Yeah, lol, but I figured it's easier to sell with Coochie as the title.

Thanks for the NSFW, but like the Sarcasm button I don't require it's use and leave it to others to flag at their discretion.

I have no desire to pad the walls of anyone's cell, even if it's to prevent social concussions. I say enjoy the head trauma. This world is gonna be a bumpy riiide!!

I'm definitely not seeing any actual legitimate censorship issue and no legitimate point or argument--and certainly no censorship "rule." There is no rule or law against showing nipples on the internet. The decision to blur the photograph was made entirely by this V Magazine at their own discretion for their own reasons.

Compared to many western countries, the United States is relatively light on censorship precisely because of the codification of the first amendment. There are very few circumstances in which the federal government uses criminal law to enforce censorship, and using civil law to do likewise (such as in cases of libel) is relatively hard. Naturally, the truth on the ground is always more complex, because of all of the ways you can sneak sort-of-censorship into local and state laws such school boards determining public school curriculums, shady contracts, and discriminatory public decency laws. That last, which is really more what this guy is arguing about in a ham-fisted way.

I certainly don't believe there should be different laws for men and for women. If a bare-chested man in public is acceptable, I believe a bare-chested woman should be just as acceptable. In this case, I'd go so far as to say I believe that should be federal law, but that can likewise backfire in ways I don't agree with (eg, I believe wether to allow concealed handguns should be a local decision), so I'm not quick to make blanket statements.

Certainly the US is socially and psychologically backward in many, many ways, but it's also better in that respect now on balance than it has ever been in the past.

That's all well and good, but the fact of the matter is, all cops uphold laws, many of which are simply unjust. For example, almost anything to do with the "war on drugs" makes criminals out of nonviolent offenders, ruining families, destroying lives. Cops also follow protocols that give them license to do what would land a civilian in jail, like shooting dogs at their discretion (the endless YouTube videos of this happening is nauseating). So, the profession itself involves doing things that, while "legal," are unethical and dangerous to the public.

Whatever good they may do -- bringing justice for victims and such -- is a separate issue from the not-so-good they do, like pursuing an immoral "war on drugs" that damages way too many innocent victims, destroys far too many lives, to be justified as "good." However good of a person someone is, the reality is that cops have a job that involves things like arresting and/or shooting people for victimless crimes.

The "accident" that happened in the situation in this article, for example (in which a police officer attempted to shoot a family's dog, but missed, thus killing a woman in front of her 4 year old child, instead) would never have happened if cops didn't have crazy protocols like shooting dogs at whim.

If any civilian had taken a shot at a neighbor's dog and killed the neighbor instead, however, no one would be dismissing it as an "accident." Why, then, should cops get a free pass on such things by simply claiming that their immoral and indefensible activity is "by the book?"

(Of course, the purpose of this comment is not to be hurtful to anyone. But to serve as a wake up call that police services in this country have been getting out of control, just like the rest of the state apparatus.)

Discretion? Blankfist went on his melodromatic martyrdom rant because I invoked you.

But hey if you want transparency, that's fine. Your site, your rules. If that's the case, I would argue that this needs to be communicated more clearly that this is the preferred method of reporting bad behavior. speaking for myself. I think I only learned who you were and your role only within the last year or two.

many aspects of this site just aren't very clear and that includes how to report bad behavior.

Subsection (2) of this section shall not apply to vehicles used by the Washington state patrol for general undercover or confidential investigative purposes. Traffic control vehicles of the Washington state patrol may be exempted from the requirements of subsection (2) of this section at the discretion of the chief of the Washington state patrol.

No, this is police theft under the guise of 'regulation'. Actual regulation would regulate when they can seize, not give carte blanche to steal any money they find and require the victim to 'prove' their money isn't suspect. That's a lack of regulation along with immunity granted for institutional theft.
Once again, (reiterating because of your repeatedly and recently displayed lack of comprehension) cops are at their discretion to seize, and they repeatedly and constantly abuse that power, meaning they need to be regulated. Government regulation can mean regulating the government...but that's a concept that escapes you.
Cops (and their 'conservative' lawyer buddies) wrote this law and lobbied to have it instated....proof that sometimes cops do make the law AND abuse it. Prison guards have the largest, best funded, biggest lobbying union in the US, they're cops, and they've written many laws.

I've been waiting for you to say something about how this isn't the 'conservative' cops being thugs and thieves and it's really 'liberal democrats' we should blame. Thanks so much for the predictable attempted redirection of responsibility.

(I would point out that, because cops being assholes and thieves may be 'legal', it still makes you all assholes and thieves. Nothing in the law requires cops to seize property or cash, or to be assholes about it, it's 100% at their discretion, so it's 100% on them (you) for abusing the power.)
Are you suggesting we need more regulation!?!?

Maybe it's just my own naivete, but I would love to imagine that there was a time when being arrested was a little more formal than just having some cop blindside you like they did Eric Garner. Like maybe the cop actually told you you were under arrest, and gave you a chance to submit to the authority that he represented (NOT embodied) and maybe even mentioned what putative offense you might be arrested for, and had some rationale for it that the supreme court might recognize.

Even if that time never existed, it might arrive some day if enough cops exercising their fascistic discretion have their feet held to the fire of public scrutiny.

Godspeed, Chris Lollie.

Cops do have a lot of discretion, and in this case it would seem they didn't bother using any of it. I'm willing to bet the cops didn't even bother to find out what was going on, a little asking around and they would have found out that he was in a public place and had every right to be there, this could have been solved in minutes rather than months. And the cop who told him he was going to jail sounded positively excited about it, it was pretty sickening.

They have a lot of discretion and in this case they don't deserve it (mainly the big guy who I think was the one who escalated the encounter and tased the victim). The increase in cell phone video cameras are making these wrongful arrest cases more common every day thankfully.

'People who make a fuss' This goes back to the discretion issue, but talking yourself into an arrest when not guilty is really the crime of the officer (unlawful arrest). How about the right to not have police make a fuss with people?

Cops have a lot of discretion when it comes to making arrests. In general, people who act civilly when questioned by the police go on their way. People who make a fuss, even when innocent of any wrongdoing, talk themselves into an arrest on the basis of acting in such a way that a disorderly conduct arrest becomes imminent. Loud, boisterous, foul language will get you arrested plenty fast.

He does and he uses it at his discretion.

When I am around the door is open and he is free to hop aboot.

Honest truth he came to me at six weeks liter trained from the respectable fantastic breeder.

I have never had a problem with his urine on carpet, he pees in his potty and rabbit poop does sometimes happen outside the enclosure, but it is not like dog poops, the poop comes out dry fairly well.

I said, never had a problem for me, he is out for 4 hours at a time and every time he feels the need of nature he hippity hops into his custom tiled corner pissoir and then hippity hops back to whatever he was doing.

Rabbits are very VERY clean by nature and habitual. he knows where to pee he knows where water is he knows where food is. Rabbits can not see in the dark so they need repetition, although they catch on quick. but think of how often the lights are OOT ? SMART FAST LEARNIN G LIL BASTARDS AND BITCHS.

If there is a button the the steering wheel that gives an extra 100hp for overtaking by whatever method, I'm willing to call it push to pass. I expect that hitting the button would switch the engine to a high power torque mapping, use the MGU-H to spool up the turbo faster, and give a MGU-K boost exactly like last year's KERS button. I would also expect that not every team uses a steering wheel button for this function, but if Williams called it "push to pass" over the radio, I expect that they do. You could also have a separate engine mapping to do the same thing, and I expect that probably some teams do.

The RBR infringement was a bit more complicated than that. The FIA sensor was giving them inaccurate readings (it was reading high), and the FIA told them to apply an offset to the sensor values. They chose to use another method to ensure they weren't exceeding the 100kg/hr limit, and were excluded on the grounds that they had not sought permission from the FIA to do so and that it is not within their discretion to run a different fuel flow measurement method without the permission of the FIA.

I expect their appeal will be on the grounds that they did not in fact exceed the limit, and gained no advantage from their actions... and despite Christian Horner's level of confidence it could go either way. The last report I heard was that although they have lodged their intention to appeal, they have not yet actually tabled the appeal (but have a few more hours to do so).

Actually Mercedes were warned about the same issue. They chose to turn down their engines a bit to avoid the problem.

Formula one has been about getting around the rules at least since the 80s, and RBR have been very good at it. The camera mounting is very much in the category of satisfies the letter of the law, but very much goes against the spirit. I like the approach of using the camera mount as an extra wing actually (is it only the one team who did this?).

Well you know what cheating mongrels us Aussies can be when there's a sporting competition involved... like the infamous underarm ball - http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=o_FnSfVSG6c

It's really the team and not the driver though. This year each car is required to be fitted with an FIA fuel sensor to ensure that they don't exceed the maximum 100kg/hr fuel flow. In this case, the team found that the sensor was reading a bit high, so complying with it would mean a loss of power... so they changed the ECU settings to ignore it and go with their calculated values instead. They had been told to use the readings from the sensor, but with an offset applied, but chose not to because they felt it was still inaccurate.

The basis for the steward's decision to exclude the car was that "it is not within their discretion to run a different fuel flow measurement method without the permission of the FIA"

I imagine that the basis of their appeal against this decision will be that they did not actually exceed the maximum, it was a sensor error that made it appear that they did so, and that they therefore gained no advantage.

My sources for this are mostly these two articles - http://www.motorsport.com/f1/news/ricciardo-excluded-from-melbourne-result/ and http://www.motorsport.com/f1/news/red-bull-confident-of-winning-fuel-flow-appeal/

Don't even know where to begin with the statement, ' I also attribute this to black people and their culture--after all they should be better than crime since their roots come from an afrocentric value background.'

Even if you were hinting at sarcasm, that's a pretty fucking 'clueless-of-history' slavery in the U.S., POV

Afrocentric??? Gimme a fucking break, that's a rarity in black culture in the U.S. because it was systematically beaten and tortured out of the slave-class.

As to the other so-called groups cited well sir, it's your responsibility to associate and that with discretion, with any and all PEOPLE according to your own standards (or lack thereof) of ethics and morality, isn't it??

Life won't get any better for whom?? For youm???