This week, both our winners on the insightful side come from our post about the cops who killed a drunk driver as he told them at least a dozen times that he couldn’t breathe. In first place, it’s Stephen T. Stone with a response to a commenter who tried to wipe away the entire incident by saying “maybe don’t drive under the influence”:
Yes or no: Should drunk driving be a death penalty offense?
Corollary: Should that sentence be carried out at the moment of arrest rather than after a proper trial, verdict, and appeals process?
If only there was a way to restrain someone that didn’t carry a high risk and/or guarantee of cutting off the person’s air supply, I mean can you imagine how monstrously indifferent if not outright homicidal it would be to use a method of restraint that carries good odds of killing a person if there was any other option?
The Los Angeles County District Attorney’s Office says it’s “reviewing the case,” which doesn’t exactly sound like an investigation.
The murder was recorded start to finish, if that level of evidence was available for just about any other person you can be damn sure the DA would not be talking about ‘reviewing the case’ but about the murder charges they were bringing. Being vague in such a instance reeks of ‘stonewall and delay in the hopes the heat dies down and it can be brushed under the rug’.
For editor’s choice on the insightful side, we start out with an anonymous response to the very silly notion that public airwave broadcasters are common carriers:
Just because TV uses the public airwaves does not make it a common carrier. It cannot comply with the basic rules of common carriers, and that is carry whatever anybody prepared to pay the wants them to carry.
The only grounds for regulating over the air and satellite T.V. is that they are using a scarce resource. That does mean that public interest can be used to force them to carry, or more commonly not carry certain content, but they cannot be turned into a common carrier where anybody can demand that they carry the program the person has made.
Next, it’s JMT with a response to a commenter making some far-reaching statements about “cancel culture”:
“People shouldn’t be losing their jobs for having an unpopular opinion…”
That’s a stupidly broad generalization. There are plenty of unpopular opinions that you should keep to yourself if you want to keep your job. If your opinions are at odds with your company’s stated values or negatively affect other staff that don’t want to hear your shit, why should an employer have to keep you?
“…or for offending the overly sensitive.”
‘Overly sensitive’ is just another way of saying my opinion matters and yours doesn’t. It’s the sort of accusation that comes from someone who has zero experience with being subjected to anyone else’s prejudices, and can’t fathom why someone would react to theirs.
“There comes a point where criticism becomes intimidation”
And some of those ‘overly sensitive’ people have spent their lives intimidated into silence and finally feel like they have enough support in society to be able to criticize those who don’t want to hear from them. Suck it up buttercup.
GOP Quest is the worst video game ever
You just run around town yelling stuff and stopping everyone else from getting started on their actual quests.
But they’ll have to keep quiet about it, because Mike has a right to say whatever he wants without being criticized.
That’s how it works, right? Surely they wouldn’t be so hypocritical as to criticize this article.
Never thought I’d see the day where John Steele looks like the smarter of the Prendateers.
Hard to damage a reputation already in tatters
‘Your Honor I most certainly did not punch the alleged victim with my right fist and saying I did is defamatory and damaging to my reputation! As the evidence shows I punched them with my left fist!’
That’s all for this week, folks!
Go to Source
Author: Leigh Beadon