Jump to content

Several shot during 3rd night of Kenosha riots


clapclapclap

Recommended Posts

Not sure deciding to make your ice cream a social justice warrior with hot farsical political takes is a winning strategy for increasing sales. Interesting that Unilever gives them free reign. Plays to the base of who buys overpriced ice cream I guess.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

46 minutes ago, Newdoc said:

Not sure deciding to make your ice cream a social justice warrior with hot farsical political takes is a winning strategy for increasing sales. Interesting that Unilever gives them free reign. Plays to the base of who buys overpriced ice cream I guess.

thets been their playbook for a while

  • Hook 'Em 1
  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Not sure deciding to make your ice cream a social justice warrior with hot farsical political takes is a winning strategy for increasing sales. Interesting that Unilever gives them free reign. Plays to the base of who buys overpriced ice cream I guess.
They have been doing it for a long time and keep getting away with it though. See their Israel stance and hypocrisy.

It's not even good ice cream which is what makes their hot takes so puzzling.
  • Hook 'Em 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

9 minutes ago, washparkhorn said:

The first thing we gotta do is kill all the marketers.

 

So is that too weak to be considered libel? The definition fits:

 
 
 
 
 
 
Libel is a method of defamation expressed by print, writing, pictures, signs, effigies, or any communication embodied in physical form that is injurious to a person's reputation, exposes a person to public hatred, contempt or ridicule, or injures a person in his/her business or profession.
  • Hook 'Em 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

15 minutes ago, Bevo said:

So is that too weak to be considered libel? The definition fits:

Libel is a method of defamation expressed by print, writing, pictures, signs, effigies, or any communication embodied in physical form that is injurious to a person's reputation, exposes a person to public hatred, contempt or ridicule, or injures a person in his/her business or profession.

Bill Hicks? Truth is a defense (kidding, sort of).

Actual malice (proven by clear and convincing evidence) is the Supreme Court standard. That's tough to prove. States vary.

Below was not defamatory according to Chief Justice Rehnquist, if you are looking for a measuring stick on actual malice. Fallwell and Flynt (the publisher who published the parody ad) hated each other. No actual malice was found by the US Supreme Court:

spacer.png

On another civil law tort issue, has anyone sued the City for its police department allowing these factions to engage in armed combat, complete with armed medics? Does the city have a duty to prevent armed clashes between factions? 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

5 hours ago, Message Board User said:

Everything is just so stupid these days and major brands are supporting this stupidity.

 

The conversation would certainly be different. 

But it is an unproveable counter-factual. Any hippy on LSD would tell you the future is unknowable. Marketing fail.

 

Edited by washparkhorn
Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, washparkhorn said:

Bill Hicks? Truth is a defense (kidding, sort of).

Actual malice (proven by clear and convincing evidence) is the Supreme Court standard. That's tough to prove. States vary.

Below was not defamatory according to Chief Justice Rehnquist, if you are looking for a measuring stick on actual malice. Fallwell and Flynt (the publisher who published the parody ad) hated each other. No actual malice was found by the US Supreme Court:

spacer.png

On another civil law tort issue, has anyone sued the City for its police department allowing these factions to engage in armed combat, complete with armed medics? Does the city have a duty to prevent armed clashes between factions? 

 

Thanks. I guess that only gives a part of the answer though. As a small company, if I was sued, I don't have a team of lawyers so I would probably settle to make the libel suit go away. Ben and Jerry's is a whole different animal, though. A big company can tie things up so it costs the claimant a lot of money. I would think Ben and Jerry's might still have to settle for the attorney's fees plus some amount to make the suit go away. Maybe it isn't worth an attorney's time to take on such a case, though. What are your thoughts?

 

As for your question, "On another civil law tort issue, has anyone sued the City for its police department allowing these factions to engage in armed combat, complete with armed medics? Does the city have a duty to prevent armed clashes between factions?", there isn't a good answer. Police interventions in riots have caused more harm than good throughout US history. Seattle et al, let things go for political reasons and it seems they were successful by their own measures. Personally, I think there needs to be intervention but we need a new way to intervene - Maybe water cannons - tear gas seems to look bad on video as canisters are thrown back at law enforcement. Short range technology to destroy cell phones would be awesome. I'm sticking with water cannons as a great option though. They don't even need to be pointed at anyone. Just pointing them over everyone's heads in places where the night time temperature is below 60 should work pretty well.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

38 minutes ago, Bevo said:

Thanks. I guess that only gives a part of the answer though. As a small company, if I was sued, I don't have a team of lawyers so I would probably settle to make the libel suit go away. Ben and Jerry's is a whole different animal, though. A big company can tie things up so it costs the claimant a lot of money. I would think Ben and Jerry's might still have to settle for the attorney's fees plus some amount to make the suit go away. Maybe it isn't worth an attorney's time to take on such a case, though. What are your thoughts?

 

As for your question, "On another civil law tort issue, has anyone sued the City for its police department allowing these factions to engage in armed combat, complete with armed medics? Does the city have a duty to prevent armed clashes between factions?", there isn't a good answer. Police interventions in riots have caused more harm than good throughout US history. Seattle et al, let things go for political reasons and it seems they were successful by their own measures. Personally, I think there needs to be intervention but we need a new way to intervene - Maybe water cannons - tear gas seems to look bad on video as canisters are thrown back at law enforcement. Short range technology to destroy cell phones would be awesome. I'm sticking with water cannons as a great option though. They don't even need to be pointed at anyone. Just pointing them over everyone's heads in places where the night time temperature is below 60 should work pretty well.

Police have no legally enforceable duty to do anything.

They can watch you be murdered in broad daylight and no lawsuit will lie against them.

  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

https://www.policemag.com/340436/21st-century-riot-control-tools

First off - Police Mag - Ha Ha. Second, I thought most of the ideas sucked. Malodorant may be good and heat waves as barricades may be better than riot police with shields. But cold malodorant rain may do a pretty good job of crowd control. Arrests afterwards may be kind of tricky if you have to bring them back to hq to book them.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 minutes ago, Johnny Sack said:

D823475B-8E03-461C-BBAF-E279E04829E0.jpeg

Were those three guys from New York and related?  I know the older guy molested his daughter when she was a teenager, one son hit his wife, and I've certainly done felonious amounts of blow with the other son.  I totally know this joke.  I think it ends with "The(never-accepted in proper Manhattan society) Aristocrats!" 

Edited by Lobo
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Justice system works! Justice system doesn’t work! Let the Justice system work…so nowadays if a verdict doesn’t go the way a particular group wants (regardless of the evidence presented at trial) the only recourse is to lose our shit and burn down a town? Ok. I really hate the times in which we live. I really do. This was an extremely weak case (not stanning for the defendant at all here) the way it was presented. Just like the George Floyd verdict we are hinging this delicate balance of humanity in America on a verdict. It makes me nervous. The Floyd verdict went the way it should have gone. What if it had not? Everyone is dug in this country on the fringes and they keep whipping this shit up into a frenzy. It’s just sad to watch. Kenosha is all boarded up. Whatever. Doesn’t matter…verdicts must now bend to the will of others and not be based on the evidence. No matter what side you’re on it’s a dangerous precedent being set here for the future and it scares the shit out of me. 

  • Hook 'Em 1
  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Imo, it would be worse for the prosecution to give the jury a charge that cannot convict on as a matter of law. You don't want the first thing discussed in deliberation why a charge would even be brought that clearly shouldn't have been.

Edited by JBJ
  • Hook 'Em 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

10 minutes ago, Nicole44 said:

1No matter what side you’re on it’s a dangerous precedent being set here for the future and it scares the shit out of me. 

A-men.

___________________________

Jury instructions being given by the judge (laying out the elements of law). 

Edited by washparkhorn
  • Hook 'Em 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Gun charge tossed because under that statute a 17 can openly carry a rifle or shotgun so long as it is not a short-barreled rifle or sawed off shotgun.

Whether he was legally carrying was not germane to his right to self defense.  But it takes away an argument made by tards that it did.

  • Hook 'Em 1
  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

26 minutes ago, Johnny Sack said:

a 17 can openly carry a rifle or shotgun so long as it is not a short-barreled rifle or sawed off shotgun

Combat-Inspired Cosmetic Effects on semi-automatic long rifles do not change the purpose for the form, purpose and function of the firearms. 

Cringe - sure. But not illegal.

Gun toting, hip gangsta wannabees have flooded the market. 

Spoiler

 

 

Edited by washparkhorn
  • Hook 'Em 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Google just pushed me from AP:

Quote

KENOSHA, Wis. (AP) — The judge at Kyle Rittenhouse’s murder trial on Monday dismissed a count of possession of a dangerous weapon by a person under 18, a misdemeanor that had appeared to be among the likeliest of the charges to net a conviction for prosecutors.

This for something he cannot possibly be guilty of.

  • Rage+1 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Nicole44 said:

Justice system works! Justice system doesn’t work! Let the Justice system work…so nowadays if a verdict doesn’t go the way a particular group wants (regardless of the evidence presented at trial) the only recourse is to lose our shit and burn down a town? Ok. I really hate the times in which we live. I really do. This was an extremely weak case (not stanning for the defendant at all here) the way it was presented. Just like the George Floyd verdict we are hinging this delicate balance of humanity in America on a verdict. It makes me nervous. The Floyd verdict went the way it should have gone. What if it had not? Everyone is dug in this country on the fringes and they keep whipping this shit up into a frenzy. It’s just sad to watch. Kenosha is all boarded up. Whatever. Doesn’t matter…verdicts must now bend to the will of others and not be based on the evidence. No matter what side you’re on it’s a dangerous precedent being set here for the future and it scares the shit out of me. 

It wasn't a weak case due to the way it was presented. It was a weak case due to lack of evidence. If anything, this case should never have been brought to trial. 

  • Hook 'Em 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

12 minutes ago, immortal13 said:

It wasn't a weak case due to the way it was presented. It was a weak case due to lack of evidence. If anything, this case should never have been brought to trial. 

I'm sure this was the prosecution having to take the case via public pressure after seeing what they actually had to work with

anigif_sub-buzz-25797-1525206643-7.gif

  • Haha 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Not disagreeing that it shouldn’t have been brought to trial. Unfortunately, that happens all the time. A grand jury will indict a ham sandwich and there is political pressure to do so in many cases (like this one.) This isn’t great but what scares me more is that juries are starting to feel pressure to render a verdict a certain way and we are setting a very dangerous precedent for when verdicts do not go in favor of whatever side wants them to go. It’s not CR. Everyone should be scared of this. 

  • Hook 'Em 8
  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites



×
×
  • Create New...