someoneinnorthms 's Techdirt Comments

Latest Comments (87) comment rss

  • On the post: Colorado Government Dumps Qualified Immunity For Cops

    someoneinnorthms ( profile ), 10 Jul, 2020 @ 04:13pm

    Re: Operational Ability

    Please. Really? You didn't think this comment through, did you? If someone violates the law, there ought to be a remedy under the law to address the injury. If a police officer does something illegal or unlawful and has to pay a judgment, that means, ispo facto, THAT PERSON DID SOMETHING UNLAWFUL OR ILLEGAL. Why should some people be able to violate the law and other people should not? I think you might be suggesting that an easier standard for plaintiffs to meet will encourage more lawsuits, perhaps many of them frivolous. Well, guess what? Frivolous lawsuits get filed all the time. Furthermore, no officer who is sued for actions under color of law ever pays a lawyer a penny to represent him. The governmental entity that employs the officer provides the defense (with a very few odd exceptions). So why does the increase in the number of lawsuits trouble you? If an officer does something wrong, he'll pay. It used to be that if an officer does something wrong, the city/county/state will pay. The officer doesn't ever pay for a lawyer. Under this particular law he will pay $25,000 or 5% of the judgment, whichever is lower. Only sadistic, purposefully-ignorant, domestic enemies of the Constitution will complain about NOT being able to get away with violating someone's legal and constitutional rights. When I joined the United States Marine Corps 30 years ago I swore I would protect the Constitution from scumbags like that. They actually swear something similar in most jurisdictions when becoming law enforcement officials. And apparently you think it's okay they lied through their teeth when they did it.

  • On the post: Public Colleges Are Violating The 1st Amendment In Using Facebook Filters

    someoneinnorthms ( profile ), 24 Apr, 2020 @ 06:18pm

    If a city, county, state or federal government hired private security to arrest everyone attending a Bernie rally (or a Trump rally), would the actions of the private security officers be permissible under the First Amendment? I think it's clear that delegating actions is not the same as absolving responsibility for causeing those actions to occur.

    Public educational institutions stop students from speaking about disfavored topics on their campus through people who are employed by the institutions. Legally speaking, these people are operating as agents of the institution to enforce the will of the institution. The "institution" itself cannot act on its own will because it is inchoate--an ephemeral construct.

    When public institutions want to stop students from speaking about disfavored topics on the internet, they likewise use agents--the employees of Facebook. If those institutions communicated directly with Facebook to identify which topics they wish to disfavor then the institutions are probably in trouble, legally-speaking. If Facebook just took unilateral action based on their reading of campus newspapers, etc., then the institutions are probably okay.

    A government actor, like a public educational institution, cannot ask someone else to do what the government actor could not do on its own.

    It's been too many decades since law school for me, but I think that's the way the First Amendment cookie ought to crumble.

  • On the post: Insurance Companies Are Destroying People's Lives And Cops Are Being Paid To Help Do It

    someoneinnorthms ( profile ), 24 Aug, 2019 @ 08:00am

    Re: Re: Still looking for an honest man

    What an ass. Write your own manifesto. Getting off the grid and avoiding contact with the putrid underbelly of humanity is the exact opposite of what you seem to think it is.

  • On the post: NYPD, Prosecutors Illegally Using Expunged Criminal Records To Perform Investigations, Ask For Longer Sentences

    someoneinnorthms ( profile ), 09 Aug, 2019 @ 04:31am

    Police officers are people.

    People who don't follow the law are criminals.

    Ergo, police officers who don't follow the law are criminals.

  • On the post: Court: No Immunity For SWAT Team That Hurled A Flash-Bang Grenade In The General Direction Of A Two-Year-Old Child

    someoneinnorthms ( profile ), 29 Jul, 2019 @ 05:04pm

    I'd love to know what evidence they secured--just for kicks and giggles. Not that it matters, of course, but I'd to see it printed somewhere officially, "and, they never found even a scintilla of evidence."

  • On the post: Judge Unseals, Tosses Warrant Used By The San Francisco PD To Obtain A Journalist's Phone Records

    someoneinnorthms ( profile ), 25 Jul, 2019 @ 04:33pm

    Re: Re:

    And you have just summarized the standard technique law enforcement uses to investigate crimes. For the record, the legal concept described above is called "standing." I don't have standing to challenge any evidence found from an illegal search of your home if I am put to trial for a crime in the US. 1

  • On the post: Court: It's Cool If The (Federal) Government Searches A Phone The (Local) Government Seized Illegally

    someoneinnorthms ( profile ), 09 Jul, 2019 @ 08:43pm

    Re: Re: Liberals never miss a chance to push out the margins of

    You, sir, are daft. When I was in the Marine Corps I found for your First Amendment rights to say daft things. I also fought for the other 27 amendments and for the body of the original constitution. I protected it against "all enemies, foreign ir domestic." You are a domestic enemy of the constitution if you believe it shouldn't apply to someone YOU think is guilty. When I got out of the Corps I went to law school so I could continue in my fight as constitution-haters. The Framers of our constitution put in place a mechanism for determining guilt, and if that mechanism is oiled and maintained and allowed to run smoothly, then liberty (or life) will only be taken away from the truly guilty. If that mechanism ejects someone because the process compels that ejection, then that process worked as the Framers intended it. If you don't like what the Framers created, start a civil war. Or go somewhere else and found your own country with your own rules. I love my country, and I love my constitution. The difference between you and me is that I believe the constitution applies to everyone; you don't. If we can start deciding who is worthy of constitutional protections and who isn't, then we are well on our way to tyranny. Tyrants will get the benefit of seeing my fighting for the constitution in both methods for which I have been trained. Good day, sir.

  • On the post: The Impossibility Of Content Moderation Plays Out, Once Again, On YouTube

    someoneinnorthms ( profile ), 07 Jun, 2019 @ 06:44pm

    Re: Re: Crowder is an asshole?

    If I were running YouTube then basically everything would be allowed except for hard core pornography.

  • On the post: The Impossibility Of Content Moderation Plays Out, Once Again, On YouTube

    someoneinnorthms ( profile ), 07 Jun, 2019 @ 06:41pm

    Re: Re: Re: Crowder is an asshole?

    Everything btr1701 just said.

  • On the post: The Impossibility Of Content Moderation Plays Out, Once Again, On YouTube

    someoneinnorthms ( profile ), 07 Jun, 2019 @ 08:51am

    Crowder is an asshole?

    I don't think I've ever seen Crowder's being an asshole. However, he does mock people. I guess the asshole level is higher on my character meter than most people's meter.

    Regardless, you are correct. There is no good answer to these subtle questions. It's probably a good idea for YouTube to remove/block sexual conduct wherein genitalia are displayed. Extreme acts of (actual, physical) violence should probably be age-moderated. Otherwise, everything should be allowed. The suggestion above is apt: if you don't like it, don't watch it.

  • On the post: Sheriff's Deputy Sued After Arresting Man For Criticizing Him On Facebook

    someoneinnorthms ( profile ), 05 Jun, 2019 @ 10:54am

    Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Spelling

    Good lord. I'll get out my Strunk and White and give you a reference. It looks like diagramming sentences has gone out the window in public high schools. "Of bars" is a prepositional phrase. Thus, "bars," as the object of the preposition cannot be the subject of the sentence. "There's a couple," is the sentence. A couple of what, one might ask. A couple "of bars." A couple is a single thing, made up of two parts--in this case, two bars.

  • On the post: Sheriff's Deputy Sued After Arresting Man For Criticizing Him On Facebook

    someoneinnorthms ( profile ), 04 Jun, 2019 @ 01:43am

    Re: Spelling

    There's a couple of bars is correct. The subject of the sentence is the word, "couple." That word is a singular noun. The verb is, "is." That verb is singular. Because the subject and verb agree in number, the sentence is grammatically correct.

  • On the post: Electronic Warrants And Roadside Blood Draws Are The New Normal For DUI Checkpoints

    someoneinnorthms ( profile ), 10 May, 2019 @ 04:11pm

    The purpose of a warrant (among many others) is to be able to show the accused a piece of paper with a judge's signature to demonstrate its legitimacy. A copy of the waarant is to be left with the thing/person searched. Is this possible with an electronic warrant? How long will it be before law enforcement officers start showing suspects something semi-official looking on their own phones or patrol car laptops and claiming that it's a legitimate warrant? Furthermore, when one voluntarily consents to a search afger being shown something semi-official looking, has one now consented to a search for 4th amendment purposes? As a lawyer, I think I would be inclined to advise a client to make the cop tase you, hold you down, cuff you, whatever before they take your blood because if you roll up your sleeve that may negate the question whether it was a legitimate warrant.

  • On the post: Non-Profit Hilariously Claims It Can Sue Change.org For 'Flagging' Its Petition

    someoneinnorthms ( profile ), 26 Apr, 2019 @ 07:13am

    In a different context there is precedent for a non-governmental organization to be considered a state actor. See NCAA v. Tarkanian, 488 U.S. 179 (1988). This is a United States Supreme Court case that says it is possible for a non-state actor to turn into a state actor. However, that was not a First Amendment case.

  • On the post: Supreme Court Again Ducks A Chance To Clarify First Amendment Protections

    someoneinnorthms ( profile ), 19 Apr, 2019 @ 06:39pm

    Re:

    Dan, you must be a second-year law student. Lighten up. Non-lawyers should be forgiven for their lack of indepth knowledge of the obtuse, counter-intuitive body of knowledge that we lawyer types live in. This is one of the best blogs I know, and you shouldn't disparage it over one minor mistake. It is EASY to know what the author intended by using your context clues. C'mon, man. If you think the blogosphere needs actual, pinpoint accuracy (like a legal brief), create one yourself. This literary faux pas is like forgetting the comma after using the word "however." Let it pass in favor of understanding the spirit of the entire post.

  • On the post: Sheriff Decides The Best Way To Prep Teachers For School Shootings Is To Frighten And Injure Them

    someoneinnorthms ( profile ), 25 Mar, 2019 @ 02:45pm

    Re:

    So, better to lie down and take the bullet in the back of the head for real?

  • On the post: Appeals Court Overturns 47-Year-Old Murder Conviction Predicated On Faulty FBI Hair Analysis Evidence

    someoneinnorthms ( profile ), 22 Mar, 2019 @ 10:46am

    A black man, apparently in the District of Columbia, is apparently suspicious by his mere presence. Whatever.

    Forensic evidence is complete and utter bullshit, according to the National Academy of Science. The only exception is DNA evidence, which they concluded is only partially bullshit. If I had a nickel for every time bullshit forensice evidence sent somebody to prison there wouldn't be any nickels left in circulation.

  • On the post: Gov't Used An Ambiguously-Worded Tweet As The Basis For The Raid Of NSA Contractor's House

    someoneinnorthms ( profile ), 04 Jan, 2019 @ 12:30pm

    Re: Something....

    Someone doesn't know the case law here
    Mendenhall v. U.S. is the seminal one. If you don't feel free to leave you are "under arrest," regardless whether anyone said the magic words or not.

  • On the post: What Happens If The DOJ Ends Up With Martin Shkreli's Sole Copy Of The Wu Tang Clan Album?

    someoneinnorthms ( profile ), 03 Dec, 2017 @ 11:33am

    Free market? Hahahahahahahaha!

    Shkreli didn't participate in the free market. That's actually the reason he did what he did. Third party payors decided whethr to pay or not to pay.

  • On the post: Court Says Cop's Theft Of Evidence Shouldn't Have Any Effect On Man's 15-Year Drug Sentence

    someoneinnorthms ( profile ), 29 Nov, 2017 @ 01:11pm

    Re:

    Are you out of your ever-loving mind? Let's leave aside how the public suffers from someone transporting drugs (I don't know many drug dealers who force-feed their product to unwilling customers).

    You sounds as if you find it acceptable that the State manufactured evidence against someone. Yes, that person may have been guilty of a crime, but the State manufactured the evidence. Let's think about it. The corrupt cop (a redundancy) took away the evidence that he was guilty of anything illegal. The corrupt cop then placed evidence of another crime where it could be "discovered." And, you're okay with this?

    So, if you ever run a red light, would it be okay if a police officer then placed a shit-ton of cocaine-laced drywall in the back of YOUR vehicle? I mean, you'd be guilty of a crime. It might be a different crime than the one you originally committed. But, hell, planting evidence on criminals is okay, right?

    Your argument that law ENFORCEMENT officers can plant evidence on criminals is specious at best and absolutely ridiculous at worst. I used to be a Republican, too. Come to see the light: the government exists for only reason--to plant its boot across the necks of all of us, one way or another. Our duty is to resist that, not applaud it in some twisted shadenfreude.

Next >>