444
How in 2024 do we not have the ability to find and prosecute offenders of false 911 calls like this?
We do but our cops are fascist and want Trump to win.
Ding Ding Ding!
I managed to quite royally piss off a paranoid county contracted bounty huntress by showing her Trump's mugshot.
Good thing she needed me as a witness.
Why would cops investigate themselves?
If the caller has more than two braincells, they'll user a burner phone, rented phone number etc.
These types of things are next to impossible to trace if done right
Yeah but if GOP voters were smart they wouldn't be voting for the GOP, so should be pretty easy to trace.
Criminal minds don't necessarily have to be smart, they have to be criminal.
Nah, they get caught all the time. There is just an endless supply of brain-dead conservative cultist to keep doing it.
Remember Cesar Sayoc?
Yep, that's why I included the two brain cell clause, covers a good 50% of the population, perhaps even more than that
people who do that are found frequently... but if they're not completely dumb, they would be untraceable. (basically a burner phone)
i remember one guy, who eventually got caught anyways, had a swatting service where he used some aol service that would transcribe phone calls for the blind, and contacted them over tor...
i think it should be hard for cops to track people... it should be possible to defy the gov
e.g. if drumpf becomes dictator, it'll be good to have a way to escape...
Police are only obliged to protect private property. Especially large collections of private property. Not people.
That’s why it’s the role of the fbi to investigate any threats to officials
I really appreciate all the people responding with valid well thought out counter points and examples. Not simply smashing the download button because they can't prove otherwise but still don't like it.
- Edit I really appreciate all the people responding with valid well thought out counter points and examples. Not simply smashing the down vote button because they can't prove otherwise but still don't like it.
yet another glaring example of why i'm not willing to meet these ingrates halfway
Almost any group is capable of having extremists who are willing to do something stupid. Being stupid as a response to extremists being idiots is exactly how divisions grow.
true. but quite frankly, if someone can't at their very core agree to the 'golden rule', what other option is there? a functioning society is better off being divided against people like that.
You want to be equated to the most extreme people who share your beliefs?
a belief that they should treat others the way they'd want to be treated?
this is probably a trick question so i don't think I'd answer it correctly
Why am I not the least bit surprised? The fascist right wing want their orange jesus even if people have to die.
Their first move when Trumpy is punished somehow is routinely to threaten violence against individuals or just in general.
This is the best summary I could come up with:
The incident happened just a day after Bellows, a Democrat, ruled former President Donald Trump is constitutionally ineligible to appear on the state’s primary ballot next year.
When officers arrived, they found no one at the house, and they checked the exterior of the property as well as the interior at the request of Bellows, who was not at home at the time.
Bellows' decision followed a first-of-its-kind ruling by the Colorado Supreme Court last week that the 14th Amendment to the Constitution bars Trump from holding office again because of his role in the Jan. 6, 2021, attack on the Capitol.
Bellows’ office said her decision would not be enforced until the courts weigh in, “given the compressed timeframe, the novel constitutional questions involved, the importance of this case, and impending ballot preparation deadlines.”
He also called Bellows "a former ACLU attorney, a virulent leftist and a hyper-partisan Biden-supporting Democrat who has decided to interfere in the presidential election on behalf of Crooked Joe Biden."
Trump had demanded Bellows, a former state senator, recuse herself from the case, arguing she was too partisan and prejudiced because she had called the Jan. 6 attack an “insurrection.”
The original article contains 539 words, the summary contains 194 words. Saved 64%. I'm a bot and I'm open source!
Trump had demanded Bellows, a former state senator, recuse herself from the case, arguing she was too partisan and prejudiced because she had called the Jan. 6 attack an “insurrection.”
That is hilarious. She ruled that way because she thinks the J 6 coup attempt was an insurrection, but she should recuse herself because she said the J 6 coup attempt was an insurrection.
Thankfully I'm not in her situation, so i can't judge her actions, but I do wonder whether it would be better not to give the perp the satisfaction of publication.
I can imagine someone jizzing their pants over this article and their little stunt.
this post was submitted on 30 Dec 2023
444 points (99.3% liked)
politics
18138 readers
3838 users here now
Welcome to the discussion of US Politics!
Rules:
- Post only links to articles, Title must fairly describe link contents. If your title differs from the site’s, it should only be to add context or be more descriptive. Do not post entire articles in the body or in the comments.
- Articles must be relevant to politics. Links must be to quality and original content. Articles should be worth reading. Clickbait, stub articles, and rehosted or stolen content are not allowed. Check your source for Reliability and Bias here.
- Be civil, No violations of TOS. It’s OK to say the subject of an article is behaving like a (pejorative, pejorative). It’s NOT OK to say another USER is (pejorative). Strong language is fine, just not directed at other members. Engage in good-faith and with respect! This includes accusing another user of being a bot or paid actor. Trolling is uncivil and is grounds for removal and/or a community ban.
- No memes, trolling, or low-effort comments. Reposts, misinformation, off-topic, trolling, or offensive.
- Vote based on comment quality, not agreement. This community aims to foster discussion; please reward people for putting effort into articulating their viewpoint, even if you disagree with it.
- No hate speech, slurs, celebrating death, advocating violence, or abusive language. This will result in a ban. Usernames containing racist, or inappropriate slurs will be banned without warning
We ask that the users report any comment or post that violate the rules, to use critical thinking when reading, posting or commenting. Users that post off-topic spam, advocate violence, have multiple comments or posts removed, weaponize reports or violate the code of conduct will be banned.
All posts and comments will be reviewed on a case-by-case basis. This means that some content that violates the rules may be allowed, while other content that does not violate the rules may be removed. The moderators retain the right to remove any content and ban users.
That's all the rules!
Civic Links
• Congressional Awards Program
• Library of Congress Legislative Resources
• U.S. House of Representatives
Partnered Communities:
• News
founded 1 year ago
MODERATORS