Morning Links

Monday, March 5th, 2012

Digg it |  reddit | |  Fark

33 Responses to “Morning Links”

  1. #1 |  Juice | 

    New Orleans: making me lose faith in humanity.

    Indiana: somewhat restoring some faith in humanity.

  2. #2 |  Pugnacious | 

    It’s not nice to mess with Mother Russia.

  3. #3 |  marco73 | 

    Putin appeals to his base: horses, dogs, dolphins. You can’t actually believe that free human beings would vote for this guy?

  4. #4 |  Burgers Allday | 

    On the Indiana story, over at the Police one new blog, the policemen’s comments on this story are surprisingly angry and uniform.

    I can’t respond over there because I am not a sworn officer, and also beciuse I am the one who got kicked off that board at the time they made the sworn officer only rule (which may or may not have been directed mostly at me). So I will respond here:

    If a criminal is really intent on killing you as you are serving a search warrant, then that criminal is going to kill you regardless of what the law says. He doesn’t care if you have a warrant or not. He doesn’t care if it is illegal to kill you or not. This law doesn’t affect his mental calculus one bit. What you think matters simply does not matter. Sorry, officers, but its true.

  5. #5 |  Burgers Allday | 

    –Policeone news blog–

    it is the same old blog, or forum or news feed or whatever you call those things.

  6. #6 |  Pugnacious | 


    And you would vote for a Czech-bashing Sarkozy?

  7. #7 |  Pugnacious | 

    This is the Czech-bashing Sarkozy:

  8. #8 |  Boyd Durkin | 

    I came across a squirrel brain shake recipe that suggested coon brains as an alternative. Yeah, my dog would love it.

  9. #9 |  Jerryskids | 

    @Burgers Allday – the stupidity of the comments on that link made my brain bleed. It’s pretty obvious that the commenters haven’t actually read the bill nor the Indiana Supreme Court ruling that prompted the bill nor anything approaching any rational discussion of law.

    The proposed Indiana law simply overrules the Indiana Supreme Court ruling that said you have no right to resist even unlawful police actions – an idea that has been a part of common law for about 800 years. SB1 makes it very clear that you still have no right to resist lawful police actions.

    The scariest quote from the cops – “Any law that puts a Police Officers life in more danger, is a bad idea.” You mean like anything that allows freedom?

  10. #10 |  Dr Duck | 

    “Squirrel meat, though, is already an established delicacy in Ozark country and Tennessee; eating species farmed for fur (such as beaver) is also allowed.”

    I believe Rick Santorum has already indicated he’d outlaw eating beaver.

  11. #11 |  Jozef | 

    Here is a very nice article on one of Radley’s favorite prosecutors.

  12. #12 |  derfel cadarn | 

    There may not be justice in America but in Indiana we are beginning to see a twinkle.It is the backbone shown here that may possibly save this country. Indiana we salute you.

  13. #13 |  Cynical in New York | 

    RE: New Orleans

    Must be some sweet deal. I’ve gotten three traffic tickets in my life; Two speeding and one failed turn signal. None of them were dropped but reduced so it didn’t affect my license. The reason they do that is so that the local town gets the money and not the state capital (Albany). You would think the city would want that extra $547,580 but I guess some animals are more equal than others.

    RE: Indiana

    Good when I first read that ruling all I could think is what state is next.

  14. #14 |  Burgers Allday | 

    . . . the stupidity of the comments on that link made my brain bleed.

    I don’t know. At least a couple point out that this is going to be problemmatic for no-knock and other surprise raids. That is a perceptive point, regardless of whether one thinks it is a good or bad thing.

    The part that makes me laugh are the ones that say that regcits always lose their civil claims against police for illegal searches which somehow magically means that there is a good remfor and deterrence against illegal searches. Actually if the citizens always lose the civil claims then that means there is NOT an effective remedy for those illegal searches.

    More importantly, civil remedies are never good enough because real compensation is not possible, and the only way to keep the victim of the illegal search “whole” is to prevent the terror and humiliation of an illegal search. Of course, other poster(s) at suggest that the police might just scale back their searches of homes. Heh heh.

  15. #15 |  Jerryskids | 

    @Burgers Allday – I should have said *some* of the comments. Mostly it was the ones complaining about this “new law” that would allow anybody to slaughter cops wholesale. It’s not a new law, it’s the basic right of self-defense and you still cannot resist legal police actions. It is shocking to me that anyone could defend the idea that you have no right to defend yourself against illegal police actions. (Nah, I’m lying. Nothing shocks me anymore.)

  16. #16 |  marco73 | 

    Actually, only if his wife asked me really nicely.

  17. #17 |  C. S. P. Schofield | 

    “When innocence isn’t enough.”

    Screw the Civil Rights issue. The people involved should be charged with conspiracy to commit murder, using the State as the murder weapon. No, I’m not joking. This crap will continue until some weasel prosecutor is put on death row because he played fast and loose with somebody’s life.

  18. #18 |  CyniCAl | 

    Since that will never happen, this crap will continue.

    Lynching, like terror, is a tactic. Wars on Tactics always fail. But those who fight them get rich, rich, rich.

  19. #19 |  Yizmo Gizmo | 

    SC man:
    “Even though he walked out of court on Friday, none can call it justice.”

    Reminds me of a quote by Alexandr Solzhenitsyn, something along the lines of “Justice occurs very infrequently, and when it does occur, it is usually by accident.”

  20. #20 |  nemo | 

    In re Indiana: It becomes immediately obvious which commenters are wearing badges…or who’s prone to licking them.

    Which leads me to observe that just like almost any‘dangerous’ job, cops can quit at any time. Really. I mean, how many times were they actually begged by the taxpayer to take on that job? I would say that you would be very hard pressed to find many taxpayers who did so.

    They don’t like their jobs, they can turn in that taxpayer-supplied uniform, badge and weapon and go work in a factory some place. Nothing like freedom of choice, huh?

  21. #21 |  Medicine Man | 

    Off-topic but do you have any thoughts on the appointment of Tony Woodlief and John Hinderaker to the board of Cato? Neither of these guys are libertarians; in fact, Woodlief is stridently anti-libertarian. This is vexing but I haven’t found any commentary on this in libertarian circles yet.

  22. #22 |  Xenocles | 

    “Any law that puts a Police Officers life in more danger, is a bad idea.”

    And yet they keep launching home invasions at night.

  23. #23 |  supercat | 

    I would like to see a statute which explicitly stated that police who are breaking into a dwelling for legitimate purposes must make a bona fide effort to be recognized as police who are acting legitimately; the shooting of police who fail to do so shall be considered justified. Anyone charged with harming a police officer who was breaking into a property shall have the right to argue that the officer was not acting in good faith to make apparent his identity and role as police officer on legitimate business, and have the matter put before a jury, which would be instructed to acquit if it found that either (1) the police officer was in fact not acting in good faith as required by the statute, without regard for whether or how the defendant might reasonably have known that, or (2) a reasonable person in the defendant’s shoes would have had no reason to believe that the intruder might be an officer acting in good faith, even if he was (in general, if the officer was truly acting in good faith, a reasonable person would recognize that he might be; nonetheless, it may be possible for an officer to try to make his identity apparent, but some unforeseen chain of events to render his efforts ineffective; a defendant should not bear the brunt of such misfortune).

    Such a statute would improve the safety both law-abiding police officers and citizens alike, by deterring police conduct which would otherwise work to the detriment of both.

  24. #24 |  C. S. P. Schofield | 


    I have what I believe is a better idea; a statute that explicitly limits forced entry to a very few, carefully limited situations where lives may be at stake. Screw ‘they might destroy evidence’. If that’s going to cripple your case, you probably shouldn’t be making that case in the first place. The problem is the large number of situation in which the Lawr feels justified in kicking somebody’s door in instead of ringing the doorbell and presenting a warrant. Cut that idiocy back, and the really smelly incidents should mostly dry up.

    But I’m against laws against drugs, bookmaking, etc. in the first place.

  25. #25 |  Mannie | 

    If the police want to enter your home with or without legal authority, they will do so and make up the reasons afterward, if necessary. If you resist with a weapon, you are likely to leave in a bag, and no law will change that. The cops will agree afterward on what happened.

    Where this law can really help, is to defeat the bogus charge of resisting, if you show insufficient respect, and don’t kiss their boots quickly enough.

  26. #26 |  firehat | 

    FYI, the Texas Court of Criminal Appeals is not just an appeals court, it’s the state’s criminal supreme court. Texas has two courts-of-last-resort: one civil (the Texas Supreme Court) and one criminal (the CCA).

  27. #27 |  Windy | 

    WA lawmakers are trying to create a Blue Alert (based on the Amber Alert) for when an officer is shot by someone. For years I’ve been asking why a murder of a LEO should be treated any differently than the murder of anyone else, what makes them so special? I oppose this proposed law on the basis that LEOs are people just like anyone else, no better, no worse and no more important, and their deaths (including by, murder, accident, and/or natural causes) should be treated in the exact same way as the death of a non-LEO and vice versa, no more pomp and ceremony, and given no more importance.

  28. #28 |  Pablo | 

    Re: New Orleans–If the ticket is unpaid, the money is taken “out of the budget of the department the employee works in.” I guess that is a step in the right direction. But how about taking it out of the employee’s paycheck?

    #27 Windy–Excellent comment. It has always bothered me that in some jurisdictions, murder of an LEO carries an enhanced penalty (e.g. death or no parole). No one’s life is worth more than another’s.

  29. #29 |  gersan | 

    The reason why Putin won:

    He got the majority of votes.

    Just because we in the US of A don’t like Putin doesn’t mean those in Russia feel the same way. People remember what it was like under Yeltsin, and they don’t want to return to that. In the 90s, Russia was labeled a “banana republic without the bananas”. But that would be putting it too kindly, because in banana republics workers at least get paid.

    Those jokers shouting “fraud” in Russia are actually paid to do so by western interest groups, and the vast majority of Russian know this, and therefore don’t care about their opinions.

  30. #30 |  Pugnacious | 


    Sarkozy is married to Carla Bruni, you know?

  31. #31 |  el coronado | 

    The reason why Putin won:

    Is the same reason why Hugo Chavez “won” his “election” to be el grande caudillo….er “President” for life: He and his boys counted the votes.

    One wonders who the jokers posting “Fair & square!” on websites are employed by, innit?

  32. #32 |  Pugnacious | 

    You are a donkey, Mr. Danger!

  33. #33 |  Pugnacious | 

    @ # 8

    How many times have you dined upon dead animal parts from Kosher veal?

    Reared on a dairy farm back in the 60s, I find that the raising of Kosher veal to be a cruel and inhumane treatment of animals.