Thanks a lot, subby. Now I have your spit all over me.

/golf clap

Perceived peril: propagating pernicious pedagogy piques prurient pandering.


golf clap, submitter

FTA: "It's pretty broad whether you're damaging something or if you're affecting someone's lawful enjoyment of property," said Loebach. "There are things we could fit into mischief that in today's age, if we don't have something specific, you can make a case there is a charge in there. So you can make an argument that it could be mischief at this point, because we have nothing better."

That is the scariest part of the article.

Pretty good, pretty good.

Subby, you couldn't have waited a day to submit this so you could get into the headline of the year contest for next year? I've never read such a smooth alliterative headline on FARK. They're usually forced and painful.

Props.

Penis

While I don't think people should watch porn on a public train, would people complain if I watched Robocop, Terminator, or some other equally violent and offensive to kids movie?

Ain't alliteration awesome?

tortilla burger: Penis

I'd give the headline a +1 if it had included that. As it is is can only be described as "close, but no cigar".

EOO EOOO KCHAA
CONNECT 4800

PPP CONNECTION ESTABLISHED

Now I have to go Pee.

prolapse

public porn, I see no problem.

"poised policy"?

This is what we use to decide policy?



How does that work?

Positively prime post, primo

Child porn is not porn. They are not equivalent. When someone refers to porn they mean the legal stuff.
Anyone who does not append the child part in a headline obviously thinks the two are the same and should be arrested and have their house dismantled to find their stash.

The word PRUDE is missing from the headline.
As in those tight-assed control-freaks who want to impose their Victorian morality on everyone else.
And often turn out to be perverts themselves.

kidsizedcoffin: FTA: "It's pretty broad whether you're damaging something or if you're affecting someone's lawful enjoyment of property," said Loebach. "There are things we could fit into mischief that in today's age, if we don't have something specific, you can make a case there is a charge in there. So you can make an argument that it could be mischief at this point, because we have nothing better."

That is the scariest part of the article.

That there was nothing better, or that there's a "basket-type" law that police can charge you with if you don't do as they say?

/See "resisting arrest" or "obstruction of justice" in the US.

Pondering pressing problems prepares police properly.

Balchinian: tortilla burger: Penis

I'd give the headline a +1 if it had included that. As it is is can only be described as "close, but no cigar".

But sometimes a cigar is just a cigar....

tiresome

IlGreven: kidsizedcoffin: FTA: "It's pretty broad whether you're damaging something or if you're affecting someone's lawful enjoyment of property," said Loebach. "There are things we could fit into mischief that in today's age, if we don't have something specific, you can make a case there is a charge in there. So you can make an argument that it could be mischief at this point, because we have nothing better."

That is the scariest part of the article.

That there was nothing better, or that there's a "basket-type" law that police can charge you with if you don't do as they say?

/See "resisting arrest" or "obstruction of justice" in the US.

Those are easily definable crimes, mischief on the other hand, is not

Slow clap.gif

This is different from looking at girly mags in public...how? Sure, it's in bad taste and makes everyone who see you do it think you are a lout, but I really don't see the crime here.

kidsizedcoffin: FTA: "It's pretty broad whether you're damaging something or if you're affecting someone's lawful enjoyment of property," said Loebach. "There are things we could fit into mischief that in today's age, if we don't have something specific, you can make a case there is a charge in there. So you can make an argument that it could be mischief at this point, because we have nothing better."

That is the scariest part of the article.

This is news? Cops have been using vaguely-worded catch-all laws to arrest people doing things they don't like for as long as there have been cops. The only thing that has changed is the number of vaguely worded laws that can be pressed into service, and how far the cops are willing to stretch the truth. Besides criminal mischief, disturbing the peace and resisting arrest without violence are perennial favorites when they want to charge someone for "contempt of cop".

Day_Old_Dutchie: The word PRUDE is missing from the headline.

Prudish posturing piques public perception. Peaceful perseverance preferred.

Ahhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhh my home town where there is a 72 million dollar ( Canadian) lawsuit for police brutality so their trying to change the subject and what better subject then porn?

rev. dave: Child porn is not porn. They are not equivalent. When someone refers to porn they mean the legal stuff.
Anyone who does not append the child part in a headline obviously thinks the two are the same and should be arrested and have their house dismantled to find their stash.

This is false.

Child porn is porn. Also, hunting children with a 30-06 is hunting; simmering children with potatoes and onions is cooking; and serving stewed children with fresh-baked bread, steamed sweet corn, and a hearty lager is dining.

More on that in a sec -- someone at the door. BRB

^^ sixpack: Ahhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhh my home town where there is a 72 million dollar ( Canadian) lawsuit for police brutality so their trying to change the subject and what better subject then porn?

It's Windsor, so I'ma guess "bingo parlours".

Done in one.

/and well done by subby as well

Predatory pubescent pud pullers peeping publicly pinging pedophilic providers. Porkers `palaverations' prang press; potentially possible perps penned provincially.

/Canada? Quite a stretch when `horsing' around with Sweet Nell, eh?.

clyph: kidsizedcoffin: FTA: "It's pretty broad whether you're damaging something or if you're affecting someone's lawful enjoyment of property," said Loebach. "There are things we could fit into mischief that in today's age, if we don't have something specific, you can make a case there is a charge in there. So you can make an argument that it could be mischief at this point, because we have nothing better."

That is the scariest part of the article.

This is news? Cops have been using vaguely-worded catch-all laws to arrest people doing things they don't like for as long as there have been cops. The only thing that has changed is the number of vaguely worded laws that can be pressed into service, and how far the cops are willing to stretch the truth. Besides criminal mischief, disturbing the peace and resisting arrest without violence are perennial favorites when they want to charge someone for "contempt of cop".

I'm amazed they actually admitted it out loud.

Bucky Katt: police brutality in Canadia? it's just not nice.


It's a nasty lawsuit -- off duty detective beat the shiat out of a doctor who was jogging around a medical complex sourcing office space -- tried to cover it up, but Doc turned out to be a fighter. Chief o' Cops didn't feel the need to report the beating to the SIU (provincial watchdog)

Chief of Police resigned over it - - bad scene -- there are rumblings about the provincial police stepping in and taking over the force.

You wanna gripe about dirty cops, you come to Windsor. Around here, you call a cop for a break-in and it's just to get the case number for insurance -- anything else involving cops, you just get out of there as fast as you can. So dirty that other municipal cops in the area also steer clear.

swines and dogs, the lot of them.

That was an ardent attempt at amassing alliteration. I need an avalanche of advil.