Autobiography is very much my favorite genre, so this will be colored by that. IDK if this matches “facts” but it is fascinating windows into little sections of the world I had not known existed.

• “Trawler” by Redmond O’Hanlon - The insane people who catch all the fish you eat
• “Confessions of an Economic Hit Man” by John Perkins - How neoliberalism works in terrifying detail
• “Failure is Not an Option” by Gene Kranz - How the space program actually functioned

These ones might be more what you had meant about it:

• “Never Home Alone” by Rob Dunn - Little creatures that share your home
• “God’s Bestseller” by Brian Moynahan - The medieval church kills a bunch of people to stop people reading the bible for themselves in English, and how it got translated despite their efforts

who said he was surrounded and attacked by 10 young assailants outside his car

X

I fully expect that at some point soon someone will release video showing Señor Balls creating or escalating a confrontation with two or three fifteen-year-olds, and then them beating the shit out of him in turn while he cowers.

Edit: I checked the photo. The fact that his shirt was off, but apparently undamaged, is I feel like another little clue supporting my random speculation here.

Obviously, if you’re doing the same gimmick it would be easy to pick you out

I think this is the issue. Lemmy isn’t Reddit yet (although, give it time.) Most people who are copping bans at this stage are either (a) being insufferable in some fashion or other and refusing to stop (b) running afoul of lemmy.ml. I think in almost all cases of (a), what they are doing is returning exactly to form with the new account and then being all surprised that no one’s throwing roses and cheering them on this time around.

PTB I guess, the nottheonion mods seem to be terrible. In fairness though, I saw the headline and also assumed it was porn spam.

I think this is more on Vice than on you, the article was fine, but they can’t give titles like that if the thing is ever going to be posted anywhere other than on Vice’s site in among with a bunch of other articles to give it social proof. It’s like anti-clickbait.

Rumor from the mods is that behavior is pretty recognizable. You have to be sort of identifiable in some way or other to attract mod attention, so in most cases it’s pretty obvious when one account is doing one type of behavior, gets banned for it, and then a new account emerges that’s doing the exact same behavior.

Situations are different of course, but I think especially for the more justified bans it’s not as hard as it would seem like (even when IP address matching is not involved.)

Because at a certain point, it becomes just wishful thinking. It’s the same reason that all the people who are completely fine with causing death and misery on a global scale when they want to, have magically declared this one method of death and misery to be off limits. And against all odds (so far) actually stuck to it.

The reason is that there’s no way at all they can prevent it coming back around on them, and their families, no longer safe in their homes. More or less right away, and more or less guaranteed. And magically, all of a sudden, they turn sensible and humane.

It is rare for me to read something on the internet that literally knocks me back in my chair a little

And, if he’d lost the coin toss, he would have decided he should flip again, because that one didn’t count.

You gotta talk to the legislature, tell them that if someone gets pulled over the rule should be that they get to just tell the cops to go fuck themselves, and it’s okay because ACAB.

Start a movement, see if you can get a whole city where the city council’s on board with it. Try the experiment. Things aren’t as fixed as you think they are, a lot of it is changeable. (Well, on the local level at least, IDK if we wait a year you may get your fantasy coming true where the federal level is defining what law enforcement is, and no one who’s a “civilian” can exercise any control over it.)

What the fuck, he looks weird and awful even in the retouched version. He looks like Michael Scott wearing the women’s blazer. He looks like a lumpy old sofa that’s gotten shiny where people have rubbed it too much. He looks like he has no eyes and has stolen some other person’s teeth but they don’t quite fit in his mouth right. He just looks fuckin’ weird.

WHAT THE FUCK THAT ONE’S WORSE

Yeah, I saw the headline before and thought “Yeah, people do messed up stuff sometimes”

Then I saw this one and thought “in the FUCKING LUGGAGE COMPARTMENT?”

They chose that long ago.

Practically everyone in Washington has, as a matter of fact. There’s a reason they listen to consultants about how to fool the people instead of listening to the people about what they want and then delivering it. But the modern GOP has taken it to a whole new level, yes.

Absolutely not, make me suffer

It’s also functional, when I was a lad there was a pizza place near us that sold jalapeno pizza that we would get because it would greatly reduce the number of people who wanted to get a slice

To the other I added kielbasa, jalapeno and red onion.

Holy moley that looks delicious

Yeah, I’m not saying it doesn’t happen, I just don’t know of it.

I also like that judge, AI voice aside I feel like he has a perfectly valid point. I also have a feeling he was the same judge I saw scorching a prosecutor one time for cutting a plea deal where it seemed like they could have prosecuted the guy and he was getting away with sexual assault with a pretty minimal sentence, and he was furious at the prosecutor for not doing their job. He couldn’t exactly just take over the prosecution’s job for them, I think he sent the lawyers away to work out a new plea deal instead, and they came back with one that was still pretty minimal but I think added in some jail time. He sort of yelled at the guy some more and then just approved the plea deal, but if that is the judge I’m thinking of, it seems like he cares a lot about the purpose of what he’s doing, which is a really good thing.

I linked to the full bodycam video, the officer clearly says that there were two reasons for the stop: Headlights and seat belt.

Your video has the AI voice claiming that failing to give a Miranda warning before opening the door is a “clear 4th amendment red flag.” That’s a load of steaming crap. Moving on to the actual issue at hand, the charge there was for unlawful carrying of a weapon. The judge’s decision is that by the officer randomly opening the door of the guy’s vehicle, and then seeing the weapon, that means it was an unlawful search (it was “in plain view” according to the officer / prosecutor, but the judge says it wasn’t in plain view until you opened the door). That has literally nothing at all to do with the initial stop being unconstitutional, or failure to ID or anything. It’s just to do with how the cop found the gun.

Do you have one where the person failed to ID on a traffic stop, and their lawyer was able to make the argument that the initial stop was improper, and so they didn’t have to, and it worked? I feel like those would be super-easy to find, if that argument ever worked, since it is very commonly what people say while they are refusing to ID, and so if their lawyers were able to make it work we would have examples of it working.

https://www.hg.org/legal-articles/what-is-an-unlawful-police-stop-23464

If the cop sees you (allegedly) not wearing your seat belt, and then pulls you over for a seat belt violation, that’s a legal stop. I sort of agree with you that the headlights thing is bullshit (and briefly looking at the internet I think you’re right). For all I know the officer realized that the headlights was bullshit, and randomly added in the seat belt thing. But, regardless, him saying the issue was the seat belt is going to hold up in court completely, and so refusing to ID based on that is going to get you in trouble. Your lawyer is going to have a hell of a time making that argument, especially if you then obstructed and resisted arrest.

IDK where this “if I don’t agree, then I need to physically resist the cops, because it’ll be okay” thinking came from, but that’s not how it works legally. That’s part of why I am taking time to disagree with this, because people do get busted for crimes because of listening to what the internet told them.

And to answer yoir question, if you find footage where the initial stop was deemed unconstitutional, but the subsequent conviction fir failing to ID stands, I will accept that I am wrong.

What was a stop where the initial stop was even deemed unconstitutional? If I knew that, then I might be able to answer you. Except for some landmark cases, I don’t really know of it happening. I feel like that doesn’t happen very often. I feel like people getting charged for failing to ID is very common (including where they are trying to argue on the side of the road that the stop is improper in some way, and that’s why they are failing to ID and it’s okay.) That’s sort of my point.

You’re defining this as an illegal stop. It was not, in the legal terminology, an illegal stop. That’s part of where your confusion is coming in, I think.

I’m happy to find you one of these bodycam YouTube videos of someone failing to ID and getting their window busted out, and then look up the records and see if they actually got convicted of the failure to ID (or obstruction or whatever the statute is where they are). It may take me until later today. Would that influence you, if I found that?

He didnt do anything wrong - he was entirely within his rights to ask for a supervisor.

Absolutely (although they’re not obligated to fulfill the request… a lot of departments will, partly because when the stop is getting complicated they may want a supervisor to show up there anyway.) But anyway, that doesn’t absolve him of the requirement to provide an ID. He was arrested for failing to provide the ID, not for asking for a supervisor. Asking for the supervisor was a-OK, and if he’d done that while handing over his ID, he would have been fine.

Because if I fucking recall, George Floyd was not fighting back.

Yeah, and that’s why the cop is in prison right now alongside everyone who was with him that day. That was my point.

Pre-2014, charges for the cops were very rare even when they straight-up just shot somebody for more or less no reason. After that, it was intermittent, until 2020 was the inflection point where charges became practically universal, and also, those big walls of names of people who hadn’t done a damn thing who the cops had killed started drying up, because stuff had actually changed.

There’s a lot that still needs to change, a lot of bad things baked into the system still. But of course some dickheads can only hold one fairly simple type of world model in their head at one time, and so whenever any type of police interaction goes sideways in any manner, even one like this where it is objectively about 90% the guy in the driver’s seat who causes the whole issue in the first place, they start screaming BLACK LIVES MATTER, BLACK LIVES MATTER like that’s going to help everything get better.

This guy isn’t solving police brutality. He is helping to justify it, by diluting the examples of people who actually didn’t do anything, and providing a good example for people who want to say Breonna Taylor deserved it or whatever. Stop making him out as making some bold anti-racist stand because of what some other people did, successfully.