Commenter Archive

AvatarComments by George Turner in reply to Mike Schilling*

On “Breonna Taylor’s Supporters Face Felony Charges; Her Murderers Face Nothing

And that's clearly a problem with no-knock warrants.

Not every homicide is a murder. Sometimes two parties can be completely within their rights when things go pear shaped and both sides are legally okay to open fire on each other.

If such situations arise too frequently, we see if we can come up with a rule to eliminate the problematic area. Dueling is an example of homicides where neither party faced prosecution. Thankfully, we eliminated it.


Again, you're not allowed to protest on somebody's property if they object. That is Klan tactics. In castle doctrine states the AG could have used lethal force to get them off his lawn.

If you're doing something for which you can legally be shot, you're probably doing something wrong.

The felony charge is for trying to forcefully influence the outcome of a legal proceeding. Judges, jurors, prosecutors, witnesses, and defense attorneys are completely off limits.

I think the protester's defense attorneys will likely focus on the felony charge's key phrase of "physical force or a threat" and the definition of those terms in Kentucky law, to argue that the protester's actions didn't meet the required definition of "threat." They'll have to take a deep dive into Kentucky case law.

If a case turns out of be unduly influence by outside intimidation, the defendants will either get a new trial or walk on appeal. We don't let mobs forcefully tip the scales of justice, which are meant to impartially weigh both sides of a case. It's like it's a requirement or something.

Why are liberals so determined to re-institute Jim Crow era norms of behavior? "Hey, lets form an angry mob, go down to the black lawyer's house, stand on his lawn, and start chanting and hurling abuse!" I guess our state quit having students read "To Kill a Mockingbird" because someone thought it was triggering.


There has probably never been a lynching where the mob was not chanting something akin to "We want justice!" When combined with outrage, that emotion is one of the most dangerous feelings humans have. It often spurs some people in the crowd to take it upon themselves to do the needful and just go ahead and deliver a big dose of "justice".

On “Thursday Throughput: Comparing Catastrophes

Science News: Daily CO2 emissions dropped by 17% in early April

In June emissions apparently rebounded to 5% below 2019 levels, with China returning to pre-pandemic emissions levels. But this month China's cars all washed away in a giant flood, so maybe they've dropped again.

On “Breonna Taylor’s Supporters Face Felony Charges; Her Murderers Face Nothing

I'm not sure Cameron can even find out anything. The Louisville mayor, a Democrat, has decided to be a roadblock, perhaps because he won't work with a black man.

On “From Elizabeth Picciuto: The Real Free Speech Violations

Oh, I'm not being sarcastic, I'm discussing how a lot of criminals think. My housemate was a public defender for decades and although he did great work for his clients, a lot of them do think like criminals, which is why they were his clients.

One thing they excel at is making up logical reasons, to themselves, that justified the bad thing they did.

Now, getting a coworker fired simply because you don't like them on some personal level, or disagree with them on some political issue, all completely unrelated to job performance, is akin to burning down their house just because you don't like them. You are taking away their income and probably their health care, not because they're failing to perform their job, but because you're one of those people who is determined to hurt and destroy the lives of those around you.

Note that firing or shuffling someone for performance reasons is entirely different. Working with a team requires focus on the team's performance. Take football. You're going to try and replace the slow running backs, the weak linemen, and the quarterback who can't hit the side of a barn.

The cancel culture folks are ones who instead insist that no black people can play, or that the center must be a handicapped woman and that any player who questions that must be kicked off the team. The idea of a focused meritocracy goes out the window and you end up with a completely dysfunctional gaggle of hateful bigots who might constitute some kind of club, but who don't have a prayer of winning a game (or staying in business).

People who think like that are toxic to both performance and morale, turning everything into drama, drama, and more drama. Drama doesn't produce results in the field, where winning is often everything.


But violence is peace, and speech is violence, and...

Once someone has spiraled down into that type of thinking, it takes cult deprogramming to pull them back out. They think like criminals, and it's hard to get them to see the flaws in the logic they used to go from a set of normal, everyday givens to "and that's why I beat that random guy's head in and stole all his stuff, for justice!"

They think they're justified in committing assaults because reasons. They think they're justified in threatening and intimidating people because reasons, often involving massive amounts of projection. We eventually quit wasting our breath with logical arguments and just lock them up to protect everybody else.

On “Breonna Taylor’s Supporters Face Felony Charges; Her Murderers Face Nothing

Obviously Kentucky needs to quickly pass a law similar to 18 USC § 115 - "Influencing, impeding, or retaliating against a Federal official by threatening or injuring a family member." When you show up at someone's house, it directly involved their entire family, who suddenly don't feel safe even in their own driveway.

Kentucky is working on a law to cover intimidation of sports officials, and the state is now erecting an iron fence around the governor's mansion because masked and armed protesters showed up on his porch and looked as his kids through the window, while others present were burning him in effigy.

Somehow certain swaths of the public don't know that they shouldn't do things like that.


The First Amendment doesn't confer the right to trespass on someone's property. In fact, the Founders were sticklers about property rights. George Washington sued people who merely squatted on his land. Beyond that, intimidation of government officials in such a manner is a crime, punishable by up to 30 years in prison, depending on how close the party escalates towards murder.

Having someone show up on your porch and say "Nice family you got there, be a shame if something happened to them." is not allowed. Not at all. If it was, right-wing militias or narco-Colombian terrorists would be in charge of a US puppet government, because they would just set up some machine gun nests on every official's front lawn.

You don't see that because it's illegal. If you allow that, armed thugs will rule by proxy. Government officials must be free to act according to the law and their conscience without threats and intimidation, other than the public protests in public spaces (or somebody else's private spaces), nasty attack ads, and the usual measures we use to let politicians know we strongly disagree with their policies.


People are conflating two different issues. One issue is whether we allow no-knock warrants (and Louisville and likely Kentucky will no longer issue them). A separate issue is whether the officers committed a crime, as found in a law book, for which they can be charged and reasonably expected to be convicted by a jury.

The law is discriminatory. It discriminates between acts that are illegal and acts that are not. Laws are carefully crafted to make note of all the factors distinguishing illegal acts from non-illegal acts, or to lay out the exceptions. As a prosecutor, you have to make sure that what you're pursing, the actions in question, violate some codicil of the law. Otherwise the defense attorney will just step up and say "judge, what the prosecutor has charged isn't illegal" and the judge will say "case dismissed."

You may call it the Nuremberg defense, "I was just following orders", but the court had to determine that the orders were illegal, or that the person's charged were the ones giving the orders. Not many low-level people were ever charged with anything at Nuremberg. The focus was on conducting mass genocide, etc.

So, when you go into court, you either have to try an establish that the no-knock raid was illegal or that the officers acted wantonly or recklessly, or invoke some of the other legal words that are attached to lots of criminal laws. To do that, you'd have to dig in to whether they were perhaps illegally targeting the suspect (the investigation end that resulted in the warrant), improperly obtained the warrant, or initiated a chain of events in a way that no reasonable person would have done.

To do any of that, you're going to need a lot of detailed information about exactly what transpired, and that would require getting cooperation from the Louisville mayor's office. He's not cooperating, probably because he's a Democrat, and thus the investigation is absolutely opaque to everyone in state government, including the state AG and the governor.


The Taylor case is legally complex. The officers were serving a no-knock warrant that didn't require them to announce themselves. They didn't rule in the court case that allowed no-knock warrants, and they didn't pass any laws allowing no-knock warrants, they didn't write the police policy on no-knock warrants, and they didn't approve the warrant. They were just the pointy end of the spear.

The case against the protesters, in contrast, was simple. Nobody ordered them to trespass, and nobody ordered them to refuse to stop trespassing. Physical intimidation and threats are not the route to achieve justice in our legal system, and are in fact using those are wildly illegal. For example, it's also illegal to threaten to kill jurors' families.

On “Andrew Scales The Lofty Heights of Mt Cuomo

And yet the do, except I have no idea about their opinion on the no-hitter rule. It probably depends on if the player is black, white, Hispanic, or Asian. Neo-Nazis are a weird bunch because once the start digging into their heroes believes, they find socialism, socialism, and more socialism. That's one of the reasons David Duke recruits at left-wing protests, because people who are extremely anti-Semitic tend to agree with enough of his points to get hooked in with the rest of it. And of course anti-Semitism goes hand in hand with BLM. Just yesterday a group of protesters was alternating between anti-Zionist slogans and BLM slogans, not that there's much difference since BLM is wildly anti-Semitic, frequently tweeting "Free Palestine!" and pushing for the destruction of the Jewish state, which it says is based on genocide.


The Atomwaffen is hard core revolutionary socialist group that supports Jihadists and weird occult Satanic "kollectivs", burns the Constitution, and wants to overthrow the US government. They use terms like "comrades" just like socialists everywhere. Don't overlook the fact that white supremacy is a progressive idea, advanced by progressive Democrats like Margaret Sanger and Woodrow Wilson. They just think the welfare state should be for whites only.

On “There Are No Bad People

The way the no-nothing ideology has eaten through the Ivy League and other "top" schools, the last bastions of the Enlightenment, free-thought, and academic freedom will end up being the same schools who dominate the football postseason. Fifty years from now the curator of the Renaissance wing of the Met or the Tate will have a "Roll Tide" poster in his office, unless he went to Auburn or LSU. Harvard, despite its endowment, will just be a place where rich white parents send their not-very-bright kids for four more years of baby-sitting. Barney the Purple Dinosaur will be their school mascot, whereas Yale will probably go with Sponge Bob.


Well, we have an academic culture that finally decided that the best way to teach uncomfortable truths is to tell students that "uncomfortable truth" is an oxymoron. If it's uncomfortable, it can't be true. This has been going on for a while, with professors getting viciously attacked for teaching that men tend to be bigger and stronger than women. Why, that's hate speech!


Social Justice was a concept developed by those bad Germans to justify what they did. I can see academia crashing on it because nothing good ever came from it.

On “From Elizabeth Picciuto: The Real Free Speech Violations

Four states and DC already have employment protection against viewpoint discrimination. In theory, if any employee in those states is fired because of the cancel culture nonsense, they can sue their employer, just as if they were fired for race or religion.


Movie studios just are now pressuring directors to not give roles to white male actors who aren't part of the current woke movement. Hollywood sounds like Germany in the mid-30's, where being the wrong race or failing to espouse the party's views would get a person canned. Even associating with the wrong group could get a person canned.

That's where progressives are today, cancelling people for even dating a Trump supporter, or fatally shooting a young mother in the head for saying "All lives matter." They push racism, more racism, and nothing but racism, while claiming that the bug-eyed racism they support isn't really racism 'cause reasons.


The capitalist uses a simpler question. "Does this employee benefit the bottom line, or hurt the bottom line?" The companies that try to use a different metric will go out of business, thus firing everybody.

One of the reasons not to hire SJW's is that they create a hostile and toxic atmosphere by bullying and attacking their coworkers at the drop of a hat. People can't be productive when they have to tip-toe around. The good people get driven out (because they don't put up with the hassle), and the SJW's hire more SJW's until the company becomes "woke". Shortly after that, it seems to start laying people off because revenue plummeted due to moronic business decisions. Thus the phrase "get woke, go broke."


Progressives are all about their high-speed rail. ^_^

Land redistribution, worker representation in all business decisions, proportional representation and disbanding the Italian senate, a national council of experts, a tax on capital to seize expropriated wealth (Warren's tax), taking 85% of arms profits and nationalization of the defense industry, minimum wage and support for labor unions. They were also dedicated to fighting racism for almost two decades, until 1938 when Hitler pressured them to go after Jews, which was highly unpopular.


Progressive are leaning on both corporations and the state, just like Italian Fascists. They want one body (corporatism) where the people, business, and the state all act with one mind because they're just different organs of the same body.

As Mussolini said, ""Everything within the state, nothing outside the state, nothing against the state." Much of the left's focus on power-relations likewise comes from Mussolini, via Gramsci, who worked for him.


You should maybe have a former FBI director investigate the heck out of that, with hundreds of lawyers and spending tens of millions of dollars, to see if there's any evidence of it. ^_^


The Washington Post disagrees.

WaPo: Was McCarthy Right About the Left?

he Age of McCarthyism, it turns out, was not the simple witch hunt of the innocent by the malevolent as two generations of high school and college students have been taught.

The sum and substance of this growing body of material is that: Ethel and Julius Rosenberg, executed in June 1953 for atomic espionage, were guilty; Alger Hiss, a darling of the establishment was guilty; and that dozens of lesser known persons such as Victor Perlo, Judith Coplon and Harry Gold, whose innocence of the accusations made against them had been a tenet of leftist faith for decades, were traitors or, at the least, the ideological vassals of a foreign power.

The Claremont Review of Books took "A Closer Look Under the Bed" to say:

The Venona papers, together with these archives, made it absolutely clear that the American Communist Party was from its beginning the willing agent of Soviet intelligence, obedient to its orders, financed by its contributions, and serving not only as a propaganda organ for Soviet policies but as a generous source for the recruitment of agents who would thereupon influence American policy and gladly commit espionage as well. It is now plain that by 1945 every important branch of the American government, from the White House itself to the State Department, the Defense Department, the Justice Department, the Treasury Department, the Office of Strategic Services (predecessor to the CIA), and the Office of War Information, to name only a few, was infested with Communists busily doing the work of the Soviet Union.

Obviously all those people needed to be hounded out of government, if not tossed in jail, since all the Congressional Democrats, including Nancy Pelosi and Chuck Schumer, are adamant that colluding with Russia is the highest possible criminal act.


McCarthy was right about the communists. Once the Soviet Union collapsed, we got access to the Soviet archives and could to read all about the people he'd targeted, who, not surprisingly, were Soviet agents.


Free speech doesn’t automatically challenge those in power. The people who wrote that first letter, and many who signed it, have power. They want to pretend that they don’t. They want you to believe that.

The right to an attorney doesn't automatically challenge those in power, nor does a jury of peers, nor does most of the rest of the Bill of Rights. So why not just ditch them all except the 2nd Amendment?

I can tell that our universities wasted a lot of time teaching people that "power relations" explains everything, because the result has been students deprived of actual intellectual growth running around like kids with hammers looking for nails.

*Comment archive for non-registered commenters assembled by email address as provided.