I am indeed serious. Every time police feared for their lives, they outnumbered those they feared. But watch carefully next time, what happens when the police are outnumbered by those who are just as scary.
I'll ask you a counter question: Where in the Constitution or anywhere else does it say that you cannot exercise or otherwise possess more than one right at a time? That if you try to exercise two or more at once you lose all of your rights?
Because that's what is being said here and elsewhere - because people exercised two unalienable rights at once, they should be treated as having no rights at all.
The thing you and others miss, is that it is not illegal to have guns. Just like it's not illegal to have cars or books or shoes. Being in possession of completely legal things in a completely legal place, time and manner is not proof of wrongdoing. It's not even a little suspicious.
You don't restore order by attacking people who are obeying the law.
Twitter suspends the moderation credentials of any employee who is under threat of illegal retaliation. A suspended employee who cannot login cannot obey the government, and therefore cannot be prosecuted for not obeying.
Eventually there will be no Twitter employees capable of obeying in India, and the only people for the government to go after will be those in other countries, where India has no jurisdiction.
And India won't be able to extradite, because they'd have to cite a lawful reason, such as violating a law - refusing to obey an illegal order is not against the law.
Kinda makes me tempted to sue DeSantis if this law passes and he makes any kind of campaign ad, since I kinda suspect a political campaign virtual town meeting would count as a forum that this law would regulate.
Proving it doesn't would likely cost enough to keep him from being able to afford reelection...
If the defendants are destroying evidence as a matter of policy, the plaintiff simply makes a spoliation motion.
If the judge grants it, the lack of evidence is viewed by the court in the most damning possible light. Where actual evidence might lead to a more balance ruling, the most damning possible interpretation leads to a maximum judgment against the defendant, since the truth must be pretty awful of they had to delete all records of it.
Just imagine how the cops would react if someone reacted to a police warrant or subpoena the way the police react to anyone else's - obstruct, deny, delay, 'lose' paperwork, 'forget' where the files are kept, etc.
It's just as illegal to violate a public records law as it is to ignore a subpoena, so how is it that people sworn and paid to enforce the law can do it, while those who have no special obligation can't?
It’s Louisiana. It’s not ACTUALLY seen as corruption there until Black Panthers or the KKK are riding around in cop cars in their organization’s uniform.
This is still an improvement. Choke holds have been moved from ‘whenever you feel like it’ to the same conditions that would allow the officer to draw and fire his gun.
It’s not a huge improvement, given how rubber stampish police oversight tends to be about gunfire, but it IS an improvement.
This. Deprivation of rights using official authority to do so while in possession of a firearm is a federal felony (18 USC 242, 18 USC 924). If dressing alike, carrying the same weapons and identifying with the same group while breaking the law in any way makes you a criminal gang, then thpse cops are gang members without question.
For that matter, it’s also a felony (18 USC 241) for a court to conspire to violate people’s rights, which is what charging someone with a felony, the judge not dismissing the obvious retaliation against exercise of rights and even a correctional officer imprisoning someone found guilty of exercise of rights would be.
This. Deprivation of rights using official authority to do so while in possession of a firearm is a federal felony (18 USC 242, 18 USC 924). If dressing alike, carrying the same weapons and identifying with the same group while breaking the law in any way makes you a criminal gang, then thpse cops are gang members without question.
For that matter, it’s also a felony (18 USC 241) for a court to conspire to violate people’s rights, which is what charging someone with a felony, the judge not dismissing the obvious retaliation against exercise of rights and even a correctional officer imprisoning someone found guilty of exercise of rights would be.
Robbins had probable cause for the officers using their official authority to violate his first and fourth amendment rights.
Iowa allows a citizen's arrest to be made for a felony the citizen witnesses (the only state that doesn't is North Carolina). The US Supreme Court has ruled that unless there is a superseding statute (there wasn't then and isn't now) a federal citizen's arrest is lawful under the same circumstances and limits that a state citizen's arrest would be (United States v. Di Re (1948)).
Which brings us to Title 18, Section 241 of the US Code, which defines any two or more government officials using their official authority to violate any civil, statutory or constitutional rights to be a felony punishable by ten years in a federal prison.
Not quite spoliation, but evidence tampering did take place when the cop disabled a recording device so that it could not record evidence he reasonably knew would be of interest to investigators.
Since the cop's "no photographs" order violated federal law, that brings federal jurisdiction into the matter, and the penalty for a conviction for federal evidence tampering is 20 years in prison - the bar for a conviction is set rather low as well, much lower than it is for evidence tampering at the state level in most states.
It's especially alarming (and absurd) when you consider the fact that the division of the Department of Justice with the responsibility of investigating, arresting and often prosecuting use of governmental authority to practice viewpoint discrimination... is the FBI. And it's a felony.
If the uploaded YouTube video is the only copy in existence of a given video, and the police agency trying to get it deleted is being sued for that incident of brutality depicted in the video, wouldn't that count as spoliation?
Re: Re: Hypocrisy and bias
I am indeed serious. Every time police feared for their lives, they outnumbered those they feared. But watch carefully next time, what happens when the police are outnumbered by those who are just as scary.
I'll ask you a counter question: Where in the Constitution or anywhere else does it say that you cannot exercise or otherwise possess more than one right at a time? That if you try to exercise two or more at once you lose all of your rights?
Because that's what is being said here and elsewhere - because people exercised two unalienable rights at once, they should be treated as having no rights at all.
The thing you and others miss, is that it is not illegal to have guns. Just like it's not illegal to have cars or books or shoes. Being in possession of completely legal things in a completely legal place, time and manner is not proof of wrongdoing. It's not even a little suspicious.
You don't restore order by attacking people who are obeying the law.
Re:
Oh boo hoo, a fascist who is too scared to post using his own name does not like me. Whatever will I do?
Thanks for the compliment fascist. Knowing people like you can't stand me really makes my day brighter.
Re:
It is kinda circling the drain during the pandemic...
Re:
If it weren't, then why are core principles of how the US works copied so much?
The solution is simple
Twitter suspends the moderation credentials of any employee who is under threat of illegal retaliation. A suspended employee who cannot login cannot obey the government, and therefore cannot be prosecuted for not obeying.
Eventually there will be no Twitter employees capable of obeying in India, and the only people for the government to go after will be those in other countries, where India has no jurisdiction.
And India won't be able to extradite, because they'd have to cite a lawful reason, such as violating a law - refusing to obey an illegal order is not against the law.
Re:
Kinda makes me tempted to sue DeSantis if this law passes and he makes any kind of campaign ad, since I kinda suspect a political campaign virtual town meeting would count as a forum that this law would regulate.
Proving it doesn't would likely cost enough to keep him from being able to afford reelection...
Re: I mean...
Oh lord, I entirely missed that!
The solution is simple:
If the defendants are destroying evidence as a matter of policy, the plaintiff simply makes a spoliation motion.
If the judge grants it, the lack of evidence is viewed by the court in the most damning possible light. Where actual evidence might lead to a more balance ruling, the most damning possible interpretation leads to a maximum judgment against the defendant, since the truth must be pretty awful of they had to delete all records of it.
Just imagine...
Just imagine how the cops would react if someone reacted to a police warrant or subpoena the way the police react to anyone else's - obstruct, deny, delay, 'lose' paperwork, 'forget' where the files are kept, etc.
It's just as illegal to violate a public records law as it is to ignore a subpoena, so how is it that people sworn and paid to enforce the law can do it, while those who have no special obligation can't?
Re: Like air guitar, if that could get people killed
It’s Louisiana. It’s not ACTUALLY seen as corruption there until Black Panthers or the KKK are riding around in cop cars in their organization’s uniform.
(untitled comment)
This is still an improvement. Choke holds have been moved from ‘whenever you feel like it’ to the same conditions that would allow the officer to draw and fire his gun.
It’s not a huge improvement, given how rubber stampish police oversight tends to be about gunfire, but it IS an improvement.
Re:
This. Deprivation of rights using official authority to do so while in possession of a firearm is a federal felony (18 USC 242, 18 USC 924). If dressing alike, carrying the same weapons and identifying with the same group while breaking the law in any way makes you a criminal gang, then thpse cops are gang members without question.
For that matter, it’s also a felony (18 USC 241) for a court to conspire to violate people’s rights, which is what charging someone with a felony, the judge not dismissing the obvious retaliation against exercise of rights and even a correctional officer imprisoning someone found guilty of exercise of rights would be.
Re:
This. Deprivation of rights using official authority to do so while in possession of a firearm is a federal felony (18 USC 242, 18 USC 924). If dressing alike, carrying the same weapons and identifying with the same group while breaking the law in any way makes you a criminal gang, then thpse cops are gang members without question.
For that matter, it’s also a felony (18 USC 241) for a court to conspire to violate people’s rights, which is what charging someone with a felony, the judge not dismissing the obvious retaliation against exercise of rights and even a correctional officer imprisoning someone found guilty of exercise of rights would be.
Conspiracy Against Rights under Color of Law
Robbins had probable cause for the officers using their official authority to violate his first and fourth amendment rights.
Iowa allows a citizen's arrest to be made for a felony the citizen witnesses (the only state that doesn't is North Carolina). The US Supreme Court has ruled that unless there is a superseding statute (there wasn't then and isn't now) a federal citizen's arrest is lawful under the same circumstances and limits that a state citizen's arrest would be (United States v. Di Re (1948)).
Which brings us to Title 18, Section 241 of the US Code, which defines any two or more government officials using their official authority to violate any civil, statutory or constitutional rights to be a felony punishable by ten years in a federal prison.
https://www.justice.gov/crt/conspiracy-against-rights
Re:
The warrants based on sex-related evidence would still have been faulty. It's not illegal for adults to own adult underwear, sex toys or candy.
If owning completely legal items was grounds for a search warrant, there would be no such thing as the fourth amendment.
Re:
He had 14 years of experience with judges who rubber stamped his flimsiest hunches. Why would he expect that not to happen now?
Re:
More like cocklocked!
Re: Re: spoilation
Not quite spoliation, but evidence tampering did take place when the cop disabled a recording device so that it could not record evidence he reasonably knew would be of interest to investigators.
Since the cop's "no photographs" order violated federal law, that brings federal jurisdiction into the matter, and the penalty for a conviction for federal evidence tampering is 20 years in prison - the bar for a conviction is set rather low as well, much lower than it is for evidence tampering at the state level in most states.
Re: How very reassuring
It's especially alarming (and absurd) when you consider the fact that the division of the Department of Justice with the responsibility of investigating, arresting and often prosecuting use of governmental authority to practice viewpoint discrimination... is the FBI. And it's a felony.
https://www.justice.gov/crt/conspiracy-against-rights
Re: I wonder if there's a term for that sort of thing...
If the uploaded YouTube video is the only copy in existence of a given video, and the police agency trying to get it deleted is being sued for that incident of brutality depicted in the video, wouldn't that count as spoliation?
More comments from Bergman >>
Techdirt has not posted any stories submitted by Bergman.
Submit a story now.
Tools & Services
TwitterFacebook
RSS
Podcast
Research & Reports
Company
About UsAdvertising Policies
Privacy
Contact
Help & FeedbackMedia Kit
Sponsor/Advertise
Submit a Story
More
Copia InstituteInsider Shop
Support Techdirt