If it makes you feel better, Rod Blagojevich agrees context ALWAYS exonerates ANYTHING. - Edit 1
Before modification by Joel at 03/02/2012 07:30:51 AM
Since he is a liberal Democrat it should go without saying a bastion of the liberal media like John Stewart does, too. "Agree" in this case means saying he WANTS to believe Blagojevich is just an innocent victim, since the only alternative is to believe him a "sociopath," but the evidence makes him almost indefensible. That was AFTER Blago insisted it gets better "if you listen to the whole tape," they did, and it did not.
If all you have is defenses of cops for beating Rodney King and pepper spraying sit ins, plus a dose of "hypothetical drivers at traffic stops are presumed guilty until proven innocent," my position is unchanged. Actually, that is not true; reminding me some eagerly and doggedly take the "presumed guilty" view but defend physical assaults on the defenseless if the perpetrator has a badge, I am more convinced than ever the public needs the right to film on duty cops on the street.
Even if I were not (and once again,) the alternative is believing acts committed in public have an expectation of privacy. If that is the case, a LOT of people are in prison because of illegally obtained evidence. Why is it legal for cops to record videos of suspects at traffic stops, both to protect themselves from false allegations AND AS EVIDENCE FOR CRIMINAL TRIALS, but so out of bounds for the public to record public servants performing their duties? Why is sauce for the goose not sauce for the gander? Is this another of those cases where you do not want the US to be a fascist police state because you prefer it be FIFTY of them instead?
You might not be so eager to let anything that can be captured be captured.
The video I saw of the cop pepper spraying those kids just showed him walking up and spraying them in the face. The headline read something along the lines of "Police officer nonchalantly sprays students with pepper spray". Nowhere in the video nor in the article does it tell you the other methods that were first attempted or that they were warned well in advance before they were sprayed. Sounded fishy to me so I went looking for more details and surprise surprise there they were. I guess the guy writing the article couldn’t spell google. Now for the "f the cops” crowd context doesn't matter and all they need is to be pointed at which cop to hate, anything else is details. But for those of who actually think such blatant manipulation of the facts is not journalism and we would prefer to make our own judgments instead of having some peel our head back and poor some thoughts in there for us. Not a case for libel since lie by omission is almost ever grounds for libel. Too late for the cop though he has already been sentenced by 2 million of his peers on youtube. He probably has to pick his kids up from school to keep them from getting beat up on the bus.
The video I saw of the cop pepper spraying those kids just showed him walking up and spraying them in the face. The headline read something along the lines of "Police officer nonchalantly sprays students with pepper spray". Nowhere in the video nor in the article does it tell you the other methods that were first attempted or that they were warned well in advance before they were sprayed. Sounded fishy to me so I went looking for more details and surprise surprise there they were. I guess the guy writing the article couldn’t spell google. Now for the "f the cops” crowd context doesn't matter and all they need is to be pointed at which cop to hate, anything else is details. But for those of who actually think such blatant manipulation of the facts is not journalism and we would prefer to make our own judgments instead of having some peel our head back and poor some thoughts in there for us. Not a case for libel since lie by omission is almost ever grounds for libel. Too late for the cop though he has already been sentenced by 2 million of his peers on youtube. He probably has to pick his kids up from school to keep them from getting beat up on the bus.
If all you have is defenses of cops for beating Rodney King and pepper spraying sit ins, plus a dose of "hypothetical drivers at traffic stops are presumed guilty until proven innocent," my position is unchanged. Actually, that is not true; reminding me some eagerly and doggedly take the "presumed guilty" view but defend physical assaults on the defenseless if the perpetrator has a badge, I am more convinced than ever the public needs the right to film on duty cops on the street.
Even if I were not (and once again,) the alternative is believing acts committed in public have an expectation of privacy. If that is the case, a LOT of people are in prison because of illegally obtained evidence. Why is it legal for cops to record videos of suspects at traffic stops, both to protect themselves from false allegations AND AS EVIDENCE FOR CRIMINAL TRIALS, but so out of bounds for the public to record public servants performing their duties? Why is sauce for the goose not sauce for the gander? Is this another of those cases where you do not want the US to be a fascist police state because you prefer it be FIFTY of them instead?