If you can read this, either the style sheet didn't load or you have an older browser that doesn't support style sheets. Try clearing your browser cache and refreshing the page.

(Some Guy)   You do not have the constitutional right to make fun of police over the internet, Mr. Cyberstalker   (kirotv.com) divider line 90
    More: Asinine  
•       •       •

8714 clicks; posted to Main » on 05 Aug 2011 at 8:42 AM (3 years ago)   |  Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook   more»



90 Comments   (+0 »)
   

Archived thread
 
2011-08-05 08:28:45 AM  

hillary: Oh please greenlight this
Oh please greenlight this

We have a local cop ion our town who has done the same thing with videos aimed at Sarasota County Sheriff Tom Knight. If this gets greenlighted, I'll hunt around for them -- I know they are out there somewhere.


My father worked for the City of Sarasota and Sarasota County for many years...I don't think that he misses the politics.
 
2011-08-05 08:46:03 AM  
You don't have any constitutional rights anymore. Thanks for reminding me, Subby...
 
2011-08-05 08:48:37 AM  
I don't know a whole lot about your first amendment, other than that you seem to be pretty fond of it and that it's supposed to explicitly allow this kind of thing. How does the DA plan to get away with this, exactly?
 
2011-08-05 08:49:27 AM  
I love the city's excuse for not commenting on the story -- "Yes, we do have someone who could talk about, you don't know her, and she's from in Canada."
When KIRO 7 Eyewitness News asked for comment from the city, we were told that there is a point person in charge of comments, and that person is on vacation in Canada.
 
2011-08-05 08:49:54 AM  
The Internet Police will hunt this guy down. You done goofed!
 
2011-08-05 08:51:11 AM  
The abuse of power by the police (and their enabler judges) seems to have become more prevalent in the past couple of years. Reading the article, the police, prosecutor and judge have no basis for a criminal action.....the cops may not like what is being done and an individual cop being made fun of may have the right to file a civil action against the cartoon creator, but the notion of criminal activity here is completely bogus.
 
2011-08-05 08:51:41 AM  
wow, all involved in that abuse of power should be immediately removed from their jobs.
 
2011-08-05 08:53:30 AM  
The judge that signed off on it should be removed from the bench, it's obvious he doesn't take his duties seriously.
 
2011-08-05 08:54:51 AM  
Idiotic do-gooders make idiodic statutes.

Rev. Code Wash. 9.61.260:

A person is guilty of cyberstalking if he or she, with intent to harass, intimidate, torment, or embarrass any other person, and under circumstances not constituting telephone harassment, makes an electronic communication [defined as transmission of information by wire, radio, optical cable, electromagnetic, or other similar means ... includ[ing] ... internet-based communications] to such other person or a third party: (a) Using any lewd, lascivious, indecent, or obscene words, images, or language, or suggesting the commission of any lewd or lascivious act ....


These impossibly broad and intentionally vague statutes aimed at making people play nice are obnoxious to civil liberties.
 
2011-08-05 08:55:34 AM  
Mr. Fiddlesticks is their version of Keyser Söze

/Fiddle ya, fiddle ya for real.
 
2011-08-05 08:56:01 AM  
i see a cartoon in that judge's future...
 
2011-08-05 08:56:30 AM  
this is a socialist type crime, Zeig Heil!
 
2011-08-05 08:57:43 AM  

Flakeloaf: I don't know a whole lot about your first amendment, other than that you seem to be pretty fond of it and that it's supposed to explicitly allow this kind of thing. How does the DA plan to get away with this, exactly?


The objective isn't to win a criminal case, it's to use the subpoena power to find the identity of whoever is making the videos. The bullshiat "case" is just a ruse and will be dropped as soon as they get what they want. If it turns out to be an insider on the police force, I imagine they'll go after him for leaking confidential internal affairs info.
 
2011-08-05 08:57:54 AM  
This is clearly a case of harrassment intended to embarrass public officials. The first amendment argument is invalid the second he lies about someone. It becomes slander, harrassment, and in this case since it is on the Internet, cyberstalking.
 
2011-08-05 08:58:46 AM  

HotWingConspiracy: The judge that signed off on it should be removed from the bench, it's obvious he doesn't take his duties seriously.


I have a feeling that both the prosecutor and the judge will get female-dog slapped by whatever court this guy appeals to. First Amendment: Learn it. Know it. Live it.
 
2011-08-05 09:00:39 AM  

Headso: wow, all involved in that abuse of power should be immediately removed from their jobs.

 
2011-08-05 09:01:24 AM  

poe_zlaw
This is clearly a case of harrassment intended to embarrass public officials. The first amendment argument is invalid the second he lies about someone. It becomes slander, harrassment, and in this case since it is on the Internet, cyberstalking.

.5/10
 
2011-08-05 09:01:46 AM  
Can people go around the neighborhood posting fliers saying "Officer x is having an affair with Officer y" when they know it is not true?

I can see how this could easily be a civil case, but criminal?
 
2011-08-05 09:03:17 AM  

jjorsett: Flakeloaf: I don't know a whole lot about your first amendment, other than that you seem to be pretty fond of it and that it's supposed to explicitly allow this kind of thing. How does the DA plan to get away with this, exactly?

The objective isn't to win a criminal case, it's to use the subpoena power to find the identity of whoever is making the videos. The bullshiat "case" is just a ruse and will be dropped as soon as they get what they want. If it turns out to be an insider on the police force, I imagine they'll go after him for leaking confidential internal affairs info.


And the judge who learns about this abuse of process won't run down the right side of the courtroom waving the Contempt Bat in wide, arcing circles over his head because...?
 
2011-08-05 09:03:32 AM  
Article is useless without the judge's name and the court he presides over.
 
SH
2011-08-05 09:04:42 AM  
The judge and cops have no intention of pressing charges. They just wanna find out who did it so they can break his knees.

I say we break the judge's and cops knees?
 
2011-08-05 09:05:28 AM  

Garet Garrett: A person is guilty of cyberstalking if he or she, with intent to harass, intimidate, torment, or embarrass any other person, and under circumstances not constituting telephone harassment, makes an electronic communication [defined as transmission of information by wire, radio, optical cable, electromagnetic, or other similar means ... includ[ing] ... internet-based communications] to such other person or a third party: (a) Using any lewd, lascivious, indecent, or obscene words, images, or language, or suggesting the commission of any lewd or lascivious act ....


This basically outlaws every post on Fark...

Oh, I almost forgot- F*ck The Police!
 
SH
2011-08-05 09:07:05 AM  

Ryan2065: Can people go around the neighborhood posting fliers saying "Officer x is having an affair with Officer y" when they know it is not true?


People can do anything they want, including horrifically bad internet metaphors.
 
2011-08-05 09:10:01 AM  

SH: Ryan2065: Can people go around the neighborhood posting fliers saying "Officer x is having an affair with Officer y" when they know it is not true?

People can do anything they want, including horrifically bad internet metaphors.


So posting lies about people on the internet is not like spreading lies about them through the neighborhood?
 
2011-08-05 09:10:07 AM  
This sort of shiat was the EXACT REASON the first amendment was written. Everyone involved in this from the government side should be fired and sent adrift on an ice floe.
 
2011-08-05 09:11:37 AM  

Ryan2065: So posting lies about people on the internet is not like spreading lies about them through the neighborhood?


Who's posting lies about anyone on the internet?
 
2011-08-05 09:12:02 AM  
poe_zlaw 2011-08-05 08:57:54 AM
This is clearly a case of harrassment intended to embarrass public officials. The first amendment argument is invalid the second he lies about someone. It becomes slander, harrassment, and in this case since it is on the Internet, cyberstalking.

Talk about a GED in law.
 
2011-08-05 09:12:22 AM  

jjorsett: The objective isn't to win a criminal case, it's to use the subpoena power to find the identity of whoever is making the videos. The bullshiat "case" is just a ruse and will be dropped as soon as they get what they want. If it turns out to be an insider on the police force, I imagine they'll go after him for leaking confidential internal affairs info.


It'll get dropped as soon as the Streisand Effect kicks in and they realize now that 2 million people will watch the videos, whereas before it may have only been 20. Unless they dig their heels in and they stupidly slog this out in the courts for a year.
 
2011-08-05 09:12:36 AM  

poe_zlaw: This is clearly a case of harrassment intended to embarrass public officials. The first amendment argument is invalid the second he lies about someone. It becomes slander, harrassment, and in this case since it is on the Internet, cyberstalking.


solution: "All characters appearing in this work are fictitious. Any resemblance to real persons, living or dead, is purely coincidental."
 
2011-08-05 09:14:04 AM  
Would this qualify as Malicious Prosecution under the law? (assuming they did follow through on the criminal complaint)
 
2011-08-05 09:16:28 AM  

hillary: Well, crap.

There is a national forum, leoaffairs.com, where there are discussion boards available for each law enforcement department in the country. Officers go on there to anonymously biatch about their departments. Some of it is really funny.

Anyway, in the Sarasota Sheriff forum, there were several links to vids exactly like this complaining about the current Sheriff, Tom Knight. However, it looks like the mods of leoaffairs.com have deleted the posts linking to the vids.

I don't know how else to find them at this point. YouTube search came up empty.

poop.


I don't have any good things to say about the Sarasota police either. My house was broken into four times in four months. The cops would not take it seriously. I had to install cameras and track the f'ing kid down myself and practicaly point at the punk before they arrested him.

Oh, and I almost forgot too...F*uck Sarasota Police!!
 
2011-08-05 09:16:29 AM  

The Homer Tax: Ryan2065: So posting lies about people on the internet is not like spreading lies about them through the neighborhood?

Who's posting lies about anyone on the internet?


Re-reading the article it doesn't look like the cartoonist used the officers names. So even if he made up incidents, that wouldn't count as lying.

The other article on this mentioned he made up some of the stories. I was figuring they used real names in the videos but if he didn't then yea, nothing wrong here.
 
2011-08-05 09:22:53 AM  

therealpope: The abuse of power by the police (and their enabler judges) seems to have become more prevalent in the past couple of years. Reading the article, the police, prosecutor and judge have no basis for a criminal action.....the cops may not like what is being done and an individual cop being made fun of may have the right to file a civil action against the cartoon creator, but the notion of criminal activity here is completely bogus.


I think it is just easier for the stories to be spread.

Hopefully this will make it easier to fight crap like this.
 
2011-08-05 09:26:11 AM  

poe_zlaw: This is clearly a case of harrassment intended to embarrass public officials. The first amendment argument is invalid the second he lies about someone. It becomes slander, harrassment, and in this case since it is on the Internet, cyberstalking.


The cartoonist is still immune from criminal prosecution. Libel is a civil matter, not a criminal one, and for both libel and harassment, you have to have a specific identifiable victim, not two generic figures that could represent practically anybody like the cartoons in question.

Plus, for it to be libel, it has to be actually false, and known to be false by the creator at the time it was written. You can, for example, call Bill Clinton an adulterer until you are blue in the face, and he can't sue you for slander or libel, because it's actually *TRUE*. If you called him a child molester, though, he could sue you.

Apparently, there is some kernel of truth to these, because they seem to be based upon internal investigations.

Seems to me the only real effect this might have on the cartoonist is that if they are successful in finding out who it is, and act upon that information, they will make the individual in question rich via damages from a lawsuit for violating his or her civil rights.
 
2011-08-05 09:28:20 AM  
Yeah you do.
 
2011-08-05 09:35:12 AM  
More info:
www.popehat.com/2011/08/04/behead-tho se-who-insult-the-renton-police-depart ment - peace-be-unto-them/
 
2011-08-05 09:38:02 AM  

poe_zlaw: This is clearly a case of harrassment intended to embarrass public officials. The first amendment argument is invalid the second he lies about someone. It becomes slander, harrassment, and in this case since it is on the Internet, cyberstalking.


I know you're trolling but go fark yourself. Public officials don't and shouldn't have a right to be free of embarrassment.
 
2011-08-05 09:40:37 AM  

Harrson: More info:
www.popehat.com/2011/08/04/behead-tho se-who-insult-the-renton-police-depart ment - peace-be-unto-them/


Thanks for the link.

I found a link to some of the videos (new window) in the comments section.
 
2011-08-05 09:42:54 AM  

Fedor: Sup, I are Ossifir Dunkin, I inject steeroids in my ass that I stole from a craime scine. Niw aill be da bastest cops evair. Eye hope igets da promotons cuz ,mai daddy da sharriaf.

Pigs are #2 Criminals on earth, right behind Religion


Actually, I put them before religion. The Jehovah's Witnesses never kicked in anyone's door and shot them before realizing they got the wrong house.
 
2011-08-05 09:45:05 AM  
Suck it, Constitution.


/again
 
2011-08-05 09:46:29 AM  

Mr. Cat Poop: Fedor: Sup, I are Ossifir Dunkin, I inject steeroids in my ass that I stole from a craime scine. Niw aill be da bastest cops evair. Eye hope igets da promotons cuz ,mai daddy da sharriaf.

Pigs are #2 Criminals on earth, right behind Religion

Actually, I put them before religion. The Jehovah's Witnesses never kicked in anyone's door and shot them before realizing they got the wrong house.


HEY, leave me out of this.
 
SH
2011-08-05 09:48:16 AM  

Ryan2065: So posting lies about people on the internet is not like spreading lies about them through the neighborhood?


Is it? You tell us. It doesn't matter and nobody cares.

You said "Can people go around the neighborhood posting fliers saying "Officer x is having an affair with Officer y" when they know it is not true?"

I was pointing out that that you can do anything you want. And they did. Does that answer your question?

Lets keep this ridiculous conversation going:

Q. Can you sue?
A. Anybody can sue anyone for anything. In the USA that is.
 
2011-08-05 09:54:50 AM  
So soon the only way not to get thrown in jail is to become a police officer - then you can do anything.
 
2011-08-05 09:56:01 AM  
I'm waiting for the South Park TWist on this one.
bwahahahahaha
 
2011-08-05 09:56:32 AM  
A young woman was pulled over for speeding. An Oregon State Trooper walked to her car window, flipping open his ticket book. She said, "I bet you are going to sell me a ticket to the State Trooper's Ball." He replied, "Oregon State Troopers don't have balls." There was a moment of silence. He then closed his book, tipped his hat, got back in his patrol car and left.
 
2011-08-05 09:56:35 AM  
@poe_zlaw It would be slander if it was false. Whistle blowing, however, is not slander. As has been stated, these incidents seem to be factual.
 
2011-08-05 09:57:34 AM  
I'm pretty sure he does.
 
2011-08-05 09:57:36 AM  

SH: I was pointing out that that you can do anything you want. And they did. Does that answer your question?


So you called it a bad metaphor because in both cases the people could do what they wanted but be sued for it? Do you understand what a metaphor is?
 
2011-08-05 10:00:19 AM  

Garet Garrett: These impossibly broad and intentionally vague statutes aimed at making people play nice are obnoxious to civil liberties.


"Did you really think that we wanted those laws to be observed?" asked Dr. Ferris. "We want them to be broken. You'd better get it straight that it's not a bunch of boy scouts you're up against - then you'll know that this is not the age for beautiful gestures. We're after power and we mean it. You fellows were pikers, but we know the real trick, and you'd better get wise to it. There's no way to rule innocent men. The only power any government has is the power to crack down on criminals. Well, when there aren't enough criminals, one makes them. One declares so many things to be a crime that becomes impossible for men to live without breaking laws. Who wants a nation of law-abiding citizens? What's there in that for anyone? But just pass the kind of laws that can't be observed nor enforced nor objectively interpreted - and you create a nation of law-breakers - and then you cash in on guilt. Now, that's the system, Mr. Rearden, that's the game, and once you understand it, you'll be much easier to deal with."



/broken clock still right twice a day
 
2011-08-05 10:09:07 AM  
Anyone that thinks this is anything other than total BS needs to see Hustler Magazine, Inc. v. Falwell. It's clearly parody. And it's protected speech.
 
2011-08-05 10:16:44 AM  

poe_zlaw: This is clearly a case of harrassment intended to embarrass public officials. The first amendment argument is invalid the second he lies about someone. It becomes slander, harrassment, and in this case since it is on the Internet, cyberstalking.


Is that true if Mr. Fiddlesticks isn't talking about a specific person?
 
2011-08-05 10:23:12 AM  

Lamune_Baba: /broken clock still right twice a day


/tangent

Actually it is a stopped clock that is right twice a day.

A broken clock could go much, much longer without being right.

/end tangent
 
2011-08-05 10:24:22 AM  
farm3.static.flickr.com

"Hello, I'm Shawn 'Man on Duck Action' Arthur, and I approve of this prosecution"


/please sue Fark to disclose my identity and prosecute me to the fullest extent of your perversion of the law, dick-head.

poe_zlaw: This is clearly a case of harrassment intended to embarrass public officials. The first amendment argument is invalid the second he lies about someone. It becomes slander, harrassment, and in this case since it is on the Internet, cyberstalking.


Yeah, I remember my first troll...
 
2011-08-05 10:25:43 AM  

jehovahs witness protection: Mr. Cat Poop: Fedor: Sup, I are Ossifir Dunkin, I inject steeroids in my ass that I stole from a craime scine. Niw aill be da bastest cops evair. Eye hope igets da promotons cuz ,mai daddy da sharriaf.

Pigs are #2 Criminals on earth, right behind Religion

Actually, I put them before religion. The Jehovah's Witnesses never kicked in anyone's door and shot them before realizing they got the wrong house.

HEY, leave me out of this.


I just wanted to say you knocked very politely before you shot my dogs in front of my 3 year old. The police aren't that thoughtful.
 
2011-08-05 10:28:15 AM  

dittybopper: I have a feeling that both the prosecutor and the judge will get female-dog slapped by whatever court this guy appeals to. First Amendment: Learn it. Know it. Live it.


Authoritarian tools who pull schit like this aren't ignorant of the First Amendment (or the multitude of court decisions like Hustler v. Flynt that create special protections for criticism, satire and parody of public figures), they just find it really inconvenient.
 
2011-08-05 10:28:35 AM  
Mr Fiddlesticks?

www.lolstrategy.com
 
2011-08-05 10:32:41 AM  
HotWingConspiracy- The judge that signed off on it should be removed from the bench, it's obvious he doesn't take his duties seriously.


Seconded. The judge (along with the D.A.) should face a disciplinary board for approving this search warrant. There is no way in hell the search warrant was requested in good faith as making parody videos about public figures is in no way a criminal act. The sad thing here is that it would take a news organization, the ACLU, or some other interested party to file a challenge to this search warrant as the obvious target couldn't do so without identifying themselves, which kind of defeats the entire purpose.

I certainly hope the ACLU gets involved here and I likewise hope the citizens rise up and vote out any city council member that supports this, along with the D.A. and the Judge (if elected). This is really some low-grade BS going on here.
 
2011-08-05 10:53:10 AM  
I know forced memes don't work, but I would like to see Renton, the Police Department and the Prosecutor's office get a good old-fashioned public mocking for even thinking their actions constitute a "good idea" and be forced to do a little shamed cost-benefit analysis.

Something like this:

i181.photobucket.com
 
2011-08-05 10:55:58 AM  

lawboy87: HotWingConspiracy- The judge that signed off on it should be removed from the bench, it's obvious he doesn't take his duties seriously.


Seconded. The judge (along with the D.A.) should face a disciplinary board for approving this search warrant. There is no way in hell the search warrant was requested in good faith as making parody videos about public figures is in no way a criminal act. The sad thing here is that it would take a news organization, the ACLU, or some other interested party to file a challenge to this search warrant as the obvious target couldn't do so without identifying themselves, which kind of defeats the entire purpose.

I certainly hope the ACLU gets involved here and I likewise hope the citizens rise up and vote out any city council member that supports this, along with the D.A. and the Judge (if elected). This is really some low-grade BS going on here.


I'm not sure how this works exactly, but I've read of using class-action status to keep the identity of the accused hidden. Perhaps there's a way to do this? If anyone knows, I'm sure that the ACLU will. Should be interesting to see how this plays out.
 
2011-08-05 10:56:26 AM  
In other news, the creators of Reno 911 have been seen getting the best lawyers they can get. Unfortunately, it is probably Lionel Hutz from the Simpsons... But even he could win this case.
 
2011-08-05 11:01:15 AM  

dittybopper: poe_zlaw: This is clearly a case of harrassment intended to embarrass public officials. The first amendment argument is invalid the second he lies about someone. It becomes slander, harrassment, and in this case since it is on the Internet, cyberstalking.

The cartoonist is still immune from criminal prosecution. Libel is a civil matter, not a criminal one, and for both libel and harassment, you have to have a specific identifiable victim, not two generic figures that could represent practically anybody like the cartoons in question.

Plus, for it to be libel, it has to be actually false, and known to be false by the creator at the time it was written. You can, for example, call Bill Clinton an adulterer until you are blue in the face, and he can't sue you for slander or libel, because it's actually *TRUE*. If you called him a child molester, though, he could sue you.

Apparently, there is some kernel of truth to these, because they seem to be based upon internal investigations.

Seems to me the only real effect this might have on the cartoonist is that if they are successful in finding out who it is, and act upon that information, they will make the individual in question rich via damages from a lawsuit for violating his or her civil rights.


Wait.

Bill Clinton ISN'T a child molester?

That's not what Glenn Beck told me.
 
2011-08-05 11:08:30 AM  

HotWingConspiracy: The judge that signed off on it should be removed from the bench, it's obvious he doesn't take his duties seriously.



My first thought too. This isn't even a grey area... this is clearly 1st amendment protected speech. The police and prosecutors.... while I don't actually expect them to abuse the system like this, I do expect that it will happen from time to time which is one of the reasons we even have judges in our system. They're supposed to put the kibosh on things like this.

Since this judge is complicit that tells me that he probably is either 1. wholly incompetent, since this is something so basic that anyone worthy of being a judge could never make this mistake 2. wholly incompetent since it's so basic that he must have not read the warrant before signing off on it or 3. corrupt.

Regardless of which explanation is the truth he has no business being on the bench or in law in any capacity.
 
2011-08-05 11:10:54 AM  

rjakobi: That's not what Glenn Beck told me.


i208.photobucket.com

/obligatory
 
2011-08-05 11:16:34 AM  
Mr Fiddlesticks shouldn't have cheaped out and gotten that 7th proxie.
 
2011-08-05 11:25:31 AM  

poe_zlaw: This is clearly a case of harrassment intended to embarrass public officials. The first amendment argument is invalid the second he lies about someone. It becomes slander, harrassment, and in this case since it is on the Internet, cyberstalking.


Yes ok I will bite..so 5/10. If you really do believe this then there is no hope for you.
 
2011-08-05 11:37:01 AM  
I want to see these weenie cops take the same measures for 14 year olds harassing each other on the interwebs.

/don't care they feel victimized
//it's all in their line of work
///protect the civilians, you plebes
 
2011-08-05 11:38:37 AM  
This makes me want to put up a video mocking the Renton PD for taking youtube so seriously.
 
2011-08-05 12:03:02 PM  
Mykeru, thanks!! I think we should turn this into a City of Renton photoshop, they can't sue all of us.

Know why it's called Renton? Because no ones's buying!
 
2011-08-05 12:03:47 PM  

Mr. Cat Poop: Fedor: Sup, I are Ossifir Dunkin, I inject steeroids in my ass that I stole from a craime scine. Niw aill be da bastest cops evair. Eye hope igets da promotons cuz ,mai daddy da sharriaf.

Pigs are #2 Criminals on earth, right behind Religion

Actually, I put them before religion. The Jehovah's Witnesses never kicked in anyone's door and shot them before realizing they got the wrong house.


No one expects the Spanish Inquisition!
 
2011-08-05 12:17:19 PM  
Don't be too proud of your First Amendment. The ability to destroy a police department is insignificant next to the power of the a douchebag District Attorney with an axe to grind.
 
2011-08-05 12:22:14 PM  

Minimally Hairy Beer-Powered Simian: Don't be too proud of your First Amendment. The ability to destroy a police department is insignificant next to the power of the a douchebag District Attorney with an axe to grind.


I've been on the chopping block of a douchebag DA, axe in hand. It's less than fun. Thankful I pulled a sensible judge
 
2011-08-05 12:30:08 PM  

Oxygen_Thief: Yes ok I will bite..so 5/10. If you really do believe this then there is no hope for you.


FSM, man, the poster's name is poe_zlaw. Is there really any doubt?
 
2011-08-05 12:31:50 PM  
* So, the Holy Prophet is now as a small-town cop?
* The only protected speech is protesting at a funeral.
 
2011-08-05 12:45:33 PM  

Oxygen_Thief: poe_zlaw: This is clearly a case of harrassment intended to embarrass public officials. The first amendment argument is invalid the second he lies about someone. It becomes slander, harrassment, and in this case since it is on the Internet, cyberstalking.

Yes ok I will bite..so 5/10. If you really do believe this then there is no hope for you.


New to Fark, what's the 5/10? Trolling scale? 10/10 meaning you're pretty good at it?
 
2011-08-05 12:47:04 PM  
I have to admit I live here in Renton. Pretty normal suburb, but there is a small clique that seems to run all the public offices.
 
2011-08-05 01:30:57 PM  
rjakobi

Bill Clinton ISN'T a child molester?


Not that we know of. The women that billy-jeff-bent-pecker raped were all 'of age'.
 
2011-08-05 02:27:55 PM  

georgehwbush: I have to admit I live here in Renton. Pretty normal suburb, but there is a small clique that seems to run all the public offices.


Why do I get the feeling that /b/ will be making a visit?
 
2011-08-05 02:35:11 PM  
So wait... The animations don't specifically mention any police force or officer, but the chief of the Renton police steps forward and says, 'It must be about us because we've done these things.'??

Miranda laughs in irony...
 
2011-08-05 02:46:54 PM  

Kronnyj: Mykeru, thanks!! I think we should turn this into a City of Renton photoshop, they can't sue all of us.

Know why it's called Renton? Because no ones's buying!


Excellent:I mean, Fark did it to Beck, why not do it to Renton?

i181.photobucket.com
 
2011-08-05 02:47:44 PM  
More justification for why all public officials and employees (especially police) should be required to purchase, on their own dime, malpractice insurance, just like medical professionals, so the taxpayers don't get stuck with paying the inevitable civil judgments and settlements that come from these kinds of cases.

Also, it would dissuade these idiots from doing things like this in the first place since once they have a claim paid out, their premiums would skyrocket and they could no longer afford to be a public official. Probably the only way to actually get rid of these vermin since they are almost impossible to fire.
 
2011-08-05 02:49:19 PM  

Prof. Ann Marion: So wait... The animations don't specifically mention any police force or officer, but the chief of the Renton police steps forward and says, 'It must be about us because we've done these things.'??

Miranda laughs in irony...


The Streisand Effect on steroids.
 
2011-08-05 03:10:23 PM  

rawbert7: Oxygen_Thief: poe_zlaw: This is clearly a case of harrassment intended to embarrass public officials. The first amendment argument is invalid the second he lies about someone. It becomes slander, harrassment, and in this case since it is on the Internet, cyberstalking.

Yes ok I will bite..so 5/10. If you really do believe this then there is no hope for you.

New to Fark, what's the 5/10? Trolling scale? 10/10 meaning you're pretty good at it?


Basically, yeah. Usually, the guys that suck at trolling will get a 0/10 or 1/10 are easy enough to spot in the original comment. The subtle trolls, the ones that take some time to craft a response...well, you won't know their rating usually until they get a few bites.

And being new to Fark, you'll probably bite once or twice. Happens to everyone. Personally, 5/10 is too high for the original post. Didn't have many bites to begin with and the person that did respond recognized it as a troll comment anyway. It sounds complicated at first, but very easy to recognize when you see the signs.

Hope that helps.

/Welcome to Fark.
 
2011-08-05 03:35:23 PM  

Display_Name: /tangent

Actually it is a stopped clock that is right twice a day.

A broken clock could go much, much longer without being right.

/end tangent


... mn. I suppose you're right. Unless it's running backwards.
Though if it's digital, we could just be right farked till 88:88 rolls around.

/yields
 
2011-08-05 06:30:45 PM  
Dammitall. Too late in the thread for an "I am Spartacus"-style thing.

/Why am I always too late for the good jokes?
 
2011-08-05 07:20:16 PM  
For what it's worth, the ACLU already have offered to defend the cartoonist.
 
2011-08-05 07:51:52 PM  
it's funny cuz coppers are dumb...
 
2011-08-05 08:29:56 PM  
upload.wikimedia.org

There seems to be a lot more sex this time around.
 
2011-08-06 12:44:32 AM  
Oh like hell you don't.
 
2011-08-06 07:30:31 PM  
test.axisofweevil.com
 
2011-08-06 10:34:43 PM  
No need for a cyberstalker. The police are perfectly capable of ridiculing themselves just by being themselves.
 
Displayed 90 of 90 comments



This thread is archived, and closed to new comments.

Continue Farking
Submit a Link »
On Twitter





In Other Media


  1. Links are submitted by members of the Fark community.

  2. When community members submit a link, they also write a custom headline for the story.

  3. Other Farkers comment on the links. This is the number of comments. Click here to read them.

  4. Click here to submit a link.

Report