THE GREATEST BRIEF EVER FILED 

The guy who has Paul pelosi captive also believed left wing conspiracy stories like systemic racism and was pro drug . Maybe college educated . The guy who tried to kill Brett kavaghan only believed left wing conspiracy theories and definitely was college educated

@@brandonelston1969 if he can be prosecuted then fox pundits should be prosecuted too

This brief is probably too cerebral and free thinking for 5/9ths of the court. As much as they extol their belief in the constitution, they prove they don’t believe it.

EYbrows of i'm clearly holding back laughs

Yes. Although winning isn't everything, sometimes winning is everything. BTW, I think I saw a citation of Buckley v. Valeo in there as it flashed on screen. I'm intensely curious as to why. I'd find the text and read it myself, but I doubt I have the legal knowledge to get the joke. I'd be stoked if you'd explain it.

"It only takes a few bad apples to ruin the bunch." and they are all rotten to the core.

@@gsteixner It's so ironic that most defensive uses of that aphorism really do miss the point of it. PDs will jump out and say "it's only a few bad apples!" when discussing corrupt or criminal behaviour of individual cops who actually get caught. Of course, as you point out, the full aphorism goes: "A few bad apples spoil the bunch." Which was originally an observation that leaving a few rotting fruits in the same bunch as ripe ones leads them all to quickly rot (which, it turns out is a cool function of fruit biology involving ethylene). Thus, finding "a few bad apples" is really an indictment that the whole bunch is likely rotten or soon to be so.

I'm really hoping that you're not just NOW realizing that this police modus operandi (method of operating) occurs, because it has absolutely been the de facto (in effect) standard for law enforcement nearly everywhere in this nation for decades.

@@dionh70 not at all. It's just the host's casual use of the line that makes it distubingly clear how ubiquitous it is.

​@@MrARock001 Generally, if a farmer found that many bad apples in their crop, I would expect that farmer to be searching very carefully for signs of the trees being blighted.

This is the perfect example of how bad American policing has become. Someone points out the obvious in a public forum and the police have to pursue legislation to prevent people from recognizing the truth. If you are not pushing copaganda YOU ARE AN ENEMY OF THE STATE. Do you get it yet?

this includes the whole supreme court

When "a few bad apples" doesn't cut it, just arrest those who call you out and say it was because they impeded the police's work carrying out systemic racism

it's supposed to be "speak truth to power". We're powerless, WHY ARE YOU TELLING IT TO US?!?!? :P

​@@shrykoyou are dumb

Bummer

Damn, that's actually very sad, case sounds so ridiculous it might be funny but someone life is actually damaged

Sadge. :'(

Somebody offered Thomas a free vacation. That's why they voted against it.

sad, Thanks

It also helps that their profile pictures look like AI generated art that you would get by typing in, “white lawyer-y guy in a suit.”

@@roberthelmsen6961 Parody all the way down

😂😂😂 Absolute chads in every way.

Once upon a time my attorney was Mr. Swindle of Salt Lake City. And yes, I chose him because of his name 😅😅

It's even more hilarious if the original was 'We know crime'. I don't know if it was, and doubt it, but wouldn't that be great.

Preserve and collect!

I'd have gone with "We no justice"

@@harbingerdawn yeah, but it'd have brought down the funny aspect by hitting too close to reality at that point :/

Every police slogan should be, "Can I see your ID?"

i didn kno the lah was chill like dat

Grrrrrrrrrrrrrrrr ...

That has to be Deputy Superintendent Chip

me and chip were driving see? now im not driving chip is driving and hes driving a little crazy

“Ignorance is no excuse for breaking the law.” -Police to the people not required in their job description to know the law. “I didn’t know I couldn’t do that.” -Also Police, the people required in their job descriptions to know the law. Just a slight adjustment there. Honestly, makes it even more pathetic.

This comment has been repeated several times in the comments. As it well deserves to be. It could not be repeated too often.

you don't trust them

​@@Neurotik51 we don't trust them, or you

​@@Neurotik51only boot lickers trust the boot that crushes

​@@Neurotik51You, plural, referring to every decent human. Way to call yourself out...

Time table argument should be strong... But, it complains about their process and not about how long they were gullible to stay on the phone to explain something (but still should be made part of the case)

I’ve been in dispatch for about 25 years. We are quite often a lot busier than any police officer and to be fair, you’re kind of comparing apples and oranges. A house raid and the legal behind the scenes stuff going on isn’t drawing any availability of first responders from the general public while tying up a communications center actually can. I think that’s the argument they made…but also to be fair…eleven phone calls isn’t a big deal and probably didn’t really make a dent. I get what you’re saying and I agree it was a waste of taxpayer money and time on the part of the city though.

@@eaglebauersrecordcollection How are the phone calls going to tie up first responders? Nobody should be calling 911 about a strange non-threatening Facebook post. They should be calling the police department's regular phone line. Fine the people making 911 calls they have no reason for.

Yeah it *really* needs to be struck down ASAP. 😕

Life's a sadist's paradise. Enjoy the pain of strangers and the joy of friends.

Imagine approving a law that by its very nature allows people to violate constitutional rights. 🤦

In any country with somewhat reasonable laws (and a police force with proper training and education instead of handing every idiot a badge and a gun after completing - not understanding, just completing - a 4h crash course) there is no qualified immunity. There is also no such thing as „give me 100m Dollars because you violated my rights“-lawsuits. In Germany, for instance, it is simply: If a police officer violates the law, not necessarily the constitution, they will be prosecuted criminally for violation of the StGB (penal code) and/or various other regulations (for instance, the police and ordinance litigation is regulated on state level due to the federal system, and every state has its own PolG or Polizeigesetz, police code). The possibilities in civil court are also restricted to the actual damage caused, and punitive damages don’t exist (especially not in those absurd sums, but there can be a compensation for pain or emotional damages that can’t be calculated exactly). Ah, and if a police officer is convicted of a felony, either above a certain threshold or especially in conjunction and violation of his official duties, he/she will be removed from service, likely lose his status as public servant, lose his pension and other benefits of state officials (the years served will be counted for the retirement pay by the respective social security insurance, part of the German social insurance system, btw). The main difference is the status of the constitution: The Grundgesetz, the German constitution in less a solitary document that is referred to separately (although this is possible). Generally, it is the base and background of all German laws, but referring directly to a violation of the constitution is way harder and in most circumstances not necessary, because there are likely laws covering that aspect without directly appealing to the Federal Constitutional Court - BVerfG, Bundesverfassungsgericht. Keep in mind that I‘m no lawyer and that the system is way more complex than I can explain in a comment. But in general, that should be correct enough to give you an idea.

It seems obvious to me that people who hold the authority of a public office should be held to a higher standard than ordinary citizens. Not excused.

Every time the west side gets a bit to big for it's self, we have to remind them of Parma. Esat side may have crime and East Cleveland, but the west side has Parma. Of course, the Legal Eagle could make a video of what happens when almost an entire police department gets charged with felonies... like in East Cleveland... but that's not this video.

I get the impression Parma has earned it.

what's up with the red ss bolts on their badge?

The onion is a left wing rag and hasnt been funny in years

Ahhhhh. The mistake on the lake.

Agreed, this is what makes being a satirist harder these days, coming up with something stupid enough it can't be real (yet), when things more stupid than the past thing keep happening every day.

And now the Supreme Court denied Certiorari

@@soumajitsen1395 lovely.

Such a failure of the law.

This is what happens when law enforcement are allowed to operate above the law as a paramilitary gang instead instead of as accountable public servants.

You mean...🤔 kinda funny how it's not funny that all their funny business is made funny by someone else? Or do you mean: Funny how something funny about things not so funny shows the funny business?

Underrated comment

The irony

@@f_USAF-Lt.G…….yes?

And The Supreme Court agreed, so they seem to have apretty low opinion of The Executive Branch.

it's transparently obvious it's just nobody wants to say it

@@JohnSmith-kc6ov i want to say it 😡

My former brother-in-law is a cop. Like most cops I've known, he is a very big baby and a snowflake beyond all measure. Scary that these fellows are given guns.

I bet the parodist thought this could happen. If the Parma police lose this at the suspense court the whole country will make fun of them forever.

Cited for Contempt of Cop

I am irish and big into history. Let me tell you that Swift was not too off considering Trevelyans' laissez-faire attitude

Haha!

I must have completely glossed over anything in "A Modest Proposal" that could have been taken as anything to do with cannibalism. Then again, I can be pretty stupid 🤔

@@lina9535 Swifts modest proposal is that lower class parents sell their "excess" offspring to the rich as a food source. The parent in question fell right into Swift's satire since he fully believed we were pushing cannibalism. Ain't people grand?

I lost respect for quite a few of my AP English classmates the day after our teacher assigned us "A Modest Proposal" for homework reading. Of course a few weeks later we got an (unlabeled) essay that I completely read as serious and proceeded to participate straight-faced in a discussion about until one student (who incidentally was my high school crush) interrupted us all to say, "Guys, it's David Sedaris."

That line actually earned my subscription. Lol

Is it not illegal for it to be false? He didn't disrupt the police using technology.

Only if you overanalyze by actually looking at it... (GOP defense of Trump in 2 impeachment trials)

@@inafridge8573 You can say things that are incorrect, that's not illegal. You could argue it's impersonation of a police official, but that has some pretty specific requirements. I think that was genuinely the best they could come up with.

The Roberts Court is just as bad as Parma PD.

On it

The white flight mentioned in this video was enacted in key areas being "overrun" by black people specifically so that they could create areas like Parma that are immune to change and criticism. It was remarkably effective and also decimated the areas they left so that they could then point to those areas as being proof of the failure of diversity.

@@EscapeCondition With the results we’ve produced it feels like our country is still run by ardent segregationists.

@@wildfire9280 I mean Joe Biden is one of them, his crime policies (in particular the crack discrepancy legislation) were designed to strictly enforce segregation. Trump's another. So our election is going to be choosing between the least offensive segregationist.

+

"He can't do that! Shoot him or something!"

"It only takes a few bad apples to ruin the bunch." and they are all rotten to the core.

It is VERY difficult to respect the law or law enforcement because of this common practice: use the law to punish things we don't like. The law serves power, NOT justice, nor the citizenry. I feel bad for lawyers. It isn't their fault the entire judicial system is rigged to ensure unfair practices of compliance and submission to authority,

you can disagree that what the guy did wasn't "disrupting public services", but isn't "search for a crime to fit the circumstances" literally how criminal prosecution is supposed to work

Even worse! 😃 I love that essay. It is so good

I've seen similar, real arguments used for why it should be legal for poor people to sell their internal organs

@@kimgkomg But that's already legal, not much is stopping you from selling your kidney if you decide you're poor enough and could do with one organ less. I think the difference is that here it's not the choice of the person selling, such as kids. So you probably mean you've heard real arguments used for why should OTHERS have legality in selling poor people's internal organs. Why shouldn't you have the right to sell off your own organs? You're the only one with legality to donate them to research facilities or museums too, it follows the same logic.

​@@kimgkomg Better than China executing ethnic minorities so they can sell their organs.

Ah ok, that's way more reasonable. lets give it a go!

Not just arrested, SWATed.

Selected displays of ignorance are rewarded richly by the law

We live in a boring dystopia and have for many years now. Unfortunately far less boring for some than for others.

"Fear will keep them in line."

Defund the Parma PD! 🤣

*abolish

@@jmurray1110 *murder

This is *entirely* the problem here, in theory. The 'minorities are strongly encouraged to not apply' bit was 'parody', but also seems like genuine department unwritten policy. The 'joke' is simply in actually writing it out in full. Which IS pretty funny! But it's in no way absurd or, in fact, even faintly untrue. Which makes legally defining parody somewhat tricky.

@@Kanner111 It's actually a double-bind, though. If they acknowledge the parody to not be parody by virtue of being true, they would thereby also officially acknowledge how the PD is violating human rights. Hence the statement would not be defamatory anymore. This is actually what makes good satire: By its very nature it has very real consequences. This reminds me of a German satire show, which criticized the turkish president for misusing the German court system to silence any kind of criticism against him as defamatory. So they actually wrote a parody poem about him to show, what would actually be defamatory. The turkish president sued and in the whole aftermath the German chancellor at the time was forced to make a public statement about satire and art being protected by law and a law called "majesty defamation", which gave international head of states special rights to sue German people for defamation, was subsequently abolished.

This is just all police to various degrees.

*shoot

@@kx7500 the US worse than most

@@Toto-95 true, but I’m saying America is not super special at a fundamental level with their cops. They’re bad everywhere

@@kx7500 Believe it or not, there exist parts of the world where independent investigations are actually independent and power-tripping shenanigans are called out and punished as a result, for the betterment of society. Checks and balances are crucial, and some places have arranged them appropriately. Police are not "bad everywhere".

What'd you expect from 'em? They were chosen by the orange of whom we don't speak, so clearly the government > free speech.

uFUcuuccck that's chilling and sad

The Supreme Court overturned Roe v Wade, if you think they actually care for civil rights you’d be sorely mistaken

Concerning but unsurprising.

Hell, I wish I didn't know that. That is awful.

Now get a copy of the movie Brazil

Yeah, you’d think out of everyone, the people whose jobs it is to enforce the law wouldn’t be able to get away with being ignorant of it

That’s a great point. If I break a law I don’t know about, I’m still held responsible. Why shouldn’t the cops?

@@komenisai Because... USA, I guess. I always find it interesting how US law seems to be a mixture of laws protecting people from the police (seemingly under assumption that policemen are ill-intentioned crooks that can't be trusted) and others protecting the policemen regardless of what they do (ensuring that the police won't suffer any real consequences for being ill-intentioned crooks that can't be trusted).

I was just about to say, I thought ignorance of the law doesn't exclude you from it.

@@jonboze7314 It depends on the law. Some laws require you to know that you’re breaking the law. But yes, most don’t require intent.

Peter Schickele has mentioned that his P.D.Q. Bach parodies of classical music wouldn't be nearly as funny if all the musicians weren't so good at playing. It really works best when everything is right on target except for the one ridiculous thing.

Yeah, I thought the Onion was dead, so when I started watched the video I thought it was talking about a long-gone thing. But apparently not

Reality is so crazy now they may have to up their game to keep up with the ridiculousness

God, I miss them being stationed here in Madison, WI. They may still be here but they were iconic in the 90's and 2000's.

They're freakishly good at predicting the future.

There's a place near Philadelphia where police are almost all about that...

@@f_USAF-Lt.Gfrom better call saul

I think "reasonable" ended up winning that particular context. Must've been all the stretching it did that made the difference.

They’re on the same Olympic team 🏅

There’s so many videos freely available of cops attacking or arresting people just because they got their feelings hurt. Cops are some of the most sensitive I swear.

@@obeseperson High on power and believing they are over the law. Hence why qualified immunity should go and cops need at least 3 years of education on civil rights and the Constitution. Plus, get rid of the "us vs. them" shit.

from the writings of Cartman, "Respect My Authority"

@@6770chiefs *Authoriteh FTFY

Funny how often people screaming 'snowflake' and 'facts not feelings' seem to be the most hurt when they don't get hteir way.

Their explanation of the explanation of jokes is a parody of people explaining jokes... parodyception

The funny part is how the analysis points out the inanity of it’s own existence.

seriously, when you have to explain shit like this the funny just comes full circle lol

only the onion could pull off such a feat

I think the difference here is that the other party wants there to basically be a label upfront killing the joke, while the onion explains it on page hundred. Letting people in on the joke after they're already in on the joke doesn't kill the joke.

Or the single greatest argument against critical literacy expectations in Ohio. Could've been a sting. Ya never know.

It's satire doing what it's best at, critique

@@normanclatcher Let's say it's about a sting... Then it's the most unsubtle sting possible, and would still indicate the department's ineptitude.

@@IceMetalPunk ...And again, it's the Parma police department. If any locality _could_ inspire such an absolute _dearth_ of public confidence, it's this one.

@@normanclatcher Which leads back to the original point of both the parody page and this comment thread: Parma PD *should* get its act together.

Right? Courts have ruled more then once that "ignorance of the law is no defense". Unless you are the person supposed to uphold these laws....

Our judge dredd days are just over the horizon

At least you have a phone in jail.

I mean, this is the first thing we ever heard about Neil Brennan from Dave Chappelle when he was astounded that his white friend could get away with something by telling the cop I didn't know I could do that.. so either you didn't try telling the cop you didn't know you couldn't do that or you're a black person and in either case you should have known that you can't do that, just following the logic here! And what I mean by you should have known you can't do that is that you should have known you can't not say you didn't know that or be black!... It seems like there's a little bit of unbalanced outcome here I just can't put my white finger on it

@@theduckfromthejoke152 Neil Brennan? Do you mean Chip?

Yeah, it's akin to a handsy fratboy saying, "Whaa? All of the other girls liked it when I did it!" It's a disgusting precedent.

☝🏻well said 👏🏻

☝🏻well said 👏🏻

☝🏻well said 👏🏻

Police considered his words to be classified as a deadly weapon, citing the law that "the pen is mightier than the sword." The court disagreed on the grounds that, in fact, Novak was armed with a computer, not a pen, and the police department was armed with not a sword but a SWAT team.

It reminds me somewhat of the criminal harassment tactic of "SWATsing". Main difference being that the idiots responsible are not calling it in over the phone using a hoax. They are conducting it.

the fascist "supremos" must be fuming at the idiot cops PERFECT WELCOME FOR JUSTICE KITANJI

My only worry is the decrepit corpses on the Supreme Court don’t agree with them. The irony of disagreeing would of course just be plain comedy to anyone outside of the court

I fear Fox News could rebrand in court themselves as Parodists, instead of 'entertainment'. Because sooner or later, their use of the word 'news' in their official title when they are anything but has a major Karmic debt that is overdue. I don't want them to have this as a legal out when the guillotine blade finally drops.

@@czane1526 They don't even have to disagree. They could just decide not to take the case, shielding them from scrutiny. Much as I disliked the guy, Scalia would have been all over this case. So for those keeping score: decrepit SC corpses = 0, Actual corpse = 1.

@@temperededge - Eh, Scalia I imagine would, at best, be mightily furrowing his brow but going along with whatever the GOP wanted anyway - in this case, establishing precedent that police (who are overwhelmingly right-wing and have a huge white-nationalist problem nation wide) can do literally whatever they want to retaliate against any form of criticism.

It's unbelievable that qualified immunity is being spread so wide.wife. police can just say willingly ignorant of the law, and apply it as they wish as a result.

Isn't that unconstitutional in itself because it is against the rule of law?

@@inafridge8573 apparently not

It’s okay, we just have to give the police departments a few more thousand dollars, they’re so close to solving crime!

​@@liljimmy8248 another 1.9bil should help them get these darn criminals

Yeah that was my initial thought when I heard that said, "wait so they found something they didn't like and then went through a library to check if there was a crime they could pin on him? Not only does that show that the law officers just done know the law which is wild on its own, but they had enough spare time to try and assign someone a crime instead of watching for and stopping active crime. That sounds like an over-staffed and under-qualified department.

@@kempolar9768 "over-staffed and under-qualified" are the two best phrases to describe the US police system, followed by "over-funded," "hyper-aggressive" and "unhelpful"

The police exist to manufacture criminality. If what you're doing isn't illegal, but they'd like you to be a criminal, there are an infinite number of ways to do that.

Not entirely. There are situations where something is illegal but you have to search the law because you can't think of the correct charge off the top of your head. This situation is simply a case where the victi- sorry, 'defendant' had their rights violated.

Not always the case, the law doesn't cover everything, so sometimes the police need to find a suitable crime to fit the case. An example of this is the time a man flew in lawnchair over a few miles and landed on some power cables that were deactivated prior thanks to his girlfriend alerting the local authorities. The officers wanted to arrest him but there was no legal precedent for a case like this, so they looked to the closest offence to charge him for. This incident with Novak is a definitely breach of rights however.

I remember the story of a person who had flown with balloons (like the movie Up!) over an airport and caused it to close in an emergency. The response was also among the likes of "we know he broke the law, we're just not sure *which one* so we're figuring out what to charge him with" Such case wouldn't be a motorized vehicle, would it be *willingly* directing towards the airport if the wind is choosing the destination, etc. but it's clear there's some kind of statute that makes it illegal to throw random stuff to close airports, just have to find the correct one due to how unusual it is.

Then they grounded them

They looked for a law that was broad enough to charge him with. Cops always make up the rules as they go.

Damn. Even the thrones of feudal Europe and Asia understood the importance of a court jester for a society to keep itself in-check. I fear we're on a path of a fascistic reign which our ancestors couldn't imagine, and that's saying somethin'.

@@J5L5M6dont forget the fact the attorney for Parma is going and having a little happy dance going "Tee hee we won you lost nya nya nya nya nya nya"

I still put capers and yellow mustard on mine

was listening to the video while driving and thought it was "we know crime" a statement that is correct, funny, and carries a couple implications for the reader to discern. we no crime is so much better.

@@handlethesenutz I read it like "we no-crime", the latter being positioned as a verb. What a marvelous multi-function from only three words.

This alone should have been a clear sign that it was a satire page. It obviously doesn't apply to the real police department.

My brain slowly registered it while watching the video and I kept laughing throughout the video.

pls explain :)?

Heh. Satire *and* double entendre. 😁

That is also one of my favorite headlines. PS: The word you were looking for was: fetishist.

They sell a shirt with that headline on it. I bought one :)

*Fetishist

+2

Theyre all believable. The thing that shows it aint real is that they would never admit it.

@@whothefrickareyou8106 huh? "The thing that shows it ain't real is that they would never admit it." This is an incredibly vague statement. They who? Admit what exactly?

Guess that's the one upside to the police doing the lawbreaking, they keep literal legal records of all their doings, something no smart criminal would do lol

"Is you takin' notes on a criminal fuckin' conspiracy?" -Stringer Bell, The Wire

"Alleged" just means unproven, he's talking about admissions made on the record.

what're they gonna do, sure him?

@@pattygould8240 That's kinda my point. Though, "Alleged" was merely an example of the general category of words to distance oneself from the information. Having very little of this type of language is much stronger rhetoric you don't often hear from a lawyer.

This is what they do. They don’t stop crime, that is nowhere in their job descriptions apparently.

The lawsuit should be at minimum a billion dollars (in addition to the money for things other then the SWAT), because comedy, nonviolent Internet posts of any kind, and owning a Facebook page are not valid reasons for a SEAT raid nor for confiscation or searching of any items/technology whatsoever, regardless of whether the post is illegal.

@@Rayvn7 the issue with this is that cops pay out lawsuits with *your money*. You can’t legally sue a cop or a precinct, you sue the city, which uses city tax dollars to fight the case. That’s why cops drag it out as long as possible and why they couldn’t care less about breaking the law and getting sued. Even if they lose a lawsuit, there are zero consequences since it’s not their money anyway

@@fort809 - That's why qualified immunity needs to go, and cops need to have liability insurance - because then those static police department budgets are suddenly squeezed by hikes on the insurance rates after one of their officers does something actionable.

It's not that they don't understand how they look, they don't care how they look because they know if it goes too far they can just shoot the person pissing them off and come up with an excuse later.

My first phone was a brick phone, and if you pressed the 0 key (on the exposed, unprotectable keypad) a few times it would call 911. I stopped carrying it in my pocket after a week or two. Got tired of being called back by the dispatcher. ;)

I remember when I started college, so many of us Freshmen would accidentally call 911! It was back when not many people had cell phones yet, and it was tricky to get the hang of the dorm phones. You had to dial 9 to get an outside line, and it was still when you had to dial a 1 to call a non local number. I think the local dispatchers were used to it!

@@jackieolcott2500 this is something programmed into PBX systems today and is required so people don't need to dial the outside-line code '9' when in a panic. Causes many 911 false calls; I worked in telecom for 25 years programming these things 'under orders' from above and it is now required by law since 2020 ('Kari's Law').

@@rieaweer7459 Couldn't the dentist explain? xD

I have exactly one story of a dispatcher being too over-eager at their job. My mom called 911 to ask how to smother a kitchen fire. The dispatcher was like "A FIRE?! Don't worry ma'am, help is on the way!" And my mom was like "What! No, I don't need a fire truck, just tell me what to do to smother it!" The dispatcher was like "Don't take chances! You should go wait outside for assistance." This was around when the fire truck drove over the bridge behind the house. We were at the bottom of a pretty long cul de sac so it took another minute or two for the fire truck to get there. They come rushing in to the house and ask where the fire is. My mom points to a pile of like three black macaroni noodles with a sad little spark sputtering out before dying. There were now more firemen in the house than pieces of burned macaroni. She pointed out to the firemen that in her defense, she DID tell the dispatcher not to send them. The lead fireman radioed the dispatcher and sarcastically commented on the great conflagration that she had been explicitly told did not need a fire truck and she was like "Do you need more help!? I'm sending more fire trucks!" The guy was like "NO I DON'T NEED MORE HELP! DO **NOT** SEND MORE FIRE TRUCKS!" The firemen advised my mom to get a fire extinguisher in case she ever needed it and left.

Legal fiction proves lawyers write better fiction than literary writers.

I've often wondered if "we" can have qualified immunity for things that no one ever told us was against the law - just like police officers. Like "I didn't know it was illegal to dump 40 tons of cow shit on the police chief's lawn! I was just trying to help him have a greener lawn! And if some of it oozed under his front door and fertilized the carpets on every floor, well I didn't know that was illegal either!"

@@mrthingy9072 exactly! Violating Constitutional rights is a big thing cops should know not to do. It makes no sense that they could get away with it by claiming not to know, and if I didn't know that dressing up a goat in women's underwear and taking it on a little red wagon ride on a downtown sidewalk on a Sunday was against the law, I'd still be held liable for the 'offense'.

There's literally a name for the legal doctrine of not excusing people for being unaware of the law: ignorantia juris non excusat. The fact that the US not only doesn't follow this, but specifically doesn't recognize that an officer of the law, as in someone who technically works as the active enforcer of law, can be considered not guilty for violating the constitution, the basest form of law out of which the rest of the legal code blooms, epitomizes the latent authoritarianism of the US and it's institutions.

Pretty sure he said “judicially inventED”, because it arose out of a SCOTUS ruling rather than being passed as a law by a legislature. Pierson v Ray, I believe.

RIght? When I read that they took his "phone and computers" i was like ok sure, prolly has fb info, then said "and his gaming consoles"....wtf does an Xbox have to do with this? That's just next level pettiness.

Prosecutors and judges actually don’t need qualified immunity. They have total immunity in these cases.

Prosecutors? Do you mean maybe, police? Prosecutors don't enter people's homes as far as I know

@@ASpaceGhostFC2C I think he means prosecutors in this case. Which was police as they were prosecution and the dude was the defense.

qualified immunity isn't needed. They could have done it without giving a parody guy an actual case by calling civil forfeiture on his property.

What do you have there? "A PUN!" NO!!!

I thought that was already the pup's name!

We already call her that

That's been her nickname since the first time she was mentioned

If you watch older episodes, she is definitely called that.

I disagree with your teacher

I agree with your teacher

Thank you for your sacrifice

as someone from cleveland, yeah💀

I moved to Brooklyn just so I didn't have to live in Parma 😬

Facts

I live a stones throw from Parma in Newburgh Heights. Pink flamingos and chrome balls aside, I like Parma.

And yet no one asked for.. .. DOG BLESS AMERICA ✌️

the goal of the law is pretty good, I think. Literally nobody would be willing to take a job in govt without some form of this law. But I totally agree that the specifics of the law are not what the authors intended and it should be rewritten.

The people who are operating under these laws have completely forgotten the purpose, intent, and spirit of the law. Those with the right intent need no written laws at all. Those will mal intent will need an ever-expanding ocean of new statutes to govern them.

Its like the saying "You can get away with anything once as long as you're the first one to do it". Which is really not how immunity to prosecution should work for things that literally anyone should know is wrong. Which is apparent when anyone not a cop doing the same thing would be arrested. Also reminds me of that SR-71 story were they buzzed the tower at Sacramento Airport and after they landed their commanding officer came out and asked "do we have any regulations that say we can’t make approaches at Sacramento Airport?" to which the pilot replied "No sir." The CO then said "I want one on my desk at seven o’clock tomorrow morning."

Qualified immunity isn't for crimes intentionally committed. It's like a good Samaritan law where if you try to do CPR but don't know what you're doing you don't get sued

@@mlebrooks Except in practice it does end up being for crimes intentionally committed. That's kinda the crux of the issue.

Would have been a better usage of tax dollars to make some chicken parm

@@warlordofbritannia it's very hard to beat chicken parm

What is it with all the jokes about OH?

Revenge is a dish best served with a search warrant and flash bangs that have the potential to burn down a house with a child inside. -Abe Lincoln

Wouldn't the crime just be impersonating police

they didn't get the joke.

@@trshaw52...all I can think of is the Harley Quinn episode of Batman: the animated series when she says, "it was my fault, I didn't get the joke..." There is probably a connection, but I cant think of it right now.

Whether or not it's a joke doesn't matter. Police officers are the softest MF little crybabies on the face of the planet.

@@trshaw52 that’s the funniest part.

One relevant bit of history.... The Onion started in Madison WI as a newspaper. They included the local campus police blotter in the paper. No editing needed. The blotter served as a self parody, because it tended to be ridiculous stories dealing with college students.

I'm curious, do you remember the article?

The Onion - not wrong: satire. Parody. Fiction for fun. So your friends and family weren’t helpful at all.

That's not even the right lesson to take lol

I personally live in awe of the onion. Their densely layered humor is so well made I almost never find myself reading their articles without laughing

@@MusicfromMarrs I don't know about you, but if I accidently took a parody new story as actual news, I would find if very helpful if my friends and family pointed that out. Because, it would be wrong. Factually incorrect. Because its made up.

the fact that cops dont have to know the law they’re enforcing WITH guns is crazy

@@savannah8745 You know what's crazier? You can be held to be unsuitable to be a police officer on the grounds of being too intelligent.

Exactly, eating your own would be a waste of resources. The British already basically killed the children anyway which is part of the message

Yeah, it was making fun of the shithead oppressors. That the English were making the Irish so desperate that they had to sell their own children to survive, and that the English were such rapacious monsters that they would happily buy and eat Irish children.

You’re absolutely right. I was about to post the same correction about “A Modest Proposal.”

I thought so. Been decades since I read it, but the thought occurred to me as well.

Government got tired of being held accountable so the Supreme Court invented this law out of thin air. Now they won't evn alter it because that would mean they were wrong.

No, that's either missing the point or a dishonest slippery slope fallacy. These types of debates exist in the first place because we need to hold institutions like newspapers or even more official distributors of public information (research agencies, universities, governmental institutions, etc.) to a high standard of truth, and so they have to be careful with how they present untrue texts. Doesn't mean they should be denied all access to parody, as has been laid out in this video and its comment section, but you shouldn't pretend that the question at hand is about whether parody can exist *at all* either. (And yes, The Onion isn't a newspaper, but that's exactly the point: How far you need to go to distance yourself from claims of being an official authority, and if you *are* an official authority, how much of the inofficial nature of the particular text you are publishing has to be made explicit so it won't qualify as misinformation.)

@@TheHadMatters Oh well. A few years, a shitstorm descended on a German newspaper for publishing an "offending article". Apparently, there were quite a few people who did not understand that the article was *very clearly* satirical. Apart from being very clearly satirical, the article was also marked, *very clearly, in large friendly letters* as SATIRE Didn't help either. “Two things are infinite: the universe and human stupidity; and I'm not sure about the universe.” ― Albert Einstein

Funny as hell-song.

That would pave paradise and put up a horse tying post

@@TheHadMatters marking it as satire doesnt do shit Streetfighter 2 is the father of all fighting games During aprill fools a magazine published a joke article that stated on big bold italic letters on the bottom that "THIS IS A JOKE" and proceded to say that there was a secret hidden character on the game Thousands were fooled by it and the rumor only truly went away during the digital age

Now and in perpetuity.

Loss of consortium claim too...? 🤔

You're not supposed to be on the computer either, Billy.

Please give Billy his own channel. Legal Beagle!

Ty

swift was All Parody All The Time remember the lilliputians tieing a normal human up ?

Parody makes the world a much better place

I mean, one does expect and Englishman to be like that, so as long as you didn't know he was Irish...

I'd eaten three babies before somebody explained it.

I don't blame you. I feel that way about British people sometimes. SOME of the Brits accuse Americans of not understanding how sarcasm works and I'm like no, it's not my fault the British idea of sarcasm is saying something believable w/ a totally straight face and tone w/ ZERO indication of it being in jest, no inflection, no wink, nothing at all. Some of us can't just magically catch this sh-t.

One of my favorites is Putin Attempting to have Putin assassinate Putin

My favorite was the pedo giving advice on how to make your kids less attractive 😂

"The equivalent of three Americans killed in Iraq today"

Although not politically hard hitting, my favorite and the thing that introduced me to the Onion is the Sony time vampire

Just watched it. Laughing through the whole thing. It’s very wholesome.

I miss when that was a self-correcting issue. I remember long ago the news about a kid who passed away due to a parental mistake, and eventually the judge and jury closes the case with no punishment because they weren't found to have been grossly negligent or malicious, and through their grief and time lost in court, "they had been punished enough". Another read of the case was that they were too dumb to realize their mistake, but intelligent enough to learn from it so their idiocy didn't presented a continued threat, so they were let go.

@@shadow-r3852 At the same time, they learned that level of stupidity from someone...

@@shadow-r3852 except that warning is on there because of the previous generation

@@shadow-r3852 Same generation that put asbestos filters on cigarrettes and lead in gasoline and paint. The average boomer has a higher, medically certifiable degree of brain degeneration than septua, octo, and nonagenarians in other countries where those environmental factors were not as ever present as in America.

But also because of companies like PepsiCo.

Try finding the legal complaint of Wile E. Coyote against Acme Corporation. It is pretty good.

many legal documents can be pretty funny. for example there's a youtuber, simplynailogical, who owns a nail polish brand called holo taco. they received a humorous letter from taco bell, which they read out loud on their podcast. if you'd like, you can easily find a clip of that on youtube, it's called "Taco Bell's Lawyer Wrote Us A Letter".

Well, you never forget your first 🥹🥹

Lol good joke, cops being punished for perjury

yeah they routinely lie. Big part of their job.

yeah df did that happen hope someone explains that shit

@@ooooneeee They even have a term for it. Some More News has done a great video about it.

@@Hurricayne92 Some More News is fuggin' awesome.

Comedy genius move.

And yet, this evidently DIDN'T count as disclosure that the page WASN'T real, AND the cops didn't try to claim he infringed their copyright by copying it verbatim without crediting them.

@@burgerforcongress1001 I hadn't even thought of that, that's the big brain play for his legal team. "We had a disclaimer up, it's right there!"

Make people think that the real page is actually the fake, brilliant move.