The thumbnail image for this video has been updated - thumbnail added by kulpims.

The thumbnail image for this video has been updated - thumbnail added by oritteropo.

The thumbnail image for this video has been updated - thumbnail added by oritteropo.

The thumbnail image for this video has been updated - thumbnail added by oritteropo.

The thumbnail image for this video has been updated - thumbnail added by jonny.

I would argue that even one is too many.

There are currently 166 remaining detainees at Guantanamo, although 6 of those do face charges you could count it as 160 detained without pending charges.

Membership of Falun Gong is illegal in China, just like being a member of Hamas is illegal in the U.S., and as far as I know it is membership of the organisation (or, more specifically, activism) that is likely to get you sent to a re-education through labour camp.

Both China and the U.S. have lists of prohibited organisations, and in both cases cite public order as the rationale.

In any case, is it really worse to discriminate on the basis of beliefs than to discriminate on the basis of skin colour, bank balance, proficiency in English, intelligence, or any of the other things typically discriminated against?

p.s. Just to make clear, I'm not endorsing either type of discrimination.

The thumbnail image for this video has been updated - thumbnail added by oritteropo.

"Run, hide, call 911."
You forgot "concede everyones death in the vicinity of the shooter." And, "Wait 20 minutes for the first responders." Principals and deans having guns locked in the office is far less scary than what happened in CT.

The thumbnail image for this video has been updated - thumbnail added by dag.

The thumbnail image for this video has been updated - thumbnail added by oritteropo.

@ponceleon I think we fundamentally agree--but we seem to be talking past one another. You seem to be ascribing motivations to me which I don't think are right.

I do Not think that Jennings should be prosecuted because he's a smug, smirking bastard. I do Not think he should be prosecuted because of what TYT says.

I think he should be prosecuted because he was accused of a heinous crime. Apparently--at one time--the prosecuting attorney agreed. Then he didn't--that smells very bad; taking in to account the history of the US justice system favoring rich people over all others (OJ should be in jail for life for 2 murders--he's not because he could afford a team of scummy lawyers). I am "all worked up" because the dropping of the charges at the last minute smells like privilege.

I know I'm somewhat of a one trick pony here; posting all these TYT vids. But that doesn't mean I think they are always right--or even that their reporting doesn't sometimes suck (like this story).

Ammar's hand was cut and required six stiches. Jennings said the cabbie had grabbed the knife by the blade and that's how his hand got cut. So why was Jennings holding a knife? The prosecutor says he had to drop the case because Ammar had possession of the knife in question 5 months after the incident. Why didn't the cops ask where the knife was for all that time? No one has claimed that the knife wasn't Jennings', so how did the cabbie get it? So, the prosecutor says that Ammar is guilty of obstruction of justice for not telling anyone he had the knife. Weiss (the prosecutor) said he then could be fair and prosecute both or be fair and prosecute neither, and he chose the second option. This all stinks and needs to be brought out in court. Civil court means nothing to the rich--he could pay any fines out of pocket money.

But the justice system has a way to take care of prosecutorial misconduct. The Council on American-Islamic Relations has asked that the Federal Investigators to get involved. That--along with pressure from the stirred up public--should get a true investigation of this incident rolling.

(It sounds like you did a good job on your jury.)

The thumbnail image for this video has been updated - thumbnail added by ReverendTed.

The thumbnail image for this video has been updated - thumbnail added by bareboards2.

>> ^vaire2ube:

Aye but the guy did say the Progressive lawyer in the courtroom did more than give a little assistance:

"At the beginning of the trial on Monday, August 6th, an attorney identified himself as Jeffrey R. Moffat and stated that he worked for Progressive Advanced Insurance Company. He then sat next to the defendant. During the trial, both in and out of the courtroom, he conferred with the defendant. He gave an opening statement to the jury, in which he proposed the idea that the defendant should not be found negligent in the case. He cross-examined the plaintiff’s witnesses. On direct examination, he questioned all of the defense’s witnesses. He made objections on behalf of the defendant, and he was a party to the argument of all of the objections heard in the case. After all of the witnesses had been called, he stood before the jury and gave a closing argument, in which he argued that my sister was responsible for the accident that killed her, and that the jury should not decide that the defendant was negligent.
I am comfortable characterizing this as a legal defense. "
>> ^entr0py:
The good news is the Fisher family won the case regardless. There were also a few factual errors in TYTs reporting, as porksandwich mentioned the other driver had insurance which had already paid out to it's maximum, and progressive didn't represent him legally. But what they actually did do was bad enough to deserve the condemnation; a progressive lawyer contacted the defendant's lawyer and gave him assistance, so they could ultimately avoid liability.
http://www.chicagotribune.com/news/ct-progressive-campaign-
20120816,0,5322264.story



I admit I didn't read the blog on account of the short attention span. But yeah it's fucked up. I would have thought defense attorneys would have to do most of that work to earn their standing, apparently not.

>> ^vaire2ube:

Aye but the guy did say the Progressive lawyer in the courtroom did more than give a little assistance:
>> ^entr0py:
The good news is the Fisher family won the case regardless. There were also a few factual errors in TYTs reporting, as porksandwich mentioned the other driver had insurance which had already paid out to it's maximum, and progressive didn't represent him legally. But what they actually did do was bad enough to deserve the condemnation; a progressive lawyer contacted the defendant's lawyer and gave him assistance, so they could ultimately avoid liability.
http://www.chicagotribune.com/news/ct-progressive-campaign-
20120816,0,5322264.story



The front page of Fisher's blog has a screen cap, and a link to the official case record.

Aside from being listed as: "Interested party, type: Mediator." The record also contains this gem:

"It is this 19th day of May, 2011, by the Circuit Court For Baltimore City, hereby ORDERED1. That Progressive Advance Insurance Company be and is hereby allowed to intervene as a party Defendant.2. That Progressive Insurance Company is GRANTED all rights to participate in this proceeding as if it were an original party to this case."