Cops Sent Warrant To Facebook To Dig Up Dirt On Woman Whose Boyfriend They Had Just Killed
from the blue-lives-are-more-equal-than-others dept
Everything anyone has ever said about staying safe while interacting with the police is wrong. That citizens are told to comport themselves in complete obeisance just to avoid being beaten or shot by officers is itself bizarre — an insane inversion of the term “public servant.” But Philando Castile, who was shot five times and killed by (now former) Officer Jeronimo Yanez, played by all the rules (which look suspiciously like the same instructions given to stay “safe” during an armed robbery). It didn’t matter.
Castile didn’t have a criminal record — or at least nothing on it that mattered. Otherwise, he wouldn’t have been allowed to own a weapon, much less obtain a permit to conceal the gun. Castile told Yanez — as the permit requires — he had a concealed weapon. He tried to respond to the officer’s demand for his ID, reaching into his pocket. For both of these compliant efforts, he was killed.
Castile’s shooting might have gone unnoticed — washed into the jet stream of “officer-involved killings” that happen over 1,000 time a year. But his girlfriend, Diamond Reynolds, immediately live-streamed the aftermath via Facebook. Her boyfriend bled out while responding officers tried to figure out what to do, beyond call for more backup to handle a dead black man sitting in his own vehicle. Only after Yanez fired seven bullets into the cab of the vehicle did officers finally remove his girlfriend’s four year old daughter.
To “win” at killing citizens, you must start the spin immediately. Yanez spun his own, speaking to a lawyer less than two hours after killing Castile. Local law enforcement did the same thing. Documents obtained by Tony Webster show Special Agent Bill O’Donnell issued a warrant to Facebook for “all information retained” by the company on Diamond Reynolds, Castile’s girlfriend. This was to include all email sent or received by that account, as well as “chat logs,” which presumably means the content of private messages. The warrant also demands any communications that may have been deleted by Reynolds, as well as metadata on photos or videos uploaded to Facebook. It came accompanied with an indefinite gag order.
Why would law enforcement want (much less need) information from the victim’s girlfriend’s Facebook account? It appears officers were looking to justify the killing after the fact. The following sworn statement was contained in the affidavit:
Your affiant is aware through training and expertise that individuals frequently call and/or text messages to each other regarding criminal activity during and/or after and [sic] event has occurred.
This is warrant boilerplate, especially when it comes to obtaining information from accounts or devices. But this warrant should be considered anything but business as usual. Should be. Isn’t. This is the actual standard operating procedure after an officer kills someone: the department goes digging through its criminal records to find any reason at all to have killed the person and to buttress “feared for safety” excuses given by officers — awarding them points for effort based on information they didn’t have when they ended someone’s life.
When it comes to police shootings in America, there are no aggressors in uniform, only victims. Officer Yanez made his own excuses, theorizing Castile’s willingness to smoke pot in front of a 4-year-old child indicated Castile had no respect for human life.
I thought, I was gonna die, and I thought if he’s, if he has the, the guts and the audacity to smoke marijuana in front of the five year old girl and risk her lungs and risk her life by giving her secondhand smoke and the front seat passenger doing the same thing, then what, what care does he give about me?
Following his testimony’s logic, smoking pot in front of a child has so severely damaged Castile’s moral compass, he apparently would have thought nothing about shooting an officer over a non-functioning tail light. There’s no logical boundary cops won’t cross to pin the blame on the dead. Hence the Facebook warrant to dig up dirt on his girlfriend in hopes of adding a bit more post facto righteousness to the shoot.
The only upside — and it’s incredibly small given the surrounding circumstances — is Facebook refused to hand over the information on the grounds that the indefinite gag order was unconstitutional. Faced with this pushback, Minnesota police withdrew the warrant. But in the end, Yanez was acquitted and Philando Castile is still dead — a man who did nothing more than try to comply with an officer’s orders.
Filed Under: diamond reynolds, fishing expedition, gag order, jeronimo yanez, philando castile, warrant
Companies: facebook
Comments on “Cops Sent Warrant To Facebook To Dig Up Dirt On Woman Whose Boyfriend They Had Just Killed”
The more I see situations like this, the more I think maybe calling the police for just about any situation is a bad idea. 🙁
Re: Re:
It’s ok, in the land of the free and home of the brave, the police will come to you to murder you, if you’re brown.
Cause second hand smoke (see officers testimony) for a four year old is totally equitable with getting into a shootout with the police.
The more I see these the more I find police officers to be closer to the most reprehensible members of society. I’ve known convicted felons with more integrity then duputy Jeranimo
Re: Re:
It’s well-known in Baltimore that you shouldn’t call the cops if you’re not white. They’re just as likely to kick your door down and/or beat you and/or shoot you and/or taser you and/or arrest you as they are to help.
This, and the fact that the cops took a knee after murdering Freddie Gray and being called on it, are the two reasons why crime has spiked in the city. People would rather be robbed or assaulted and take their chances on the street than dial 911…and even if they DO call 911, the response will be slow and ineffective. Or hostile.
The city’s response has been to cancel police leave and put more officers on more patrols, and it’s (a) cost a fortune and (b) accomplished nothing. They’ve lost the city’s trust, not just because of Freddie Gray, but because of ten thousand other incidents that weren’t nationally publicized. EVERYONE knows someone who got a rough ride or was hassled or was dragged into jail on a bogus charge. EVERYONE knows the cops are just another gang. EVERYONE knows that they should run from the cops whenever they have the chance.
Public Enemy had it right: 911 is a joke.
Re: Re: Power corrupts
News: they do it to whites too. Power corrupts. When does it get bad enough to start returning fire? What were the standards used to decide that back in 1776? How do we stand now compared to then?
Re: Re:
It’s taken you THIS LONG to figure that out?
Seriously?
Re: Re:
That’s pretty much true anywhere in the US. You only call them if the situation can’t possibly get any worse (or you are forced to), and even then you might want to think about that if you are still breathing.
Also, if there is a gun / weapon of any kind anywhere when a cop shows up, you had best hope you are nowhere near it when you cross paths. You are automatically 10x more likely to die if you are. (30x if non-white.)
Most people should view the cops for what they are in the US: Thugs in uniform. It doesn’t matter what "kind" of cop they are at this point. If you guess wrong, you have a good chance at dying that day, and that alone means assume all cops you meet are bad until proven good. If they want that to change, they need to clean house.
Re: Calling cops
I agree, callings cops in many cases could be avoided peacefully, tactfully with respect and completely legal without some two-faced lying corrupt person(s) on a power ” I am God ” trip coming into the picture,… 🙂
Imagine if the reverse happened
Imagine if every time a cop killed someone, their facebook, twitter and all other online feeds were given to the local prosecutors office. I would imagine they would be able to prove incompetence along with intent to deprive of rights in most cases since the cops have long histories of treating their arrests as trophy worth things and the people arrested as subhuman.
Re: Imagine if the reverse happened
Nah that isn’t really equivalent because prosecutors are in bed with them.
Imagine every time a cop-killer did that their defense attorney got said details. They’d be sputtering in disbelief as the deceased officer is portrayed as a ‘having it coming’ – just like they do to justify themselves.
Re: Re: Imagine if the reverse happened
I’ve considered starting a cop tracking site where officers with reputations for being violent, stealing, planting evidence etc could be listed in a giant database free for all defense teams to use. That way, within minutes of a cop involved shooting, the cops involved will be outed if they have histories that their departments hide from us.
Re: Re: Re: Imagine if the reverse happened
I’ve thought of something similar.
Using people’s cell phones, with a mount on the dashboard, develop an app that uses the phone’s camera and gps. Then using LAPR software, create a database on their locations.
Then using that against the LEO’s own LAPR policy, save that info for the same time the LEO’s policy, for all to see. 🙂
Re: Re: Re:2 Imagine if the reverse happened
So there’s something on the oppisitr side of this. Which is cell 411
https://getcell411.com/
An app that allows you to seek alternative help whether it’s the cops or someone else
Re: Re: Re:2 LAPR?
You said LAPR software.
I think you mean Library, Archives, and Public Records, but damn, that was hard to search out! I think your definition of LAPR is only known among specialists in public records. Literally all of the following definitions of LAPR are more common:
Life Assurance Premium Relief
Lawfully Admitted Permanent Resident
Little Angels Pug Rescue
Laparoscopic Abdomino-Perineal Resection
Log A Posteriori Ratio
LaMar Ayers Public Relations Group
Los Angeles Percussion Rentals
Re: Re: Re:3 LAPR?
Not the poster you’re replying to but I think it was a typo. ALPR would be Automated License Plate Reader. That fits best in the context of that post IMO and has been the topic of several posts here on TD.
Re: Re: Re:2 Imagine if the reverse happened
Don’t reinvent the wheel. Everyone should download the ACLU app. Video is streamed directly to their servers, so the police can’t delete it!
https://www.aclu.org/feature/aclu-apps-record-police-conduct
Re: Re: Re: Imagine if the reverse happened
Just be sure to create an anonymous account and pay for the services via bitcoin
Re: Re: Re: Imagine if the reverse happened
Great idea Hugh. I know sometimes this is brought up by news media who aren’t in bed with law enforcement criminals.
I think the Rutherford Foundation of Constitutional preservation has something like this. You might want to link with them and see what you can come up with.
It’s also not a coincidence that Castille’s survivors got at least a couple mil in ‘hush money’. And to assuage to potential of mass rioting. These settlements always come with a gag agreement not to sell the story or castigate the defendants in a public media venue.
I don’t know if these hush money settlements have reached a billion dollars yet across the country but every year big cities like Chicago dole out multi, multi billions on bad shootings by out of touch with reality cops who can no longer tell the difference between SERVING AND Protecting the public as a first response and major priority, and Search and Destroying as enemy combatants.
Think of what better use all that money could go to in terms of training and treating mentally confused and emotionally distraught cops to prevent them from summarily executing people at random which would save hundreds of lives a year?!
Having been in both venues most of my life, I can tell you that the uniformed badge wearing street gangs (aka cops) get away with more murder in a non war zone than they do in a combat battlefield.
It’ll get worse before it gets better. I’m just wondering what the cost is going to be because eventually this will have to stop if we don’t want civil war. And if anyone, like police leadership and politicians will ever be held accountable.
Re: Re: Imagine if the reverse happened
They’d shut you down in an instant. The only way Wazee survived police orgs challengeing their police spotter was because local police districts cannot out muscle their parent company Alphabet in court.
Us mere mortals wouldn’t stand a chance
Re: Re: Re: Imagine if the reverse happened
Waze wasn’t always owned by Alphabet. Even as an independent company, they managed to fight back against various attempts to shut them down.
Special Agent issues warrant? Who's the judge?
The incomplete images you’re linking to appear to demostrate that Special Agent Bill O’Donnell applied for a warrant—
What’s the name of the judge who rubber-stamped this?
Re: Special Agent issues warrant? Who's the judge?
You might as well call him/her “Captain America”. Nothing noteworthy about her/him other than being a U.S. judge.
You don’t make a career by refusing to sign warrants. Not signing a warrant might be tallied as your mistake (and is good for painting you as lenient on crime and on the wrong side of the law), signing it is the mistake of the one writing it.
Re: Re: Special Agent issues warrant? Who's the judge?
Oh, so when the heading reads “STATE OF MINNESOTA, COUNTY OF RAMSEY 2ND DISTRICT COURT”, when the heading reads that way, that means it’s a U.S. judge?
You didn’t read the document. I bet you yourself must be a fucking United States district judge.
Re: Re: Special Agent issues warrant? Who's the judge?
Judges are elected in Minnesota.
Judicial selection in Minnesota
Re: Re: Re: Special Agent issues warrant? Who's the judge?
Yes, but they almost always run unopposed in elections, and are initially appointed by the Governor when an open seat occurs mid-term. There are no special elections held to fill vacant judicial seats.
Re: Re: Re:2 Special Agent issues warrant? Who's the judge?
If the voters in Minnesota rubberstamp their judges, then we must not feel too much surprise when the judges in Minnesota rubberstamp their warrants.
Letter from Thomas Jefferson to William Charles Jarvis, 28 September 1820:
Re: Re: Re:3 Special Agent issues warrant? Who's the judge?
That’s the kind of stuff you get to hear when you let rebels talk without uncensored.
Re: Re: Re:4 Special Agent issues warrant? Who's the judge?
“Talk without uncensored.” ?
Perhaps you should like to rephrase your sentence?
"See something, say something."
And before dialing, ask yourself “Do these people really deserve to be shot out of hand?”
In any remotely credible investigation where Special Agent Bill O’Donnell issues a warrant for the victim’s girlfriend’s Facebook data, he’ll have already issued a warrant for the killer’s data.
Any word on whether Facebook received an order regarding Officer Jeronimo Yanez?
Lots to be disturbed about here, but here is the problem I have with Tim’s article.
Quinton Gates, a black 18 year old gang member in Chicago approached a rival on a South Side porch last month and shot 11 times, killing a 19 year old man. Quinton is black.
Are all blacks dangerous? Are all blacks criminals? Are all blacks murderers and gang members?
Tim, your article “Everything anyone has ever said about staying safe while interacting with the police is wrong.” if said about Quinton would be racist. You blame all for the actions of a few.
Re: Re:
“Quinton Gates, a black 18 year old gang member in Chicago approached a rival on a South Side porch last month and shot 11 times, killing a 19 year old man. Quinton is black.”
vs
“Everything anyone has ever said about staying safe while interacting with the police is wrong.”
I’m not sure how the first implies the second is wrong. That a black 18yo gang member in Chicago killed someone, does not mean I’m going to be safe with police if only I “comply”.
Re: Re: Re:
… but they made sure you knew he was black, right?
Re: Re:
Quinton being black is almost certainly irrelevant to the story. Officer Yanez being an officer IS relevant.
Quinton does not get the benefit of the doubt – and much, much more – by being black. Officer Yanez does, by being an officer.
Quinton doesn’t get to cast a driftnet for incriminating information about witnesses to his crime to discredit them, by being black. Officer Yanez does, by being an officer.
Etc. etc.
Re: Re:
Wow, your argument is terrible.
Re: Re:
Are all blacks dangerous? Are all blacks criminals? Are all blacks murderers and gang members
Perhaps you should also consider "Are no blacks ever prosecuted and jailed for their actions?"
Re: Re:
Yeah, think of all those times black people have committed murder with absolute impunity conferred on them by being black. All those times police refuse to arrest them, all those times grand juries refuse to indict and in the handful of times a black killer actually goes to trial they never ever seem to find a jury that will convict them.
I agree with you both situations are identical and do prove that black gang members and US police should be held to exactly the same standards.
Re: Re: Re:
Like O.J. Simpson?
Re: Re:
Kind of like it would be wrong to assume that all rattlesnakes are dangerous just because of the actions of a few.
Re: Re:
Hey look everyone we have our standard racist dogwhistle:
When confronted with inexcusable (and yet officially excused) police violence against black people, simply say “Chicago”, though the article has nothing to do with Chicago.
Re: Re:
Yes, it would be. And is as it stands.
You chose the wrong comparison. Of course you chose police and black people.
What you were looking for was police and gang members.
So, yeah.
hehehe
i had batman theme song in my head as i read this…don’t know why….( the one from 60’s )
The days of trusting the police are long gone. I view any interaction with police as hostile, no matter what the circumstances. At this point, I would hesitate to call on police for help in any situation because I just don’t trust they have my best interest in mind.
Let the victim and survivor smearing campaign begin!
Case file
Courtesy of the Minneapolis Star Tribune: “See evidence from the BCA investigation of the Philando Castile shooting” (by Matt DeLong, June 22, 2017)
The Minnesota BCA report described as “SW on Diamond Reynolds Facebook accounts” begins on p.1221.
According to the report, the search warrant was signed by Judge Thomas Gilligan.
Re: Judge Thomas Gilligan [was Case file]
Minnesota Judicial Branch: Judge Thomas A. Gilligan, Jr.
Ballotpedia: Thomas Gilligan
Re: Case file
Note: Looking closely at p.1232 and p.1234 of the Star Tribune file, at the sigature lines respectively subbed “Judge of District Court” and “JUDGE OF DISTRICT COURT”, I personally do not see how you get ‘Thomas Gilligan” out of that scrawl.
But, notwithstanding the indecipherability of those pen waves, I see nothing to indicate that that isn’t Judge Thomas Gilligan’s customary mark.
Re: Re: Case file
Maybe one of these names fits better?: Minnosota Judicial Branch: Second District Judicial Officers
The synopsis in the cover sheet on p.1221 of the file, (unnumbered) paragraph 5 on p.1222, and the return on p.1223 all indicate that the July 8, 2016 warrant was issued by Judge Thomas Gilligan.
However, (unnumbered) paragraph 6 on p.1222 states, in part:
The three emails reproduced on pp.1224-6 are dated July 20th, 19th, and 18th of 2016.
Next to the “JUDGE OF DISTRICT COURT” signature line on p.1234, the copy of the warrant is dated July 8, 2016, with 11:10 AM handwritten.
I still do not really see how those marks on the signature line make ‘Thomas Gilligan’.
Re: Re: Case file
Minnesota Secretary of State: Thomas A. Gilligan Jr. Oath of Office. Direct PDF link: Document Number: 171810.
(Fwiw, note that the Official Document Details abstract claims “Date on Document: Jan 10 2017”, but the PDF looks to me to contain “Dated: January 3, 2017”. This minor discrepancy does not seem material, though.)
Anyhow, the signature reproduced in the PDF appears to my non-expert eyes to be reasonably similar to the signatures in the Star Tribune file, particularly the signature in the warrant reproduction on p.1234.
In front of a child?
I suspect the sight of his killing was far worse for the child than the sight of a joint. Of course, that’s just me. I’m sure cop defenders everywhere will vehemently disagree, as usual.
Re: In front of a child?
I don’t know, I feel like my elementary school would disagree and nobody there ever said anything about cops. But they definitely thought that looking at drugs would kill me. And all of my friends. And also give me all sorts of terrible diseases. An Not sure how that last one worked to be honest, since I was apparently already dead..
Re: In front of a child?
Who was more dangerous to the child the pot smokers using a substance that medical science has said is good for people or the shooter firing into the car with a child in the back seat
Re: Re: In front of a child?
Now THIS I have to disagree with. Doctors who aren’t quacks will tell you that smoking ANYTHING is bad for you since burning a substance creates many carcinogenic byproducts. Pot is no exception. If you wish to use pot, you need to do something other than burn it, like bake it into brownies.
If he had, I bet the cop would have remarked that he was trying to entice the child into drug-use by using sweets. Damned if you do, and damned if you don’t.
Re: In front of a child?
Hey, the Authoritarian-Industrial Complex needs to ensure their continued livelihood in future generations – they’ve got to maintain their pool of enemies somehow!
The oddest thing
The oddest thing about the whole situation is they actually FIRED the officer, even after being acquitted. The usual thing to do with an officer involved in a shooting who’s acquitted is to transfer them (if it’s really egregious). So what did they find in his personnel file that made them fire him instead of transfer him? And you can bet that file went straight into the shredder.
I think I figured you guys out
I am beginning to understand Techdirt – you guys really like to talk to each other, exclusively. One set of opinions, reinforced by paid posters (never identified) and leftist vocabulary to promote the leftist agenda. You’re actually not trying to engage with anymore outside of your little bubble, in fact you defame anyone who does not agree with moronic diatribe. It’s interesting that you allow anyone else to post here at all, I guess to provide the illusion of public discussion. No matter, you can still “hide” anything that goes against your one sided and totally distorted world view.
By your logic, all Police are bad because some are bad. All government is bad because some politicians are bad. Forget any kind of real debate, or the recognition at the argument is ridiculous. Just keep shouting your epithets and bang your little drums so you can all mentally masturbate together about all the terrible wrongs of the world you live in, poor babies.
Please hide this post, I am sure it is offensive to your hurt feelings and childish rants about nothing at all.
Re: I think I figured you guys out
Hey Hamilton. The one common denominator between all of your problems is you. Think about it. Take as much time as you need.
Re: Re: I think I figured you guys out
The one common demonator of all my success is me. Rich, happy, well taken care of, everything is good today, except for the rain. Like Techdirt, it will pass, too.
Re: Re: Re: I think I figured you guys out
Not sure who you are trying to convince. Us… or that niggling little doubt that’s always eating at the back of your mind. You know the one that makes you blame everyone else for your actions.
Re: I think I figured you guys out
If you were beginning to understand Techdirt, it is not obvious in the above statement. The set of opinions is quite wide and, interestingly enough, comes across as at times as leftist and at other times as rightist, and at other times middle of the road.
Since defamation has a specific legal definition, varying by the jurisdiction that you live in, you need to demonstrate that defamation is in fact being performed in their jurisdictions. Until you can plainly, logically demonstrate this, your last two words apply directly to yourself.
Since I am responding to your post, the anyone else applies equally to you and hence is not an illusion but a reality of public discussion. If enough of the public reading your message decide that it is not worth reading they can and do indicate that they want it hidden. Those who want to read it can see it is hidden and can unhide it for themselves, if they wish. So, there is still the reality not illusion, unless of course, you yourself are an illusion, in which case, one cannot help you.
Actually, this is not by their logic. You are not clearly thinking here. One common thread through all of these articles and ensuing discussions is that, when "bad" cops are brought to the fore, by their actions, the relevant police organisations, prosecutors, police unions, politicians that do NOT take action to remove such people from those positions and undertake appropriate legal action, they are coming out in support of the "bad" actions. The logical consequence of this support is that the relevant groups mentioned above are themselves "bad".
If you cannot keep your own clean, then don’t expect evryone else to support you.
The same comments can be made about politicians and government. If they can’t keep their own house clean, then the consequences follow.
There is an old adage, be careful what you wish for, you might just get it.
Someone might just do that. But it takes an awful lot to offend me and the likes of such as you are not one of those things. It is interesting to note that, in many ways, you are a child of the times. Let me ask you a question or two.
What is your stance of personally killing a beast to eat, that is, can you kill, dress and then butcher the beast for your own consumption? Can you cut your fuel for heating? Can you make your own preserves? Do you even know how to clean a toilet or even wash the dishes? Can you calmly carry a conversation with someone who is anathema to you to understand why they are in the place they are in?
Do you share your life with those around you so that they will not make the same mistakes you have done?
Re: I think I figured you guys out
Do you remove all the mirrors from your house or do you just avoid them?
Re: Re: I think I figured you guys out
You are assuming he casts an image.
Re: Re: Re: I think I figured you guys out
On the one hand, being a vampire would explain his lack of understanding of modern social norms, endless time available to make silly arguments and the sense of persecution from the living.
On the other, despite the additional curses of being unable to survive in sunlight and needing to drink human blood, immortality is a gift I would prefer not to have been bestowed on such a poor example of sentient life.
So, I’ll make the other assumption – he casts an image in the mirror, he just refuses to have one in the basement he dwells in.
Re: I think I figured you guys out
All cops are bad cops because the “good cops” cover for the bad apples.
“It’s just a few bad apples” is the justification.
The other half of that is “that spoil the whole barrel”
The whole barrel is spoiled. The “thin blue line” and “us vs them” and “police vs civilians” culture has to go before law enforcement gets any kind of respect back.
I grew up thinking that cops were great. Not so much anymore.
You can go lick the boot if you want. I’m not gonna. I’m not an authoritarian.
—
BMO
Re: By your logic, all Police are bad because some are bad.
Passive-aggressive, much?
Yes, hunt deer, bow and arrow, woodshed in the back (was once an icehouse) I’m from Massachusetts with a documented family history going back to the 15th century, the house I live in dates back to the early 19th century. I know the people who care about this kind of thing are few, and that’s fine, I can get along with everybody that has a brain and even attempts to be honest. I am very open minded, I learned this when I was young, and I value open and honest debate, like everyone in my family and everyone in my culture.
Here are some things that lead me to believe that this blog is not indicative of open or honest debate, but instead filled with silliness and stupidity:
“It’s ok, in the land of the free and home of the brave, the police will come to you to murder you, if you’re brown.
It’s well-known in Baltimore that you shouldn’t call the cops if you’re not white. They’re just as likely to kick your door down and/or beat you and/or shoot you and/or taser you and/or arrest you as they are to help.
EVERYONE knows someone who got a rough ride or was hassled or was dragged into jail on a bogus charge. EVERYONE knows the cops are just another gang. EVERYONE knows that they should run from the cops whenever they have the chance.
The days of trusting the police are long gone. I view any interaction with police as hostile, no matter what the circumstances.”
I would bet money that (at least some of) these are “promoted” posts, but we will never know, because Techdirt acknowledges that some posts are promoted, but never identifies them. Not open, not honest.
This is an incredibly racist site promoting hateful ideology, mostly by international posters not even in America, many of whom are either paid or have a hidden agenda that they are promoting. It promotes an anti-American ideology consisting of fake outrage by disenfranchised minorities, likely actually authored by well fed writers that Techdirt itself is paying.
To answer your question about mistakes, yes, sometimes I try to help those around me, especially my children. Sometimes I just do a little community service, such as this post. Most of my time is spent giving to others, in one way or another. At this moment, I am honouring the American values of openness, honest, and public debate that I was taught as a youth by my betters.
How about you?
Re: Re:
That is a hell of a lot of effort just to say “I am a troll”.
Re: Re: Re:
Well, some things are worth the effort, such as publicly identifying Fake News as Fake News. Public Service is noble in and of itself. This article and the accompanying posts look like Fake News to me, with faux outrage posted by conveniently located anonymous cowards, more likely just a small group of paid promoters Faking outrage in return for money. I wonder who pays Techdirt so much to spread hate on the Police, I’m guessing the same “Black Lives Matter” kind of minority hatred mentality (hatred FROM minorities) that sponsor his other leftist agenda items. Maybe the Democratic Party, this seems to promote their Rainbow mentality, the coalition of the oppressed “resisting” the entrenched “old white men” that run the world. Hard to say, Techdirt never identifies anything about who pays them or who’s posts they paid for, but that’s OK. It will all come out sooner or later. Just watch. Very little effort on my part, actually. Shiva is doing the heavy lifting.
Re: Re: Re: Re:
I’ve seen better trolling on 4chan. At least those bastard-coated bastards with bastard filling are funny.
Re: Re: Re: Re:
Who pays you?
Re: Re:
documented family history going back to the 15th century, the house I live in dates back to the early 19th century
So… are you ever going to actually prove any of this?
Also, Americans don’t spell "honor" with a "u".
Re: Re: Re:
Certainly, if called upon. You know, sometimes I think of Techdirt as a Jazz melody. Especially today, sitting in my small wood house that I built to hold my stereo, which likely cost more than your car (or maybe even your house). Jazz, that’s what it reminds me of today. There is the Wendy Cockcroft and PaulT melody with silly lady arguments and defense of censorship. There is the Techdirt Counter Intelligence Team demanding proof and furiously taking notes and building files. There is the little melody of GWiz, being nice and posting free software for public review (very open). The occasional accent of a Michael Masnick post on his blog (rare, but always noteworthy) or some incredible scholarly contributions that appear randomly. Jazz music, that’s it.
I would just like to hear more of the scholarly and open and honest stuff from those posters, and less defense of silliness and censorship and for goodness sake, who are you stupid Counter Intelligence members? You could be silent altogether and this site would be much more pleasant to the ear.
Re: Re: Re: Re:
If the comments section of this site displeases you so, everyone else here should not shut up to make you happier, no matter how much you might to rip our throats out with your bare hands.
Re: Re: Re: Re:
It’s been called upon constantly. You keep throwing this “I support Shiva because I’m an inventor” shtick around without proving what you invented. Your general thesis seems to be built upon the foundation of you being a person with an illustrious family history (and a lesbian sister-in-law) dating back several centuries – yet you have yet to prove any of the above. The closest is you throwing a music analogy… that has absolutely nothing to do with jazz.
Go ahead. It’s been called upon. No more “lists of thousands of people harmed by Techdirt” that amounts to three non-inventors on a YouTube comment section. If you demand respect based on who you are, show who you are such that you might be accorded the suitable amount of respect you asked for.
Re: Re: Re: Re:
Shit Hamilton I can trace my lineage back a thousand years. You don’t see me trying to brag about it.
Just because your life is an empty husk is no reason to come here to try, and fail, to try to rain on someone else’s parade.
Re: Re: Re:2 Re:
Yeah? Well, my ancestors came over on the stromatolite!
Re: Re: Re: Smug is not a good look
https://www.reddit.com/r/iamsosmart/
Re: Re: Re:
That’s some pretty good stuff you’re on! Where can I get some?
Re: Re:
I’d wager a guess that this history does not root in America. Being able to document it back to the 15th century also makes it unlikely that it roots in African families torn apart by slave traders.
Basically your family history is one leaving you in a better position than your darker shaded countrymen for unpretty reasons. That’s been a long time ago and it would be unfair to blame you for it. But it’s also unfair for you to be praising yourself for it.
Re: Re: Re:
More to the point, what year this guy’s family – or anyone’s – landed is entirely irrelevant to their value as Americans. Or at least it should be.
I think I have a solution to these kind of killings. Whenever I get pulled over by police, I always have the required documents already in my hand, and both hands in plain sight on the steering wheel, before the cop walks up.
I know drivers’ ed classes will tell you to wait until asked before digging out your documents, but so many people have been shot dead following “the rules” that you’re much better off breaking the rules if you want to stay alive.
Re: Re:
By any chance, are you White?
Re: Re:
Unless the approaching cop takes your movement to get the documents to be reaching for a weapon before they get there, in which case you’re back at the problem you tried to avoid, ‘How to avoid being shot by a trigger-happy cop?’, a question that should never have escaped the realm of the purely hypothetical.
Re: Re: Re:
You are kidding, right, or are you totally clueless about how to show some respect to a Police Officer? Pull over, park your car, leave your hands where he can see they are empty easily, and treat him with respect. No problem, he will not shoot you, he is paid to protect you. Show respect, receive respect.
Challenge him, make him fear for his life, give him a reason to defend himself, and he will, he has a dangerous job. It’s a small distance from a negative attitude to a negative outcome in some situations.
Cheer up, smile, be a productive member of the community, and respect and welcome the Police, help them do their difficult jobs. Too much to ask? Try it sometime, look happy to see the Police next time you see them, smile at them. Almost always, they will smile back. Try it!
Re: Re: Re: Re:
Philando Castile did exactly that.
Re: Re: Re: Re:
Yeah, no. If you’re going to try to spin that ‘Be respectful and you’ve got nothing to worry about’ rubbish, it helps if you don’t do so under an article that undermines your claim.
The one killed this time around was killed because he exercised his legal right to carry a gun, informed the officer of it, and then attempted to follow the directions given to him to provide his ID. For this he was shot multiple times, killed in front of his girlfriend and her daughter.
Unless you want to argue that he…
a) Shouldn’t have been armed at all, in which case good luck making that argument…
b) Shouldn’t have told the cop that he was armed…
and/or
c) Should have refused to follow directions in reaching for his ID as directed.
He did everything ‘right’ and was still gunned down for it. As such the idea of ‘If you’re just polite you won’t be executed on the spot‘ is a nice/horrifying idea, but clearly doesn’t match reality where even that won’t save you.
Re: Re: Re:2 Re:
And you were there, right? You are very sure, right? Completely sure of every detail, right? No bias at all, right? No agenda to promote, right?
Re: Re: Re:3 Re:
Ah the good old ‘dodge, deflect and project’. I’d say I was surprised you went that route, but I know you too well by now for something like that to be at all unexpected.
Re: Re: Re:4 Re:
Yes, questioning your judgement is Heresy in the small Cult of Techdirt. That One Guy, so wise and all knowing, and always answers every question fairly and completely. So answer, you Paid Poster Poser, were you there? No? Is it possible to hold an opinion outside of the Cult of Techdirt? Do you respect anyone outside your little witches den of hate, condemnation and surety in your angry, nasty, blameful cause?
You know why Trump is President, and will continue to be so? He’s FOR something. You are only against, against Police, against Copyright, again Patent, against Trump, against against against.
Do you understand yet that your little den of journalistic black arts is soundly condemned by the general public, as demonstrated by the Republicans in party now? Come to court here in Mass., you will understand better when you look in our faces. We really disrespect this kind of nasty condemnation of Police and other decent people here. We can’t burn you, like witch cults of old, but we’ll want to, you will see it in our eyes.
Re: Re: Re:5 Re:
Gotcha, you wanna kill people just for disagreeing with you.
Re: Re: Re:6 Re:
Well, no, not kill them, as we used to do in a previous era, not force them to wear scarlet letters in public. But when you purposefully defame good and honest people, asking the public (through a jury) to enforce a penalty seems appropriate. Losing a little money never actually hurt anybody, just their feelings, after all. I mean, Michael Masnick looks a little worried, but he’s still writing his bluster about what defamation IS and what defamation IS NOT, so I don’t think his worry is very sincere. At least not yet. Not killing anyone, just taking their money, that’s not so bad, right? Reasonable response to let the public sort it out, right? Not a “hanging jury”, just an “involuntary poverty” jury in exchange for hurting people unnecessarily, that wold be better, right?
Re: Re: Re:7 Be careful what you wish for
But when you purposefully defame good and honest people, asking the public (through a jury) to enforce a penalty seems appropriate.
Lower down in the same comment section…
Mix in some lesbian separatists and angry violent non-whites, and that pretty much covers the regulars here, right?
Your faux outrage never fails to entertain, especially when you expose your glaring hypocrisy and/or dishonesty when you do it. Claiming that saying ‘mean things’ about someone should be grounds for financial, legal or even physical penalties while never thinking for a moment how screwed you would be if the world matched what you claim to want.
Re: Re: Re:7 Re:
Calling people mean names and reporting on actual facts is not defamation, no matter how much you want it to be a capital offense where you get to personally pull the killswitch on whomsoever offended you.
Yeah, what does it matter if you drive someone into homelessness and bankruptcy because they called you a few names? Doesn’t matter if someone dies in the gutter like a rabid dog because you put them there in the first place, right?
He knows more about what is and is not defamation than you. I mean, shit, you think opinions are defamatory!
Really not much of a difference if your taking their money leads to their death.
No, the reasonable response is to let the courts sort it out with a fair hearing on the merits of a lawsuit—that is, whether anything Mike Masnick said about Shiva Ayyadurai actually counts as defamation by current legal standards and not just Ayyadurai’s opinion of what is defamatory.
Of course, under such a standard, Ayyadurai’s lawsuit would have no merit. ????
Re: Re: Re:7 Re:
Burning people at the stake can definitely kill them. And no, I don’t believe you didn’t know that. I think you’re just a liar.
Re: Re: Re:7 Re:
Don’t you have a Senate campaign to run, fraud?
Re: Re: Re:8 Re:
He’s a drama troll looking for attention, sorrykb.
Re: Re: Re:3 Re:
The actual dashcam video is as close to “being there” as any of us will ever get. I linked to it a few comments up.
Tell me: What was Castile, who was no threat to anyone at the time of his death, supposed to do in that situation so that he would not be executed by a police officer?
Re: Re: Re:4 Re:
Well, if it were me, for example, and I was carrying a gun, I think I would pull over, park the car, and put my hands on the upper part of the steering wheel after lowering the window. Then, I would wait for the officer, exchange some pleasantries, defuse any worry he might have, and tell him that I was armed, when he could plainly see that my hands were nowhere near my weapon. Then, I might ask his advice before I moved a muscle or even blinked. Then I would carefully follow his instructions. Show empty hands, show some courtesy and understanding, help him calm down and feel safe, and then move very slowly, following instructions. When you have a weapon, and you are unknown to a Policeman who is approaching you, caution, caution, caution. Duh. Like anyone who ever had any weapons training wouldn’t know that.
Re: Re: Re:5 Re:
In an ideal world, your advice would be universal. But we do not live in such a world. In our world, the history of policing in the United States stretches back to slave patrols, modern US police officers are trained (however implicitly) to view Black people as criminals, and Black people are killed by police for doing the same things that get White people arrested (if that). Your utopian paradise does not and will never exist, so the advice you are giving out does not and will not apply universally to all people—and especially to Black people.
Re: Re: Re:6 Re:
“modern US police officers are trained (however implicitly) to view Black people as criminals”
Any quick look at violent crime statistics would show that Black people commit a hugely disproportional amount of violent crime (as well as being victims of it). There’s simply no denying that basic fact.
Re: Re: Re:7 Re:
Is this a defense of the idea that police should treat all Black people as criminals—guilty until proven innocent—regardless of whether any given Black person actually is a criminal? Because it sure as hell looks like one.
Re: Re: Re:8 Re:
Just you, Stephen, you are a criminal poster, ranting about gouging your own eyes out. Just you.
Re: Re: Re:9 Re:
Funny, I don’t recall being arrested for, tried for, and convicted of a crime in any court of law. Calling me a criminal when I am clearly not one could be considered defamatory, you know.
Re: Re: Re:8 Re:
It’s rare that police ever shoot elderly BLACK women -as opposed to young black men- since they don’t fit the profile of someone likely to do them harm.
It’s not unwise to respond to people based on the worst of their lot. That’s why it never hurts to be extra careful whenever around both cops and black youth gangs. (but if given a choice between the two, I’d take the cops any day)
Is this kind of thinking racism? Absolutely, but it’s sensible racism. Just because most rattlesnakes won’t bite you unprovoked doesn’t mean you should let your guard down if you happen across one.
Re: Re: Re:9 Re:
Then why do police not respond to all White people as they do Black people, considering White people are responsible for the overwhelming majority of mass shooting events and domestic terrorist acts? I mean, when you’re talking “the worst of their lot”, White people have a shitload of murderous motherfuckers to answer for.
Re: Re: Re:10 Re:
That is, if you care to categorize people as “white” or “non-white”. We frown on that in polite American society. It’s called “racism”, and you’re exhibiting it.
Re: Re: Re:11 Re:
Okay, see, now that’s trolling worthy of 4chan.
Re: Re: Re:10 Re:
“White people are responsible for the overwhelming majority of mass shooting events”
That’s an old, well-worn myth that ignores all the black mass-murderers like Micah Xavier Johnson, the Dallas cop slayer, and John Allen Muhammad, the D.C. sniper. And don’t forget that at only 13% of the US population, black people should be a very small minority of anything.
Re: Re: Re:11 Re:
That’s a strange couple of attempts at a rebuttal. You’re saying that the idea that a majority of mass shooters are white is a myth because you can name a handful of non-white shooters (while not supplying data to show that this makes them a majority, of course). That’s an illogical claim to begin with, but then you also try claiming that it’s natural that black shooters are a minority because they represent a minority of the population (strange because that not only makes your first claim unnecessary, but ignores the very important difference between “black” and “non-white”).
This is why I always read these threads even if I had something better to do than to participate at the time. Even when you guys are apparently trying to make an actual logical argument, you end up spouting nonsense.
Re: Re: Re:12 Re:
It’s actually fairly proportionate if you believe the studies. As in the over all population of each race is a direct proportion to the amount of mass murderers produced by each race.
http://www.cnn.com/2015/06/27/us/mass-shootings/index.html
http://www.motherjones.com/politics/2012/12/mass-shootings-mother-jones-full-data/
I found the information regarding the proportion of men vs woman and the percentage of those with mental disorders particularly interesting…
90 percent men, 67 percent with mental disorders… maybe we should look at beefing up our mental heath programs and limiting the mental ill’s access to guns?
Full disclosure, as a Libertarian; I’m not a supporter of gun control in general. I do support common sense tho, even when it applies to guns.
Re: Re: Re:13 Re:
“It’s actually fairly proportionate if you believe the studies.”
I can see that, I was just questioning the immediate response of the other AC – that they’ve not committed in majority by white men because he could recall some other who did it. He also got confused over the difference between “non-white” and “black”, and so made a further nonsense of the part where he approached a valid argument.
As for men vs. women, I believe the idea is that women usually commit more personal and less public crimes when they snap. So, a woman might be more likely to kill her children and others close to her using more personal weapons, while the men tend to take it out on everyone around them using the more impersonal and damaging weapons.
So, a woman drowning a few kids or stabbing her husband vs. a guy shooting dozens of strangers from a rooftop might have the same kind of cause, but only one is going to make the mass shootings index.
That’s a vague impression from what I’ve read anyway, I’d be happy to be contradicted by a valid study if someone corrects me.
“maybe we should look at beefing up our mental heath programs and limiting the mental ill’s access to guns?”
Well, this would seem to be the logical response, but suggesting adequate healthcare and not allowing homicidal maniacs access to military weapons seem to be something that get you called a traitor and communist in the US. I hope your country improves before too many of your citizens need to die needlessly, but it’s not looking positive from where I stand.
Re: Re: Re:14 Re:
One big reason why it gets such a negative reaction is that there’s considerable difficulty in defining "homicidal maniac" in a sufficiently non-arbitrary way that whoever is charged with making the determination couldn’t apply the label to – and thus impose that deprivation of access to weaponry on – any desired person.
Until after the person has already gone on a rampage, at least, at which point it’s too late to do much (if any) good.
Re: Re: Re:7 Re:
It is worth noting that many crime statistics are inaccurate and racist because the cops are racist. It has been proven repeatedly that drug use rates between white and black populations is nearly identical but blacks are investigated, arrested, and charged vastly more often because cops assume blacks are dealing/doing drugs and occasionally find them when searching and don’t let them off with a scold for having a baggy of weed like they do white people.
If the method of data collection is unreliable then the data it produces is worse than useless it is actually misleading.
Re: Re: Re:5 Re:
In short: treat the cop like you would any unreasonable psychotic killer and pray for your life.
Well, not just any unreasonable psychotic killers: those aren’t usually accompanied by their ilk falsifying evidence, committing perjury in court, and being considered more reliable than other witnesses.
Re: Re: Re:2 Re:
There is some debate about how Castille should have responded.
In most CCW classes in MN (required for a permit), they tell you to say, "Officer, I have a concealed carry permit and I am carrying. How do you wish to proceed?" Then you’re told to repeat back the officer’s instructions before asking to proceed to follow them. All in all, it’s meant to slow down the interaction to allow everyone time to calm down a little and to make sure that each side understands exactly what is to come next. You’ll notice that Castille should have mentioned the fact that he had a permit before saying he had a weapon, although in theory Yanez should have known that Castille had a permit if he’d run the plate before the stop.
Now, that’s how the CCW instructors tell you to handle things, but that’s not what the law requires. In Minnesota you are not required to tell the cop you’re carrying unless the cop asks first at which point you are required to answer honestly.
So there is a great deal of discussion on how this should be handled, and one of the problems is that despite requests from MN gun owners, Gov. Dayton(D) has refused to come up with a protocol on how CCW carriers should respond when stopped by police. That is contributory to the mess here. It would be awfully nice to get a standard so that cops could be trained in how to respond appropriately.
Now, on a personal level, I think I can say that Yanez has no business being a cop and was very lucky to have skated as he did. How he handled things was just wrong, and he doesn’t seem level headed enough to be trusted with a weapon. Even the NRA can agree with that, as you can see from Colin Noir’s epic rant on what a disgrace this whole situation was from the point of view of a black man, lawyer and NRA commentator. The problem being, even if you believe that Yanez was a fool and morally deserved to be convicted, it can be hard to overcome the burden of "beyond a reasonable doubt" in a case like this, as Noir points out, no matter how much you might dislike the fact that Yanez was acquitted.
Re: Re: Re: Re:
No, he isn’t.
Re: Re: Re:
That’s why you don’t want to be seen bending over reaching under the seat or in the glove box. An armrest storage compartment fulfills this function perfectly, since you can access it without making any visible motions to the cop behind you.
Of course, it always helps to practice your ‘document grab’ with the same meticulous lack of movement as a ventriloquist would practice.
A guy who tells the traffic cop “I have a gun” as he reaches into his pocket to retrieve the requested documents is basically asking to be shot multiple times, because that’s exactly how American police are trained to respond to this sort of “threat”.
Re: Re: Re: Re:
Are you saying Philando Castile deserved to die? Because it sounds an awful lot like you are saying Philando Castile deserved to die.
Re: Re: Re: Re:
A guy who tells the traffic cop "I have a gun" as he reaches into his pocket to retrieve the requested documents is basically asking to be shot multiple times, because that’s exactly how American police are trained to respond to this sort of "threat".
In which case the three things I pointed out above come into play. If that sort of thing is justification for being killed then the options are basically ‘Don’t be armed’, ‘Don’t tell the cop you’re interacting with that you’re armed’, and/or ‘Refuse the orders of the police’.
Somehow I don’t imagine these options would go over very well with various groups, yet they seem to be the only ones available if one wants to claim that he did something ‘wrong’ that justified him being killed.
Re: Re: Re:2 Re:
No, you tell the cop “I have a concealed carry permit” or “I have a license to carry” and ask for instructions before making any moves. AVOID saying the word “gun”. Furthermore, never get out of your car and approach the cop, unless you’re planning on cashing in on a life insurance policy.
The vast majority of “accidental” police shootings could have easily been avoided if people simply took the time to learn how to behave when police approach. That’s not to excuse American cops for being the most trigger-happy killers in the world, but just to understand the cold hard reality of how cops think and act.
Re: Re: Re:3 Re:
Yeah, and turn themselves White.
Re: Re: Re:3 Re:
Here Here and Bravo, well said. I have no doubt that any person reading this blog, who wanted to live and not die, could manage the situation. Not hard, really, just put yourself in the Policeman’s shoes, and help him not shoot you. It’s his job to shoot people, he practices and everything, probably has done it before and could easily do it again. That’s a good thing, in the right circumstances. You want to push your attitude on him, do so at your own risk. Not defending this particular Policeman or this particular case, but COME ON! No one has enough facts to render a legitimate judgement about these circumstances. Quit name calling and blaming, it’s just ugly and un-American.
Re: Re: Re:4 Re:
Yet you also write in the same comment:
That looks an awful lot like you are defending an extrajudicial execution.
Re: Re: Re:5 Re:
No, this looks a lot like you are an idiot. There was an investigation already, genius, and he was cleared. So traumatized, as anyone would be, that he changed careers. Defending an extrajudicial execution? You moron.
Re: Re: Re:3 Re:
Pretty sure to a trigger-happy nut ‘I have a concealed carry permit/license’ is going to be pretty much indistinguishable from ‘I have a gun’, because why else would someone mention that other than to inform you that they have a gun? Not moving after that point might work, but with someone already armed and hyped up it might also just aggravate them more for your ‘refusal to do what you’re told’. It seems a razor-thin line either way really.
As for the ‘how to avoid being shot’ ideas in general, that strikes me very much as solving the wrong problem, and (possible rightly) paints the police in a light similar to a rabid animal, something you have to be extremely careful around unless you want to end up dead. Now, this could very well be the case(instances like this certainly support the idea), but if so it’s hardly a flattering comparison to make and reputation for them to have.
Re: Re: Re:4 Re:
Wow, comparing well trained, well meaning and highly regarded Police to a “rabid animal”. I think we need to change defamation law for you in particular. You are a sick person and need public correction. Personally, I vote for putting you in public stocks, that would seem reasonable.
Re: Re: Re:5 Re:
Defamation law does not cover opinions. (At least, not yet.) Any comparison between police and either rabid animals or, oh I’unno, common farm swine is protected speech. You may not like it—which is evident by your expressed desire to jail someone for it—but it is the law.
You express such love for the police and the legal system in general. Why do you then express such distaste for the laws they are sworn to uphold?
Re: Re: Re:3 Re:
Wrong, it is up to the trained professional to learn how to approach people, who may behave in different fashions depending on their mental health, intoxication level, etc. If someone panic at the sound of the word gun, and empties a magazine into someone, either their training is insufficient, slanted towards towards shoot first, or they are in the wrong job
Re: Re: Re:4 Re:
Agreed. As an un-American as you can get, the police in the USA appear as yobbos. If you give a yobbo a weapon, expect a yobbo’s reaction. There is nothing professional about your police forces at any level (up to and including the FBI, CIA, NSA, Secret Service, etc). It has the appearance that the more poorly trained you are the better – gives you more leeway and outs when you go troppo and act in a manner becoming of a yobbo.
The more we see in saner countries, the more we see that any police officer of any stripe in the USA is nothing but a violent gun-carrying lunatic that should be avoided under any and all circumstances.
Your nation was considered unpleasant in decades past, but is now considered one of the more dangerous places even compared to the likes of Syria, Egypt and Iraq or even Bali and the rest of Indonesia or even the Philippines.
I have met various people from all over your country who were outstanding people. I have met others from your country that are both ignorant and arrogant and have no concept of humility in the wider world. But then again, I suppose I could say that about every country. So there was not much point in making the comment.
Re: Re: Re:3 Re:
if people simply took the time to learn how to behave when police approach.
Or maybe hire police that are not chicken-shit pussies.
Bullet-proof vest, sidearm, spare gun, taser, billy club, self-defense training, a cache of arms in the car, and a radio to call in more and they’re scared?
Maybe they need to grow some balls.
Re: Re: Re: Re:
That’s why it’s a systemic problem and many people view all police as bad.
Re: Re: Re:2 Re:
It’s also a major reason why juries generally rule “not guilty” when police kill innocent people. If a cop is doing exactly what he was trained to do in that kind of situation, then by law he is not guilty, even when innocent people die. The situation of trigger-happy cops is not likely to change until police academies start getting sued and shut down, since they currently have no incentive to train cops to be more merciful.
It’s a far different situation from say a nightclub bouncer, who would likely go to jail for killing someone, along with his boss who instructed him to respond in such fashion.
Re: Re: Re:3 Re:
I understand than a police officer’s job is hard. A split second can mean the difference between going home at night or going to the morgue. But the police do not deserve the unquestioned privilege of executing people without consequence. We should not give the police a free pass to execute people because an officer “feared for their life” at a moment when someone was not a threat to public safety.
Re: Re: Re:4 Re:
Re: Re: Re: Re:
Your missing important words: as the permit required… meaning not doing so would have also been a ‘wrong’ in that situation.
Meaning if the cop didn’t shoot him anyway in that scenario, he would have been arrested and eventually given an additional charge for violating the permit after they find the gun in his possession.
OK, Show of Hands, Democrats
Is this a Democratically owned and directed blog? I mean, I keep hearing the voices of the disenfranchised minorities crying about Police brutality and defending gays and lesbians and blacks and browns and anything other than white working Americans. Democratic, right, I hear a strong Democratic voice here. Anti-Trump, anti-Police, anti-Government, anti-NSA, FBI, CIA, anti-pretty much everything, right? Democrats, right? Mix in some lesbian separatists and angry violent non-whites, and that pretty much covers the regulars here, right? Any more old rich white guys like me? Am I all alone in my traditional American convictions? Show of hands, please.
Re: OK, Show of Hands, Democrats
Wow. Racism, homophobia, sexism, and anti-leftist sentiment all in one comment. Sure you don’t want to add any anti-Semitism in there and hit the Bigot Bingo?
Re: Re: OK, Show of Hands, Democrats
Identifying minorities is not the same as denigrating them, idiot.
Re: Re: Re: OK, Show of Hands, Democrats
It is when you imply that their voices should matter less than the voices of old rich white men.
Re: Re: Re:2 OK, Show of Hands, Democrats
Are you persecuted, Stephen T. Stone? Would you like to tell me that rich white old men don’t deserve a voice because they enjoy “white privilege”? Should I be apologizing to you and everyone else because I am NOT a minority? Face it, you Democrat, your day is done, America is coming back back to it’s bright future and ignoring angry violent idiots like you. Like President Trump recently said “you don’t want to meet my protesters”, you pink pussy hat wearing Madonna lover.
Re: Re: Re:3 OK, Show of Hands, Democrats
A voice? No.
The only voice that matters? Fuck yes.
Well, it would be a nice start. ????
Re: Re: Re:4 OK, Show of Hands, Democrats
Thank you for the honest reply, that’s great. More than I expected, really. What an interesting person you are now, to openly ask for what you really want. Can you educate me about your view, Stephen? For example, could you tell me what you would like in the form of an apology that would satisfy you? I actually am interested, really, I am sure you have a world view that is different than mine, and I suspected that you might think an apology was due. Now that you have confirmed my suspicions, could you spell out the rest of how you see the society you would like to live in? Should white people leave (I saw that on Tucker Carlson the other day) so you can mix “with your own”? Should they leave the country altogether? How do you see things? Should all white people apologize, even those from Europe or Russia? Should all non-white people get special privileges, even those that never left their home country? Tell us your idea of Justice and Fairness and Equality, please. To help you along, I’m sorry. What comes next?
Re: Re: Re:5 OK, Show of Hands, Democrats
Do not insult my intelligence with such a blatant lie.
Re: Re: Re:5 OK, Show of Hands, Democrats
“Should white people leave so you can mix “with your own”? Should they leave the country altogether?”
That’s basically what happened in Haiti and more recently in Rhodesia/Zimbabwe. Needless to say, the outcome of such “Africanization” was not good in any identifiable way.
Re: Re: Re:4 OK, Show of Hands, Democrats
“Well, it would be a nice start. ????”
I believe that is the most bigoted remark I’ve read all day. Entitlement much? You feel someone owes you an apology for being born a certain color? Grow up.
Re: Re: Re:5 OK, Show of Hands, Democrats
Hello Conversation: I just dropped into this dialogue, and Something inspired me to read through this. Anonymous coward is aptly named. Nice moniker, Anon! But/and I also can’t believe that all the rest of You(se) take two seconds to respond to his/her drivel. Very generous of you, but OMG give it up! This person has no eyes to see. It’s pearls before swine I’m reading here, and yet this troll has eaten SO MUCH SPACE in this conversation. Just ignore ‘it’ please. It has the tragically limited view that if other beings have any rights, It must thereby lose some of Its own, as if there are only so many to spread around. Please. Let It stew alone. Don’t add salt to Its petty festering. Thank you.
Re: OK, Show of Hands, Democrats
The readership of Techdirt is definitely left-leaning (including libertarian) and if it were not so late on a Friday night, your non-politically-correct comments would have likely been mass-reported and auto-hidden (but to many of us, those are the comments we seek out).
But for whatever reason, Liberals and Friday nights are like vampires and daytime. As demonstrated by Friday’s #1 rated (now cancelled) TV show, ‘Last Man Standing’ created by and starring Hollywood’s last remaining conservative, Tim Allen.
Re: Re: OK, Show of Hands, Democrats
Yeah, I like the hidden comments the best, too.
Re: Re: OK, Show of Hands, Democrats
Funny. You attack people for having something better to do than to sit around at home spewing bile on a website or watching TV. Yet, you imply that they are wrong for having a full life.
You handily demonstrate why you spend so much time here despite the community making it clear that you’re not welcome. You have nothing else in your life. On a summer Friday night, you have no friends or family to visit, no leisure activities to participate in, no social events to attend. Only attacking people who have different opinions while lamenting the fact that the TV isn’t spoon feeding you the specific show you like. What a sad, empty existence that must be.
Re: "Lesbian separatists"?
What makes you think that lesbian separatists make up a significant fraction of the readers/commenters here?
Re: Re: "Lesbian separatists"?
I have to admit I’m now kind of curious what ‘lesbian separatists’ would be.
Are they radical lesbians that want to form their own xenophobic nation? Or perhaps radical fundamentalists seeking to round up all the lesbians to keep them in camps so they don’t ‘taint’ the rest of the population?
It is the kind of crazy shit that someone just spouts off without thinking what the words they are smashing together mean that just makes me want to know more.
Re: Re: Re: "Lesbian separatists"?
This is apparently a (mostly past?) political movement, sufficiently well-known to be documented on Wikipedia without [citation needed] tags.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Separatist_feminism#Lesbian_separatism
Re: Re: "Lesbian separatists"?
He’s invented a fantasy where everyone who responds to his rambling with facts is not making a masculine enough argument, therefore they must be female (sometimes the same female), and that allows him to reject responses outright since they must be inferior to male arguments by his definition. I presume he’s also the kind of MRA nutcase who explains away his failure with the opposite sex to be down to homosexuality rather than his own failings.
It’s an interesting case study in mental illness.
Re: OK, Show of Hands, Democrats
Well thank god you’re here to speak for the poor oppressed homophobic sexist racist authoritarian bootlickers of the police state. Where would we be without you.
The story fails to mention tgat the iffucer repeated said “don’t go reaching for that gun”.
Re: Re:
Probably because it’s irrelevant.
Just because the cop may have said it doesn’t mean that that was what was happening. If memory serves Castile also said repeatedly that he wasn’t reaching for a gun.
Re: Re: Re:
You are hilarious. “I’m not reaching for my gun, really. I’m disobeying you, I have a weapon, but I’m not reaching for my gun, trust me”. You defending this, it’s a joke, right? Leftist humor, right?
Tell an armed Policeman that you have a gun, and then reach in that direction, against his instructions, and expect him to stay calm while you whip something out.
Dead officer at the Pearly Gates “But lordy, he SAID he wasn’t reaching for his gun”.
I think I understand the Techdirt/Democratic Angle now
With the help of Stephen T. Stone, I believe I am beginning to I understand the intent of this article and of Techdirt itself. The idea is that re-distributing power away from Police serves the disenfranchised of society, and from that point of view, the harsh criticism of the Police in this case makes perfect sense, because it fits a cause. The cause is that the minorities should not have to tolerate so much enforcement of the law. This is true for all the disenfranchised groups, and even for illegal aliens. So, this article (and the rest of Techdirt) makes perfect sense when you look at it from that perspective. Techdirt’s mission is to transfer power away from Police, and away from Inventors, and away from Authors, and away from pretty much any legal legitimate constitutionally protected action, and instead, to empower those downtrodden minorities that have been systematically abused by rich empowered white people for hundreds of years. That’s it, right? Techdirt in a nutshell?
Re: I think I understand the Techdirt/Democratic Angle now
You are working too hard at it. You gotta simplify to find the real answer.
Techdirt is generally anti-authority and anti-regulation, unless the regulation makes it easier to be anti-authority (think net neutrality).
Demographically, the site plays to mostly male, mostly under 30, mostly with some college education, liberal to libertarian, and many connecting from their work cubicle. Think 4chan grown up and meeting reddit for the first time, and you are sort of there. There are a few outliers (like retired tax evaders and bad rap singers) and a reasonable mix of techie people of all ages, but the skew is young and male.
So f–k the police isn’t really off the reserve. It’s just part of the package.
Re: Re: I think I understand the Techdirt/Democratic Angle now
There we go – that’s the holier-than-thou My_Name_Here everyone knows.
Re: Re: Re: I think I understand the Techdirt/Democratic Angle now
Yeah, he’s interesting, isn’t he? Hey you, are you a hunter? And if so, do you smell the same thing I smell? One thing for sure about Techdirt is there is a lot of sht. There is sht in article names, sht in articles, and a lot of sht in comments. A lot, really. Does it smell like Masnick sht to you? It does to me, here’s my thinking: A lot of Mike’s articles use “sht” when he’s upset, like writing about Shiva. Bunches of them, Mike has a lot of his own sht that he spreads around publicly and signs. AND, there is an unusual amount of sht posted anonymously, and under hidden or false names. Don’t think it all smells like Masnick sht? Well, even if it’s not his sht, he certain serves as the leader of Sht Spreading at Techdirt, right? I mean, he uses it a lot, I think both publicly and privately under other names, and it kind of serves his purpose as to the “Streisand effect”. No one likes to be around sht very much, it literally or literarily, so it kind of protects Masnick from close contact with or criticism from others.
Smell right to you?
Re: Re: Re:2 I think I understand the Techdirt/Democratic Angle now
I look at the love letters he’s sent to you and it’s not surprising that you’ve deigned it necessary to white-knight on his behalf. You two are made for each other. Still waiting on that list of thousands of people Techdirt has harmed and proof of your centuries-old heritage – until then everyone may safely assume that it’s all huff and no puff.
Interesting, thanks for that. I don’t think any of the Techdirt Community that you mention actually pays anything substantial to this site, though, do they? Maybe they buy a T-shirt, and that’s probably the limit of their support, right, not enough to pay MIke’s salary and for the “promoted” posts, right? So who’s paying the real bills? I’m thinking it’s (maybe) the Democratic Party itself, and the Open Source community, both of which seem to be focused on weakening US law and order, and generally weakening or destroying American constitutional rights in favor of a Globalist agenda. Someone is paying the bills, right, and they are getting something for their money, right? I think it’s support for the Democratic Agenda of Resistence (for minorities) and the Open Source agenda of “shared everything”.
Re: Re:
If I believe some of Mike’s comments, it appears that nobody is paying any big part of this site. It’s why there are the constant daily deals and whatnot on the site, as they get a nice percentage on most of it.
Mike has made it clear in the past that banner ads / other ads have lost upwards to 90% of their income. So it’s not there!
Re: Re: Re:
“Mike has made it clear in the past that banner ads / other ads have lost upwards to 90% of their income”
I’m sure you have a link available to prove that claim?
Re: Re:
I thought we’ve been over this. Put Globalist at the top of your comment so it’s easier to ignore. Thanks!
The greatest quality-of-life improvement when we leave the Trump presidency behind us will be that we’ll no longer have to suffer the glib buggers who insist Techdirt represents some Democratic conspiracy, despite its years of heavy criticism of the Obama administration.
Re: Don't hold your breath
Leave the Trump Presidency behind us? I think it will be Donald, then Mellania (ok, so we have to change the law, not that hard), then Baron. Trumps are here to stay. MAGA. Let’s go golfing!
Re: Re: Hail the Royal Family! (Or should that be "Heil"?)
Well, at least you admit you want the United States to become a monarchy.
Re: Re: Re: Hail the Royal Family! (Or should that be "Heil"?)
Honestly,I love it when you Democrats use the Nazi references. Especially you, the pink pussy hat guy. It’s great! Keep it up! Did you hear Trump today, saying “actually it’s great to run against the Democrats, the “Resistence”, because it’s so easy to win!”
Re: Re: Re:2 Hail the Royal Family! (…)
The moment the USA has a king, is the moment that God will destroy it.
This is so sad because being black we will die and tcops get away with it this have got 2 stop it is going 2 Take on judge 2 stand up and say enough is enough what’s wrong with black people God don’t look at color he looks at the ???? right is right wrong is wrong enough is enough this need 2 stop
Maybe this is the wrong place to ask this
I have a question about the whole “who invented Email” argument that has been going on on this site for several years. Maybe some of you with more historical experience could chime in, I am fairly new to this debate.
If I understand one side, the idea is that Shiva invented something at some time, right? His demonstration of that invention is the copyrighted code that he registered. And his position is that that code, or something that resulted from that code, was an invention. He didn’t copy it, he invented it from his own imagination. Then, his assertion is that that thing he invented is properly called Email, was registered under that name, so by inference, he invented Email. That’s about the size of the argument, right? He invented something, he can document that invention, and he says the right name for that something is Email, which was the name he registered it under.
So, the part I need help with is the counter argument. I think it goes something like: Email had a lot of forms, and a lot of sources, and different people thought it meant different things. Some real famous people wrote about it in RFCs, and documented their writings. There were a lot of ideas from a lot of places before the Email copyright, and there were a lot of ideas even after the Email copyright that went into what “we” consider “Email”. So, since it didn’t come from Shiva, it came from a lot of other places, some of it documented before Shiva registered his Email copyright, he didn’t invent Email as “we” know it today. Is that about right?
And then there’s the various smart people, witnesses, character references, strong opinions of real industry experts (like Chomsky, right?) that back up Shiva’s version. I don’t know if that really counts, maybe it does and maybe it doesn’t.
So, there is one view about what Email means in the context of today, right, and another belief system about what Email meant at the time of the copyright, and how that relates to modern day EMail. I think no one disputes that Shiva invented something, he documented his invention, it was code, right?. And I think no one disputes that it has a lot of the qualities of today’s Email, it certainly sounds similar in a lot of ways. What you are fighting about is the meaning of the world Email, is that right? Or are you saying that copyright does not document invention? Or that there was another documented working invention prior to Shiva’s? What is the “nutshell”?
Re: Maybe this is the wrong place to ask this
A related hypothetical question: Say I made the claim that I invented TV. Say I could back it up with a historical record of boxes that displayed picture and sound from a broadcast signal, and I documented the systems themselves with dated photographs. And then later, TV “as we know it today” came to the market from other sources, but AFTER my documented pictures of a working system. Did I invent TV?
Is that the gist of the question before the Judge today?
Re: Maybe this is the wrong place to ask this
Man, if you don’t know what a nutshell is…
Re: Re: Maybe this is the wrong place to ask this
Remember that movie with Bruce Willis where he is a child psychologist, and then right at the end, you find out he’s a ghost? Wow, I just loved that.
I notice that you standard Shiva rant is no longer present? Are you cured? Perhaps my latest post won you over?
Personally, I think you are all nuts to take this case on. I mean, his statement “I invented Email” is literally true, documented, filed, and backed up by an army of experts. Literally, understand? It’s literally true. Maybe you believe you can twist the meaning of words in another direction, but the literal truth still remains in the absence of your twisted argument.
But, your usual twisted arguments are notably absent, perhaps my work, like that of Bruce Willis the Ghost, is finally done.
God Bless America.
Re: Re: Re: Maybe this is the wrong place to ask this
I could whip out my argument, but you would just ignore the meat of the argument, go on another rant about how America is The Greatest Country to Ever Exist, make another oblique and horribly outdated pop culture reference (seriously, when was the last time that “The Sixth Sense” was even remotely relevant to anything?), and verbally fellate both Shiva Ayyadurai and Donald Trump at the same time. And really, if I wanted to listen someone say a bunch of bullshit before blowing a couple of guys, I would go to PornHub.
Re: Re: Re:2 Maybe this is the wrong place to ask this
Translation: “Yes, Doctor, I’m cured of my Shiva fixation about Email. My other maladies, such as my clearly sexual dysfunctional daydreams about oral sex between men, remain.”
That’s fine, Stephen, you were an excellent subject, thanks for playing. Just don’t talk about Shiva and Email anymore, you might hurt yourself (and everyone around you) again.
Re: Re: Re:3 Maybe this is the wrong place to ask this
Nah, fam, I‘ll talk about Shiva Ayyadurai all I want.
I just see no point in doing it with you because you so obviously have a sexual infatuation with the man that will make you ignore everything I say.
Re: Re: Re:3 Maybe this is the wrong place to ask this
I don’t know if you have any self-awareness, but you come across as both smug and intellectually deprived. You’re not impressing anyone and you’re not winning any arguments. Many others commenting on this story are making you look borderline crazy.
You clearly don’t get this, but people here are free to talk about Ayyadurai and his farcical claims all they want, irrespective of any insane demands you make. Sad day for you.
Re: Re: Re: Maybe this is the wrong place to ask this
Anonymous Coward… this is how I feel after reading your expert bullshittery rhetoric (try your best to follow…) EEEEEENNNOOOOOUGHALREADYPLEASEFORTHELOVEOFEVERYTHINGHOLYANDUNHOLYSHUTTHEFUCKUPYOUCONDISCENDINGFUCKINGMORONWHOTHEHELLDOYOUTHINKYOUAREANYWAYWEAREALLDUMBERFORMAKINGITTHISFARTHROUGHYOURLONGWINDEDPOINTLESSILOVEMYSELFANDEVERYTHINGABOUTMEINCLUDINGHOWMYTHOUGHTSLOOKINDESKTOPANDMOBILEFRIENDLYMODEHEYLOOKTHATSAPRETTYBUTTERFLYREPUBLICANBIGGOTRYDAMNITDIDIFORGETTOMENTIONIMHAVINGAGREATHAIRDAYPOINTLESSBABBLETHATMAKESMEFEELUNBELEIVABLYSORRYFORTHEPOORFRIENDSFAMILYACQUAINTANCESPASSERSBYREADERSANDANYTHINGORGANICANDNON, PASTPRESENTORFUTURETHATISUNFORTUNATEENOUGHTOCOMEINTOCONTACTWITHYOUANDYOURRHETORICOFEXTREMEBULLSHITTERYSHUTTHEFUUUUUUUUUUUUCKUP!
Man, do I feel better. Good day (smiley face)
Re: Maybe this is the wrong place to ask this
It isn’t a matter of what he invented that is the issue, it’s the breadth of his claims.
Let’s put it into the context of electricity, which was discovered well before 1600 and commercialized by men such as Edison and Tesla. By 1936, when the Rural Electrification Administration was formed, most cities were already well electrified. This is a matter of historic record.
Now let’s suppose an inventor was born in 1996 and in 2016 stuck iron and aluminum plates in a solution and showed that it produces electricity, inventing the iron-aluminum battery. Let’s say it even has advantages and so he gets a well-deserved patent for it.
That patent would entitle him to exclusive manufacture and sale of any iron-aluminum battery.
But suppose the inventor goes beyond that and asserts that his patent covers all electricity. He demands that everyone must pay him who makes/sells electricity (Con Edison, Duke Energy); anyone who makes an electrical device (light bulbs, toasters); and anyone who uses electricity (the SuperDome, you). Well the breadth of that claim would be obvious bullshit, wouldn’t it? And that inventor would be like Shiva..
Re: Re: Maybe this is the wrong place to ask this
Are you an adult?
Re: Re: Re: Maybe this is the wrong place to ask this
Yes, child, I am an adult.
Re: Re: Maybe this is the wrong place to ask this
The problem you have is that Shiva doesn’t appear to be claiming all rights on all email in all the world.
Further, since the battery you describe has clearly already been invented (and is common knowledge to all, with perhaps of the exception of some 4th world people), it’s not going to work.
At the point that Shiva “invented” his email program, it’s likely that (a) he had never seen anything like it, and (b) neither had anyone else around him.
Just to put in perspective, Compuserve is often cited as one of the first systems to offer email. from their own site, I quote:
” In 1979, CompuServe became the first service to offer electronic mail capabilities and technical support to personal computer users. “
Now, email may have existed before that in some form, but it’s unlikely that a 14 year old high school student had seen it.
Now, did he “invent email”? Probably not as such. But there is little doubt (in fact none at all) that he created an email system that pre-dated many known uses. He may also have the first copyright on code related to email.
The breadth of his claim is perhaps a little far reaching. Does it merit mocking and saying he is a liar? That’s something that apparently the courts will decide, if the two parties in the case here can afford to go that long and that far.
Re: Re: Re: Maybe this is the wrong place to ask this
He claims to be the sole exclusive “inventor of email”. If he is what he says he is, why would he not have all the rights to email?
Re: Re: Re:2 Maybe this is the wrong place to ask this
Inventing something is different than patenting it. A patent gives you right within the language of your claim structure.
Most inventions are never patented. Shiva’s invention was not patented.
Two different things, ownership and invention. Invention just means you made it originally and did not copy it from someone else.
Patenting means you met all the requirements of the government to describe and teach a new idea to others, and in return you get ownership for a limited period of time, that is, you can prevent others from doing it.
Invention <> Patent
Re: Re: Re:3 Maybe this is the wrong place to ask this
That is a fair point. And again, he can safely claim to have created a program called “EMAIL”. That said: none of what you said proves how he can be the sole exclusive “inventor of email”—especially when the systems that would become email were in active development well before he ever wrote a line of code.
Re: Re: Re:3 Maybe this is the wrong place to ask this
“Invention just means you made it originally and did not copy it from someone else.”
It also doesn’t mean you were the first, nor can claim that you were the sole inventor of something that had existed before, even if you were not aware of the original invention.
Hopefully you’re not wasting this much time feigning ignorance and are merely curious, but this is where the issue lies. Nobody doubts that he made a program called “EMAIL”, nor that he did something impressive for someone so young. But, his claims go further. He’s not only claiming to be the original inventor, he’s stated that people like Ray Tomlinson and Vint Cerf should be ignored and/or have their contributions erased from history in favour of him being given credit, even though much of the work in question was completed and in use before Shiva started work on his invention.
This is the problem. Even if he wasn’t aware of them at the time, RFCs existed and production systems were in use for email before he did the work that he claims invented it. It’s sad if he honestly believes he invented something and has not received due credit, but the fact is that what he claims to have invented already existed.
Re: Re: Re: 'A little far reaching' in the same way that the surface of the sun is 'slightly warm'
All email in the world? Possibly not. The concept in general? Well, I’ll let his own words state his position on that.
“I was issued the first US copyright for EMAIL,” he said on The Alex Jones Show earlier this year. “I was officially recognized as the inventor of email.”
..
Aamoth introduced the piece by reciting Ayyadurai’s view that the 1978 EMAIL program was when “e-mail—as we currently know it—was born.”
..
“And I’m telling you, e-mail is the electronic version of the replicated form of the interoffice mail system, and I defined it. I called it E-M-A-I-L. These are facts.
As I and several others have pointed out before, if his claim was simply that he ‘invented’ an email program, then he wouldn’t be catching flack for his claims as that does indeed seem to be true.
But when he claims to have invented email in general, accusing others of trying to write him out of history(‘These guys want to re-write their history.‘) by pointing out that his program had little to nothing(as far as I know it’s ‘nothing’) to do with the development of email as people know and use it today, and then sues someone for pointing this out, at that point he deserves all the mockery he gets for his words and actions.
He went from ‘moderately amusing’ to ‘deserving of mockery and ridicule’ when he started mocking those that worked on the projects that resulted in email as the public knows it, claiming that their work and it’s results didn’t count, and then didn’t just cross the line but utterly demolish it by suing someone(Gawker, and then Mike/TD) for presenting the facts that contradicted his version of history.
Re: Re: Re:2 'A little far reaching' in the same way that the surface of the sun is 'slightly warm'
I think your comparison of slightly warm and the surface of the sun depends upon the “compared to what” scale, right? The temperature of the surface of the sun is 1/250,000 the temperature right after the big bang, for example. So it goes with your self-admitted and promoted “mockery and ridicule”, you paint it as reasonable, I think it outrageous, malicious and defamatory.
Seriously, though, give me your unbiased opinion. First, focus exclusively on the statement “I invented Email”, which you seem to enjoy mocking and ridiculing on your T-Shirts so much.
The word “I” is without dispute, right? That refers to Shiva. The word “invented” is the past tense of “invent”, right? So he did something in the past. Invent can mean “devise by thinking” (Merriam-Webster), right? And “Email” could mean multiple things, right? It could refer to his copyright, which was named “Email”, right? Or it could refer to his program, or the system that used the program in the 1970’s, right? I might not refer to today’s Email at all, right?
So I think we would all agree that there are several interpretations of Shiva saying “I invented Email” that are literally true, right? So, that is kind of the baseline. There are many interpretations that are true, and there is no dispute about that.
Then, don’t you think it incorrect and unfair to publicly mock and ridicule him for a statement that is demonstrably true? I understand your argument that if you substitute “Today’s Email”, you can establish some counter-argument to his. I think his reply would be that the features he invented in his Email application parallel and pre-date today’s Email in many ways. That is, you can create an arguable position, if you add additional words (that are not there in Mike’s articles). Not an “absolute fact” position, an arguable position.
So, don’t you think your T-Shirts are “over the line” in terms of malice and mocking? Don’t you think calling him a “liar” and a “fraud” for promoting a statement that is either completely true or could be well argued is wrong, irresponsible and should lead to dire consequences?
I think what happened is that Michael Masnick and others (like Gawker) were slowly cooking in the liberal empire established by Obama, getting more outrageous by the day. Then, Harder won his suit against Gawker, demonstrating the public HATRED for this kind of thing, and then Michael Masnick was in court for something he never expected. That is, someone standing up to him in public, and calling out his “way over the line” public character assassination.
Calling someone a liar and a fraud when they can backup their statements with written, filed and authenticated records (the first copyright for Email) went from acceptable and usual (under Obama) to unacceptable with an extra helping of “involuntary poverty” (under Trump), right? My guess is that this shift in understanding, that is, the public demonstration that a jury is willing to BURY news outlets like Gawker and Techdirt (that’s what they did, right?) has kind of changed the liberal publication landscape, right?
You can see the surprised look on Mike’s face in his last presentation. Shock and awe, right? Never saw it coming.
Re: Re: Re:3 'A little far reaching' in the same way that the surface of the sun is 'slightly warm'
Well, I think thith whole thing hath Petered out. Techdirt ith now underthanding that their Fate is Thieled. (Thorry I have a lithp)
Re: Re: Re:3 'A little far reaching' in the same way that the surface of the sun is 'slightly warm'
If I said “the sky is green” and kept redefining what “sky” and “green” meant, I could make “the sky is green” an arguable position, too.
Re: Re: Re:4 'A little far reaching' in the same way that the surface of the sun is 'slightly warm'
That’s easy… The sun is yellow and the sky reflects the blue sea. Yellow & blue mix to make green, therefore the sky is green!
It’s not simply outright lies with these people, it’s the way they take some verifiable facts and mix them with conclusions that don’t match the evidence. Some take it way too far, but they won’t be convinced because the start of their ranting nonsense can be proven to start from reality.
Re: Re: Re: Maybe this is the wrong place to ask this
If I recall correctly Compuserve was also showing TV ads in the year prior to Shiva’s work that specifically mentioned that they offered EMail so it isn’t unreasonable to think he might have seen those.
Pot and kettle
But, by Murray’s own standards, isn’t this defamation of the MSHA inspectors?
Peter Thiel put his billions behind a lawsuit against Gawker on behalf of a third party. Seems to me that he set an example that Oliver might imitate: By filing a defamation lawsuit against Murray on behalf of the MSHA inspectors.
That would make at least as much sense as Murray’s lawsit against Oliver. Very fine irony, too.
Re: Pot and kettle
I did not intend to post this on this thread. In fact, I don’t think I did. Browser screw-up maybe?
Look at it this way
“a man who did nothing more than try to comply with an officer’s orders”
After asking for Castille’s ID Castille told Yanez he had a gun.
Yanez then told Castille at least three times not to reach for it, Castille kept reaching, why?
Just for your education:
ATF Form 4473 (The form you have to fill out when buying a firearm)
Section A., 11.,
e. Are you an unlawful user of, or addicted to, marijuana or any depressant, stimulant, narcotic drug, or any other controlled substance?
Warning: The use or possession of marijuana remains unlawful under Federal law regardless of whether it has been legalized or decriminalized for medical or recreational purposes in the state where you reside.
Making a false oral or written statement with respect to the form 4473 is a felony.
—
The Gun Control Act (GCA), codified at 18 U.S.C. § 922(g), makes it unlawful for certain categories of persons to ship, transport, receive, or possess firearms or ammunition, to include any person:
“who is an unlawful user of or addicted to any controlled substance (as defined in section 102 of the Controlled Substances Act, codified at 21 U.S.C. § 802);”
—
Firearm Possession Restrictions Under Minnesota Law
Others. A firearm may not be possessed by a person:
• who “is an unlawful user” of a controlled substance
Re: Look at it this way
OMG I did not know that!
Obviously that justifies the on-the-spot execution of anyone who has a permit and a joint!
Yeah and?
The cops sent a warrant to Facebook to get messages from mine and my woman beating ex to be used in court for the case against him for assaulting and stalking me.
“a man who did nothing more than try to comply with an officer’s orders.”
> its hurt, the government make the pressure on Social Network because it has media power, this means there could be a manifest and they want to stop it
What you link to is not a warrant. It is an application, orcrequest, for a warrant. A judge still has to sign off on it and agree that it is legal. Is there a link to an actual warrant issued, or just the request for one?
Re: Case file - take two [was ]
Actually, one of the images that Tim linked to does appear to be extracted from the warrant issued by Judge Gilligan.
Previous Techdirt comment thread under this article. Note that the actual warrant under discussion is on pp.1233-4 of the file provided courtesy of the Minneapolis Star Tribune, however you’re still encouraged to begin reading at p.1221.
God damned, despicably deplorable, murderous fucking pigs!!!!!
Police are not your friend, they are THEIR OWN FRIENDS...
That we let these low level public servants talk about “brotherhoods” and such nonsense, let alone rape future generations with unsustainable debt so these dimwits can retire at 50 with 100% bennies for life is criminal in itself. Let alone MURDERING a man because this Govt felt affirmative action was more important than actual skill and intelligence.
Our Govt is a crime syndicate, teh Police are the tip of the spear.
Congress has an approval rating of about 9%. How low must it go before the Govt and all the of us finally realize this Govt no longer has the consent of the governed, as our founding documents requires.
I see that Leftists have tried to use this case against the NRA because they didn’t see the organization was upset about this officially-sanctioned murder. This just shows how much the Left is disconnected from reality.
The right to self defense is a basic right that is from the Creator not from government. The Second is written in a manner that recognizes a pre-existing right. But the lawful use of a weapon for self-defense is no less as important as the lawful use of deadly force by the State in the exercise of its police powers.
We don’t give the State the power to use deadly force lightly. Our liberty is threatened today by States that think more of its citizens as subjects rather than citizens whose rights it must respect and protect. I could not imagine that anyone who supports the NRA would think any differently than this.
The Left just does not understand that part of the rule of law is to allow the justice system an opportunity to do its job. That is why NRA members did not riot in the streets. I can assure you that many people will not forget this sad episode and will seek ways to ensure that it is not repeated.
I see that Leftists have tried to use this case against the NRA because they didn’t see the organization was upset about this officially-sanctioned murder. This just shows how much the Left is disconnected from reality.
The right to self defense is a basic right that is from the Creator not from government. The Second is written in a manner that recognizes a pre-existing right. But the lawful use of a weapon for self-defense is no less as important as the lawful use of deadly force by the State in the exercise of its police powers.
We don’t give the State the power to use deadly force lightly. Our liberty is threatened today by States that think more of its citizens as subjects rather than citizens whose rights it must respect and protect. I could not imagine that anyone who supports the NRA would think any differently than this.
The Left just does not understand that part of the rule of law is to allow the justice system an opportunity to do its job. That is why NRA members did not riot in the streets. I can assure you that many people will not forget this sad episode and will seek ways to ensure that it is not repeated.
Re: Re:
Will any of them be the NRA?
“Castile told Yanez — as the permit requires — he had a concealed weapon.”
Actually, informing the officer that one is carrying is NOT required under MN permit law. The permittee is only required to answer truthfully if asked, but there is no mandate to self-identify.
Note
I’d like to note that this is not true:
“Castile told Yanez — as the permit requires — he had a concealed weapon.”
Minnesota, like the majority of states with concealed carry, does not have a duty to inform requirement except if asked by the officer if they’re carrying. Castille did not need to inform the officer that he was carrying when he did and likely would have been better off in this case if he had never done so.
http://concealednation.org/2015/07/do-you-have-a-duty-to-inform-when-carrying-concealed-we-look-at-all-50-states-for-the-answers/
Police
What I can’t understand is why people who don’t like the cops and/or don’t trust the cops nevertheless demand more and more and more government? What is wrong with people that they don’t get that when the government does anything, it uses cops to enforce it. Government action is cop action. You want government food stamps? Well, then, you’re gonna have cops shooting people over food stamp issues. Duh.
Re: Police
It’s rare you see this much of a disconnect between a username as the post.
Problem here is that the author of this article left out some very important facts. Like: There are over 1 million police. If just 25% of them work at a time, and there are 3 shifts in a 24 hour period, that’s 750,000 of them working at any given time. If each officer has just 1 interaction with 1 civilian during his shift, that’s 750,000 interactions A DAY. That’s over 273million interactions with civilians a year. Considering the “over 1000” people a year “killed by police”, the likelihood of an interaction getting you killed by police is astronomically small, especially if you listen to their lawful commands, like “don’t reach for your gun” which was told to Castile 3 times before the officer felt the need for deadly force. Also, Castile had marijuana in his system according to the reports, which makes his purchasing and carrying a firearm illegal. So before you spin another “white cop shoots unarmed black man” story, at least get the facts correct.
Re: Re:
There’s many more interactions between men and women on a daily basis. Yet, very few of them end with violence against the woman. Given that tiny fraction, domestic violence that leaves one spouse dead shouldn’t be treated as a crime. After all, he told her to stop making him hit her.
That’s literally your argument.
“Also, Castile had marijuana in his system according to the reports, which makes his purchasing and carrying a firearm illegal.”
Neither of which has “summary execution” as the penalty on the books. Once again, your type is so intent on making excuses for murderers, you fail to see that the argument is “the victim should not have been murdered”, not “the victim was an innocent little flower who did nothing wrong”.
“So before you spin another “white cop shoots unarmed black man” story, at least get the facts correct.”
He did. Why are your arguments so off the mark?
Lawful Commands
Why are the police trained to give contradictory commands: “Don’t move! Get down on the ground! Show me your hands! Show me ID! Freeze!?
Now, I probably would have been smart enough to figure out that I needed to obey the command “Don’t move” before I obeyed the command “Show me ID.”
But I can see why a lot of people think that obeying the wrong command should not be an automatic death sentence.
And if Castile was in violation of the law for possessing marijuana whilst carrying his firearm, he would be subject to arrest and prosecution, not summary execution, right? Or am I missing something?
Re: Lawful Commands
“Why are the police trained to give contradictory commands”
To both confuse the suspect into inaction and to give a plausible defence after the fact. The delay in reaction gives them a chance to say that the suspect is not complying even if he’s intending to, while the conflicting commands gives whichever officer ends up shooting him a chance to claim that an order wasn’t being complied with.
“he would be subject to arrest and prosecution, not summary execution, right?”
Should, not would. For whatever reason, American cops seem to be spending every public interaction convinced that they’re about to die, so can use this constant fear to excuse any action as self-defence. Until someone tell them that Judge Dredd wasn’t a documentary and that they should at least be keeping people alive for their trials, the instant death penalty is always on the table for interactions with officers in the US. Most other places have trained cops in ways that defuse situations before they lead to violence, American cops seem trained in how to escalate as quickly as possible.
Are you f***ing kidding me?
I’ll start with the heavy use of conjecture and generalism when trying to correlate the intentions of every officer in America with the actions of one. That’s BS and anyone with any critical thinking skills whatsoever could smell it a mile away.
Another thing, I can get why the officer freaked out; hell, I’d be freaked out if I (assuming I became a cop) pulled a guy over for a traffic violation (i.e. driving with a broken taillight) and I found out that not only was he packing while driving but possibly high as well. Besides, unless the issue comes up, informing a cop who pulled you over that you’re carrying could be rightly seen as a threat.
I don’t know much information about the case, which is another journalistic fail. The entire point of an informative article is to inform the reader what happened, why it happened, how it happened, when it happened, where it happened, and who was involved (not necessarily in that order). It is meant to be specific and concise. Conjecture and feelings are best left to persuasive essays, advertisements, and the like.
Freaking Out
“Another thing, I can get why the officer freaked out; hell, I’d be freaked out”
What I don’t like about the police is the way they take sides with the liberals in the government and against the normal people who actually pay their salaries and pensions. I can’t help noticing that the police think the general public is the problem. Or, at least the “leadership” of the police thinks the public is the problem. Because the “leadership” of the police is extremely political and in our post modern Globalist age that means extremely liberal. The police are hated and disrespected by a lot of people because they are no longer public servants, but, just like the rest of the corrupt government, they have become like the rulers of the gentiles that Jesus warned us about 2000 years ago.
Mark 10:42
“42 But Jesus called them to him, and saith unto them, Ye know that they which are accounted to rule over the Gentiles exercise lordship over them; and their great ones exercise authority upon them.
43 But so shall it not be among you: but whosoever will be great among you, shall be your minister:
44 And whosoever of you will be the chiefest, shall be servant of all. “
The police are charged with the responsibility of enforcing all the oppressive and idiotic laws and rules thought up by the corrupt politicians. For some reason, people hate the police for enforcing the wicked laws but they aren’t smart enough to hate the politicians even more so for giving the police their orders. So, my attitude is, I think the police are stooges for the wicked demon infested politicians. And morally I blame the People for it all, because the People allowed themselves to be de-moralized.
Followup: Patterns
Not quite a month after this story ran here, there’s news again out of Minneapolis on a different case: Another Minneapolis police shooting—another search warrant—
“Authorities Searched Damond’s Home; Law Prof Believes That Could ‘Cause An International Incident’”, Josh Rosenthal, KTSP-TV Eyewitness News, July 25, 2017