticize Reason. He even said so yesterday when he asked me why I read Reason if I am going to question them. I guess people should only read what they agree with, lock themselves in an echo chamber because group think good, independent thought bad. Don’t you dare criticize Reason writers.

          1. You cut him slack up-thread where he pulled a quote out of context. IMO, that’s a really bad idea; as a dishonest piece of shit, Mike will hereafter brag that he caught you in a lie, when, in fact HE attempted to mislead.
            I do not apologize for metaphorical knee to Mike’s balls every time he tries bullshitting, which is pretty much every time he posts.

            1. Well no longer, his mendacious assholery just said he wasn’t going to interact with me because I am to emotional about the Afghanistan thing. Yet I got emotional with you the other night, got emotional with Red the other night, and got emotional with Ken the other night, and disagreed vehemently with all three of you, yet you aren’t muted. I only muted him, is it because none of the three of you distrespected me in our disagreements? And fuck yes I am emotional about Afghanistan. Thirteen of my brothers died for Biden’s fuck ups. Why shouldn’t I be emotional?

      3. “break through a police barricade”

        1. Who are you trying to fool. It was three security guys standing in front of a locked door, and they walked away well before she was shot.

        2. Even if she had, evading a barricade has never been justification for killing someone. The only psychotic on the planet who thinks so is you.

        1. I doubt he would have felt that way if the Portland PD had shot some the BLM and Antifa protestors who went around the barriers (and actually cut fence) to invade the federal courthouse in Portland. And they actually did try to kill people by setting buildings on fire and blocking the exits.

          1. Oh, I forgot, if they aren’t carrying BLM and Antifa membership cards they aren’t really part of BLM and Antifa. But a disorganized group of protestors that support Trump are totally blood thirsty insurrectionist. Never mind that the DoJ can find no evidence of any sort of plan and said 95% of them were a one off event. It totally was the start of a Civil War and was worse than Beugrad ordering the firing on Ft. Sumter.

            1. “But you don’t understand that even if they are carrying the cards they’re faked or something.

              And that insurrection was a spur of the moment mob reaction, except for how it was meticulously planned on a lego model of the Capitol months in advance.”

              The obviousness of Mike’s gaslighting is what makes it so annoying. If he were at least subtle about it.

              1. Did you just see how he so graciously said he wasn’t going to interact with me because I am so emotional about the Afghanistan fiasco? Gee, do me a favor dude. He is trying to act magnanimous now. How funny is that?

                1. See above regarding dishonesty/stupidity. Mike’s among those deserving of the answer: Yes.

                  1. You were right, I was wrong. I admit it, it sometimes takes to long to sink in through my thick skull.

        2. Don’t forget the visibly armed men on her side of the doorway. The very ones who are seen tendering aid in the immediate aftermath.

          If they thought she was a danger all they needed to do was grab some pantleg and pull her down.

      4. “didn’t attack the police officer”

        Read that again, asshole.

      5. “Just attempted to break through a police barricade set up to protect people, and the police protecting those people did his job and protected them.”

        Did she attack ANY officer?

        Not “a barricade” (which rioters attacked, regularly, for all of 2020 to few condemnations by Reason)….ANY officer?

        Why do you and Jeff seem to think that trespass is a capital offense?

        …well, for American citizens. If illegals trespass, that is wonderful and beautiful and we’re bigots for not loving it.

    2. They had those people backed into offices where they couldn’t have retreated any further and were looking for blood. They’re lucky more of them weren’t shot. She was just the dumbass who wanted to be out front. Play stupid games and win stupid prizes.

  23. Whining, disaffected, whimpering, powerless clingers are among my favorite culture war casualties.

    Open wider, clingers. But not you, Ashli — your days of having better Americans stomp your right-wing preferences into irrelevance are over. You have been replaced.

    1. Asshole bigot shows up with his standard cut/paste lefty shit whine!
      How………
      pathetic.

  24. It’s not clear to me that Reason cares about police accountability on January sixth. They’ve finally acknowledged the fatal shooting of Ashli Babbitt but only in the context of trashing Tucker Carlson. The fact that hundreds of people, many of whom never entered the building, are being held without bond for 8 months hasn’t crossed their radar screen. As long as Reason continues to ignore this blatant assault on liberty for clearly political reasons they have zero credibility on police accountability.

    1. If superstitious slack-jaws and right-wing hayseeds genuinely cared about Ashli Babbitt, they would pray on it a while and attempt to bring her back from the dead.

      Some people (claim to) believe that is possible.

      1. Asshole bigot again shows up with his standard cut/paste lefty shit whine!
        Pathetic piece of lefty shit.

  25. BTW, buried on the Saturday morning news desert:
    How badly has droolin’ Joe fucked up the withdrawal from Afghanistan?
    Well, badly enough that he’s sending in more “withdrawal” troops, that’s how. And doing it in the worst possible way; too small a force to do other than take casualties.
    Some “withdrawal” you got there, Joe.
    https://www.msn.com/en-us/news/world/biden-authorizes-1-000-more-troops-to-be-sent-to-afghanistan/ar-AANkfie?ocid=uxbndlbing

    1. Just like his former boss Obama, who when the Pentagon requested 50,000 troops for his Afghanistan surge, gave them only 33,000 and announced their withdrawal date before they were even deployed. The Pentagon requests 3,000, Biden gives them 1,000. The DoD wanted to keep Bagram open with more troops until the evacuation was done, Biden ordered them to reduce forces to 600 and abandon (that is all you can call it when they left at 0200 hrs without even informing our Afghani allies or NATO allies) Bagram and condense on the Embassy to secure the Embassy. That worked out well, how long were the able to hold the Embassy? Less than 24 hrs after Kabul fell and they had to scramble to secure HKIA? That can’t be, I thought Biden was a foreign policy expert with the best foreign policy and National Security Team ever devised.

    2. Also, I wonder if Reason will bring up the fact that we now have more troops in Afghanistan for this “withdrawal” then when Biden took office?

      1. Reason is still calling it a “withdrawal” without scare-quotes as opposed to the self-imposed ass-kicking it is.

        1. I don’t think even Chamberlain was as naive as Biden is about National Security. Chamberlain at least followed through with his threat after Hitler broke his word. So far all Biden has done is nuke a Toyota with three ISIS K personal who may have been planning another attack and send in more targets to a kill zone.

          1. Not sure it’s naivete as much as dementia and a ‘team’ assembled with the inability or unwillingness to disagree.
            It’s hard to credit Biden’s mental abilities by now, (that ‘pause’ in the presser was not reassuring) and the ‘team’ seems to be made up of lightweights who are probably enjoying hefty salaries and perks never before available; who wants to get fired from THAT? CNN ain’t gonna open an anchor spot for the first one to point out Joe isn’t even wearing undies.
            Rather than tempering Biden’s idiocy, we seem to be getting an amplification of it.
            Likely the feeling is: ‘It’s only a thousand troops – it makes us look like we’re doing something – nothing bad can come from this – more bullshit’.
            Anyone remember the Taliban deadline? I’m betting that alarm is gonna ring, and Biden will be surprised!

          2. Biden isn’t the source, and it isn’t nativity.
            The regime hates the people, and doesn’t give a shit about this country’s well being, best case. It’s fair to assume they’re actively trying to fuck it up.

          3. “I don’t think even Chamberlain was as naive as Biden is about National Security. Chamberlain at least followed through with his threat after Hitler broke his word. So far all Biden has done is nuke a Toyota with three ISIS K personal who may have been planning another attack and send in more targets to a kill zone.”

            As a professor of mine once said, Chamberlain does have the defense that he didn’t have Chamberlain as an example of what not to do.

      2. I like how they called up more troops to “protect” the Capitol then they are using for this.

  26. Or the fact because of Biden’s decisions those troops are in an indefensible location that puts them at increased risk if things do break down?

    1. If they were committed to a defensible position, they would have no effect on the outcome.
      By now, it must have dawned on some of the troops, at least at the higher non-com level, that providing video footage for droolin’ Joe’s pressers their mission.
      And taking the required casualties.

      1. All I am saying about the defensible position is the casualty count would have been lower, and the mission easier, as Bagram has two runways, not one, you could be landing aircraft at the same time others are taking off. But I don’t have to explain that to you, and I apologize for posting something you are well aware of.

        1. Please, no apology; none required.

    2. “Or the fact because of Biden’s decisions those troops are in an indefensible location that puts them at increased risk if things do break down?”

      How about the Taliban offering to let US control Kabul…and Biden told them no?

  27. So basically the first time Reason, a supposedly libertarian magazine, mentions the killing of an unarmed libertarian protesting the government just so it can attack Republicans?

    While I agree, Republicans and conservatives need to stop reflexively supporting the police, given the police are big government and more likely to arrest them than anyone on the left (see Portland as an example), it’s pretty pathetic this is the first time Reason has ever mentioned her death.

    1. “So basically the first time Reason, a supposedly libertarian magazine, mentions the killing of an unarmed libertarian protesting the government just so it can attack Republicans?…”

      BB provided a forum for Mike, sarc, jeff, turd to once again offer assholic justifications for a cop to murder an unarmed protester by shooting her in the face.
      And this is the first time Reason has dealt with the issue, and then only by offering false equivalence to other murder-by-cop circumstances.
      Dunno who is in charge, but Sevo’s contributions to Reason are now in the $5 range, just to let Welsh know they have not been forgotten (like leaving the server a $1 tip)

    2. Lol unarmed libertarians forcing people into an office and then those people defending against that bitch trying to overthrow the government? Fuck her she got her just rewards.

  28. Because of Biden’s policies, American troops are in an indefensible position, putting them at risk if things break down?

    You can check out our Angelic Numerology right now to read about Angel Numbers. It’s not just about numbers; it’s about helping you understand yourself better so that you can live a happier life!

  29. “So she’s an unarmed protester. I don’t think we execute unarmed protesters, do we?”

    Are you fucking kidding me? We shoot them dead with their baby in their arms on their side of their own fucking doorstep! But I guess white trash always has it coming.

  30. Binion cannot seriously be this dumb. The other option is he’s a troll.

    Tucker Carlson’s purpose in making the statement is not police accountability. It is pointing out the hypocrisy of the left in demanding “police accountability” every time but NOT January 6.

    1. There’s been plenty of other times the left has been lax on demanding police accountability. Look into pretty much any incident in which a cop shot an unarmed person that happened to be insufficiently “melanated” for the case to be seen as newsworthy.

      Try telling a BLM activist that Daniel Shaver is as much a victim as Breonna Taylor, and that both deserve to be remembered, and see how long it takes to either be called a racist or accused of having just said that Taylor wasn’t a victim at all.

      I’m not a fan of the performative stuff Tucker does for his airtime on FNC, but it is definitely worth considering that he’s attempting to shine a light on the hypocrisy of an opposition who tried for more than a hot second to make a national scandal out of a cop shooting someone who was literally in the act of a stabbing that was absolutely felony assault and probably could have been prosecuted as attempted murder in most US courts.

  31. Binion, did you purposely miss the entire flip side of the argument? If one supports police or prosecutorial reform because of Floyd, then the gleeful celebration over Babbit’s death and the ridiculous assertions that it’s normal that people are held for months for political crimes are hypocritical.

Please to post comments

Comments are closed.