DogofWar1

That's one of the funniest aspects of this saga. They got all annoyed that FB warriors didn't show up. Do they not understand how the internet works? How the G.I.F.T. works? Never go full IRL. See these guys, they went full IRL, and now they're terrorists. Never go full IRL.

I understand where you're coming from on the civil protest part, but once they took over a federal installation, I think they went outside the bounds of their constitutionally protected right of protest.

I mean, if you want to broadcast anything, just put on the Biebs. Standoff over, total surrender in under 6 hours, guaranteed. Unless they secretly like the Biebs, in which case they'll maintain the takeover, but then everyone will know they like the Biebs. Which will completely delegitimize their movement.

Indeed, a peaceful solution would be the best solution. Barring that, the method that causes the least collateral damage should be used. This whole thing started from some morons committing arson. Whatever does the least damage to the land around the facility makes the most sense here, else there'd be some irony. Right, and if this was resolved quickly peacefully, I think there's a reasonable case for leniency for many of the people down the chain. Most public protests aren't criminal all the way down, if at all. This one, being on federal property, ought to be treated as a crime for at least the top people, the building isn't public, but I definitely see reason to give leniency down the chain, assuming things don't escalate. I don't think the Feds should initiate any violence either. They probably won't have to, if violence happens. The Feds do need to arrest a number of people, and not back down. If things stay peaceful, I'd argue for a catch-and-release policy. Bring in everyone, release the lesser ones unless there's a reason not to.

So everyone involved in a protest where illegal activity occurs, or where a group is tied to someone committing illegal activity the whole group is culpable? No, that's not how it works. Again, if it was, you'd have millions of far right people in jail. The fact that they walk free and constantly post garbage to places like Stormfront is proof of that. Specific individuals have been arrested and charged who were involved in the riots/protests you speak of. That IS how it works. You arrest the specific individuals who are committing the actual crimes.

No, your media sources are pure garbage, if your clinging to your belief this is a clerical error is any indication. BLM is both an organization and a movement. The organization has kept their nose clean, but the movement is open ended on membership. Someone could walk into a bank, hold it up, scream "I'm BLM" but that doesn't make them part of the actual organization, and the actual organization shouldn't be held accountable for that. Not to mention, if we're going to be holding groups accountable for the actions of individual radical members, then there'd probably be a few million or more far right people in jail than there are now.

No, specific individuals who may or may not have actually had ties to BLM committed those actions, and if they caught those specific individuals they'd be going through the legal system like normal. Just as all of these people wouldn't have gotten charged for the actions of the arsonists. That is, until they took control of a federal facility.

Clerical error would be if the judge's clerk put 1 year instead of 10 years, and someone noticed the error a year later. This sounds like they challenged the constitutionality of the 5 year mandatory minimum, won at the trial level, lost on appeal, and were denied cert. While it was a constitutional mistake to rule in favor of the defendants on the issue of the 5 year mandatory minimum, I don't think that would be a clerical error.

Do I have this right? 2001: Guy and son kill some animals, illegally, on federal land. Guy and son burn federal land to cover up said gaming violations. Guy and son lie about where fire started to cover up arson. 2006: Son commits another arson on federal land (though this one seems less malicious than the 2001 one). 2012: Guy and son have trial for arson. Between then and now they are found guilty and sentenced, and need to turn themselves in. Now, there's a bunch of people opposing those guys having to turn themselves in, and they took over a federal facility and are holing up there? Yeah, there's a line to avoid crossing on this kind of stuff. They've definitely crossed it. Starve them out, and get the indictments all typed up. And if they want to be violent, well they should recognize that between their rhetoric and weapons, that doing anything will put them right up at the top of the use of force continuum.

I think Lawler won it in the last round. Was maybe a tad behind, but landed some nice blows. Both of them were totally gassed, but it looked like Condit ran out of gas a little before Lawler and let in just enough hits for Robbie to win.

Details are scarce right now for the most part. It sounds like the main gist of it is an expanded definition of "dealer" which might in turn expand who has to perform background checks. CNN also mentioned something about increased funding to agencies to enforce current laws.

Prosecutors and Officers usually work hand-in-hand to get all the people the officers arrest put in jail, so it's not surprising they'd switch their usual side to defend their co-workers. It's why it's important, frankly, to take it out of the hands of local prosecutors for grand juries of officers. I'll bet that officer and prosecutor are on a first name basis just from their everyday interactions. I know a number of them are in Fairfax.

On Brady's money, it's certainly possible that there's something going on with that contractor, who knows. Worth investigating, but I don't think his playing salary vs. house cost is an issue. Giselle Bundchen is worth something like 386M. She's loaded, and can afford whatever house she wants.

And fine James Harrison.

That DA should be canned along with the cop. I mean, really? There's about 3 seconds from the arrival to the shot, and the policeman had to aim really high to hit the guy. Butte County taxpayers should be totally FURIOUS. They're going to be paying for that, and it's messed up as hell.

Definitely will be. Should just put Rousey v. Holm 2 on the same night.

Guys, I blinked. What happened? Seriously, that's...crazy. First punch, and match.

Tonight is gonna be awesome. DnD with my bros then UFC. This is gonna be so great. I think McGregor can win, but I just can't not favor Aldo. Though I'd like McGregor to win. He's just so much fun. In sorta outside news, Rousey went to the Marine Corps Ball. Glad she came through.

Universal versions of those. Essentially closing the private sale loophole. Making sure you can't sidestep it like in Larry's story. Even for private seller to private seller transactions, going through a licensed 3rd party to make sure that the parties to the transfer are legally allowed to own firearms. Repealing the PLCAA would be helpful too. There are also lots of things at the federal level that are not enforced as strictly around the country. Total ban on violent felons from owning firearms, same with convicted domestic abusers. Those are illegal at the federal level, but out in the wild it doesn't always happen. Because the 2nd Amendment uses clearer language than the 1st. Duh. Wait...

Plenty of things can be done that wouldn't infringe on the Constitution, the Supreme Court has already interpreted the 2nd as not unlimited. It is broader than mere militias, but not unlimited. Universal background checks and waiting periods would almost certainly fall under that umbrella, just as a basic start.

The No Fly List has lots of problems. It's a good tool in theory, but is cast wide and yet still has holes. That being said, the fastest path to making the No Fly List better would be to ban those on it from buying guns. The NRA would get that thing working right and efficiently REAL quick.

Well they're closer geographically and could probably each absorb more than individual European/Western counties, but not 4 million, at least not if we want happy endings for a reasonable number of them. But when I said "can't" I was including the political situation you alluded to, though I didn't make that clear, my mistake. Economically it's likely difficult if not impossible for them to absorb 4M people, but even if the US/West/UN fill the economic gap, there's the political problems. I mean, holy cow, it's the middle east, everyone hates everyone, even if the countries had the government infrastructure to accept and then resettle the refugees, they'd have to overcome all the potential problems that come with such a major operation, like corruption and misappropriation of funds. And of course then there's just the prejudice. There's like a 90% chance Carson's plan ends with refugees in terrible conditions in camps where the international community suddenly has to sweep human rights violations under the rug because they thought all the problems endemic to the middle east wouldn't rear their head in resettling millions of people. Just not a realistic solution to expect them to all just stay in the ME, at least not without major issues.

Carson's plan doesn't seem any more realistic today than it did before he went on his trip. The countries there can't really absorb all those people, with or without aid. His "solution" is pretty much just sweeping it under the rug. "You keep them, here's some cash for them." Sounds like the setup to a really bad babysitting situation. "Hey thanks, here's the kids, here's 20 bucks, see you two hours after we agreed to pick the kids up."

I imagine that the review room probably doesn't have cameras, so specific deed is likely off camera, but if it's like most fast food places there are probably 4-6 cameras in the whole place. Just need to see who went into the Burger King. Can probably find out through other means (cross reference dispatch records with employees who were there that night), but a camera showing several officers walking inside would suffice, even if that's all it shows. Unless the BK manager suddenly switches course and says there's an automatic delete policy, that video didn't delete itself. Heck, it'd be even more suspicious if there was no tape of them walking in. I mean, how many of big chain fast food place don't have cameras trained on the doors and area right in front of the register? If there's a gap during the shooting AND for them walking inside, ESPECIALLY if there are no gaps or staggered gaps for other cameras, that'd be even more suspicious. I hope prosecutors tug at that thread and it's not just left sitting out there unchecked as a favor to the police union.

Is there internal surveillance footage of which officers went into that Burger King that night? That group should probably be charged with obstruction of justice, seeing as the deleting of the tape directly interferes with a 1st degree murder investigation. From Illinois compiled statutes: (720 ILCS 5/31-4) (from Ch. 38, par. 31-4) Sec. 31-4. Obstructing justice. (a) A person obstructs justice when, with intent to prevent the apprehension or obstruct the prosecution or defense of any person, he or she knowingly commits any of the following acts: (1) Destroys, alters, conceals or disguises physical evidence, plants false evidence, furnishes false information; or I'd say there's probable cause to hit those officers with this. And it'd send the right message nationally. If you're part of the conspiracy to protect a crooked cop, they WILL drag you down too. For too long the accomplices have mostly gotten off free and clear.