That One Guy’s Techdirt Profile


About That One GuyTechdirt Insider

That One Guy’s Comments comment rss

  • Jun 24th, 2017 @ 2:52am


    Probably because it's irrelevant.

    Just because the cop may have said it doesn't mean that that was what was happening. If memory serves Castile also said repeatedly that he wasn't reaching for a gun.

  • Jun 23rd, 2017 @ 10:48pm

    Be careful what you wish for

    But when you purposefully defame good and honest people, asking the public (through a jury) to enforce a penalty seems appropriate.

    Lower down in the same comment section...

    Mix in some lesbian separatists and angry violent non-whites, and that pretty much covers the regulars here, right?

    Your faux outrage never fails to entertain, especially when you expose your glaring hypocrisy and/or dishonesty when you do it. Claiming that saying 'mean things' about someone should be grounds for financial, legal or even physical penalties while never thinking for a moment how screwed you would be if the world matched what you claim to want.

  • Jun 23rd, 2017 @ 10:03pm

    Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:

    Pretty sure to a trigger-happy nut 'I have a concealed carry permit/license' is going to be pretty much indistinguishable from 'I have a gun', because why else would someone mention that other than to inform you that they have a gun? Not moving after that point might work, but with someone already armed and hyped up it might also just aggravate them more for your 'refusal to do what you're told'. It seems a razor-thin line either way really.

    As for the 'how to avoid being shot' ideas in general, that strikes me very much as solving the wrong problem, and (possible rightly) paints the police in a light similar to a rabid animal, something you have to be extremely careful around unless you want to end up dead. Now, this could very well be the case(instances like this certainly support the idea), but if so it's hardly a flattering comparison to make and reputation for them to have.

  • Jun 23rd, 2017 @ 7:56pm

    Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:

    Ah the good old 'dodge, deflect and project'. I'd say I was surprised you went that route, but I know you too well by now for something like that to be at all unexpected.

  • Jun 23rd, 2017 @ 7:53pm

    Re: Re: Re:

    A guy who tells the traffic cop "I have a gun" as he reaches into his pocket to retrieve the requested documents is basically asking to be shot multiple times, because that's exactly how American police are trained to respond to this sort of "threat".

    In which case the three things I pointed out above come into play. If that sort of thing is justification for being killed then the options are basically 'Don't be armed', 'Don't tell the cop you're interacting with that you're armed', and/or 'Refuse the orders of the police'.

    Somehow I don't imagine these options would go over very well with various groups, yet they seem to be the only ones available if one wants to claim that he did something 'wrong' that justified him being killed.

  • Jun 23rd, 2017 @ 7:46pm

    Re: Re: Re:

    Yeah, no. If you're going to try to spin that 'Be respectful and you've got nothing to worry about' rubbish, it helps if you don't do so under an article that undermines your claim.

    The one killed this time around was killed because he exercised his legal right to carry a gun, informed the officer of it, and then attempted to follow the directions given to him to provide his ID. For this he was shot multiple times, killed in front of his girlfriend and her daughter.

    Unless you want to argue that he...

    a) Shouldn't have been armed at all, in which case good luck making that argument...

    b) Shouldn't have told the cop that he was armed...


    c) Should have refused to follow directions in reaching for his ID as directed.

    He did everything 'right' and was still gunned down for it. As such the idea of 'If you're just polite you won't be executed on the spot' is a nice/horrifying idea, but clearly doesn't match reality where even that won't save you.

  • Jun 23rd, 2017 @ 7:11pm


    Unless the approaching cop takes your movement to get the documents to be reaching for a weapon before they get there, in which case you're back at the problem you tried to avoid, 'How to avoid being shot by a trigger-happy cop?', a question that should never have escaped the realm of the purely hypothetical.

  • Jun 23rd, 2017 @ 6:27am

    "We're helpless, really."

    The Army said it lacked the ability to enforce price controls, but it would ask those nice people at Sanofi to commit to affordable pricing on a voluntary basis.

    Putting aside the fact that from the sounds of it this particular company shouldn't be trusted to so much as run a lemonade stand, the idea that the army was helpless to enforce price controls is complete and total crap. There are a multitude of pharma companies in the world, the army could have easily made selling the drug at a certain rate a condition to any company interested in selling the drug.

    They didn't lack the ability to set terms, they simply didn't care to, because why would they care if a taxpayer funded drug is priced out of range of those that need it?

  • Jun 22nd, 2017 @ 2:29pm

    When you make Gollom's long-lost brother look sane...

    Erdogan may be a thin-skinned thug, but as far as I know he's never sentenced someone to death for saying mean things about him, so at least he hasn't sunk as low as the pathetic ninnies in Pakistan.

  • Jun 22nd, 2017 @ 2:20pm

    Re: death sentence

    And when the US sentences someone to death for 'blasphemy'(one of the more absurd and stupid ideas out there), then you might have a point comparing the two. But they haven't, and I don't see it happening any time soon, so your comparison is completely empty of meaning.

  • Jun 22nd, 2017 @ 2:37am

    Hit enter too soon...

    Something like that might get them to be a little more careful in their words, if they faced a real financial penalty for being a little 'lose' with the truth.

  • Jun 22nd, 2017 @ 2:34am

    Re: Re:

    "I solemnly swear upon my pay and retirement fund, which shall be forfeited and given to the accused should I be found to have violated this oath, that I will tell the truth to the best of my ability, and shall not make any false or misleading statements at any time."

  • Jun 22nd, 2017 @ 1:54am

    Well nuts to that

    Yeah, Murray and his team really did not think this one through. It could have been over with, brought up in a single episode and then left behind as the show covered other topics, but by going legal they've ensured that it will be covered again, drawing even more attention both to the original episode and it's contents and now the fact that he's suing over it.

    So congrats Murray and company, you just Streisand'd yourself quite nicely, and if you think you had it bad from the previous episode covering you, just wait until the next one.

  • Jun 21st, 2017 @ 6:53pm

    Re: Re:

    The multiple retroactive extensions to copyright laws would seem to argue otherwise.

    Not saying it should be allowed('What you did was legal yesterday, and isn't today. Guess who's going to court tomorrow?'), but the legislature doesn't seem to have a problem doing it anyway.

  • Jun 21st, 2017 @ 3:14pm

    Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:

    There are much better ways

    Then you should have no problem at all providing a few examples and explaining why you think they would work better.

  • Jun 21st, 2017 @ 2:41pm


    The fact that they are basing their demands off of accusations of infringement should have been all it took to laugh them out of court.

    There could be a discussion about fitting penalties for actual 'repeat infringers', those that have been found guilty of copyright infringement multiple times, but they aren't even getting to that point, and instead are insisting that an accusation of guilt be treated as equivalent to a finding of guilt. To say that their argument is absurd is to do a great disservice to the word, with 'insane' probably fore fitting.

  • Jun 21st, 2017 @ 2:15pm

    Why spend $21 million when $2 will get the job done?

    Given the severity of the 'threat' they should deliver a flashlight to the FBI and tell them that should be plenty. Perhaps include a complementary box of light-bulbs just in case the FBI main offices are 'going dark' and need some illumination as well.

  • Jun 21st, 2017 @ 2:14pm


    Considering the way that copyright terms have been extended repeatedly by Congress, perhaps we should be very glad that patents don't grant the holders anywhere close to the 100+ year monopolies that copyrights bring.


  • Jun 21st, 2017 @ 1:59pm

    For a start, sure

    Hutchens and every "veteran officer" she's referring to should be fired immediately.

    Followed by being blacklisted from ever working in law enforcement ever again, and placed under investigation for perjury, obstruction of justice, destruction of evidence, and I'm sure a good number of other crimes. They didn't 'just' flat out lie under oath, they did so in a case where a person's life was on the line. Something like that should carry hefty penalties.

    An immediate reversal of any guilty verdicts that involved the office would probably be a good idea as well, given if they were willing to lie on something this serious I don't believe for a second they haven't been lying through their teeth in other cases as well, such that the default assumption should be that they lied in all of them.

  • Jun 21st, 2017 @ 4:03am

    Consistency in corruption

    States passing laws to cripple if not outright eliminate local competition = States rights, absolutely fine.

    States trying to pass laws to ensure that broadband companies can't lie through their teeth and advertise something they won't/can't deliver = Terrible, absolutely not acceptable.

    Pretty easy to see through the PR and glimpse the underlying idea about what 'rights' they think states should be able to hold, and which can be summed up as simply 'States have whatever rights will allow us to make the most profits, and should be free to pass whatever laws will best serve that purpose.'

    While I've no doubt whatsoever that the argument of the lobbyists will get a warm welcome with the current FCC hopefully the courts will nicely shut down their latest attempt to screw over the public if the FCC tries to back them up.

More comments from That One Guy >>