I was also able to find a website of atheists with a user named Arken that had a picture that matched the picture i saw when someone doxxed him, but I didn’t want to post that.

Yeah. Good call. I found this thread and am a believer.

He will be back:

He used to have an account under the name, Arken, which he changed to Blooooo. He will be back. Check out these comments, it’s so obviously him.

The thread isn’t deleted. That’s why i linked to it.

Yeesh, point of order here.

Yeesh, point of order here.

Hey, how did you figure out it was Arken? I think you’re right because I accidentally found something on the internet that suggests this, but I’m curious how you knew?

Actually, I think it is Arken. If you click on Arken’s name in the second link, it’s a pic of the same guy. I know this because I witnessed the doxxing a couple weeks back.

Yes, we can. That username is a quality twist on a Wet Hot American Summer reference. And yes, those links did show all the dismissed comments.

Why wash your legs when gravity does the work for you? Duh.

http://clashtalk.kinja.com/the-men-of-jezebel-a-call-out-post-1786327950

The sub-blog has not been deleted: http://clashtalk.kinja.com/the-men-of-jezebel-a-call-out-post-1786327950. The account of the guy posting pics has been deleted, but he is still listed as a follower on your account.

Someone did create a burner account and post pics of him. I didn’t see the one of his daughter. They were able to get his real name because it’s included in a watermark on a photo on his personal blog. Whoever did it was calling him a cuck, so it didn’t seem like a jezebel hit job. However no one on the Clashtalk…

Yeah the gizmodo one is where I accused him of not even reading the first “line” of the article (I should have said “sentence”). And he sent me a pedantic MS Paint screenshot illustrating the difference between a line and sentence. And then Bottle of Richard Cream guy really got into it with him, after which FS…

It’s unbelievable. I made a couple comments in that post and read the comments in their entirety. He’s been flat out lying about what people were saying.

Yeah. I posited that in a subsequent reply to the OP. Sixth amendment seems like the best argument.

Yeah don’t know. Not a lawyer, but on second thought, maybe you could make a sixth amendment argument based on distribution of the video precluding the possibility of an impartial jury. Whatever the putative right McCrory claims to aspire to defend, he certainly didn’t articulate it very well.

Public officials have given several different explanations ranging from protecting constitutional rights of the officers (not sure what right they’re referring to...privacy??) to giving the family a chance to view the footage first to blah blah angles matter. It’s all bullshit. They don’t want to release the footage.…

While I don’t think him not being a parent disqualifies him from forming an opinion on the matter, I still think he or she is dead to rights wrong. Nothing good can come from telling a 6 year old, “Fuck the police!”