The top item in Sunday's "Odds and Ends" post erroneously mistook a gag for a serious account of a US Supreme Court ruling. The link, to a Wampum post, wasn't working when I saw it on Crimlaw. Joke's on me, I guess, but what's really funny is that the account seemed humorous, but, at the end of the day, not particularly exceptional. That's the mark of good satire.
UPDATE: Scott thinks I didn't kiss enough ass in this correction.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
.jpg)
7 comments:
Whose ass am I supposed to have you kissing?
Hard to say. You obviously thought I needed to grovel more, though - that simply correcting the error immediately when I learned of it somehow didn't forgive the imputed sin of my ACLU-tainted beliefs. Of course, you're certainly entitled to that opinion.
Well, no, I didn't say a damn thing about grovelling. I said it was funny that a grown man who deals with police and police news and police law and the legislature all day long would believe a) that police would put 187 bullet holes in a car for running a toll booth, b) that it was allowed by statute, and c) that it was in front of the freaking Supreme Court.
Theoretically, you're the expert, and practically, you've got at least ME reading your blog because you're deeply involved with police matters.
So, the question is, since you're in front of legislators all day long working on police matters, how many other funny stories from Wampum or The Fat Guy are you presenting to them (and others) as fact, because you're inclined to believe that the police have the statutory right to pump 187 bullets into a car for running a toll booth?
Bottom line: ACLU or not, the fact that it's only a funny joky story is a tee-tiny problem for me as a reader, but I would think it's a humongous one for you as a writer and a lobbyist. Of course, you're entitled to blah blah blah...
Well, to state the obvious, I was up early on a Sunday morning doing a round-the-blogosphere type post before I went out for the day that didn't rely on my original research. The source link was down when I looked at the Crimlaw site, but I pulled the story because it was a Texas USSC police case I thought I'd missed. When I compiled all the shorts, the ex-journalist in me scanned them to look for the best "lead" and pulled the spoof item up to the top. 187 bullets wasn't what was on my mind, but the idea that a) it's entirely possible that some stupid-ass politicians wrote a law that said cops could use "extraordinary measures" at a toll stop, and b) that the Supremes ruling that way was consistent with their utter failure to restrain the police in a series of recent cases. The fact that too often one sees Amadou-Diallo-style cases where police fired an extraordianry number of shots - even if 187 should have clued me into the spoof - inured me to the satire more than perhaps it would the average reader, because I see cases of police shootings all the time, including extraordinary ones.
So I make a mistake, I laugh at myself, I take a bunch of crap from you, and I still don't know what you want from me besides groveling, some admission that it's evidence of malice or I don't know what. If the remark makes you consider me less credible, I can't help that; I can't promise I won't make a mistake again, only that I'll try not to, and that I'll admit it when I do.
BTW, Scott, if I'm an expert I'm a lay expert at best. I'm not a lawyer, don't have a college degree, and my only credentials are 11 years of activism on the subject plus a little inherited horse sense. I'm glad you're reading regular, but don't want to set expectations too high. I'm no Bruce Schneier.
Well, I'm dumber than you because I have no idea what the number 187 means.
I should probably just drop it, huh? I don't want anything from you, never did. I picked on you and your post because I find it unbelievable that [see above yadda-yadda].
But there's still no question that I think it's sad that you find it unexceptional that this state could pass that kind of crazy law, that it could be invoked by a LEO, that it could result in almost 200 shots being fired, and that it could make it to Suprem Court of the United States without being remarked upon elsewhere. I wonder where we fucked it up for yall.
187 is the number of shots the spoof said were fired at the vehicle.
And yes, it's very sad, very, very sad. Fade to black. Begin mourning.
Post a Comment