I’ll just assume this is correct because I believe the Russian government has mastered the art of just lying when there are no consequences, but if I was being critical, this phrase is giving me pause for evaluating the conclusions.
Ah, more laws and regulations that cannot be followed by most people.
I couldn’t tell you every single “social media” account I’ve made over the years as various startups failed after I tried them.
I definitely couldn’t get all my family’s information, even if constrained to just immediate family.
I bet Palantir and three letter agencies have that information though, so this will be another lever they can use to selectively enforce punishment on their enemy of the day.
So if the agencies already have this information, then you are not actually giving them any information. This is a test to see if you are compliant.
Also, given how much inaccurate information is on the internet, including AI hallucinations and people with similar names, there is a chance that they have wrong information about you. And since you can't correct them, or tell them about this false information that you don't know about, so you are basically banned from ever visiting.
Yes, that was egregious and well-publicized. I've seen another case of a small-town sheriff arresting someone for a Facebook post that absolutely was not a threat of violence. Both were released and I believe the latter won a lawsuit for wrongful arrest.
But in general in the US "offending" others is not a legal basis for arrest, as much as some in power would like it to be.
If the sheriff who arrested this person has zero personal consequences that make him change his behavior, then it is de facto legal for them to arrest you for your speech.
They can do what they like, and your compensation if the courts think you were harmed, comes out of your own pocket as a taxpayer.
Show me the incentives and I’ll show you the outcome. The incentive here is that someone the government don’t like got put in a cell for a month and couldn’t speak, and they get no downsides. I wonder what will keep happening more and more.
> If the sheriff who arrested this person has zero personal consequences that make him change his behavior, then it is de facto legal for them to arrest you for your speech.
Yeah, in my state, the Sheriff of my County is beefing with the next County's Sheriff, because among other things, that Sheriff's perspective on "is it legal" was literally, and I quote, not paraphrase. "Make the arrest. If it's wrong, the courts can figure it out." Great, slap people with the arrest, the inconvenience of being jailed, charged, and having to hire a lawyer because you don't give a fuck about doing your job. Not coincidentally, same Sheriff is openly inviting ICE to the towns in his county saying his Department will provide additional protective cover.
He wasn’t impeding. He was filming which until recently was a 1A right in America.
The officer walked up to him and the woman with the backpack and started an altercation.
Using your right of way analogy the officer drove up on the sidewalk to take out your kids, no crosswalk involved.
If you’re going to defend this with a “well look at what she was wearing” type defense then you’re just ok with government agents executing citizens whenever they feel like it.
Based on the history of interactions I’ve had with you, you didn’t have your interest piqued, you were looking for a reason that it could be blamed on the victim for information that the shooter had no way of knowing prior to pulling the trigger.
Don’t “apparently” this crowd when you are obviously JAQing off.
I'm pretty sure you're the same guy I told I'm for completely open borders, but somehow you got it in your head I'm trying to make excuses for ICE. I'm also of the opinion that the second amendment also applies to illegal immigrants, though the courts generally don't agree with this. But you decided I said some things you consider "right wing" earlier so I must agree with whatever Trump's Gestapo is doing.
The truth is, I couldn't even wrap my head around why they were even arresting the guy, because I couldn't understand why they were going after someone with a permit, which usually requires legal status. My interest relates to the fact that if the federal courts in his jurisdiction didn't agree out of status had 2A rights, and he had a valid permit and legally owned a gun, it should establish he shouldn't be of interest to ICE.
> The data is not complete…
reply