Quite a few have tried that. It didn’t help. The only color US police care about is blue.
While racist cops do target whatever race they dislike disproportionately, it’s a myth - and always has been - that white people don’t get attacked by bad cops
Given that conspiring to plan a terrorist attack is just as illegal as carrying one out, how exactly do these “undercover” agents get away with planning, supplying and recruiting for a terrorist attack that would not - COULD NOT - happen without their aid?
If valid criticism DID equal hate, then every time a cop says someone broke the law - in a spoken statement, a written press release or even just making an arrest - that cop would be guilty of hate speech.
In a lot of states (currently 48 out of 50), private citizens have at least some arrest authority. It varies from state to state, but police are not immune to arrest in any state, and in some states, private citizens have the same arrest authority that police do.
I think it’d be hilarious if some people started using those field ‘test’ kits on cops innthe states where private citizens have the same arrest authority police do. I bet the cops won’t be so uncaring about inaccurate test kits when it’s their asses on the line.
Is that if you sue and lose, you AT BEST get an official statement that opinions are not libel. And you run the risk of a court declaring the defendant’s statements TRUE! 🤣
Given that Google Chrome reslly does infringe copyrights AT LEAST as much as Downloader does, I wonder how Google would react to a DMCA takedown notice targeted at Chrone?
If scribbling on someone’s skin with markers against their will is assault, then poking them with a pencil is lawfully justified self defense, and no arrest should have been made.
If scribbling like that ISN’T assault - which is what the no wrongdoing ruling by the department seems to be saying - then walking up to a cop and scribbling on his skin with a felt-tip marker would be perfectly lawful, and if the cop arrests or cites you for it, the cop would be guilty of official misconduct at a minimum.
Much like how you can’t legally set up a “whites only” grocery store, there are some classes of people that it is illegal to kick out.
For government agencies, protected classes include people exercising certain rights.
If the only difference in how two people are treated, is if one is exercising a right and the other is not, then that difference is illegal discrimination.
While doing so anyway usually results in a lawsuit, it is also an actual crime for government employees to use their official authority to deprive any person of rights. Exact severity of criminal penalties depends on circumstances, but it starts at a $1,000 fine and/or up to a year in prison. Iin extreme cases, it can result in life imprisonment without possibility of parole, or even execution.
Take note of the first two entries at this link - tgey’re the relevant laws regarding police depriving a person of first amendment rights:
https://www.justice.gov/crt/statutes-enforced-criminal-section
Much if the work police do - that they are supposed to do - absolutely relies upon the Plain View doctrine.
Specifically, that it is not an invasion of privacy, nor does it require a search warrant, to see something that is in plain view of somewhere you have a legal right to be. Whether that somewhere is a cop executing a search warrant for a stolen gun who happens to see a big pile of meth, or a cop operating a license plate scanner, or a first amendment auditor standing on a public sidewalk (or public building lobby), anything they can see from that place they have a right to be, they have a right to see. And with VERY few exceptions - mostly pertaining to national security - anything you can legally look at, you can legally photograph, and vice-versa.
It always astounds me how many cops will argue, when that doctrine is applied to them, that there is no possible way it could be valid law.
I read a story a few years ago (IIRC) where cops arrested someone for violating a criminal defamation statute that had been struck down by the courts on constitutional grounds for longer than any of those cops had been alive.
Courts presume that OF COURSE people read their decisions, and therefore that informs them about how laws have changed. And it’s just not true.
I’ve always been fond of “That’s funny officer, I smell it too. It started when you walked up to my window.”
Bonus points if his body cam catches it! 🤣
Nobody here is opposed to protecting children. But this law doesn’t actually protect them any more than pre-existing laws do, while simultaneously greatly endangering adult customers.
If the laws worked well and did exactly (and only) what they purport to, everyone here would be cheering. But the law won’t do what it purports to, and it so greatly increases the risk of identity theft that no sane person would ever want such a law.
Being in favor of this particular law just proves that those who voted for it and the governor who signed it are literally insane, or so ignorant of what they are actually doing that they have no business being in elected office - there is no third possibility.
If he hasn’t fulfilled all the terms of his purchase contract, does he actually own Twitter yet?
And if he doesn’t own it yet, are any of the orders he gives actually binding upon the company?
The worst part is he never said a word to the person who was offended - it was an automated greeting from a smart doorbell to someone who had walked onto his porch.
There was nothing offensive about it, but an overly sensitive person who expected to be insulted 'miraculously' heard an insult where there wasn't one, and reported the insult to their employer.
The driver was lying one way or another - they didn't clearly hear anything and just assumed AT BEST. But they reported clearly hearing the insult, and THAT was a lie.
Quite a few have tried that. It didn’t help. The only color US police care about is blue. While racist cops do target whatever race they dislike disproportionately, it’s a myth - and always has been - that white people don’t get attacked by bad cops
Given that conspiring to plan a terrorist attack is just as illegal as carrying one out, how exactly do these “undercover” agents get away with planning, supplying and recruiting for a terrorist attack that would not - COULD NOT - happen without their aid?
If valid criticism DID equal hate, then every time a cop says someone broke the law - in a spoken statement, a written press release or even just making an arrest - that cop would be guilty of hate speech.
In a lot of states (currently 48 out of 50), private citizens have at least some arrest authority. It varies from state to state, but police are not immune to arrest in any state, and in some states, private citizens have the same arrest authority that police do. I think it’d be hilarious if some people started using those field ‘test’ kits on cops innthe states where private citizens have the same arrest authority police do. I bet the cops won’t be so uncaring about inaccurate test kits when it’s their asses on the line.
So good you had more than one?
What amuses me most about this sort of case…
Is that if you sue and lose, you AT BEST get an official statement that opinions are not libel. And you run the risk of a court declaring the defendant’s statements TRUE! 🤣
Dare I hope they got to keep the strike, even after restoring the video? 🤣
Given that Google Chrome reslly does infringe copyrights AT LEAST as much as Downloader does, I wonder how Google would react to a DMCA takedown notice targeted at Chrone?
If scribbling on someone’s skin with markers against their will is assault, then poking them with a pencil is lawfully justified self defense, and no arrest should have been made. If scribbling like that ISN’T assault - which is what the no wrongdoing ruling by the department seems to be saying - then walking up to a cop and scribbling on his skin with a felt-tip marker would be perfectly lawful, and if the cop arrests or cites you for it, the cop would be guilty of official misconduct at a minimum.
Much like how you can’t legally set up a “whites only” grocery store, there are some classes of people that it is illegal to kick out. For government agencies, protected classes include people exercising certain rights. If the only difference in how two people are treated, is if one is exercising a right and the other is not, then that difference is illegal discrimination. While doing so anyway usually results in a lawsuit, it is also an actual crime for government employees to use their official authority to deprive any person of rights. Exact severity of criminal penalties depends on circumstances, but it starts at a $1,000 fine and/or up to a year in prison. Iin extreme cases, it can result in life imprisonment without possibility of parole, or even execution. Take note of the first two entries at this link - tgey’re the relevant laws regarding police depriving a person of first amendment rights: https://www.justice.gov/crt/statutes-enforced-criminal-section
Much if the work police do - that they are supposed to do - absolutely relies upon the Plain View doctrine. Specifically, that it is not an invasion of privacy, nor does it require a search warrant, to see something that is in plain view of somewhere you have a legal right to be. Whether that somewhere is a cop executing a search warrant for a stolen gun who happens to see a big pile of meth, or a cop operating a license plate scanner, or a first amendment auditor standing on a public sidewalk (or public building lobby), anything they can see from that place they have a right to be, they have a right to see. And with VERY few exceptions - mostly pertaining to national security - anything you can legally look at, you can legally photograph, and vice-versa. It always astounds me how many cops will argue, when that doctrine is applied to them, that there is no possible way it could be valid law.
What this has me wondering…
At what point does “too big to compete” become “too big to fail” - and where the dividing line is.
It’s not just drug laws
I read a story a few years ago (IIRC) where cops arrested someone for violating a criminal defamation statute that had been struck down by the courts on constitutional grounds for longer than any of those cops had been alive. Courts presume that OF COURSE people read their decisions, and therefore that informs them about how laws have changed. And it’s just not true.
Even if dogs are trained for things other than cannabis, unless you were pulled over by a K9 unit, that would be extending the stop.
I’ve always been fond of “That’s funny officer, I smell it too. It started when you walked up to my window.” Bonus points if his body cam catches it! 🤣
Nobody here is opposed to protecting children. But this law doesn’t actually protect them any more than pre-existing laws do, while simultaneously greatly endangering adult customers. If the laws worked well and did exactly (and only) what they purport to, everyone here would be cheering. But the law won’t do what it purports to, and it so greatly increases the risk of identity theft that no sane person would ever want such a law. Being in favor of this particular law just proves that those who voted for it and the governor who signed it are literally insane, or so ignorant of what they are actually doing that they have no business being in elected office - there is no third possibility.
This raises a good question…
If he hasn’t fulfilled all the terms of his purchase contract, does he actually own Twitter yet? And if he doesn’t own it yet, are any of the orders he gives actually binding upon the company?
At the rate Musk is going, that inflated price is probably going to be about $3.50
Even if it was an exact copy, if the tattoo artist gave it to them, it would still be legit.
The worst part is he never said a word to the person who was offended - it was an automated greeting from a smart doorbell to someone who had walked onto his porch. There was nothing offensive about it, but an overly sensitive person who expected to be insulted 'miraculously' heard an insult where there wasn't one, and reported the insult to their employer. The driver was lying one way or another - they didn't clearly hear anything and just assumed AT BEST. But they reported clearly hearing the insult, and THAT was a lie.