If they don’t like that, they are free to quit. At any time they want. Just as is every other civilian. Starting all over again in middle-age is hard, yes. I had to do it after running afoul of the drug laws and being reduced to penury. But I worked my way back up after some very, very hard years. They won’t have the problems that I did and should have it lots easier.

Which calls the mind the fact that they volunteered to attach themselves to the public treasury teat. How many of their neighbors got down on their knees and pleaded and begged for them to become police officers? I doubt very many did. They certainly have not been dragooned into it.

So..if they don’t like the working conditions, they are free to seek employment elsewhere. A hallmark of a ‘free’ society. Isn’t this a great country, or what?

It’s why I defend the UK’s system of having a professional civil service organisation doing the prosecution, with a strong test of the public interest before they bring charges. They can, and frequently do, drop charges.

(Which is even more important now there’s increasing political pressure on police and judges)

It’s interesting how the definitions of negligence and recklessness in UK and US law differ, too….

Prosecutors use and abuse ALL the laws. If you changed 1001, they would move to something else. And, as we know, law enforcement seems to have no problems going well beyond the law to achieve their ends.

Better to focus on the abuse of power by prosecutors and police.

And she really did take a serious eye injury.

Pretty women are human beings, even if they do something undignified.

Personally, I do not claim to possess the ability to read minds, but the state on a regular basis relies on their own ability to divine intent of many minds that they have either just met or have never met.

The alternative to this is to make laws without a mens rea requirement, and those are FAR FAR FAR worse, as evidenced by their obscene abuses (only partially) cataloged here.

any of the “news” media are okay sources, as long as you are aware they almost certainly are not giving you the whole story.

There is certainly some truth in this, but my question was about why Fox seemed to be targetted particularly, when they are the least offender of the group (and not by a small margin).

…but the problem is not the law, its the prosecutors and judges who allow them to argue intent based on flimsy evidence.

In my opinion this means the problem is the law.

Personally, I do not claim to possess the ability to read minds, but the state on a regular basis relies on their own ability to divine intent of many minds that they have either just met or have never met. People seem to think this mind-reading is OK even though Miss Cleo got sent to jail for it…after someone probably read her mind.

It’s worthwhile to keep shining the light on this reality, but it’s nothing new.

To translate: there is evidence, but I don’t like what it says, so I’ll instead just throw out my opinion without evidence as gospel truth and continue to make decisions from that viewpoint.

Also, the logic of “people don’t respect the people wearing our uniform, so we need to change our uniform” is all sorts of fun.

Other than the lack of evidence or reasoning, a brilliant op-ed.

And speaking of “catch-all laws” like 18 USC 1001, Ken at Popehat has a piece on 18 USC 1030 – which is like 1001 for computers. Pray to god they don’t find you reading this on your work computer, that’s a crime.

I don’t know for whom I’d cheer in a Gawker-Fox feud. But it will be fun to watch. And one can always hope both sides sustain heavy damage.

not that Fox is just wonderful, or anything, but which station isn’t far worse? Seriously, which station would you recommend? CNN (that has admitted lying to maintain “access”, among other ridiculous things), ABC/NBC/CBS (yeah, let’s see how they’ve handled the Martin/Zimmerman thing for just the most recent example, not to mention how they’ve SO SO SO in the tank for one party)?

To borrow/bastardize a famous quote: Fox is the worst possible news station… except for the all the others that actually exist.

Or am I missing one?

(a) Except as otherwise provided in this section, whoever, in any matter within the jurisdiction of the executive, legislative, or judicial branch of the Government of the United States, knowingly and willfully—
(1) falsifies, conceals, or covers up by any trick, scheme, or device a material fact;
(2) makes any materially false, fictitious, or fraudulent statement or representation; or
(3) makes or uses any false writing or document knowing the same to contain any materially false, fictitious, or fraudulent statement or entry;
shall be [punished by fine and/or prison]

The plain language of the statute requires intent to deceive. Now, intent CAN be inferred by actions, but the problem is not the law, its the prosecutors and judges who allow them to argue intent based on flimsy evidence.

“[Some people say police militarization is] an understandable and justifiable answer to increasingly violent criminal behavior.”

If anybody does say that, then they’re lying or ignorant, as violent crime has been steadily plummeting for years (since 1990), as Radley wrote about in this great column (http://reason.com/archives/2009/10/19/were-all-felons-now), as was written about in ‘Freakonomics’, and has been thoroughly documented in a billion other places.

Once again, we get a drama queen who loves prostrating himself before the police and military and he gets his worldview from TV, movies, and the mainstream media which all portray violent crime as worse than ever, rather than observing the real world around him.

Jesse Ventura said it best, making inferences from Martha Stewart
(lying/jail) and WMD (rationale for war):
If you lie to the gov’t, you go to jail…
If they lie to us, we go to war…

But of course, it’s perfectly a-OK for a federal employee to lie to you – after all, you’re just a prole. Oh, and BTW, the FBI doesn’t ever record interviews/interrogations, so Mr. Fed might just _accidentally_ remember wrong at your trial as to what you said or didn’t say those several months ago, and off you go to prison, sucker!! (No no, not you, Mr. Corzine. It’s all been arranged, sir.)

So it’s one rule for THEM, another, infinitely more strict and open to abuse rule for US. And you don’t have a problem with that, SJE? Because it’s a convenient and easy tool for prosecutors to ramrod folks they _think_ are guilty? (or they don’t like; or some guy someone at Justice wants disappeared for awhile…) And heck, they wouldn’t be prosecuting the guy/gal if he *wasn’t* guilty, right?? Interesting. Now, where’d that old Sam Adams quote get to…..

Nice! If that guy committed 10 felonies in one day, that means I don’t have to commit any for *three* days!

http://www.cato-at-liberty.org/three-felonies-a-day/