[221qqwe]

Perhaps, in no way does that justify a SWAT team invading your home, wrongfully arresting you and threatening you by up to 15 years in prison. Especially when the police officers know full well that the charges will be dismissed...

And anyway, as stupid as his joke was, I don't see (just like the judge) how any reasonable person could've interpreted it as anything but that. Arbitrary abuse of police power is much bigger threat to society than some (potential) idiots posting stupid jooks on Facebook.

[Supermancho]

> Perhaps, in no way does that justify a SWAT team invading your home,

A separate claim against excessive force, would be the proper response. The circumstance surrounding the arrest is incidental to the ruling.

> wrongfully arresting you and threatening you by up to 15 years in prison. Especially when the police officers know full well that the charges will be dismissed...

None of this was decided, as you claim. The suit had enough merit to go in front of a judge. I don't think it's justice, as it stands. Stating that the local police are acting unlawfully (with lethal force haha?), as a prank, is dangerous. You cannot convince me otherwise.

[torstenvl]

> Stating that the local police are acting unlawfully (with lethal force haha?), as a prank, is dangerous. You cannot convince me otherwise.

Satire of government officials is a fundamental and inviolable right of American citizens. As a form of political speech, it is part of the core of the First Amendment. If you cannot reconcile yourself to that, you should not live here.

[Supermancho]

> Satire of government officials is a fundamental and inviolable right of American citizens.

This is factually incorrect. eg You cannot impersonate a government official, as a prank, then claim first amendment protections against damage caused.

What you mean by "Satire" is either moving the goalpost or misunderstanding the concepts relevant to the case. Good luck with whatever.

[alphan0n]

Do you not actually know what satire is? We can 'impersonate' our government officials on national TV.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JmUhLMLnatk

https://theweek.com/feature/briefing/1019449/a-history-of-pr...

Katt Williams: “Police can kill your ass today and come up with a story for the news tomorrow.”

https://letterboxd.com/popdetective/list/police-brutality-as...

[redhale]

> You cannot convince me otherwise.

A classic sign of a logically sound and definitely not at all emotionally-charged position.

Should anyone who has ever hyperbolically referred to police as "nazis" or said sarcastically that we are "living in a police state" be legally punished? Absurd.

[remarkEon]

>I don't think it's justice, as it stands.

Can you clarify what you mean here? Do you think the guy who made the joke should go to prison?

[DiabloD3]

My reading of the part you quoted is, "It isn't justice because only the charges were dismissed, they owe him more than a simple apology."

[remarkEon]

Right, but the preceding sentences seem to conflict with that. More over, the following part of the comment

>Stating that the local police are acting unlawfully ... as a prank, is dangerous. You cannot convince me otherwise.

suggests that the guy who made the joke did something dangerous and should be punished for it. At least, that's the implication I'm reading.

[DiabloD3]

I think you're right. The meaning is unclear.

[Supermancho]

> Do you think the guy who made the joke should go to prison?

I think the legal precedent is damaging. I make no judgement on sentencing, as there was no harm done.

[remarkEon]

What legal precedent? The existing legal precedent that satire is okay?

[Supermancho]

To be clear, the precedent the case establishes, expanding the previous slightly.