There seems to be little doubt that Defendants, or at least some members of RAM, engaged in criminal violence. But they cannot be selected for prosecution because of their repugnant speech and beliefs over those who committed the same violence with the goal of disrupting political events
That's actually part of the judge's decision. "These people are guilty, but since you didn't prosecute those other people, too bad."
“I don’t believe it’s warranted that Mr. Rundo spend one minute more in custody, so I’m going to release him forthwith,” Carney said. “I feel very comfortable in the decision I’ve made.”
Of course he feels comfortable with that. He's one of the white supremacists.
He’s a white hooded judge. Of course he’s comfortable.
Rundo was accused not just of organizing the violent confrontations, but also of attacking protesters and police officers. After Rundo was ordered by police to stop attacking a “defenseless person” during the Berkeley protest, he allegedly punched an officer twice in the head, according to an arrest warrant.
I'd be willing to bet that the majority of this judge's supporters have Thin Blue Line bumper stickers and still support this decision.
Not allowed to punish white folks until you punish just as many minorities. (Think about that math...)
Nobody bring up the BLM arrests during the protests…
Or the Cop City arrests and prosecutions that have been going on more recently
Or the Dakota Access Pipeline protests from a while ago
Or [etc.]
I've brought this up before but I'll say it again: I have never met a member of a group of violent and organized far left extremists, or anyone who identifies as Antifa, to the point that I have trouble believing they exist. I've met some far left wackos, but none claiming to be organized or in cahoots with other far left wackos, and most of their violence was in speech only.
But I've met way too many far right knuckleheads who'd be all too happy to shoot someone.
Similarly, the only time you would hear someone described as 'woke' just a few years ago is if one black person talked about another black person about being aware of racial injustice.
And then there was "social justice warrior," which, like antifa, is not actually a thing. But if it was, the #1 candidate would be their hero Jesus.
I've met a couple SJWs that were unhinged, but they weren't really violent and certainly not an organized terror group the the fucking Proud Boys
I’ve met a couple SJWs that were unhinged
No you haven't, because "SJW" isn't a thing. It's an insult. And a stupid one.
And you clearly don't remember 2016. There were quite a few people parading around and correcting people's speech, which kinda led to this whole woke and anti woke stuff.
Ah yes. It was the people asking that maybe people should be more consciencous and to not be openly terrible who are to blame for it all...
Not the entitled asshats who puffed up their chests and screamed "You can't tell me what to do!" when someone told them "You're being kinda hurtful could you please stop? "
Here's the thing when your life sucks because people are being regularly being awful. Not mentioning anything and being quiet and meek and accepting of other people basically being a regular impingment on your ability to flourish or be comfortable doesn't change your circumstances. They are just gunna keep being awful and draining your batteries. Also those people flipped the fuck out over "hey maybe the way women are depicted in videogames is kind of male centric and kind of shit if you aren't a guy" and in response went on a terror campaign to literally ruin the lives of those who decided to mention that maybe they were dreaming of a better situation. That little over-reaction was not proportionate in scope.
Fighting for empathy is a hard business. The "anti-woke" can never truly win as what they seek to suppress will always be there. They must always exert force because that dissatisfaction and misery that underlies the asks won't go away... it can be silenced, rendered mute by fear and consequences of retaliation and stifled for another generation but the cost is that the boot must always be forced down because it's never quite able to eliminate that final resistance of people coming into existance who realize they aren't who society is built for and who have no option but to suffer. The people beneath the boot might be weakened temporarily as the fight ebbs and flows but the harder the boot comes down the deeper the dispair the more desperate the resistance.
Just the implications that people are unhappy does not sit well with the anti-woke crowd. They resent the idea that people's unhappiness is directly caused by them which rubs uncomfortably against their idea of the world as an ultimately fair place. Hence why they always argue that people are lying and exaggerating their discomfort. That the facts are wrong, that the people they are causing pain to deserve it somehow. It's all just lame dodges around the central issue. They are causing discomfort. They can choose to double down and cause more, ignore it or rationalize it or choose to believe that they as the truest form of being knows what's best for the people experiencing it- indeed better than the people who live that experience ... But they cannot end it.
The notion that what they are being asked to do won't individually impact them very much is something that they scoff at and then just ignore spaces where these adaptations have been successful. The landscape of gaming became a little more equitable after gamergate because some developers basically just realized that yeah, maybe they were undercutting women and changing formulas a little does kind of expand their market? Gamergate threw their tantrum but most of them barely registered that gaming still continued to service their needs while expanding it's service to others but because they were on to throwing a tantrum about something else they never really registered that what changed was... fine actually?
2016? It has been an insult since 2011 and Gamergate.
I'm certain other judges will be stoked to see people cite this in future cases. "You can't punish me because other people did similar things and aren't part of this trial. Here's an earlier case where the court has decided that way."
"Arrest the President of Antifa immediately for unauthorized libbing."
And that's right after the part where he equates Trump supporters with Nazis.
I wonder if there's some sort of link between being racist and pandering to far right terrorists...
It's even has a name: conservatism!
I would donate to your Patreon.
So the charges, crimes, evidence, and jury don't matter. It's all cleared because bOtH sIdEs nonsense. Hey judge I have an idea, if other people commit crimes then prosecute them. I wonder if he's close to realizing why you don't see much on the 'other side' (the why is that there is no violent far left committing crimes. Or if you want to be pedantic, it's incredibly, vastly minuscule compared to the violent far right.)
I'm starting to understand better and better how countries fall into strongmen and fascism. It's unreal.
“Prosecuting only members of the far right and ignoring members of the far left leads to the troubling conclusion that the government believes it is permissible to physically assault and injure Trump supporters to silence speech,” Carney wrote in his order.
Did he just say the far right and Trump supporters are one and the same? Lolol.
I'm not necessarily saying there should be a violent far left committing crimes. . . but the right keep trying to both-sides their terrorism shit, that's how you get a self-fulfilling prophecy.
I'm starting to understand better and better how countries fall into strongmen and fascism.
When only one side is willing to engage in violence, that is the side that will win. Every time.
Rundo was accused not just of organizing the violent confrontations, but also of attacking protesters and police officers. After Rundo was ordered by police to stop attacking a “defenseless person” during the Berkeley protest, he allegedly punched an officer twice in the head, according to an arrest warrant.
I have a feeling if someone with "far left" beliefs showed up in his courtroom with the same charges, he wouldn't hesitate to throw the book at them. This decision seems ripe for overturning on appeal, since he literally says in his decision "there's no doubt they committed these violent acts."
I like how you put "far left" in quotes. Because I'm not far left but I am "far left".
Yeah I'm not even really sure what constitutes "far left" in the American political spectrum. Like, I do believe food should be a right, but that's along the lines of "no one deserves to starve if we produce more food than we need" and that doesn't feel radical to me.
Right? I don't think a clump of cells should be prioritized over a woman's mental or physical well-being. Apparently I may as well have a hammer in one hand, a sickle in the other, and be out in the streets mowing down small business owners.
Prosecutorial discretion seems like a valid explanation
What? Are you telling me eco terrorists who did this would never see the light of day again? Or that communists who assault cops die?
Yeah the left knows we don’t get the kiddie gloves. When we fight we know the risks
US District Judge and White Supremacist Cormac J Carney
That's future Republican Supreme Court nominee white supremacist Cormac J Carney to you bub.
Nah, he's already 64 years old. Unfortunately, the current game is nominate Justices who can hold on to their seats for decades and decades.
Of course there is a bias against neo-nazi fascists in this country. See, there’s this little thing called World War II that we all learned about in school where millions died and the world joined forces to put a stop to nazis. So I suspect a vast majority of adults these days think nazis are scum of the earth. And rightfully so.
No worries, they plan on completely solving that problem. Just gotta stop learning about it in school, problem solved.
Them guys and their final solutions, amirite?
Oh. And I am. Right, that is
By summery judgement no less, cuz these guys are most definitely NOT right
"There's a bias against folks who want to do race based violence, and I just can't have that in America."
That's a bit biased, dont you think? They also support religiously motivated violence.
Can we have a bais for removing piece of shit Fox "News" addled brain rotted so-called "judges" too?
Whatabout is now a criminal defense, if you are a white supremacist.
There's more about this asshole judge's college football career than his legal career in his Wikipedia:
Don't start shit and there won't be shit. That part is unbiased.
So by dismissing the case, the judge here is allowing people to get away with punching officers in the face (only if you're right wing).
How does this align in any way with their Blue Lives Matter aligned ideology?
Well then those migrants in New York that tried to fight the cops off the migrant they tackled must all be dismissed on this precedent as well?
dismissed on this president
FYI it's "precedent"
That was fixed by me long before seeing this. Guessing it doesn't update in people's inbox?
Do you see this edit I added after submission? I have a tendency to not re-read until after I submit and then edit it, which is foolish but how I usually do it.
Nevermind I see my answer. It shows an edit time 3 minutes before your comment when I fixed it, which would indicate the messages do not get edited if they are received as notifications.
It's just lemmy being slow to update changes. Basically all user interactions like posting,commenting,editing,voting, etc... will often take a couple minutes to be visible to everyone else.
bias against the far right
They say that like it's a bad thing, I'm all for a bias against fascism
Remember when the Right used to scream about Judicial Activism?
Every finger pointed is an admission of guilt from those pieces of shit.
So long as the slant is political, they are sliding.
Commenting again because I don't want anyone looking at the modlog to draw an absolutely wrong conclusion (for apparently a second time): It looks like distinguishing between discussing the possibility that violence, vigilante and otherwise, might be the result of these kinds of decisions, and advocating the same--which neither I nor, best I can tell, anyone else here has done--is a level of nuance that may be too much to ask. So be it, but accusing me of advocating violence in a public forum is an accusation to which I'm afraid I must vehemently and publicly respond and deny.
"When people can no longer rely on the courts to adjudicate crime, they will adjudicate it themselves. The next agent who catches up with this nazi might decide it's not worth the trouble to bring him back alive." To be quite clear: I think this is a bad thing, because I'm an officer of the courts of this country, and vigilantism should be avoided at all costs just because guillotines don't have good judgment, if for no other reason. But it may be a result all the same, and hushing those who whisper of its spectre, even with the best of intentions, will not prevent it.
Remove this one as well, and let of it a record be. [And mods, if you don't want the modlog discussed, add that to the rules.]
It's pretty sad that your comments were removed, as discussing the logical conclusion of these situations is important.
We can't simply plug our ears and ignore the very real dangers of the justice system failing to punish people (whether justified or not). When people determine they have no other recourse, political violence is the logical conclusion of such a situation.
It's a terrible thing that there is a real chance for political violence to become mainstream, and simply ignoring that possibility is more dangerous than addressing it openly.
I didn't see the removed comments but I wanted to mention something.
There's a difference between "addressing it openly" and fetishizing violence. One says: "this may happen" or "this did happen". The other says "check this out, think about it more often like I do!".
I think we have all seen news articles that do one or the other. It's relatively easy to tell the difference by the words or tone used. You're not being slick if you pretend to do the first while actually doing the second.
"Would somebody please think of the white supremacists!" /s
Fuck this judge.
Yes reality is very biased against White Supremacists and their political cronies.
Why isn't that judge ?
The Good - White-supremacist who had to be chased to Romania after fleeing, will go back in jail (if caught), after an emergency appeal from the state
The Bad - A District Judge released an all-but-convicted violent Nazi, citing checks notes “both sides”, and SET NO CONDITIONS FOR THAT RELEASE, despite the prosecution’s protests and his proven track record of running from the law:
“Due to the district court’s order, Rundo will be released imminently, at which point he will be under no bond conditions or travel restraints,” according to the motion by Assistant U.S. Attorney Bram Alden, who is chief of the Los Angeles office’s Criminal Appeals Section.
Basically admitting to being a Nazi fuck.
"The state is prosecuting murderers instead of jaywalkers, better let the murderers go!"
What are the remedies here?
-removed-
Sounds like the prosecutors simply need to prosecute crimes equally and this ceases to be an issue.
They are, this judge is just making shit up to justify letting his fellow Nazis get away with their political violence
The defendants literally demonstrated in court there is a political bias in who is prosecuted. Hence, this article.
If you don't want defendants going free, we need to stop unequally charging them.
It's unequal in that they're already more likely to prosecute minorities. Somehow I doubt prosecution of more white people would have changed this judge's mind.
If an individual commits one crime, prosecute them. If a different individual commits seven crimes, prosecute them seven times. That is equal treatment. Scale up to any political or racial group and that is the model that is to be followed.
In this case, certain political groups get prosecuted at lower rates due to their politics. That is a problem that will continue, and people will continue to go free, unless prosecutors treat groups equally regardless of their politics, race, sex, etc.
There seems to be little doubt that Defendants, or at least some members of RAM, engaged in criminal violence.
If an individual commits one crime, prosecute them.
So, he should be prosecuted right?
Before the Internet, I knew there were dumb fucks in this world. I could just never, ever imagine how many of them there are.
Thanks to the Internet, now I know.
They know exactly what they're doing.
In this case, certain political groups get prosecuted at lower rates due to their politics lack of violent crime.
white supremacy codified in precedent. faaaaaaantaastic.
fucking conservatives assholes.
Conserving a racial hierarchy, it was right there in the name the whole time.
Luckily from what I understand it's charges, not convictions. Doesn't set official precedent, but a whole bunch might follow his lead.
The rise of fascism never made sense to me until I realized it's not top down. It's bottom up.
That's actually part of the judge's decision. "These people are guilty, but since you didn't prosecute those other people, too bad."
Of course he feels comfortable with that. He's one of the white supremacists.
He’s a white hooded judge. Of course he’s comfortable.
I'd be willing to bet that the majority of this judge's supporters have Thin Blue Line bumper stickers and still support this decision.
Not allowed to punish white folks until you punish just as many minorities. (Think about that math...)
Nobody bring up the BLM arrests during the protests…
Or the Cop City arrests and prosecutions that have been going on more recently
Or the Dakota Access Pipeline protests from a while ago
Or [etc.]
I've brought this up before but I'll say it again: I have never met a member of a group of violent and organized far left extremists, or anyone who identifies as Antifa, to the point that I have trouble believing they exist. I've met some far left wackos, but none claiming to be organized or in cahoots with other far left wackos, and most of their violence was in speech only.
But I've met way too many far right knuckleheads who'd be all too happy to shoot someone.
Similarly, the only time you would hear someone described as 'woke' just a few years ago is if one black person talked about another black person about being aware of racial injustice.
And then there was "social justice warrior," which, like antifa, is not actually a thing. But if it was, the #1 candidate would be their hero Jesus.
I've met a couple SJWs that were unhinged, but they weren't really violent and certainly not an organized terror group the the fucking Proud Boys
No you haven't, because "SJW" isn't a thing. It's an insult. And a stupid one.
And you clearly don't remember 2016. There were quite a few people parading around and correcting people's speech, which kinda led to this whole woke and anti woke stuff.
Ah yes. It was the people asking that maybe people should be more consciencous and to not be openly terrible who are to blame for it all...
Not the entitled asshats who puffed up their chests and screamed "You can't tell me what to do!" when someone told them "You're being kinda hurtful could you please stop? "
Here's the thing when your life sucks because people are being regularly being awful. Not mentioning anything and being quiet and meek and accepting of other people basically being a regular impingment on your ability to flourish or be comfortable doesn't change your circumstances. They are just gunna keep being awful and draining your batteries. Also those people flipped the fuck out over "hey maybe the way women are depicted in videogames is kind of male centric and kind of shit if you aren't a guy" and in response went on a terror campaign to literally ruin the lives of those who decided to mention that maybe they were dreaming of a better situation. That little over-reaction was not proportionate in scope.
Fighting for empathy is a hard business. The "anti-woke" can never truly win as what they seek to suppress will always be there. They must always exert force because that dissatisfaction and misery that underlies the asks won't go away... it can be silenced, rendered mute by fear and consequences of retaliation and stifled for another generation but the cost is that the boot must always be forced down because it's never quite able to eliminate that final resistance of people coming into existance who realize they aren't who society is built for and who have no option but to suffer. The people beneath the boot might be weakened temporarily as the fight ebbs and flows but the harder the boot comes down the deeper the dispair the more desperate the resistance.
Just the implications that people are unhappy does not sit well with the anti-woke crowd. They resent the idea that people's unhappiness is directly caused by them which rubs uncomfortably against their idea of the world as an ultimately fair place. Hence why they always argue that people are lying and exaggerating their discomfort. That the facts are wrong, that the people they are causing pain to deserve it somehow. It's all just lame dodges around the central issue. They are causing discomfort. They can choose to double down and cause more, ignore it or rationalize it or choose to believe that they as the truest form of being knows what's best for the people experiencing it- indeed better than the people who live that experience ... But they cannot end it.
The notion that what they are being asked to do won't individually impact them very much is something that they scoff at and then just ignore spaces where these adaptations have been successful. The landscape of gaming became a little more equitable after gamergate because some developers basically just realized that yeah, maybe they were undercutting women and changing formulas a little does kind of expand their market? Gamergate threw their tantrum but most of them barely registered that gaming still continued to service their needs while expanding it's service to others but because they were on to throwing a tantrum about something else they never really registered that what changed was... fine actually?
2016? It has been an insult since 2011 and Gamergate.
https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/the-intersect/wp/2015/10/07/why-social-justice-warrior-a-gamergate-insult-is-now-a-dictionary-entry/
Before that it was a very rarely-used term that was occasionally positive but usually neutral.
It's not a thing.
I'm certain other judges will be stoked to see people cite this in future cases. "You can't punish me because other people did similar things and aren't part of this trial. Here's an earlier case where the court has decided that way."
"Arrest the President of Antifa immediately for unauthorized libbing."
And that's right after the part where he equates Trump supporters with Nazis.
Whataboutism is now case law
Huh. This same George Bush appointed judge was forced to step down as chief judge of the district after making racist dog whistle remarks during a public zoom meeting about the first Black woman appointed to be the Central District’s executive and clerk of court.
I wonder if there's some sort of link between being racist and pandering to far right terrorists...
It's even has a name: conservatism!
I would donate to your Patreon.
So the charges, crimes, evidence, and jury don't matter. It's all cleared because bOtH sIdEs nonsense. Hey judge I have an idea, if other people commit crimes then prosecute them. I wonder if he's close to realizing why you don't see much on the 'other side' (the why is that there is no violent far left committing crimes. Or if you want to be pedantic, it's incredibly, vastly minuscule compared to the violent far right.)
I'm starting to understand better and better how countries fall into strongmen and fascism. It's unreal.
Did he just say the far right and Trump supporters are one and the same? Lolol.
I'm not necessarily saying there should be a violent far left committing crimes. . . but the right keep trying to both-sides their terrorism shit, that's how you get a self-fulfilling prophecy.
When only one side is willing to engage in violence, that is the side that will win. Every time.
I have a feeling if someone with "far left" beliefs showed up in his courtroom with the same charges, he wouldn't hesitate to throw the book at them. This decision seems ripe for overturning on appeal, since he literally says in his decision "there's no doubt they committed these violent acts."
I like how you put "far left" in quotes. Because I'm not far left but I am "far left".
Yeah I'm not even really sure what constitutes "far left" in the American political spectrum. Like, I do believe food should be a right, but that's along the lines of "no one deserves to starve if we produce more food than we need" and that doesn't feel radical to me.
Right? I don't think a clump of cells should be prioritized over a woman's mental or physical well-being. Apparently I may as well have a hammer in one hand, a sickle in the other, and be out in the streets mowing down small business owners.
Prosecutorial discretion seems like a valid explanation
What? Are you telling me eco terrorists who did this would never see the light of day again? Or that communists who assault cops die?
Yeah the left knows we don’t get the kiddie gloves. When we fight we know the risks
US District Judge and White Supremacist Cormac J Carney
That's future Republican Supreme Court nominee white supremacist Cormac J Carney to you bub.
Nah, he's already 64 years old. Unfortunately, the current game is nominate Justices who can hold on to their seats for decades and decades.
Of course there is a bias against neo-nazi fascists in this country. See, there’s this little thing called World War II that we all learned about in school where millions died and the world joined forces to put a stop to nazis. So I suspect a vast majority of adults these days think nazis are scum of the earth. And rightfully so.
No worries, they plan on completely solving that problem. Just gotta stop learning about it in school, problem solved.
Them guys and their final solutions, amirite?
Oh. And I am. Right, that is
By summery judgement no less, cuz these guys are most definitely NOT right
"There's a bias against folks who want to do race based violence, and I just can't have that in America."
That's a bit biased, dont you think? They also support religiously motivated violence.
Can we have a bais for removing piece of shit Fox "News" addled brain rotted so-called "judges" too?
Whatabout is now a criminal defense, if you are a white supremacist.
There's more about this asshole judge's college football career than his legal career in his Wikipedia:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cormac_J._Carney
Yea, there is. We called it WW2.
Don't start shit and there won't be shit. That part is unbiased.
So by dismissing the case, the judge here is allowing people to get away with punching officers in the face (only if you're right wing).
How does this align in any way with their Blue Lives Matter aligned ideology?
Well then those migrants in New York that tried to fight the cops off the migrant they tackled must all be dismissed on this precedent as well?
FYI it's "precedent"
That was fixed by me long before seeing this. Guessing it doesn't update in people's inbox?
Do you see this edit I added after submission? I have a tendency to not re-read until after I submit and then edit it, which is foolish but how I usually do it.
Nevermind I see my answer. It shows an edit time 3 minutes before your comment when I fixed it, which would indicate the messages do not get edited if they are received as notifications.
It's just lemmy being slow to update changes. Basically all user interactions like posting,commenting,editing,voting, etc... will often take a couple minutes to be visible to everyone else.
They say that like it's a bad thing, I'm all for a bias against fascism
Remember when the Right used to scream about Judicial Activism?
Every finger pointed is an admission of guilt from those pieces of shit.
So long as the slant is political, they are sliding.
Commenting again because I don't want anyone looking at the modlog to draw an absolutely wrong conclusion (for apparently a second time): It looks like distinguishing between discussing the possibility that violence, vigilante and otherwise, might be the result of these kinds of decisions, and advocating the same--which neither I nor, best I can tell, anyone else here has done--is a level of nuance that may be too much to ask. So be it, but accusing me of advocating violence in a public forum is an accusation to which I'm afraid I must vehemently and publicly respond and deny.
"When people can no longer rely on the courts to adjudicate crime, they will adjudicate it themselves. The next agent who catches up with this nazi might decide it's not worth the trouble to bring him back alive." To be quite clear: I think this is a bad thing, because I'm an officer of the courts of this country, and vigilantism should be avoided at all costs just because guillotines don't have good judgment, if for no other reason. But it may be a result all the same, and hushing those who whisper of its spectre, even with the best of intentions, will not prevent it.
Remove this one as well, and let of it a record be. [And mods, if you don't want the modlog discussed, add that to the rules.]
It's pretty sad that your comments were removed, as discussing the logical conclusion of these situations is important.
We can't simply plug our ears and ignore the very real dangers of the justice system failing to punish people (whether justified or not). When people determine they have no other recourse, political violence is the logical conclusion of such a situation.
It's a terrible thing that there is a real chance for political violence to become mainstream, and simply ignoring that possibility is more dangerous than addressing it openly.
I didn't see the removed comments but I wanted to mention something.
There's a difference between "addressing it openly" and fetishizing violence. One says: "this may happen" or "this did happen". The other says "check this out, think about it more often like I do!".
I think we have all seen news articles that do one or the other. It's relatively easy to tell the difference by the words or tone used. You're not being slick if you pretend to do the first while actually doing the second.
"Would somebody please think of the white supremacists!" /s
Fuck this judge.
Yes reality is very biased against White Supremacists and their political cronies.
Why isn't that judge ?
The Good - White-supremacist who had to be chased to Romania after fleeing, will go back in jail (if caught), after an emergency appeal from the state
The Bad - A District Judge released an all-but-convicted violent Nazi, citing checks notes “both sides”, and SET NO CONDITIONS FOR THAT RELEASE, despite the prosecution’s protests and his proven track record of running from the law:
Basically admitting to being a Nazi fuck.
"The state is prosecuting murderers instead of jaywalkers, better let the murderers go!"
What are the remedies here?
-removed-
Sounds like the prosecutors simply need to prosecute crimes equally and this ceases to be an issue.
They are, this judge is just making shit up to justify letting his fellow Nazis get away with their political violence
The defendants literally demonstrated in court there is a political bias in who is prosecuted. Hence, this article.
If you don't want defendants going free, we need to stop unequally charging them.
It's unequal in that they're already more likely to prosecute minorities. Somehow I doubt prosecution of more white people would have changed this judge's mind.
If an individual commits one crime, prosecute them. If a different individual commits seven crimes, prosecute them seven times. That is equal treatment. Scale up to any political or racial group and that is the model that is to be followed.
In this case, certain political groups get prosecuted at lower rates due to their politics. That is a problem that will continue, and people will continue to go free, unless prosecutors treat groups equally regardless of their politics, race, sex, etc.
So, he should be prosecuted right?
Before the Internet, I knew there were dumb fucks in this world. I could just never, ever imagine how many of them there are.
Thanks to the Internet, now I know.
They know exactly what they're doing.
You were so close to getting it.
There's political bias to charge criminals with crime?