Well, shit. I guess we just pack it in until the next election. This dialogue isn't going any further with this administration, which has managed to generate its own definition of the phrase/ideal "the buck stops here" -- one that no longer contains an ounce of accountability.
Hell of a wrapup there, Michael, and I'm not just saying that because I put together 4 of this 6 posts you selected. (That's only part of the reason I'm saying that.)
I'm also digging the one-per-day limit and bold headings that make it a breeze to read. I'm tempted to recommend that as a template for every weekly roundup of favorites, but I know some of our Favorites' writers are prone to sprawling masterpieces.
I see you've also attracted the attention of a frequent commenter who constantly mistakes comment threads for impromptu stages where he can hurl ad hom, wild accusations, paranoid ravings and the occasional milk-related video in the general direction of Techdirt.
One might be tempted to answer a few of his not-really-questions, but then one might notice that he's prone to throwing "LOL" around mid-rant and think better of it. A person who punctuates baseless accusations with LOL can scarcely be trusted to focus on the discussion at hand, what with needing to peer suspiciously through the venetian blinds every time a vehicle passes within 100 yards of the house and occasionally duck out to top up on "poppers."
That was the concurring opinion which followed the lead of the appeals court, which found that long-term surveillance was a problem. Of course, the definition of "long-term" is still undecided, and that opinion pretty much concluded there's no way to set a time limit that would be reasonable across the board.
Good thing he's representing himself, because it looks like he's not allowed to represent anyone else.
By order of the Tennessee Supreme Court entered Dec. 19, 2011, the law license of Nashville lawyer Mark Christopher Sevier was transferred to disability inactive status. He may not practice law while on disability inactive status. He may return to the practice of law after proving to the court by clear and convincing evidence that the disability has been removed and he is fit to resume the practice of law.
"Disability inactive status" is apparently bar slang for incompetent, mentally infirm or sky high on drugs. (Section 21)
Ryan, I appreciate the compliments ESPECIALLY considering the first word was locked to the top of this thread within minutes of the post going live. It's a welcome counterpoint. (Plus, I write on the internet, so I cherish every compliment. Perhaps too much.)
I get the impression that the writer feels the teen was seriously discriminated against, and that the officer wasn't punished. Facts related don't seem to support his at all.
First off, yes -- the article is very biased. It's biased because I believe the teen has had the system thrown against him for a comment that was ugly, but still clearly innocuous when context is considered. The officer meanwhile works in close proximity to the party he DIRECTLY threatened and had both the weapons and the access to carry it out. One is in solitary confinement with bail set at $500,000. The other is a free man facing 40 days suspension. It's not just my article that's biased.
The facts are in the post and what's not in there is available by following the links. If you'd like to point out where the facts don't agree with what I've written, feel free.
Making a remark online is a bit different from making one to an individual, as out of line as it was, and both received punishment
This demands an explanation. As you've written it, it seems to indicate an online threat should receive more scrutiny and more punishment than a threat spoken to another person. I'm curious as to why you feel that way. The teen's post was a response to another person, not unlike a conversation. If you believe the method of delivery adds to the perceived "seriousness" of the threat, I'd be very interested in hearing an explanation of this rationale.
Perhaps had the teen had 17 years of law enforcement to mitigate his comments, he would have received equal treatment.
Perhaps. Or perhaps if the teen didn't have a criminal record or possess anything, either in his personal effects or online, that indicated this threat was serious or he had the ability, much less the potential to carry it out, it might mitigate his comments. But it didn't.
Or maybe if the teen's other words and actions indicated some sort of mindset or pattern, the authorities might have let him off as easily as they did this officer.
From the Washington Post article:
"A District police officer accused of threatening Michelle Obama has been cleared of administrative charges related to the first lady but was found guilty of posting a derogatory job description on social media and depicting the president as a communist, his attorney said Monday."
Oh, so the cop posts stuff "online" as well... hmmm.
"But during the investigation, detectives found troubling though unrelated postings on the officerís LinkedIn and Facebook accounts."
Wow, he's all over the internet. Remind me again about how posting stuff online differs from in-person comments?
"Angry with the D.C. Council over a vote to curtail pension benefits, Picciano wrote on Facebook about taking a rifle to a tall building."
Christ. Again with the Facebook.
Ball's in your court. Perhaps you can find me some damning quotes from Justin Carter to justify his treatment. You can have your "mitigation." I'll keep my "bias."