Funniest/Most Insightful Comments Of The Week At Techdirt

from the words-and-letters dept

This week, our first place winner on the insightful side is Stephen T. Stone, neatly taking down the "don't rush to judgement" angle on the black college student who was thrown to the ground and got a gun pointed at his head for taking a selfie:

We have three law enforcement agencies refusing to explain what prompted the need to tackle, assault, and ultimately arrest the only young Black man on a bus full of students coming from a swim meet. We have the perspectives of the victim and, I assume, several of the witnesses to the event. Only a fool takes these facts into account and thinks “maybe we need to hear both sides before we make a judgment”.

In second place, it's rangda with a cutting quip about the same incident:

As one of my facebook friends says "99% of cops are giving the rest a bad name". Sadly sometimes I think his estimate is too low.

For editor's choice on the insightful side, we start out with Scary Devil Monastery expanding on the claim that "we have only one perspective" on what happened in that incident:

That's wrong.

We have multiple police officers using force and oppression against a civilian. and not a single one of them has justification for it. They haven't even tried to give a reason for their actions.

When a person raises his hand against any other person the default legal situation is that either there is a good reason which can be clearly shown - or it's a felony assault. This is true whether the person raising the hand is a law enforcer or not. In this case assault is already proven. Justification which would make it a legal action, has not.

So if the police can't bring a reason to the table then it's already an open-and-shut case of police brutality. No further questions need to be asked. The facts of their guilt and physical action is already demonstrably proven.

If the police HAVE a reason for the assault then the situation becomes a different one. Until they do that, however, the only evidence we have is that they assaulted a civilian for no reason.

The only fool here is the one trying to invent facts out of whole cloth and wishful thinking.

Next, we pivot to the story about the copyright dispute with Disney over a unicorn van design, with Peter highlighting what we can learn about Disney's real attitude:

Thank, you, Disney, ...

... for making absolutely clear that, contrary to what your PR department says, you do not see copyright law as a means to ensure fair compensation of creatives or, as the founding fathers put it, "to promote the arts and sciences".

Over on the funny side, our first place winner is an anonymous commenter talking about the driver who was left stranded when a "smart" rental car lost cellular service, and the coming solutions for the issue:

So what your saying is that they will soon have 5G power super smart cars. that can only be used in visual range of a major sports stadium. and only if a game isn't currently happening.

In second place, it's another anonymous commenter with a joke about Hot Water, one of the winning games from our public domain game jam:

That's how instant games work. They come dessicated, so adding hot water is the optimal rehydration method, giving also a preferred serving temperature.

For editor's choice on the funny side, we start out with Beefcake, who linked the failing rental car to a potential industry resurgence:

Meanwhile, somewhere a buggy-whip factory is planning to reopen.

And finally, we've got kog999 responding to the game developer who took an amusing jab a pirate group by selling posters featuring their information file:

but what incentive will codex have to crack games if people dont respect their NFO file's copyright.

That''s all for this week, folks!


Reader Comments

Subscribe: RSS

View by: Time | Thread


  1. identicon
    JustSomeGuy, 24 Feb 2020 @ 2:32am

    Misunderstanding

    Actually, I'm not taking sides at all, I very much agree that More was correct in that the law should never be set aside for the convenience of convicting people you may think are guilty. Guilt has to be established by the legal system.

    In fact, from all I've read, it appears these cops are guilty as hell, and their reticence to prove otherwise will no doubt be their undoing because, in an unbalanced-power situation, the group with the most power needs to prove they used it wisely. That means the student should be presumed innocent in preference to the cops but not to the exclusion, at least to start with.

    You are mistaken in thinking I believe the cops should not be held to the same standard, in fact, they should be held to a higher standard given said power imbalance.

    What I do object to is presumption of guilt without legal proceedings. If the cops continue to refuse an explanation after it's demanded by the legal system then, by all means, said legal system is free to assume whatever it wants.

    But a finder of fact, whether jury or judge, is best able to function if they see both sides of an argument first (if at all possible).


Add Your Comment

Have a Techdirt Account? Sign in now. Want one? Register here



Subscribe to the Techdirt Daily newsletter




Comment Options:

  • Use markdown. Use plain text.
  • Remember name/email/url (set a cookie)

Follow Techdirt
Insider Shop - Show Your Support!

Advertisement
Report this ad  |  Hide Techdirt ads
Essential Reading
Techdirt Deals
Report this ad  |  Hide Techdirt ads
Techdirt Insider Chat
Advertisement
Report this ad  |  Hide Techdirt ads
Recent Stories
Advertisement
Report this ad  |  Hide Techdirt ads

This site, like most other sites on the web, uses cookies. For more information, see our privacy policy. Got it
Close

Email This

This feature is only available to registered users. Register or sign in to use it.