| ▲ | ikeboy 4 hours ago |
| The path to solving a culture that overincarcerates is not by incarcerating those involved in perpetuating that culture. We need to tame the impulse to throw people in jail for doing things we dislike, not just point it at different targets. I see several comments saying that criminal charges should be brought over this. That is not the way. |
|
| ▲ | ceejayoz 4 hours ago | parent | next [-] |
| We have overincarceration and underincarceration simultaneously. Some who are in jail should not be. Some who aren't in jail should be. If I locked you up for a month over a meme, I'd go to jail for years. |
| |
| ▲ | ikeboy 4 hours ago | parent [-] | | The system needs to change so pursuing frivolous or weak charges doesn't work. We also need to reform bail, which has gone way outside of historical/constitutional norms. Turning it into an escalating back and forth of each side trying to imprison the other, is not conducive to the kind of change we need. To take a recent example, while I don't particularly like James Comey or Letitia James, I don't think they should have been targeted. That kind of stuff is what happens when it escalates to each side calling for the other side to be locked up. | | |
| ▲ | postflopclarity 4 hours ago | parent | next [-] | | > each side trying to imprison the other, you're implying that the two sides are morally and legally equivalent, and both are just engaging in retaliatory squabbling. that is a ridiculous implication one "side" routinely flaunts the law, steals from the public, abuses and ignores the courts, and has a complete disregard for civil rights, legal procedure, and credibility. it uses the DoJ as a personal henchman, stringing up frivolous charges targeted at political enemies. the other "side" is trying to enforce the law. | | |
| ▲ | ikeboy 4 hours ago | parent [-] | | The thing is, each side will think you're talking about the other side. I view it differently. To me there's the pro incarceration side and the anti incarceration side. Both parties institutionally are pro prosecution and have failed to reign in abuses. Both sides have abused the courts. Instead of arguing over which side has abused them worse (I may not even disagree with you on that!) I prefer to focus on reducing the potential for abuse. | | |
| ▲ | mckn1ght 3 hours ago | parent [-] | | > I prefer to focus on reducing the potential for abuse. Sounds great in theory but at the end of the day the backstop to bad behavior is force, one avenue of which is incarceration. This is just the paradox of tolerance. |
|
| |
| ▲ | ceejayoz 4 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-] | | > The system needs to change so pursuing frivolous or weak charges doesn't work. Agreed. Cases this knowingly frivolous, for example, should be treated as the criminal kidnapping or false imprisonment it would be if any other citizen perpetrated it. | | |
| ▲ | ikeboy 4 hours ago | parent [-] | | How is that an example? Whatever you do now doesn't work retroactively. Changing the system means removing the potential for abuse of power, not punishing abuse of power after the fact. | | |
| ▲ | ceejayoz 4 hours ago | parent | next [-] | | > Whatever you do now doesn't work retroactively. The point of such a thing is to deter similar conduct in the future. The fact that this isn't a crime, and that qualified immunity typically means they can't even be held responsible civily, is part of what encourages police to commit misconduct like this. The only folks punished here were the local taxpayers footing the bill. | | |
| ▲ | ikeboy 4 hours ago | parent [-] | | If you're going to change the system, which you need to do to make it possible to bring charges in a case like this, the other changes I suggested would be more effective and harder to weaponize. The core problem here is that the system allowed an innocent person to stay in jail. That needs to be fixed on a system level, not by trying to punish people after the fact for bad outcomes. | | |
| ▲ | ceejayoz 4 hours ago | parent | next [-] | | > The core problem here is that the system allowed an innocent person to stay in jail. No; the system got the innocent person out of jail and a hefty settlement for their trouble. The system is now, unfortunately, allowing the guilty parties to stay employed as cops after performing a kidnapping. > That needs to be fixed on a system level, not by trying to punish people after the fact for bad outcomes. An accidental positive on a drug test is a bad outcome. Locking someone up for more than a month because they posted a photo of the President and a quote he actually said is a crime. | | |
| ▲ | ikeboy 4 hours ago | parent [-] | | See I don't view the guy getting out after 37 days as a success. It's a failure but it could have been worse. I also think every party involved in that failure should be fired and rendered unemployable in the field. | | |
| ▲ | kyleee an hour ago | parent [-] | | You may want to explain a bit better, as stated it sounds like you’d prefer he’d still be in jail: “ See I don't view the guy getting out after 37 days as a success” | | |
| ▲ | ikeboy 43 minutes ago | parent [-] | | The case shouldn't have been brought, but even if brought he should have had a prompt bond hearing and been let out within 24 hours. |
|
|
| |
| ▲ | SpicyLemonZest 2 hours ago | parent | prev [-] | | What could a systemic solution to this possibly look like? He didn't stay in jail for 37 days because the system left no room for any other possible outcome. There were a number of points at which he could have been released had the system worked correctly. But Sheriff Nick Weems, an official in a key position of authority administrating the local justice system, decided that he'd like to subvert the system and steal this man's freedom. So he used his authority and expertise to ensure the system did not work correctly. | | |
| ▲ | ikeboy 2 hours ago | parent [-] | | The magistrate judge should not have approved the warrant. They should have had a bail hearing within 24 hours, at which it would have been clear that they posed no threat. Instead somehow bail was set at $2 million and the hearing to reduce bail was delayed. Those are flaws in the system that should be fixed, and will continue harming people even without bad faith from sheriffs. |
|
|
| |
| ▲ | mindslight 3 hours ago | parent | prev [-] | | > Changing the system means removing the potential for abuse of power, not punishing abuse of power after the fact. At a certain point, punishing abuse of power after the fact is the only way to discourage the potential abuse of power. Like there is nothing that actually stops you or me from going and kidnapping someone. And that same dynamic applies to someone who happens to also be a sheriff who controls a jail due to his employment. There is no magic wand for the system to wave that makes it so that the individuals employed by that system can't simply break the law. | | |
| ▲ | ikeboy 2 hours ago | parent [-] | | The warrant here was approved by a magistrate judge, and I would suggest making the process for approval more robust to reduce this kind of abuse. Personal civil liability and firing can also help. | | |
| ▲ | mindslight 2 hours ago | parent [-] | | I don't think magistrates rule on questions of law (maybe you were implying this, but maybe not). But in general the whole legal/justice system is basically blind to the harm it itself causes, so I don't think an actual judge looking at the merits of a warrant would be terribly adversarial to a sheriff either - they work together all the time, and most of the warrants presented by the sheriff are legitimate. I do agree with you in general that we should aim to split system functions between multiple people. But this merely raises the bar, it doesn't make corrupt actions impossible. Which means we should be focusing on both avenues of reform, rather than emphasizing one to downplay another. Especially as when you do this, the entrenched system seems to takes advantage of the downplaying while resisting the solution being emphasized. | | |
| ▲ | ikeboy 2 hours ago | parent [-] | | Magistrates are supposed to verify that the warrant contains probable cause and reject ones that don't. You could make the system more adversarial at that point, although I think enforcing bail hearings where a public defender can argue would help in this and many other cases. | | |
| ▲ | mindslight an hour ago | parent [-] | | Shooting from the hip, I'd think a properly adversarial/just process would be something like a public defender (or other attorney of the person's choosing) who is paid out of government funds. Then there should probably be different classes of warrants, with the lowest class being something like the person is notified and able to choose their representation to challenge the warrant before it's even issued (presumably non-violent, no flight risk, etc), with escalating classes based on those factors. But even then, abuse of that classification is something that could routinely happen and would need to be punished post-facto. Imagine the same sheriff looking to perform the same retaliation, so he checks all the boxes for a no-notice no-knock warrant that still results in an arrest with a weekend in jail. Which is why my main point is that we shouldn't argue against one avenue of reform with the goal of emphasizing a different one. | | |
| ▲ | ikeboy an hour ago | parent [-] | | My concern is that new crimes will be weaponized. | | |
| ▲ | mindslight 18 minutes ago | parent [-] | | As opposed to the current status quo where would-be criminal actions of public officials against otherwise-uninvolved private citizens go unpunished? I don't find this argument compelling, as it would at least limit the blast radius to people who get involved in public office. And once again there isn't much that can be done about corrupt public officials unjustly prosecuting/persecuting former officials as it comes down to that same human problem rather than a system problem. The persecutions of Comey and James rely on a post-truth electorate that doesn't care, and who chose to reelect a destructive tyrant who repudiates our American values merely to stick a fork in the eye of "the elites". And while we can also talk about ways of reforming the system to prevent that (eg Constitutional amendment that explicitly divides power amongst independent agencies), I don't think it has much bearing on how we should be drawing legal lines in the sand to constrain public officials. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| |
| ▲ | caconym_ 4 hours ago | parent | prev [-] | | I don't think both-sidesing this is particularly appropriate. Law enforcement officers who abuse their position to harm people under false pretenses should be prosecuted as criminals, because that's what they are. This is true in any political environment and entirely distinct from the Trump administration's malicious and baseless abuse of the legal system against Trump's perceived enemies. You are demonstrating what I think will be one of the most pernicious outcomes of the Trump administration's transformation of the Justice Department: the blurring of lines between law enforcement, criminality, and corruption as the institution is debased and public trust is lost. | | |
| ▲ | ikeboy 3 hours ago | parent [-] | | Public trust should be lost, because these institutions were never trustworthy. I am not both sidesing. I'm saying that there are better reform options than adding additional criminal statutes that are likely to be abused. Put simply, do you want the Trump administration to be able to bring criminal charges against any prosecutor or judge that they can argue brought a bad case? | | |
| ▲ | caconym_ 3 hours ago | parent [-] | | You could make this argument about anything. We should have no laws, because they might be abused by a malicious prosecutor. Utter nonsense. | | |
| ▲ | ikeboy 3 hours ago | parent [-] | | We should indeed get rid of many laws because the benefit is outweighed by the abuse. America has one of the highest rates of incarceration in the world (used to be #1) but suggest that maybe we're overcriminalized and you must be talking nonsense. | | |
| ▲ | caconym_ 3 hours ago | parent [-] | | You are not suggesting that "maybe we're overcriminalized". You are suggesting that we should not hold law enforcement accountable for egregious abuses of power that do real harm to real people. You think it should
not be considered criminal for a police officer to put somebody in prison (under threat of bodily harm or death, by default) just because they feel like it, or whatever. You think police officers should be able to rape innocent travelers on the side of the road and face no consequences for it. You think police officers should be able to scream conflicting orders at somebody and then shoot them in the head because "they were reaching for a weapon". Or do you not? All these things happen in America, and the officers involved almost never face meaningful consequences. Where do you draw the line, if at all? | | |
| ▲ | ikeboy 3 hours ago | parent [-] | | I haven't said those things. Rape and murder are existing crimes, and they should be applied equally to police officers. I think that the core problem with the system is not individual bad actors, but overcriminalization and the acceptance of that by judges and juries. To solve that you need actual reform, and adding a new crime that would inevitably be weaponized is not the way. The whole concept of holding people "accountable" is the wrong frame. It's precisely that mindset that created this highly flawed system. I want to reduce bad things, not to feel good because people who did bad things are punished. And when you think about how to prevent bad cases from being brought, you need to systematically reduce the power of those who can make such decisions. Added: I do want strong civil liability for these cases, which we do have, which is why OP was able to get a good settlement. We should expand that to federal cases and lower the threshold. | | |
| ▲ | ceejayoz 3 hours ago | parent | next [-] | | > Rape and murder are existing crimes, and they should be applied equally to police officers. How about kidnapping and false imprisonment, as in this case? | | |
| ▲ | ikeboy 2 hours ago | parent [-] | | As I mentioned elsewhere, neither currently apply because due process of law was followed. | | |
| ▲ | ceejayoz 2 hours ago | parent [-] | | How can a deliberate blatant violation of the First Amendment be "due process of law"? | | |
| ▲ | ikeboy 2 hours ago | parent [-] | | Look up the elements of false imprisonment. When there's a warrant, even if wrongly granted, the arrest and imprisonment is considered lawful. | | |
| ▲ | ceejayoz 2 hours ago | parent [-] | | No, it isn't. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Habeas_corpus | | |
| ▲ | ikeboy 2 hours ago | parent [-] | | What does that have to do with the elements of false imprisonment? | | |
| ▲ | ceejayoz 2 hours ago | parent [-] | | "invoking the jurisdiction of a court to review the unlawful detention or imprisonment of an individual" would seem to indicate that such a detention can be deemed unlawful, yes? | | |
| ▲ | ikeboy an hour ago | parent [-] | | In short, unlawful means different things in different contexts. In the context of false imprisonment, it generally means without legal process, and legal process later overturned does not count. See eg. https://caselaw.findlaw.com/court/us-supreme-court/549/384.h... >Reflective of the fact that false imprisonment consists of detention without legal process, a false imprisonment ends once the victim becomes held pursuant to such process--when, for example, he is bound over by a magistrate or arraigned on charges. Dobbs, supra, §39, at 74, n. 2; Keeton, supra, §119, at 888; H. Stephen, Actions for Malicious Prosecution 120-123 (1888). Thereafter, unlawful detention forms part of the damages for the "entirely distinct" tort of malicious prosecution, which remedies detention accompanied, not by absence of legal process, but by wrongful institution of legal process |
|
|
|
|
|
|
| |
| ▲ | caconym_ 3 hours ago | parent | prev [-] | | > I haven't said those things. No, but they clearly follow from what you have said. > Rape and murder are existing crimes, and they should be applied equally to police officers. Okay, but they aren't, because police enjoy broad immunity and benefit of the doubt from (and during) prosecution. How do you suggest we fix this? Additionally, I am not sure you appreciate the magnitude of harm that can be caused by locking somebody up for months. They can lose their house, their job, their pets, their kids. They miss important life events. The payout in this case was fully justified, though, of course---since the officer himself was not held accountable---it is the taxpayer who will foot the bill. > The whole concept of holding people "accountable" is the wrong frame. It's precisely that mindset that created this highly flawed system. I want to reduce bad things, not to feel good because people who did bad things are punished. Holding people accountable is not the same as pursuing retributive justice for its own sake. I agree that the latter is bad and that it is pervasive in our justice system. But I don't agree that we shouldn't hold people responsible in any way for what they have done, especially if there are no mitigating factors. | | |
| ▲ | ikeboy 2 hours ago | parent [-] | | I would get rid of all forms of immunity and mandate body cameras. Probably also raise requirements for police officers. And part of it is reducing the scope of what the cops are meant to enforce. I appreciate the massive harms done by incarceration, which I why I support vastly reducing it. | | |
| ▲ | caconym_ 2 hours ago | parent [-] | | > I would get rid of all forms of immunity IIUC getting rid of "all forms of immunity" would essentially make it impossible for police officers to arrest anybody in good faith without exposing themselves to criminal prosecution (maybe that's what you want). But weakening or eliminating QI, which shields officers from civil liability, is sorely needed. You didn't ask, but I'm not necessarily in favor of throwing cops in jail in many of these misconduct cases (for practical reasons at the very least). What should happen is that they be thrown off the force for good and prevented from working in law enforcement ever again. I don't believe you would need new criminal statutes to accomplish this, but what you would need (per jurisdiction) is political will to make it happen, perhaps starting with an independent review commission or similar, but making sure they can't just go one county or state over will be much more difficult. > mandate body cameras They just turn them off, or the footage gets "lost". This won't work without much broader reform (and, dare I say it, accountability). > Probably also raise requirements for police officers I agree. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| ▲ | digdugdirk 4 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-] |
| Indeed. Thankfully - as has been proven time and time again in America - if leniency is given to those who abuse their power, they will absolutely never ever decide to abuse their power again. |
| |
| ▲ | ikeboy 4 hours ago | parent [-] | | Nobody should have that power. What kind of mindset do you need to have where you think the only way to prevent someone from doing something is via the threat of imprisonment after the fact? The vast majority of people don't do this, and that's because they don't have the power to do it, not because they don't want to. |
|
|
| ▲ | BoggleOhYeah 4 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-] |
| Sure. Let’s start pushing back against over-incarceration by not punishing people that knowingly did something wrong and flies in the face of the country’s supposed values. Makes sense. |
| |
| ▲ | ikeboy 4 hours ago | parent [-] | | We should start by removing the ability of prosecutors and police to bring such cases in the first place. | | |
| ▲ | ceejayoz 4 hours ago | parent [-] | | What does that look like here? They falsely claimed he'd made an actionable threat. We can't remove their power to request warrants and arrest people for legitimately threatening others, right? They misused power. | | |
| ▲ | ikeboy 4 hours ago | parent [-] | | The magistrate judge is supposed to be a check on that power. Unfortunately, they've become rubber stamps for the most part. In a functioning system, the judge would block the warrant and arrest. I think there are ways to have a system where judges do that, without having to criminally prosecute either cops or judges. | | |
| ▲ | ceejayoz 4 hours ago | parent [-] | | > In a functioning system, the judge would block the warrant and arrest. But they lied to obtain the warrant. | | |
| ▲ | ikeboy 3 hours ago | parent [-] | | OP says that they left out information (which cops do all the time) but that the warrant shouldn't have been granted either way because of SCOTUS precedent. Would welcome reform that makes it harder to lie on warrant affidavits, although again, that should be civil in nature. | | |
| ▲ | ceejayoz 3 hours ago | parent [-] | | > they left out information Yes, we call that lying by omission. They knew that information would result in the warrant not being granted, so they left it out. | | |
| ▲ | ikeboy 3 hours ago | parent [-] | | I doubt that. The magistrate judge already granted an unconstitutional warrant, why assume the result would be different with more info? | | |
| ▲ | ceejayoz 3 hours ago | parent [-] | | As you are well aware, they kept important facts from the magistrate judge to obtain said warrant. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| ▲ | archonis 4 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-] |
| If you don't hold people accountable for removing the liberty of others without just cause, those who abuse their power will continue to run rampant. |
| |
| ▲ | ikeboy 4 hours ago | parent [-] | | Where does this idea come from that we somehow can't take power away from people without criminal punishment after the fact? Nobody should have this power, and then abuse of power wouldn't be an issue. |
|
|
| ▲ | gdilla 4 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-] |
| that is literally the way. these maga law breakers need accountability. They got off scott free for j6. we're still fighting the civil war and white fragility because they suffered no consequences the last time. |
| |
| ▲ | malfist 4 hours ago | parent [-] | | Not just scott free, but they might be getting a million dollars each from tax payers due to that asinine "settlement" from Trump suing the government. | | |
| ▲ | ikeboy 4 hours ago | parent | next [-] | | This is another example of the kind of partisan thinking I'm criticizing. It's nearly impossible to get paid for malicious prosecution by the federal government. Read up on https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hyde_Amendment_(1997) >A 2010 investigation by USA Today "found the law has left innocent people... coping not only with ruined careers and reputations but with heavy legal costs. And it hasn't stopped federal prosecutors from committing misconduct or pursuing legally questionable cases."[5] The investigation "documented 201 cases in the years since the law's passage in which federal judges found that Justice Department prosecutors violated laws or ethics rules. Although those represent a tiny fraction of the tens of thousands of federal criminal cases filed each year, the problems were so grave that judges dismissed indictments, reversed convictions or rebuked prosecutors for misconduct. Still, USA Today found only 13 cases in which the government paid anything toward defendants' legal bills. Most people never seek compensation. Most who do end up emptyhanded."[5] The case in OP would never have settled if it was against the federal government rather than a state. Also, the feds cap the amount paid for wrongful imprisonment at $50k/year, by statute. We need a way to make the federal government pay out for malicious prosecution cases, just as OP got paid. See e.g. Douglass Mackey. He posted some misleading memes on Twitter about the election, falsely claiming that people could vote by text, and got arrested and found guilty at trial until eventually the 2nd circuit said that what he did wasn't a crime. Should he be compensated? Should the prosecutor and judge in his case face their own criminal prosecutions? | | |
| ▲ | ceejayoz 4 hours ago | parent | next [-] | | > It's nearly impossible to get paid for malicious prosecution by the federal government. We'll see. https://www.justice.gov/opa/pr/justice-department-announces-... > See e.g. Douglass Mackey. He posted some misleading memes on Twitter about the election, falsely claiming that people could vote by text, and got arrested and found guilty at trial until eventually the 2nd circuit said that what he did wasn't a crime. Should he be compensated? Should the prosecutor and judge in his case face their own criminal prosecutions? "falsely claiming" is a pretty big distinction between these cases, yes? https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Douglass_Mackey says he got off, in part, because no one provably fell for his trick, not that the behavior was legal. | | |
| ▲ | ikeboy 4 hours ago | parent [-] | | I've read the second circuit opinion and saying that it was legal is a fair takeaway. They didn't reach the 1st amendment grounds though because they didn't need to once determining that he didn't conspire as required (technically, they didn't prove he conspired.) Of course any two cases are going to be different, and the guy posting memes on your side is going to be more sympathetic to you than the guy posting memes that you don't like. That's part of my point. If you create a criminal statute that applies to OP, someone is going to try applying it in a case like Mackey's. If you don't think it should be applied in Mackey's case, how would you word it to cover just the cases you like and not those you don't? | | |
| ▲ | ceejayoz 3 hours ago | parent [-] | | That doesn't seem so hard. Per this article: > That meme — which Larry didn’t create or alter... > Weems admitted in a later interview that he knew at the time of the arrest that Larry’s Facebook post was a pre-existing meme that referred to an actual shooting that took place in a different state, over 500 miles away… He didn't create it, the meme was accurate, and the cops knew that. Every bit of the conduct they attempted to punish was clearly legal, and they knew it. The opinion you reference is at https://ww3.ca2.uscourts.gov/decisions/OPN/23-7577_opn.pdf. "cannot alone establish Mackey’s knowing agreement" clearly indicates that things would have been different if they could have established that conduct. | | |
| ▲ | ikeboy 3 hours ago | parent [-] | | When an appeals court rules on one issue that's enough to decide the case, they often don't rule on the remaining issues. Anyway I don't see how you'd word a law that only applies to the cases you like and not the ones you don't. Also, other people will like different cases than you, including the judge and jury in whatever case gets brought based on the statute you're proposing. | | |
| ▲ | ceejayoz 3 hours ago | parent [-] | | > Anyway I don't see how you'd word a law that only applies to the cases you like and not the ones you don't. Terms like "willful" and "intent" are all over our laws and would work just fine here. Assessing that is why we have juries. |
|
|
|
| |
| ▲ | malfist 3 hours ago | parent | prev [-] | | I'm sure that the DOJ, headed by Trump's personal attorney, will get right on the Trump administration to prevent them from violating the Hyde amendment. This comment has too much snark, but anybody who says the Trump administration won't do something because it's illegal/against norms __hasn't been paying attention__ | | |
| ▲ | ikeboy 3 hours ago | parent [-] | | That's not at all what I said. I'm saying that for decades, people who were maliciously prosecuted by the federal government had effectively no recourse. It's good to change that, and I'm hopeful that the new fund does some of that. I would prefer to change the system to vastly reduce the threshold for finding the federal government liable in such cases. | | |
| ▲ | malfist 3 hours ago | parent [-] | | Are you asserting that the folks who participated in a literal coup attempt were maliciously prosecuted by the federal government? Because that sounds like the position you're arguing from. | | |
| ▲ | ikeboy 3 hours ago | parent [-] | | If you include the guy who was arrested for posting memes as participating in a coup, sure. "But the memes were misleading" (as someone else in this thread was arguing) I don't care. |
|
|
|
| |
| ▲ | amanaplanacanal 4 hours ago | parent | prev [-] | | Was there an actual judge in this case? If so, that judge should never have approved this settlement. Of all the horrifying things this administration has done, this one is near the top of the list. | | |
| ▲ | QuercusMax 3 hours ago | parent [-] | | The judge in the case in fact put out a statement that there WAS no settlement. > Kathleen Williams, the judge handling the lawsuit, dismissed the case on Monday and, in her filing, admonished the government agencies, notably the Justice Department, for failing to be transparent about the settlement. > She said no agency "submitted any settlement documents nor filed any documents ensuring that settlement was appropriate where there was an outstanding question as to whether an actual case or controversy existed." https://www.npr.org/2026/05/19/g-s1-122938/irs-trump-settlem... |
|
|
|
|
| ▲ | dfxm12 3 hours ago | parent | prev [-] |
| This is a grossly disingenuous strawman. The top comment as of posting clearly states "The sheriff that arrested him should face criminal charges for misuse of authority." False imprisonment is against the law, this situation is far from merely doing something we dislike. |
| |
| ▲ | ikeboy 3 hours ago | parent [-] | | False imprisonment generally doesn't apply when due process is followed, like getting a warrant. You'd have to change the law to allow for prosecutions in cases like this, and that change would likely be weaponized in other cases. | | |
| ▲ | dfxm12 3 hours ago | parent [-] | | Your comment spoke to the commenter's motivation, not about how likely any proposed charges were to stick from a technical standpoint in this particular jurisdiction. So, you have abandoned defending your original claim and moved the goalposts elsewhere. | | |
| ▲ | ikeboy 3 hours ago | parent [-] | | What? My original comment says that we need to reform in a different way. | | |
| ▲ | dfxm12 2 hours ago | parent [-] | | Your original comment is different from "we need to reform in a different way". If that's what you meant, that's not what you posted. | | |
| ▲ | ikeboy 2 hours ago | parent [-] | | >We need to tame the impulse to throw people in jail for doing things we dislike And in comments I expanded on this and gave several specific reforms. Not sure what your understanding was. | | |
| ▲ | dfxm12 2 hours ago | parent [-] | | If you refer to my earlier post, I show how it is disingenuous to claim that people are having this impulse. They are not. You are arguing against a strawman. Hope that clears this up, because I don't know how to state it clearer. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
