Not only did the police target this black man for essentially no reason (really? You chase a driver, which is dangerous to the entire community, because he's missing a mud flap?), the responding officers gave mixed commands at the same time, and then assaulted him with a dog while he had already surrendered.
Anyone want to bet that the culprit here gets a paid vacation while his department investigates and finds no wrongdoing?
We need to redo the police system in the US from the ground up.
I'm against doxxing in all of its forms. Privacy's a right and we should protect it, even when it makes it harder to punish the bad guys. So I'm not really mad about the outcome here. Not that I'd feel particularly bent out of shape about it if their images WERE revealed because it was pretty fucking easy to not be in that crowd inadvertently.
But we all know that's not why he's doing this. Mike Johnson doesn't believe in privacy or any other rights. He's a true conservative harnessing the apparatus of state to give comfort to his tribe and punish outsiders. He's using power to enforce his preferences and values on others. He's giving aid and comfort to the enemies of the United States because he approves of the attempt to undermine democracy and execute a fascists takeover of the nation. Because he's a traitor.
The main objective of releasing unblurred images publicly would be to assist with identification and investigation, right? To recruit the larger American audience to help the cops identify people.
Progressives are suddenly VERY enthusiastic to be deputized as cops when it comes to Jan 6.
That was my initial thought, but then I read the article.
DOJ does have that footage. But online sleuths have proven to be an extremely valuable resource in identifying Jan. 6 participants, using the CCTV footage to determine which rioters entered the building and then building a database with the clearest photos of those suspects. They have often used facial recognition for leads and have aided in hundreds of cases against Jan. 6 defendants.
Blurring the footage isn’t the empty gesture I thought it was. All he’s doing is exposing the layout of the building while protecting insurrectionists. Bear in mind that the building was deliberately designed in a confusing way for security purposes.
I'm against doxxing in all of its forms. Privacy's a right and we should protect it, even when it makes it harder to punish the bad guys. So I'm not really mad about the outcome here
I don't know that I'd agree with characterizing this as doxxing; I'd say it's more in line with reporting. Especially considering many of the terrorists involved in this attack are still at large.
You can have privacy in your private residence or at a private business. If you are in a public space you have never, ever had any expectation of privacy. This is as bad an argument as saying social media removing or censoring posts is against the right to freedom of speech.
That's a cop brain argument. Just because you're out "in public" does not give anyone permission to freely do with your personal information, such as images of you, however they so please. Utter horseshit. Your right to privacy in your affairs travels with you, and having a major political official post images of you which people may use to figuratively and literally attack you for political reasons without due process is about as major a violation as I can imagine, ignoring any other factors or details around that release.
You can make an argument that, this being an honest-to-god protest, maybe these people were conducting them in a fully-public way. I'd maybe buy that. But the burden needs to be pretty damn high on that, and so it's not a stupid little fucker like Mike Johnson's authority to make that decision.
Just because (US) law says that it is OK doesn't mean it is OK. Rights have supremacy over law and when the law stands in the way of rights, the law must change, not the rights. I'll remind you that in other places (e.g., Germany), this "out in public" distinction essentially does not exist.
Removing your rights requires due process, period. The (theoretically) proper agencies to follow that due process have the unredacted footage and so they can go through the procedures to release it justly if they feel it is necessary. Mike Johnson does not get to act as the judge, jury, and executioner in a case like this, no matter how much I expect anyone harmed by that act would be human shit.
We'll have no privacy rights at all in the near future if people keep uncritically accepting the arguments the cops make for when and where privacy exists.
Many rioters were identified by people who knew them based on previous footage. Anyone in the videos is already breaking the law, right? There were dozens of people livestreaming this already… I think you make a good point in general, but in this case I’m not sure I agree. There are places and times with an expectation of privacy, but storming your nation’s capitol in an attempt to stop the certification of a democratic election is probably not one
We don't leave it up to a religious fascist like Mike Johnson to chose who does or doesn't have rights. If a proper investigative body wants help identifying individuals, they can go through the proper procedures to release those images to ask the public for help identifying them. Which includes facing proper costs and consequences if any individuals are inappropriately identified by those efforts.
You're doing what the conservative SCOTUS justices always do when deleting our civil rights -- presuming the crime happened exactly as you believe it did then listing how bad it is in order to justify your conclusion that everyone involved should be drawn and quartered. It's an inversion of due process. Due process happens first, removal of rights second. If you have to remove rights first in order to have due process, there was no due process.
If you think it's a good point in general but don't agree in this case, I think you need to think about it a lot longer. Protecting rights is hard and sometimes requires letting some bad guys enjoy undue freedom. Privacy rights are under all-out assault right now and won't exist soon enough unless we follow rigorous, real principles around them.
I respect your position on this. I’m not clamoring for them to release the footage, censored or not. What is the difference between a public space and a private one, though? If I go to a concert and they record footage and later release it with my face in it, has my privacy been violated? Did I have a reasonable expectation of privacy? Is it different because the government recorded it in this case? Are your rights being removed by the government releasing footage of a “protest” or otherwise? I’m not sure I buy that any rights are being infringed here. I also don’t think I share much in common with SCOTUS. Let’s say the FBI released the uncensored footage asking for the public’s help in identifying potential criminals – is that different because it’s done attempting to solve a crime?
Sorry for the litany of question marks, just curious!
If I go to a concert and they record footage and later release it with my face in it, has my privacy been violated?
Yes, they need to get you to sign a release. Disseminating your images, ESPECIALLY for commercial purposes, without your express consent violates your rights.
Let’s say the FBI released the uncensored footage asking for the public’s help in identifying potential criminals – is that different because it’s done attempting to solve a crime?
It would be different if they followed due process -- that is, they followed relevant protocols (such as getting a warrant). Whether the current state of law adequately requires law enforcement agencies to go through this process is a separate but also very important discussion.
Shut it down then. Take away their weapon. The GOP already caught one car, let's see them catch another one.
The military already knows which party fucks with their paychecks and hinders their readiness. As Alabama has recently found out thanks to the PoS fascist Tommy Tuberville, the military will shutter bases or skip over those states for new programs.
Hope you will, really from the bottom of my heart. I am writing from the EU, a region where no matter what we vote we’re double tied with what you on the other side of the Atlantic decide. So please be wise next year and think of all the lives that depend on your freedom of choice.
We have a very shitty two party system here in the US. 3rd party candidates don’t receive screen time and anyone who gains momentum on their own that isn’t sanctioned by either of the two parties are pressured into backing out of the race while simultaneously endorsing one of the “chosen” candidates.
When you can have a president sit for 4 years and the country has only gotten worse, there should be no question about them running again. They do though. It’s not what the people want, it’s which of the two candidates is going to be less shitty. It’s far more important that we keep up the illusion of choice than actually give power to the people.
Even “less sh*tty” is a valid criterion, though! I totally agree with your idea about the “illusion of choice”, but it doesn’t depend on the number of parties. With many smaller parties it would be even worse, since after the elections nobody has the majority and they have to create (to say as much politely as possible) “original” coalitions to rule a government which in the end is useless because most decisions are supranational.
Yeah! Let’s vote even harder this time. We need to make sure the guy who got $250,000 from MBNA after he wrote the legislation that made student loans inescapable defeats a literal Nazi! That’ll teach em!
We've got a couple options change what we can, give up and revolution... two of those options are viable for me. ATM the best thing I can really do is talk with coworkers/acquaintances about their concerns in the world and how we can address them. The more I talk with maga folk about their concerns the more common ground I find with them... we all want a better life for our children/community we just get caught up in how to get there. Listen to concerns, find the common ground and come prepared with receipts... I cant say I've changed anyones mind but I will say the die hard liberal/left wing hating coworkers no longer have the direct hate and can see what folk like me are getting at... All this to say don't give up friend we can still do a lot at the community level, the institutional level will come with time.
We saw what happened when people didn't give enough of a shit to vote - you get Nazis in government and a supreme court fucked for generations.
People need to stop acting like electoral politics has no place, because not playing the game means all the rules are set against you going forward and they tell you to get fucked even harder than they would normally.
Even after all the bull shit, my parent still refuses to fucking vote. This weekend she tried to start a conversation about how the ice caps are melting. Yeah, no shit! Not like you have done ANYTHING to prevent it either. Mine and my young niece's futures are totally bleak because of the older generation being proudly ignorant and selfish. It's infuriating!
That sucks, sorry to hear it. My mom, of all people, who I don’t think has ever voted, asked me the other day if I was going to vote no on issue 1 in the upcoming special election in Ohio, in which a yes vote would prevent a ballot issue protecting women’s reproductive rights from being up for the vote in November. It’s gotten bad enough here that she is going to vote. There’s a red line for everyone, maybe you need to help yours find it.
im so tired of this shit. call their bluff then. im so tired of them pulling this shit. im tired of their voter rewarding this shit. im tiring of having to worry about this shit. theres no problem. but no republicans cry about the deficit after cutting taxes and the solution is to cut benefits. no fuck you. raise taxes if the government isnt bringing enough in, and start on those you last cut taxes on. im tired of hearing about rolling back benefits and labor protections, especially recently where theyve been rolling back child labor protections. like fuck that shit were not some developing country where child labor is still a thing. weve dealt with that a century ago. but its back thanks to asshole republicans.
ugh im so sick of this charade. they want to pretend they are not doing anything and could sorta give it away back with clinton but when it did not happen with bush and then did with obama and then didn't with trump and now does with biden. No one is fooled.
The vote was 336-95, with 209 Democrats and 127 Republicans voting to support it. Ninety-three Republicans voted against it, more than voted against the last government funding bill in September; two Democrats opposed it: Jake Auchincloss of Massachusetts and Mike Quigley of Illinois.
Johnson's so-called laddered continuing resolution, or CR, would fund part of the government — including the Agriculture, Transportation, Housing and Urban Development and Veterans Affairs departments — through Jan. 19 and fund the Defense Department and other remaining parts of the government through Feb. 2.
Part of me wishes that Dems would squeeze him harder for more concessions. The other part can't wait to see him get tossed by the MAGA.
I read the OGC report and my interpretation is that it was heavily implied that her race was a factor in why non-university sources were bitching and moaning about her hiring to members of the board of regents, who were uncharacteristically involved in asking the president about this hiring.
Like just because no one on the record says "don't hire a black woman" doesn't mean they aren't all dog whistling to each other about her race.
In the OGC report, at one point the BoR or president expressed concern about "the optics" of hiring someone who's done research in a DEI topic/worked on at least one committee to increase representation in newsrooms during the last state legislative session, under which a law was signed by piss baby Abbott to make it illegal to consider diversity in the hiring process. The OGC report is clear that the president intervened to delay McElroy's hire date until after the end of that legislative session at the very least.
I'm glad A&M settled, but I think she should have sued for more. It's funny that she made more money off this than if she had worked there 5 years in the original offer...
Once they get him stopped, get him out of the vehicle, and have his hands up, he's surrendering. He got multiple conflicting commands....and with the presence of the dog he was rightfully concerned they were going to have it tackle him...that's exactly what happened. So his concern about the dog probably caused him to ignore a command or two, because he was fearing the dog attacking him. Take the dog out of the equation and he probably surrenders peacefully and obeys commands. Conflicting commands and the presence of the dog are absolutely the problems here.
They will be put on paid leave and any lawsuit filed will be thrown out because of qualified immunity...even though the dog never should have come out of the holding vehicle. Could have a case of excessive force, but I doubt it. All of it will be excused as part of the police work, even the mauling.
The scenario you describe, and a limitless spectrum of other possibilities that could exist during any encounter, are the source of so much frustration for me when these events come up.
The person being interacted with could be exceptionally fearful, panicked, on drugs, drunk, having a medical event, deaf, experiencing mental health issues, severely autistic, or just stupid.
YET that person, who could be ANY of those things or more, becomes a justified target for violence the moment they fail to comply with an order that they may not be capable of understanding, or may be too deep into their own circumstances to understand or even process.
Meanwhile, the police they interact with who are (presumably, ostensibly) sober, well trained, mentally well, have backup available, and have a number of different options available to them, will always get a free pass for taking the opportunity to deploy that violence until and unless there's enough public outcry to force some action, and sometimes not even then.
How does that not strike anyone who reads it as an unacceptable framework for policing?
Sounds like Jadarrius had a good reason to not stop when the cops tried to flag him down for nothing at all. He knew this was going to be a "driving while black" stop and his life was at high risk.
Involving others so there are witnesses may have saved his life, or at least more serious injuries. The driver is alive, so he at least accomplished that part.
nbcnews.com
Hot