"Fry em like bacon" isn't like "nice business there, sure would be a shame if an untimely accident were to happen."Quote:
Originally Posted by Lewkowski
But you know what is? "I need you to do me a favor though."
Printable View
"Fry em like bacon" isn't like "nice business there, sure would be a shame if an untimely accident were to happen."Quote:
Originally Posted by Lewkowski
But you know what is? "I need you to do me a favor though."
Where do you think "sell your company and give me a substantial cut or I'm going to ban it" fits in this scale?Quote:
Originally Posted by Aimless
Right out of the Tyrant's Textbook! I'll bet AG Barr is "looking into the constitutionality" of this. :bored:
Lewk, it doesn't matter what law you try to apply. Loki's citing the test used for when you can and cannot take action against speech, in proper adherence to the 1st amendment. He's referencing the Constitutional standard. Whatever law it is you want to apply, whether it's from a state or the Feds, whether it's terrorism, obstruction, whatever, they ALL have to meet the exact same standard. They all have to pass the test laid out in Brandenburg and clarified in one or two later cases. They may also have to meet further standards above and beyond that of Brandenburg, depending on the context, but if they can't pass the Brandenburg tests than they're out regardless.Quote:
Originally Posted by Lewkowski
Well, seeing as the literal words of one prong of the Brandenburg test is "the threat is so unequivocal, unconditional, and specific as to convey a gravity of purpose and immediate prospect of execution," I'm going to have to say regardless of where one of the lines is, that yes, the other option is "specific and unequivocal threats of bodily harm". Among other necessary unmentioned but included descriptors.Quote:
Originally Posted by Enoch the Red
I'm probably being unclear - I chose those words precisely for that reason. What I was attempting to get at is that it seems to me there is a world of possibilities that exist beyond inviting the police to come over for tea, and making threats, regardless of whether or not the threats extend beyond what is protected by the first amendment. I could very vocally tell a police officer I disagree with the actions they are taking, the system they are representing, or the job they are doing without threatening them, even abstractly.Quote:
Originally Posted by LittleFuzzy
https://pbs.twimg.com/media/Eesz8e8V...pg&name=medium
Militarized Police: unsafe at any speed.
Also, is there anything phrase in the English language more pathetically craven than "officer involved shooting"?
How about "Guns don't kill people"?Quote:
Originally Posted by Steely Glint
Twitter Link
https://www.miamiherald.com/news/loc...244849592.html
To a man with a hammer
I'm currently reading a book with the title "Rapport: The four ways to read people". It's written by two professional interrogators and forensic psychologists.
Fascinating stuff and it's rather sad that the US cops' training does not seem to include deescalation tactics in the slightest. They even include an example where a police officer managed to talk down a belligerent guy, only for her colleagues to swoop in after he was agreeing to come down to the station and manhandle him in a way that all her work was for nothing.
They also give several arguments why, for example, torture does not work.
Breaking News: George Floyd killed himself!
https://nypost.com/2020/08/21/lawyer...illed-himself/
:picard:
And the cops were fulfilling their duty to protect and serve!!!
:picard:
This is just left-wing liberals trying to scapegoat the police!
:picard:
Because they want chaos and anarchy instead of Law & Order!
:picard:
https://censored.tv/newsposts/far-le...to-the-streets
They sure are winning hearts and minds out there in Portland.
"censored.tv" :haha: :haha: :haha:
meanwhile, arguments for abolishing the police keep mounting:
Twitter Link
and
https://champ.gothamist.com/champ/go...ar-lawyers-say
and this fucked-up story:
Twitter Link
(read the entire thread)
Abolishing lol, not even Bernie wants that.
The ACLU also demanded the cops stop filming (you know the same thing body cameras do) the riots. They are a bit of a joke these days.
It's telling that you consider all protests to be riots (well, all protests by people you disagree with). They have no problem with police taping people engaged in criminal actions.
https://www.oregonlive.com/crime/202...inquiries.html
The ACLU demanded the cops comply with Oregon state law? Those dastardly fiends!Quote:
Originally Posted by Lewkowski
Waitaminute. The Oregon cops have been breaking the law with their filming? Doesn't that usually mean you think they should be severely punished to deter them from more lawbreaking?
So do you think body cams are good or not? Also they weren't breaking the law. The police are absolutely allowed to film people breaking the law.Quote:
Originally Posted by LittleFuzzy
https://twitter.com/MinneapolisPD/st...00001951453185
Watch till the end if you aren't a pussy. (Guy offs himself on camera).
This is why Minneapolis rioted today. This entire "movement" is joke.
Oh my God, you really are such a little pussy of a manling :haha: flex more you creepy little fucker :haha:
Do you still agree with riots in Minneapolis over this example of police brutality? Speaking of which - the people who claimed the cops murdered him, do you think they should face charges for inciting a riot?Quote:
Originally Posted by Aimless
God Hath Spoken: Fine I'll do it myself
Might not have made a difference to the tragic outcome either way, but this video is a clear sign that American cops not only have a crappy attitude towards human life, but they're also... fucking dumb:
Twitter Link
ACAB applies if the first A stands for American.
Okay then AACABoBA so that the bastard-adjacent ones don't feel left out.Quote:
Originally Posted by RandBlade
I guess not even 'all lives matter' to the police.