That One Guy’s Techdirt Profile


About That One GuyTechdirt Insider

That One Guy’s Comments comment rss

  • Oct 17th, 2017 @ 6:34am

    Re: Re: Re: Re:

    The children were already hysterical and uncontrollable apparently before anything was done. This is not the creation of the cretin deputy (who should face charges)

    Yes and no(or 'no and yes' as the case may be).

    The boy was combative at first, yet had already calmed down by the time Sumner showed up, before deciding to take a blocked swing for whatever reason at Sumner. Sumner's response to this was to handcuff him, and I find it hard to believe that he didn't know that the method used was causing pain given the video evidence.

    The girl was more combative in general but was willing to calm down once she was released from the cuffs the first time(whether it was because she wore herself out or someone more sympathetic came along was enough is unknown), wherein the second time it almost reads like he simply decided that it would be easier to keep her from continuing her actions by slapping on the cuffs.

    The boy's treatment strikes me as punishment for the attempted strike rather than a way to restrain a 'hysterical and uncontrollable' child given he wasn't at the time it took place, whereas while the girl was more combative, though 'hysterical' is likely going to far.

    However, considering the number of cases schools have to deal with every day, I think you are way over reaching to suggest it's SRO or even acceptable.

    The response, or more accurately lack of apparent response, and the fact that this happened multiple times would seem to argue that they did find such treatment acceptable, even if it wasn't considered Standard Operating Procedure(I'm guessing that's what you meant, no idea what 'SRO' means).

    This seems like a very extreme case, both in the behavior of the "disturbed" children and the criminal deputy.

    It would be nice to think so, however the fact that Sumner's superiors not only defended his actions as acceptable and within the guidelines but didn't change them post-events has me concerned that it is not nearly as isolated or 'extreme' as one might hope(the fact that Sumner's supervisor stated that he wasn't even interested in how often it occurred does not inspire confidence, though hopefully this ruling will keep it from happening again.)

    I don't think it reflects anything other than the concept that society as a whole is trending violent and young children are no exception to that problem.

    What stats I'm aware of indicate that society as a whole is actually going in the other direction, and as for the children in question the fact that both were diagnosed with disabilities that would affect their mental state is likely to have a larger impact than a phantom 'trending violence'.

  • Oct 17th, 2017 @ 5:45am

    I'll bite

    Okay, his arguments and position are dangerously stupid in their own special way, but for the life of me I cannot see how they could compare to neo-nazi propaganda. What kind of logic were they using that there would even begin to have some sort of similarity?

  • Oct 17th, 2017 @ 2:52am

    Ah good old 'If it's in the rules I don't need to think for myself'...

    Without any prior cases on point, Deputy Sumner is granted qualified immunity because he could not have reasonably known his handcuffing methods were excessive.

    Like hell he couldn't, unless the court is saying he's so grossly incompetent that he's unable to spot strain placed on the human body(in which case he has no business handcuffing anyone). The court's own ruling makes it clear that he should have been immediately aware that he was using excessive force to the point of pain.

    'Upon being cuffed in this manner, S.R. cried out, “Ow, that hurts.” It was thus immediately apparent that this method — which, it is undisputed, was the same method by which L.G. was cuffed — was causing pain. S.R. was left in this position to cry and squirm for fifteen minutes.'

    That he lied when describing what happened makes clear that even he knew that he had gone too far, and when both the court and the accused all but flat out admit that excecssive force was used to allow qualified immunity is absurd, basically allowing police to be treated under the law as complete and utter morons, incapable of understanding whether or not excessive force is being employed unless there has been a court case covering that particular action in the past.

  • Oct 17th, 2017 @ 2:41am

    Re: Re:

    But, as the first poster mentioned, it makes you wonder exactly WHY the child was in such a position to start with.

    Reading the quotes in the article it sounds like 'two children who hadn't been taught that hitting people isn't acceptable', followed by 'a liar with a badge who really had no business dealing with children and didn't care to be challenged'.

    That the children involved were perhaps acting like brats would not I think be enough to say that they had no business being in general schools or say they have 'significant issues'.

    That even after the police arrived that there was no calming the children down really does make you wonder.

    To be fair to the children in question, given how they were treated I'd place more blame on the adults involved than them, and I wouldn't blame them for not calming down at that point.

    They were treated atrociously, and from the sound of it that's practically standard practice('more than ten children have been handcuffed by SROs in schools, and it is possible that the number is more than twenty-five.'), leading me to suspect that the school administration might be more inclined towards the stick(threats) than the carrot(calming down and teaching).

  • Oct 17th, 2017 @ 2:11am

    Re: Re: Good Decision

    But you can be pretty sure that he will not be a friend of the United States afterwards.

    As disgusting as it is I have actually seen that very argument used for why the prisoners cannot be released or even tried, because if they were released they might be inclined to hold a grudge and maybe do something about it.

    No idea if that changed since I read it(it's been a few years), but it would not surprise me if it hasn't.

  • Oct 17th, 2017 @ 1:59am

    'Who keeps inviting the fox to the chicken-coop builders conventions?'

    I have to wonder, why does he keep getting invited to security conferences? Do the people running them have a warped sense of humor? Are they calling them 'security' conferences to be ironic or something?

    If I was in a profession, was in charge of running a convention/conference regarding that profession, and I knew that a given person was advocating a position that would have serious negative consequences for my profession they would never even be considered for a guest invitation, and they certainly wouldn't be invited to speak at the event.

    Rosenstein isn't just putting forth a wrong idea, he's putting forth a dangerously wrong idea, and that groups are not only not deriding and mocking him for it but are inviting him to speak on a subject he clearly is either deliberately, woefully ignorant of and/or grossly dishonest regarding is insane.

  • Oct 16th, 2017 @ 3:28pm

    Testing just to be sure

    I've changed the subject line in a reply several times and it doesn't turn it into a new comment, so don't think so. A few days ago there were responses scattered about in the comment section though, so might be something on the site's end.

  • Oct 16th, 2017 @ 3:18pm

    'Sexual assault'? Bah, we can top that

    "We have put a stake in the ground and said we'd like to double the operating profit of this part of the business in the next three years."

    Do not pass Go. Do not collect a government contract. Go straight to Get The Hell Out of Here You Sick Bastard.

    That they are flat out admitting that they see it as a business, and one they want to see become more profitable should be all that's needed to give them a very public boot, replaced by someone who actually cares for the victims rather than how much money can be made from them.

  • Oct 16th, 2017 @ 4:34am

    No need to pull punches

    But Rosenstein is too weak-willed to say it out loud.

    No, he's too dishonest.

    Were he honest he'd flat out admit that he is against any form of encryption that he can't break on demand, in other words any encryption that works.

    He would admit that he knows that broken encryption would be an absolute gold-mine to the very criminals he claims to want to stop, but that he considers that a price he's willing to have the public pay. That he considers the harm that will result from weakening encryption an acceptable trade for any gains he might achieve.

    He would stop trying to blame the companies for fighting to keep the 'responsible (read: working) encryption' they have in place, stop trying to make them out to be holding their ground purely for monetary purposes while the poor, beleaguered government only wants broken encryption for the very best of purposes.

    It's not a 'weak will' that keeps him from admitting to these things, it's a lack of honesty and a clear willingness to lie and mislead if it achieves his aims.

  • Oct 15th, 2017 @ 3:59pm

    Re: Re: Re: Hitchen's Razor

    Go figure, a person who was willing to make flat assertions without being able to prove their accuracy wouldn't care for the idea that if you can't support your claims then they can be dismissed out of hand. Imagine that.

    Hitchen's Razor isn't making an 'assertion' to dismiss, it's not saying 'X is true/exists' or anything like that, it's more an observation that a claim that lacks evidence is not a claim worth taking seriously.

    If you want to say that that is itself a claim that could be dismissed as lacking evidence, I'm curious as to how often you yourself would be/are willing to accept claims without supporting evidence, and/or how serious you take them.

    If, for example, I were to flatly state as fact that the earth is not a sphere(ish), or even flat, but in the shape of a pyramid, how much time would you spend on that statement, and what would your response to it be?

    Would you accept it at face value as true?

    Would you (as I would hope) ask why I would make that statement, and would you be satisfied if my response to your [Citation Needed] was not to provide you with supporting evidence but simply a repeated assertion that I know the earth is shaped like a pyramid, and you just need to believe me?

  • Oct 15th, 2017 @ 3:07pm

    Re: Response to: Anonymous Coward on Oct 15th, 2017 @ 1:44pm

    Because to admit to that would undermine the idea that several people seem to hold that TD is just so terribly biased such that it would never say anything bad about certain individuals, parties and/or companies(conveniently ignoring the articles that do just that).

    Admitting that Obama was called out when he did stupid things would force them to admit that maybe, just maybe the criticisms levied against Trump are valid and due to his actions rather than party, and if that is the case it makes it much harder to brush them aside with a 'Well you're only being so critical because it's Trump/a republican'.

  • Oct 15th, 2017 @ 3:01am


    And another victim of the magical coding appears. Truly, the world had best hope that TD never turns to evil and weaponizes the coding they have put together, lest they conquer all internet connected countries overnight with their power.

  • Oct 15th, 2017 @ 3:00am

    Re: Turnabout

    Hopefully it will end up including at least one page that's one word, maybe two, surrounded by a positive sea of black redaction marks.

  • Oct 13th, 2017 @ 11:05pm

    Re: "could and should"

    'Nerd harder', clearly if they do that then they can do it, as all things are possible if one merely nerds harder.

  • Oct 13th, 2017 @ 4:56pm


    I'd put more focus on 'limited times' myself.

    Being able to sell a copyright can make sense(you can sell pretty much anything else you create), but when the copyright in question is for all intents and purposes eternal(in the sense that when something lasts longer than a person lives whether it lasts 5 minutes longer or 50 years is irrelevant) then the 'deal' between public and creator has been completely and utterly shattered.

  • Oct 13th, 2017 @ 4:21pm


    Don't give them ideas, with their track record I would not be surprised it they actually tried to sue those others.

  • Oct 13th, 2017 @ 3:44pm

    (untitled comment)

    It's a good result, but one which begs the question: why does Monster Energy continuing wasting everybody's time and its own money with its bullying behavior?

    It could be that part of the legal team's pay is in energy drinks, meaning they are always hyped up and raring to go/file lawsuits against everyone.

    That or the company hasn't realized yet that you do not just give your lawyers free reign unless you want them suing everyone they see.

  • Oct 12th, 2017 @ 4:49pm


    Yeah, the name just kills me. 'Screw the public out of works it should have had decades past? Here, have your name slapped on a program specifically designed to try to mitigate some of the damage so people can be reminded of who to blame.'

  • Oct 12th, 2017 @ 4:22pm

    Re: Re: Re: Re: You know

    Funny thing, while your comment had plenty of insults('make a fool of themselves'/'Trump derangement syndrome'), it was notably lacking in meaningful answers to the questions posed to you.

    Perhaps that was just a minor slip up where you forgot to add it before hitting submit, and in that case feel free to address the questions they mentioned such as:

    What exactly you find so offensive?

    Why TD writers should 'recuse' themselves from covering certain subject(using an actual argument, rather than just 'because it looks silly according to me')?

    Why it's apparently wrong to write articles that mention people(that just so happen to be republicans, not that you'd know reading the articles because it's almost never mentioned) in a less than flattering light, even when the main focus is on a platform they are using.

    I look forward to a more exhaustive response to these questions so that people can better understand your position and the point you are trying to make.

  • Oct 12th, 2017 @ 4:07pm

    'You were critical of someone I (apparently) support' = 'Partisan'

    If people keep doing/saying stupid things, and they just so happen to belong to the same party as you, it may seem like they're ragging on 'your' party, but that's just a side effect of those people being in your tribe.

    Out of curiosity, is it even possible to say something negative about a republican(and I'll note that the article had no mention of which party she belonged to) without being 'partisan' under the standards you use?

    Likewise, would you have been playing the partisan card has the individual in question been a democrat?

More comments from That One Guy >>