The next step is for some alt-right lawyer to file a section 1983 lawsuit against the state alleging a violation of this assholes clearly established rights (probably citingthe Wetboro Baptists as precedent). I think that’s ultimately a loser, but even if he doesn’t get tens of thousands of dollars in settlemt funds…

Well, I stated my conclusion with the caveat that there may be more information, so not really. But in any event, I am fairly confident that the fact that he was on campus “means dick all.”

He doesn’t need a joke defence. His defence is: a) that the first amendment clearly allows him to do it; and b) the conduct in question doesn’t fit within the parameters of the law he’s been charged under. He’s a piece of shit, but this charge won’t stick.

This dude is a scumbag who deserves all sorts of social consequences to befall him. But what he did appears to be clearly protected speech. The law he’s been charged with requires a threat, an injury or attempt to injure or damage to property. So even if it wasn’t clearly protected by 1A, he still wouldn’t be guilty…

Trying to prove who’s less racist? Like Deadspin?

This is a true statement and one I used to trot out there a lot in discussing this issue. The more I think about it though, the more I sympathize with the folks who invoke the military in their opposition to his protest. We “progressives,” or whatever, talk a lot about interpretation versus intent as it regards our…

Oddly enough, so is Trent Dilfer.

Because we know Obama reads Deadspin every morning: Colin Kaepernick’s protest has nothing to do with the military.

Because the dumb song and the piece of cloth stand for something great. Flawed, to be sure, but great. The tiny, tiny number of innocent people killed by the police (and we must keep in mind the black ones matter, the white ones don’t, apparently) is, compared to the far greater problems besetting the US and the…

If both candidates would simply step up and release their list of black friends we could settle that debate and move on.

Clearly Kaep has no conscience, no empathy. One might call him a “superpredator.”

After seeing the photo, where the victim was in a clear shooting stance with what looked like a gun pointed at the officer, I’d have to say that if I’d been the officer, I would likely have shot him as well.

1) While that’s who he was referring to, the majority of rape cases are defended by public defenders (who defend the majority of all cases). So any change to how rape law works will affect public defenders the most.

As someone who’s spent some time in a public defender’s office, I can guarantee you that judges hate our clients even if they’re charged with rape.

This does nothing to convict rapists. The longer a person waits to come forward the harder it will be to get a conviction.

Statutes of limitations don’t usually stay on the books because the crimes effects ended but because the ways that time effects the ability of the trial to be successful (for the prosecution) and fair for the defense (finding people to back up an alibi is hard after years).

So here’s my understanding of this bizarre article - once again Gizmodo in the tank for Clinton (or at least so anti-Trump that the science part of this publication has flown out the window).

SourceFed’s findings were as close to a “double blind” type study as one could produce, thoroughly explaining in vivid detail…

But it’s so much easier to sit back and point out possible flaws in other people’s work based on glib use of armchair intelligence than it is to go out and actually inform myself!

#mammALLlivesmatter