This week, both our winners on the insightful side come in response to our post about a cop being smacked down by the court for framing people. In first place, it’s That Anonymous Coward with the second comment on the post:
“Even if this precedent did not exist, the court says the due process violations are so blindingly obvious that there’s no plausible excuse for the detectives’ actions.”
And yet, we’ve seen many of them get away with this and worse because no one ever fully explained murdering someone in cold blood for contempt of cop is wrong.
Justice is blind, deaf, & dumb.
How many more railroaded citizens before we consider perhaps that sometimes the “good guys” are cheating?
How many more times can a court not hear how outrageous a cops actions were & still find QI?
How many rights violations can be accepted before we call the whole damn thing dumb & demand it change?
In second place, it’s That One Guy an hour earlier with the first comment on the post:
An argument that should never have even been thought of
While it’s good that the court got one of the most blindingly obvious questions right it’s all sorts of disturbing and indicative of how bad the system is that the argument was even raised in the first place.
‘It hasn’t been specifically made clear that framing someone for a crime they didn’t commit and costing them twenty-five years of their life’ should have been seen as such an insanely bad argument that it never even occurred to them, that it did and they tried it shows just how horrible QI is and how it’s become the go-to to defend cops for the most heinous of actions.
Hopefully the scum that framed the guy end up in a cell themselves for a few decades, really let them see what they so callously inflicted on another and send the message that such behavior is not in any way acceptable.
For editor’s choice on the insightful side, we start out with a comment from Bob Buttons on our post about all the people saying net neutrality must not have mattered because the internet hasn’t exploded:
NN didn’t ruin the internet either.
Even if you accept their flawed premise, they also claimed NN would kill the internet when it first got enacted, which it didn’t. So according to them, we might as well have it since that’s good enough reason apparently.
Next, it’s an anonymous comment on our post about the “birds aren’t real” phenomenon:
Most of the time, a person’s ability to see through conspiracy theories is directly proportional to their desire to see through them.
In other words, people believe what they want to believe.
Over on the funny side, both our winners come in response to our post about the FAA limiting 5G over unsubstantiated safety concerns. In first place, it’s hij with the joke that was sitting there for the taking:
If they are so concerned about 5G then how come they let me on a plane even though I have been vaccinated?
In second place, it’s Coyne Tibbets with a reply to that comment, connecting that joke to another:
Also: Birds aren’t real.
For editor’s choice on the funny side, we’ll start out with one more callback to the same thing, this time from kallethen on our post about the supposed viral school shooting challenge on TikTok:
I bet the TikTok was posted by one of those bird drones.
Finally, we loop back to the “birds aren’t real” post itself where Arijirija had a thought on the premise that kids aren’t so susceptible to conspiracy theories:
Kids Aren’t Real! They’re just a figment of your imagination ….
That’s all for this week, folks!
Go to Source
Author: Leigh Beadon