Since September 11th, law enforcement has become more like Adolf Hitler and the Nazi's than the police officers they are supposed to be. They think that just because they wear a badge and carry a gun that they have the right to abuse our constitutional rights and treat us like second class citizens.
I'm telling everyone that this situation is getting out of hand.
What do I think is going to happen? I think that between the government and the police, that people in this country are going to get to a point where they finally get fed up with the crap and they're just going to say "enough is enough" and you're going to have a nationwide riot that will make the revolutionary war seem like a quiet Sunday afternoon.
This country is heading for an uprising so vast that it's going to throw this country into complete chaos and nobody will be able to back up a step and say "wait a minute, time out".
Because of the DoJ, NSA, FISA, Obama Administration, The Police and Congress, they have created a problem so insurmountable that it's going to have serious consequences and I think those consequences are going to rear their head very soon.
The problem with the Internal Affairs departments within law enforcement agencies is not that they investigate police but rather the real problem is that their investigators are actual police officers.
The Internal Affairs departments within these police departments needs to be a civilian agency, independent of the police department staffed with employees who are affiliated with any law enforcement organization, have never been employed by any police department and who answer directly to the District Attorney's Office, because they are who would prosecute the case in the first place.
It's inappropriate for any police department to investigate its own officers in the first place, THIS is why there is such a problem with a police department's IA division. You don't allow someone suspected of a murder to be in charge of his own murder investigation so you should not have police officers investigating their own police officers.
The IA division of any police department is a joke and results to nothing more than a slap on the wrist and a promise to the police officer to never do it again.
The problem with our government is that every American knew that spying on every single citizen in this country was WRONG. My GOD, even a THREE YEAR OLD can tell that it's wrong.
So, the liberals running our government decided that they knew better than the people and that anyone complaining about its government spying on them must be an anarchist, must be a terrorist and that they are truly NOT American.
So, imagine the irony when, after so many years of defending his own spy programs, that President Obama is suddenly realizing that Americans despise him for defending these programs in the first place.
I hate to be the to say this but crap like this is going to end up breeding more domestic terrorists like Timothy McVeigh and more hacktivists like Edward Snowden that this is going to turn into one big shitstorm that was started by both political parties.
Either the judge is really incompetent or is he really doesn't know what he just did. I'm bothered by a comment he made, which was included in the article, or paraphrased, but that could lead to thousands of convicted inmates filing appeals over their convictions.
This is what's in the article above: "it's highly unlikely that any individual will have theirs searched -- and thus these groups can't really allege a likely harm".
While I'll admit that it could be a long stretch but every convicted criminal, if they were smart, intelligent and happen to be a regular reader of Techdirt could use this statement in their appeal stating that "no real harm came to their victims because their victims were so few, compared to the overall population in the United States".
I'll admit that ht reasoning on this is very far fetched but that the courts could see a massive influx of appeals from just about every convicted felon serving time in a U.S. Jail or Prison system and that comment attributed to the judge could set off a firestorm.
Sounds to me like law enforcement in the United States is taking the constitution and flipping it on its side.
Since they haven't been able to find any terrorists, law enforcement in the United States have decided that there is an unlimited number of protestors in the country and what better way than to nail them on "terrorism" charges.
Faux Terrorism? Really? If the judge isn't laughing by now I'm sure that the jury will be.
Anonymous Coward posts: "Patriot Act is a good first step - limiting the 4th"
Uh, AC, if you would have actually read my post, I was posting in regards to the First Amendment, NOT the Fourth Amendment. Perhaps you should concentrate on actually reading what people post instead of making dumb comments.
Oh, and by the way, the idiots you voted for passed The Patriot Act. Just because YOU don't think it's constitutional doesn't mean it isn't. Until the Federal Courts rule that The Patriot Act and all related legislation is unconstitutional, these are our laws and there they will stand until either our government repeals them, or the American People rise up and overthrow the petty dictators that we elected to run our country persuant to our interests.
How many times when people realize that politicians ignore the people 99% of the time. The only time they listen to the people is during that 1% of the time when they are up for re-election. This republic exists for one reason and one reason only, to TAX everyone unequally, to ignore the people equally, protect the wealthy industries that each party receives campaign donations from and to order us to do what they tell us to do.
Whoever said that this is the land of the free, that America is a free country, obviously has been brainwashed by the very politicians who continue to live under the false belief that they know better than we do on how we should be living our lives.
The NSA AND the Government must be ALL TONE DEAF because the United States Supreme Court would never allow any bill, resolution or Amendment to weaken or undermine the First Amendment.
While Democrats and Republicans have continued to try to weaken the First Amendment by discussing it, it would signal the end of that politicians career if he or she EVER decided to introduce such a bill.
I just don't see anyone's career surviving the anger of the American People if anyone ever decided to try MUCH less that any such bill, resolution or amendment would EVER survive a constitutional challenge to the U.S. Supreme Court. There isn't a single justice on the high court that would ever let such a thing stand and the Federal Courts would definitely grant an injunction against any such bill, resolution or amendment, thus preventing it from even being implemented.
The First Amendment is simply untouchable and that there was a reason why our founding fathers made it the First Amendment because they understood that the protections included in the First Amendment were the most important constitutional rights for the entire country, not just a selected few.
The problem is that the retailer should have just kept quiet about the slip-up and written it off as a loss. Sending out a nasty-gram? This retailer just escalated this error into one major dust storm.
Personally? I would have kept the PS Vita bundle set as well. And if they tried charging credit cards or bank accounts for the bungled order/purchase, the retailer would be the one facing fraud charges.
Wouldn't it be fraud to keep what you know you didn't order? Or is it only fraud when you get what you ordered? Such as a pic of an xbox.
First, the xbox picture was a private sale that took place on eBay, an auction website. eBay is NOT a retailer, they are an online auction reseller.
Second, btrussel gets it completely wrong. The retailer is the one who screwed up by shipping merchandise to a customer that had not been ordered and that they can't expect people to return it.
btrussel asks if it's fraud to keep it. It absolutely is NOT fraud. Fraud is when you mislead someone into giving you something of value. In this case, it's the retailer who fouled up and sent merchandise that customers did not order. While it technically may not be ethical or moral, it surely is NOT illegal, is NOT fraud and that this retailer needs to look toward the idiots within their business who sent out these PS Vita units.
If they had sent me a PS Vita, I wouldn't have returned it either. This is a screwup that the retailer is going to have to live with and no court on this planet is going to make a consumer pay for the error of the retailer.
If the police cannot be trusted to uphold the laws and stop abusing the constitutional rights of the people then they cannot expect us to do the same and respect the rights of these police officers.
I'm a law abiding citizen but if the very people who are supposed to be protecting us cannot follow the law and make thing sup as they go along, THEY become the problem NOT the solution.
Our taxes pay for these police officers, NOT the other way around. COPS are supposed to uphold the law and the constitution. Just because they have a badge and a gun doesn't mean a damned thing and it sure as hell doesn't give them a free pass to violate our rights.
I suggest that the idiots who are protecting the police in this thread take a close look at yourself. Even Hitler had his informants in Europe during World War II.
What everyone is forgetting is that GoldieBlox didn't create the video as a parody. If they were just doing a parody as a means of just doing it for fun and not to make money from it, then I would be on GB's side. But, the fact of the matter is that GoldieBlox made the decision to take the Beastie Boys song, claim "fair use", and then use it in a commercial to advertise their product.
You can package it all up real pretty and claim "fair use" until you're blue in the face but once GoldieBlox took the Beastie Boys song and created a commercial advertisement for their product, it stopped being fair use.
The concept of Fair Use is very limited to how you can claim that. Fact is, GoldieBlox is trying to make money of a song created by the Beastie Boys and they are trying to get out of having to pay for the rights to use that song.
If I have a car in my driveway and I have not driven it in 10 years, that doesn't mean that you have the right to take my car out of my driveway for your personal use. This is exactly what GoldieBlox has done. They've taken something that belongs to someone else and are claiminig it for their own use without compensating the Beastie Boys for it.
To add insult to injury, they pre-empted The Beastie Boys by filing a lawsuit against The Beastie Boys for using the Beastie Boys own music.
I find it disingenuous that Mike Masnick would defend a company that took music created by someone else, use it in their commercial, and then turned around and sued the very people who created it.
That's like a user on Techdirt suing Mike Masnick for comments that the user posted on Mike's website.
The CPD are claiming that callers are engaging in a campaign to "harass, confront and threaten physical violence" against police officers? WOW! Really?
Isn't that the same thing that police officers do to the general public? So, it's okay when the police "harass, confront and threaten physical violence" but it's not okay when the people do the exact same thing?
The CPD need to realize that if they expect the people to not engage in this sort of activity then the police need to lead by example. If the police engage in activity to "harass, confront and threaten physical violence" against me then you can be damn sure that I'm going to reciprocate in kind.
"Due unto others (aka, the police) as they would do unto you"
I don't agree with Mike Masnick's article. While the entertainment industry has always gone overboard on their copyright lawsuits against whoever, wherever ... in this case, I support the Beastie Boys.
First, GoldieBlox used their music without permission and without licensing their music to be used in an advertisement that was designed to advertise for their company.
Second, GoldieBlox filing for declaratory judgment and suing The Beastie Boys before they could file their lawsuit reeks of so much BS that I can't believe that the courts haven't tossed GoldieBlox's lawsuit out. They have no merit for filing a lawsuit. What I find troubling is that GoldieBlox used copyrighted music without permission and then sued the Beastie Boys on the basis of Fair Use. Sorry, guys, but using someone's copyrighted material in an advertisement for your company is NOT considered fair use.
Finally, The Beastie Boys were willing to set everything aside as long as GoldieBlox pulled the ad and stopped using their song in their ad. Come to find out, GoldieBlox lied and kept pushing forward with their lawsuit.
In the end GoldieBlox is going to lose and I think they're going to lose big because no competent judge will ever find the use of The Beasie Boys' music in GB's ad as fair use. That is a long stretch in itself and GB simply screwed up by not withdrawing their lawsuit in the first place.