Comments on: Saturday Links: Thundersnow Edition

By: Jess

Jess — Tue, 22 Dec 2009 20:40:58 +0000

For everyone whose heart is bleeding for the brain-damaged career criminal, there has been an update. It seems his brain was damaged enough to be unfit for trial, but not enough to prevent further crimes:

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1237632/New-let-brain-damaged-burglar-got-decent-man-sent-jail.html

If he had tried that sort of thing with my family, he would have gotten some brain damage too. As in, they’d be all over the sidewalk.

By: Dan

Dan — Mon, 21 Dec 2009 18:32:42 +0000

The right to defend yourself is essentially non-existent in Britain and also in many of our states [especially in the northeast]. It seems this man is being punished more severely than the criminals who may have killed the man and his family. Those who self-righteously condemn this man should think twice before criticizing him; how would you have responded in that situation? People don’t think rationally in life and death situations, especially when you and your family are a hairbreadth away from a gruesome death. You need to take into account the mixture of fear, panic and rage that this family went through before sending him off to do more time than a burglar would receive.

I almost wonder if the more socialist types would rather see us meekly submit to crime and slaughter so the criminal can pursue his vocation unfettered. This is insanity.

By: Laertes

Laertes — Sun, 20 Dec 2009 20:02:33 +0000

“How does she win a settlement when the hero-with-a-hard-on was found not guilty?”

Same reason Ron Goldman’s family owns the clothes on OJ Simpson’s back even though Simpson was acquitted: The civil and criminal proceedings are separate.

By: Boyd Durkin

Boyd Durkin — Sun, 20 Dec 2009 15:45:18 +0000

silver lining : the Perv now works in construction , the stripper won a $400,000. settlement

How does she win a settlement when the hero-with-a-hard-on was found not guilty?

JFC! Civilians get busted and roughed up for taking photos at the mall while cops can RAPE women on the side of the road with NO PENALTY!

Does anyone need more convincing that the revolution needs to start NOW?

By: eric

eric — Sun, 20 Dec 2009 15:36:08 +0000

Hairstyles “designed to attract attention to the individual or to disrupt the orderly conduct of the classroom or campus (are) not permitted,” the policy states.

Can’t be attracting attention to the individual.. No, sir.

By: Kino

Kino — Sun, 20 Dec 2009 09:35:42 +0000

silver lining : the Perv now works in construction , the stripper won a $400,000. settlement

By: Matt

Matt — Sun, 20 Dec 2009 03:53:14 +0000

“Pastor Jonathan Ayers update: grand jury cleared the officers who shot and killed him.”

Shorter grand jury: “cops can do car-jackings and drive-bys at will.”

Re-watch the video:
http://tinyurl.com/y9hptkd

How do the actions of those cops differ from any other car-jackers or drive-by executioners?

What are the names of those grand jurors who rubber-stamped Ayers’ murder? How do they sleep at night? What other crimes have they abetted?

By: Matt

Matt — Sun, 20 Dec 2009 03:34:53 +0000

“The law, appropriately, *gives* one a right to self defense but not vengeance.”

Who decides what’s vengeance and what’s acceptable compensation?

You have rights whether or not self-absorbed parasites deign to acknowledge your rights via some officious document.

Laws may recognize your rights, but cannot ever *give* you what you already have.

By: Boyd Durkin

Boyd Durkin — Sun, 20 Dec 2009 02:47:54 +0000

Shit! “know”.

By: Boyd Durkin

Boyd Durkin — Sun, 20 Dec 2009 02:47:37 +0000

KBCraig,
It is clear WE don’t now the law. The law is they can shoot and kill you any time they want and there’s nothing you can do about it. THAT is the law. I’d like to be proven wrong on this.

By: KBCraig

KBCraig — Sun, 20 Dec 2009 02:19:47 +0000

Pastor Jonathan Ayers update: grand jury cleared the officers who shot and killed him.

http://www.gainesvilletimes.com/news/article/27344/

By: damaged justice

damaged justice — Sun, 20 Dec 2009 01:43:39 +0000

They always say, “You’ll change your mind once you have kids.”

Mine didn’t. Not at all.

By: Stephen

Stephen — Sun, 20 Dec 2009 01:39:00 +0000

#40 | Noel St. John |

Wow!, she IS hot! Never knew about her before today. Always learn something here. :)

By: Tokin42

Tokin42 — Sun, 20 Dec 2009 01:26:07 +0000

Re:30 Month sentence.

We’re allowed to take everything into consideration when deciding if this guy crossed the line or not. In my book, escaping and chasing the guy down the street is still within the heat of the moment. If he were my neighbor I’d say his right to beat this guy only ends once the cops show up.

By: Tokin42

Tokin42 — Sun, 20 Dec 2009 01:20:51 +0000

#40 | Noel St. John | December 19th, 2009 at 7:10 pm
Re: The Jerk-off cop story. The cop’s lawyer is Al Stokke – a name many Farkers should recognize as he is the father of that hottie pole vaulter, Allison Stokke.

Wow. Nice catch, it does add a tinge of irony to the story. He’s still a dick but he has great genes.

By: John Wilburn

John Wilburn — Sun, 20 Dec 2009 01:11:43 +0000

damaged justice said;

“Personally, I would eat broken glass before I ever allowed anyone to kidnap my child and force them into a government indoctrination center.”

Les said;

“Actually, it depends on the state. … Here in California, I just have to fill out an online form declaring my home to be a private school and that’s that. …I’m really hoping to bypass public school entirely. Keep your fingers crossed!”

Again, let me say that I share your sentiments…

Also, it’s always nice to meet an optimist…

It’s abundantly obvious that the two of you don’t currently have school-age children – otherwise you would know, first of all, that they’re not YOUR children – they are the “property” of the state, specifically, the Department of Social Services, Child Protection division (or whatever they call themselves in your state). But please, don’t take my word for it; contact any lawyer that specializes in family law, and ask him / her what your rights are, as a parent, in regard to “your” children, and what rights the Social Workers employed by the state have.

Keep in mind that approximately 75% of these Social Workers are in their mid-twenties, are single, and have no children of their own – about half are gay. And all of them were taught in college that ALL parents abuse their children…

They can force you, your spouse, or your entire family to undergo counseling and therapy, as well as psychological testing and evaluation to determine your “fitness” as parents, parenting classes, substance abuse rehab (even if you don’t drink, smoke or use drugs), etc., etc., etc., and, if you don’t comply, they’ll drag you into court, make all manner of allegations against you, which the court will not require them to prove, AND not permit you to refute, and also, if you don’t comply, they can and will take your children away from you…

Over the course of my life, I’ve seen this happen to many, many people…

The point that I’m leading up to, is that if you decide to home-school, it is seen by these Social Workers as a strong indicator (red flag) that you are abusing “your” children, and gives them an opening to take a “special interest” in you – and if you don’t demonstrate an immediate spirit of cooperation as well as an acknowledgement of their “benevolent” omnipotence, when they come to interview you AND “your” children – God Help You and your family…

Again, don’t take my word for it – find someone who specializes in family law – you may decide not to have children – it’s that terrifying…

Oh yeah, and remember – “It’s For The Children…”

By: Chance

Chance — Sun, 20 Dec 2009 01:10:31 +0000

Here’s one I’m surprised you haven’t already posted, since it was in your neck of the woods I think: http://www.washingtoncitypaper.com/blogs/citydesk/2009/12/19/did-d-c-cops-overreact-to-snowball-fight-14th-and-u/

Short version, plain clothes cop freaks out and pulls gun on people having a friendly snowball fight – why? Because they hit his Hummer with a snowball. There’s video of course.

By: Gabriel

Gabriel — Sun, 20 Dec 2009 00:03:13 +0000

#10 | Joey Maloney | December 19th, 2009 at 12:40 pm

Regarding the GA case, the cops saw him strap on his weapon. They safely disarmed and detained him, and let him go after determining he was carrying legally.

That’s not what happened. They determined he was carrying legally, and THEN detained him. Then, when they were good and ready, they let him go.

What should have happened is that he was released as soon as they verified that he had a license. The whole reason for the lawsuit was the detention after showing the license.

From the article: “After seeing Raissi’s firearms license and driver’s license, the officers ran background checks on Raissi and held him, according to Raissi, for half an hour. The officers transported Raissi to a locked area out of the public eye before finally releasing him and returning his firearm and other property.”

By: bobzbob

bobzbob — Sat, 19 Dec 2009 23:29:27 +0000

“Active pursuit is totally justified.” Sure, but beating once you’ve caught him isn’t.

Let’s say this guy was caught by police, convicted and served 10 years. Would it then be ok for the victim to hunt him down with a bat and beat him? Why not, and what’s the difference?

By: Noel St. John

Noel St. John — Sat, 19 Dec 2009 23:10:21 +0000

Re: The Jerk-off cop story. The cop’s lawyer is Al Stokke – a name many Farkers should recognize as he is the father of that hottie pole vaulter, Allison Stokke. http://dethroner.com/2007/06/05/allison-stokkes-father-is-notorious-misogynist-defense-lawyer/ I don’t know if this fits the textbook definition of irony, but it is close enough for me.