I guess the theoretical difference is that rendering aid in certain law enforcement situations could mean risking your own life
So does medicine in many situations..
I don't think medicine relies on liability to enforce putting medical professionals at risk, and people who do so basically voluntarily assume the risk.
Marty: The future, it's where you're going? Doc: That's right, twenty five years into the future. I've always dreamed on seeing the future, looking beyond my years, seeing the progress of mankind. I'll also be able to see who wins the next twenty-five world series.
I guess the theoretical difference is that rendering aid in certain law enforcement situations could mean risking your own life
So could rendering aid in a firefighting situation. But you don't see firefighters getting judges to rule they have no requirements to go into the burning building to save you.
Cops should be like firefighters. If you aren't willing to risk yourself, don't take the job.
I would be very surprised if there was a legal requirement for firefighters to go into a burning building to render aid. There's just no way to make that law enforceable without requiring firefighters to commit suicide sometimes.
I think the legal arena is a terrible place to adjudicate police malfeasance. There's too much nuance required, especially against the backdrop of normal legal proceedings which are supposed to be a lot more regimented, and a fair amount biased towards finding people not guilty (innocent until proven guilty, beyond a reasonable doubt, etc).
There are lots of cases where for sure the police involved should receive legal repercussions, and that can and should happen without any laws enforcing a "duty to act".
But the main relief for lower level police malfeasance (like police refusing to respond to calls in a black neighborhood or something), should be community oversight. The people involved should be fired, or the precinct fined, until the community appointees are satisfied that changes are being made. And a lot of it should be subjective. Like I can't say for sure what office X was thinking in the moment, but I actually don't care. The outcome wasn't what we (the community) wanted. Action should be taken (not always discipline for that specific officer, sometimes it should just be the precinct fined or something).
"The world is a mess, and I just need to rule it" - Dr Horrible
I guess the theoretical difference is that rendering aid in certain law enforcement situations could mean risking your own life
So could rendering aid in a firefighting situation. But you don't see firefighters getting judges to rule they have no requirements to go into the burning building to save you.
Cops should be like firefighters. If you aren't willing to risk yourself, don't take the job.
Only because it's well settled that we're not obligated to do so.
RedTide#1907 on Battle.net
Come Overwatch with meeeee
+9
Options
MonwynApathy's a tragedy, and boredom is a crime.A little bit of everything, all of the time.Registered Userregular
Chauvin trial proceeds.
Big witness today was an off-duty firefighter and EMT. She gave approximately zero fucks about the defense's framing.
I guess the theoretical difference is that rendering aid in certain law enforcement situations could mean risking your own life
So could rendering aid in a firefighting situation. But you don't see firefighters getting judges to rule they have no requirements to go into the burning building to save you.
Cops should be like firefighters. If you aren't willing to risk yourself, don't take the job.
Only because it's well settled that we're not obligated to do so.
They can even refuse to put out fires if the person hasn't paid in some jurisdictions
I guess the theoretical difference is that rendering aid in certain law enforcement situations could mean risking your own life
So could rendering aid in a firefighting situation. But you don't see firefighters getting judges to rule they have no requirements to go into the burning building to save you.
Cops should be like firefighters. If you aren't willing to risk yourself, don't take the job.
Only because it's well settled that we're not obligated to do so.
They can even refuse to put out fires if the person hasn't paid in some jurisdictions
That's places with private fire fighters or without their own fire departments, though, right?
That was the judge objecting in the second video? That is very unusual in my limited experience in court. Not a good look under the circumstances.
Witness hostility.
Is that a common thing the judge objects to is my question. I can't say I am overly cooperative when being questioned (who is?), but maybe I have never crossed a specific line.
0
Options
MonwynApathy's a tragedy, and boredom is a crime.A little bit of everything, all of the time.Registered Userregular
That was the judge objecting in the second video? That is very unusual in my limited experience in court. Not a good look under the circumstances.
Witness hostility.
Is that a common thing the judge objects to is my question. I can't say I am overly cooperative when being questioned (who is?), but maybe I have never crossed a specific line.
Witnesses are not supposed to inject personal opinion or snark into their testimony, so if something crosses the line, usually it gets objected to. Here, the judge felt it obviously crossed the line, and warned the witness before the defense could object, which the defense said they were going to.
That was the judge objecting in the second video? That is very unusual in my limited experience in court. Not a good look under the circumstances.
Witness hostility.
Is that a common thing the judge objects to is my question. I can't say I am overly cooperative when being questioned (who is?), but maybe I have never crossed a specific line.
Witnesses are not supposed to inject personal opinion or snark into their testimony, so if something crosses the line, usually it gets objected to. Here, the judge felt it obviously crossed the line, and warned the witness before the defense could object, which the defense said they were going to.
I understand the very basics of testifying in court. I have done it many times. I am scheduled to do it again in the not so distant future. My question is about how common it is for the judge to object for either side. I have never seen it happen even in obvious cases. I have seen a judge sustain mid sentence to an objection, but never object themselves.
0
Options
zepherinRussian warship, go fuck yourselfRegistered Userregular
I guess the theoretical difference is that rendering aid in certain law enforcement situations could mean risking your own life
So could rendering aid in a firefighting situation. But you don't see firefighters getting judges to rule they have no requirements to go into the burning building to save you.
Cops should be like firefighters. If you aren't willing to risk yourself, don't take the job.
Only because it's well settled that we're not obligated to do so.
They can even refuse to put out fires if the person hasn't paid in some jurisdictions
That's places with private fire fighters or without their own fire departments, though, right?
Sort of. It was municiple fire fighters, but the county didn't want to have their own fire department so city offers the rural residence fire fighter service for $75 a year, and someone who didn't pay called the fire department, and they showed up and didn't put out the fire. They turned on the hoses when the fire got too close to a neighbor who did pay the $75.
I guess the theoretical difference is that rendering aid in certain law enforcement situations could mean risking your own life
So could rendering aid in a firefighting situation. But you don't see firefighters getting judges to rule they have no requirements to go into the burning building to save you.
Cops should be like firefighters. If you aren't willing to risk yourself, don't take the job.
Only because it's well settled that we're not obligated to do so.
They can even refuse to put out fires if the person hasn't paid in some jurisdictions
Most others have covered the cases where that has famously happened but I'll just add:
- That set up is thankfully super uncommon
- The whole thing goes out the window when human life is in jeopardy I believe, but reverts back once that matter is settled
RedTide#1907 on Battle.net
Come Overwatch with meeeee
watching the trial still
holy shit i dont know if these have been made public yet but the body cam videos are now being shown in their entirety back to back to back and they are straight up horrifying
even worse than the cellphone videos
in any sane world they ought to be damning on their own
AAAAA!!! PLAAAYGUUU!!!!
+4
Options
FencingsaxIt is difficult to get a man to understand, when his salary depends upon his not understandingGNU Terry PratchettRegistered Userregular
That was the judge objecting in the second video? That is very unusual in my limited experience in court. Not a good look under the circumstances.
Witness hostility.
Is that a common thing the judge objects to is my question. I can't say I am overly cooperative when being questioned (who is?), but maybe I have never crossed a specific line.
Witnesses are not supposed to inject personal opinion or snark into their testimony, so if something crosses the line, usually it gets objected to. Here, the judge felt it obviously crossed the line, and warned the witness before the defense could object, which the defense said they were going to.
I understand the very basics of testifying in court. I have done it many times. I am scheduled to do it again in the not so distant future. My question is about how common it is for the judge to object for either side. I have never seen it happen even in obvious cases. I have seen a judge sustain mid sentence to an objection, but never object themselves.
Judges get a lot of leeway how their court is run. So it depends on the judge.
On a case like this, I imagine the judge is already sensitive about court behavior.
A man has become the first serving British police officer to be convicted of a terrorism offence after he was found guilty of membership of a banned neo-Nazi group.
Ben Hannam had been working as a probationary officer for the Metropolitan police for nearly two years before his details were found on a leaked database of users of an extreme rightwing forum.
The 22-year-old was found guilty on Thursday at the Old Bailey in London of membership of the terrorism group National Action (NA), which was banned in December 2016.
He was also convicted of lying on his application and vetting forms to join the Met and of having terrorism material detailing knife combat and making explosive devices.
Wow, no freedom of association in the UK huh? Didn't know that.
Breonna Taylor was killed by cops whose reasoning for a no knock entry on her apartment was that someone she was associated with was maybe a drug dealer.
Considering the last few years, no American has any leg to stand on when it comes to criticizing another nation's rights and freedoms.
Breonna Taylor was killed by cops whose reasoning for a no knock entry on her apartment was that someone she was associated with was maybe a drug dealer.
Considering the last few years, no American has any leg to stand on when it comes to criticizing another nation's rights and freedoms.
That'd be hypocritical where every American ok with what the government, and their police forces, do, but you won't find that here. It's also not like police brutality is solely an American problem when that's incorrect. This is something of an issue in police forces worldwide, that's why Black Lives matter is a global movement.
+2
Options
Nova_CI have the needThe need for speedRegistered Userregular
Breonna Taylor was killed by cops whose reasoning for a no knock entry on her apartment was that someone she was associated with was maybe a drug dealer.
Considering the last few years, no American has any leg to stand on when it comes to criticizing another nation's rights and freedoms.
That'd be hypocritical where every American ok with what the government, and their police forces, do, but you won't find that here. It's also not like police brutality is solely an American problem when that's incorrect. This is something of an issue in police forces worldwide, that's why Black Lives matter is a global movement.
America imprisons more of it's population than any other country, yet I keep seeing shit like the above, about how much better America is because of your guaranteed rights.
What utter horseshit. Yeah, we deal with the same problems, so the umbrage in my reply was entirely appropriate.
Breonna Taylor was killed by cops whose reasoning for a no knock entry on her apartment was that someone she was associated with was maybe a drug dealer.
Considering the last few years, no American has any leg to stand on when it comes to criticizing another nation's rights and freedoms.
That'd be hypocritical where every American ok with what the government, and their police forces, do, but you won't find that here. It's also not like police brutality is solely an American problem when that's incorrect. This is something of an issue in police forces worldwide, that's why Black Lives matter is a global movement.
America imprisons more of it's population than any other country, yet I keep seeing shit like the above, about how much better America is because of your guaranteed rights.
What utter horseshit. Yeah, we deal with the same problems, so the umbrage in my reply was entirely appropriate.
This is an incredible over reaction to what I read. It was hardly an America, fuck yeah response.
Freedom of association does not mean freedom from the consequences of who and what you choose to associate with. You associate with Nazis, then the consequence is that you are barred from holding any position of power in government. Like the police.
Freedom of association does not mean freedom from the consequences of who and what you choose to associate with. You associate with Nazis, then the consequence is that you are barred from holding any position of power in government. Like the police.
Right but the consequences are that he was criminally prosecuted for his association with that group. Just makes me a little uncomfortable because I could see the government just as easily prosecuting someone because they're a member of Amnesty International, or some other "good" group.
But like I said, I'm an American so I often take our first amendment for granted.
(And yes, it was abhorrent what happened to Breonna Taylor, and a violation of her right to association among many other things. Why are you all trying to make a straw man out of me?)
DisruptedCapitalist on
"Simple, real stupidity beats artificial intelligence every time." -Mustrum Ridcully in Terry Pratchett's Hogfather p. 142 (HarperPrism 1996)
+2
Options
Nova_CI have the needThe need for speedRegistered Userregular
I'm really not.
The rights you 'take for granted' are the same illusion the rest of us have. Police routinely violate them and are lauded for it, which means they don't exist.
Your surprise that the UK doesn't have a guaranteed right to freedom of association is no less surprising for me than you believing yours carries any weight whatsoever.
We can fight to hold the police in our respective nations accountable via movements like BLM, but it's those movements that make the rights real. Not some paper written 250 years ago. And certainly not the government that grinds that paper beneath the bootheel of a police state.
Freedom of association does not mean freedom from the consequences of who and what you choose to associate with. You associate with Nazis, then the consequence is that you are barred from holding any position of power in government. Like the police.
Right but the consequences are that he was criminally prosecuted for his association with that group. Just makes me a little uncomfortable because I could see the government just as easily prosecuting someone because they're a member of Amnesty International, or some other "good" group.
But like I said, I'm an American so I often take our first amendment for granted.
(And yes, it was abhorrent what happened to Breonna Taylor, and a violation of her right to association among many other things. Why are you all trying to make a straw man out of me?)
Hm. Yea, that's a little less cut and dry. Given the worldwide rise of right wing terrorism, I'm inclined to say "fuck Nazis forever in all the ways" but prosecution for membership alone makes me uncomfortable. I'd have really explore the weeds of UK law and the specifics of this case to make a confident opinion.
The part that is cut and dry is he lied in his application. At the very least he deserves to be fired for that.
The right to not have fascist police is quite an important right.
Yes, and he can be fired and barred from ever working as a police officer ever again to achieve that goal. But he wasn't just fired. He's going to prison for it.
And Nova, yes governments violate people's rights all the time and nothing is done about it so your conclusion is that we shouldn't even bother having codified rights in the first place? I don't get what you're criticising me of here. Are you suggesting I think Breonna deserved what she got? Because that's a straw man and a total non sequitur with what happened in that article.
Edit: am I missing something from that article? It says he was found guilty, so I'm assuming that means prison time, and not just merely being dismissed from his job.
DisruptedCapitalist on
"Simple, real stupidity beats artificial intelligence every time." -Mustrum Ridcully in Terry Pratchett's Hogfather p. 142 (HarperPrism 1996)
In America you would be prosecuted if you were a member of ISIS or Al Qaeda or other terrorist organizations too.
Yeah the only real difference here is that the UK is able to recognize that white supremacist organizations are terrorists and considers knife fighting instructions a dangerous thing on par with bomb building instructions.
Freedom of association does not mean freedom from the consequences of who and what you choose to associate with. You associate with Nazis, then the consequence is that you are barred from holding any position of power in government. Like the police.
Right but the consequences are that he was criminally prosecuted for his association with that group. Just makes me a little uncomfortable because I could see the government just as easily prosecuting someone because they're a member of Amnesty International, or some other "good" group.
But like I said, I'm an American so I often take our first amendment for granted.
(And yes, it was abhorrent what happened to Breonna Taylor, and a violation of her right to association among many other things. Why are you all trying to make a straw man out of me?)
Edit: He was prosecuted for lying on his application and more ok
In America you would be prosecuted if you were a member of ISIS or Al Qaeda or other terrorist organizations too.
This is news to me, can you cite where someone was prosecuted for their association alone and not some other crime? I can't find anything with a quick Google search...
"Simple, real stupidity beats artificial intelligence every time." -Mustrum Ridcully in Terry Pratchett's Hogfather p. 142 (HarperPrism 1996)
0
Options
Nova_CI have the needThe need for speedRegistered Userregular
The right to not have fascist police is quite an important right.
Yes, and he can be fired and barred from ever working as a police officer ever again to achieve that goal. But he wasn't just fired. He's going to prison for it.
And Nova, yes governments violate people's rights all the time and nothing is done about it so your conclusion is that we shouldn't even bother having codified rights in the first place? I don't get what you're criticising me of here. Are you suggesting I think Breonna deserved what she got? Because that's a straw man and a total non sequitur with what happened in that article.
Wow, no freedom of association in the UK huh? Didn't know that.
I'm criticizing this post, because I can easily replace the "UK" with "US" and it still applies, so I guess, if you didn't mean this to be dripping the contempt that it seems to be, what even are you trying to say or do with this? Because as far as I can tell, you're dunking on the UK for not having a right that you seem to believe you have. You don't.
Freedom of association does not mean freedom from the consequences of who and what you choose to associate with. You associate with Nazis, then the consequence is that you are barred from holding any position of power in government. Like the police.
Right but the consequences are that he was criminally prosecuted for his association with that group. Just makes me a little uncomfortable because I could see the government just as easily prosecuting someone because they're a member of Amnesty International, or some other "good" group.
But like I said, I'm an American so I often take our first amendment for granted.
(And yes, it was abhorrent what happened to Breonna Taylor, and a violation of her right to association among many other things. Why are you all trying to make a straw man out of me?)
Edit: He was prosecuted for lying on his application and more ok
That's not what the article says. It says:
"[H]e was found guilty of membership of a banned neo-Nazi group."
DisruptedCapitalist on
"Simple, real stupidity beats artificial intelligence every time." -Mustrum Ridcully in Terry Pratchett's Hogfather p. 142 (HarperPrism 1996)
Freedom of association does not mean freedom from the consequences of who and what you choose to associate with. You associate with Nazis, then the consequence is that you are barred from holding any position of power in government. Like the police.
Right but the consequences are that he was criminally prosecuted for his association with that group. Just makes me a little uncomfortable because I could see the government just as easily prosecuting someone because they're a member of Amnesty International, or some other "good" group.
But like I said, I'm an American so I often take our first amendment for granted.
(And yes, it was abhorrent what happened to Breonna Taylor, and a violation of her right to association among many other things. Why are you all trying to make a straw man out of me?)
Edit: He was prosecuted for lying on his application and more ok
That's not what the article says. It says:
"[H]e was found guilty of membership of a banned neo-Nazi group."
In America you would be prosecuted if you were a member of ISIS or Al Qaeda or other terrorist organizations too.
This is news to me, can you cite where someone was prosecuted for their association alone and not some other crime? I can't find anything with a quick Google search...
They would get him on material support of terrorism for the bomb-making books at the very least. I dunno if simple membership qualifies but likely could be stretched in a case like this.
The right to not have fascist police is quite an important right.
Yes, and he can be fired and barred from ever working as a police officer ever again to achieve that goal. But he wasn't just fired. He's going to prison for it.
And Nova, yes governments violate people's rights all the time and nothing is done about it so your conclusion is that we shouldn't even bother having codified rights in the first place? I don't get what you're criticising me of here. Are you suggesting I think Breonna deserved what she got? Because that's a straw man and a total non sequitur with what happened in that article.
Wow, no freedom of association in the UK huh? Didn't know that.
I'm criticizing this post, because I can easily replace the "UK" with "US" and it still applies, so I guess, if you didn't mean this to be dripping the contempt that it seems to be, what even are you trying to say or do with this? Because as far as I can tell, you're dunking on the UK for not having a right that you seem to believe you have. You don't.
Yikes, sorry, I didn't mean it to have a contemptuous tone. I was just surprised and a little alarmed by it. I know our rights are as only safe as the paper they're written on. It's depressing.
"Simple, real stupidity beats artificial intelligence every time." -Mustrum Ridcully in Terry Pratchett's Hogfather p. 142 (HarperPrism 1996)
The 22-year-old was found guilty on Thursday at the Old Bailey in London of membership of the terrorism group National Action (NA), which was banned in December 2016.
He was also convicted of lying on his application and vetting forms to join the Met and of having terrorism material detailing knife combat and making explosive devices.
The article also states that the National Action is the only far-right group proscribed as a terrorist organization by the government in this way, and it was done in response to their celebration of the murder of an MP in 2016.
Which, while it's kind of galling that it's the only far-right organization designated as a terrorist org by the UK, we have to remember that here in the good ol' US of A we have yet to even designate the KKK as a terrorist group.
I wonder how many other officers are members of this far-right organization, since the press was apparently not allowed to report on this until now.
A ban on reporting the case was lifted after Hannam admitted possessing an indecent image of a child, which was to have been the subject of a separate trial.
Posts
I don't think medicine relies on liability to enforce putting medical professionals at risk, and people who do so basically voluntarily assume the risk.
Doc: That's right, twenty five years into the future. I've always dreamed on seeing the future, looking beyond my years, seeing the progress of mankind. I'll also be able to see who wins the next twenty-five world series.
I would be very surprised if there was a legal requirement for firefighters to go into a burning building to render aid. There's just no way to make that law enforceable without requiring firefighters to commit suicide sometimes.
I think the legal arena is a terrible place to adjudicate police malfeasance. There's too much nuance required, especially against the backdrop of normal legal proceedings which are supposed to be a lot more regimented, and a fair amount biased towards finding people not guilty (innocent until proven guilty, beyond a reasonable doubt, etc).
There are lots of cases where for sure the police involved should receive legal repercussions, and that can and should happen without any laws enforcing a "duty to act".
But the main relief for lower level police malfeasance (like police refusing to respond to calls in a black neighborhood or something), should be community oversight. The people involved should be fired, or the precinct fined, until the community appointees are satisfied that changes are being made. And a lot of it should be subjective. Like I can't say for sure what office X was thinking in the moment, but I actually don't care. The outcome wasn't what we (the community) wanted. Action should be taken (not always discipline for that specific officer, sometimes it should just be the precinct fined or something).
Only because it's well settled that we're not obligated to do so.
Come Overwatch with meeeee
Big witness today was an off-duty firefighter and EMT. She gave approximately zero fucks about the defense's framing.
They can even refuse to put out fires if the person hasn't paid in some jurisdictions
That's places with private fire fighters or without their own fire departments, though, right?
That was the judge objecting in the second video? That is very unusual in my limited experience in court. Not a good look under the circumstances.
Witness hostility.
Is that a common thing the judge objects to is my question. I can't say I am overly cooperative when being questioned (who is?), but maybe I have never crossed a specific line.
Yeah that was the judge. He dismissed the jury for the day and admonished the witness afterwards.
Sorta, you know, think he's in the tank.
Witnesses are not supposed to inject personal opinion or snark into their testimony, so if something crosses the line, usually it gets objected to. Here, the judge felt it obviously crossed the line, and warned the witness before the defense could object, which the defense said they were going to.
I understand the very basics of testifying in court. I have done it many times. I am scheduled to do it again in the not so distant future. My question is about how common it is for the judge to object for either side. I have never seen it happen even in obvious cases. I have seen a judge sustain mid sentence to an objection, but never object themselves.
https://www.nbcnews.com/id/wbna39516346
"Insurance is going to pay for what money I had on the policy, looks like. But like everything else, I didn't have enough."
Most others have covered the cases where that has famously happened but I'll just add:
- That set up is thankfully super uncommon
- The whole thing goes out the window when human life is in jeopardy I believe, but reverts back once that matter is settled
Come Overwatch with meeeee
holy shit i dont know if these have been made public yet but the body cam videos are now being shown in their entirety back to back to back and they are straight up horrifying
even worse than the cellphone videos
in any sane world they ought to be damning on their own
Judges get a lot of leeway how their court is run. So it depends on the judge.
On a case like this, I imagine the judge is already sensitive about court behavior.
This is a weird conclusion to take from this.
Breonna Taylor was killed by cops whose reasoning for a no knock entry on her apartment was that someone she was associated with was maybe a drug dealer.
Considering the last few years, no American has any leg to stand on when it comes to criticizing another nation's rights and freedoms.
That'd be hypocritical where every American ok with what the government, and their police forces, do, but you won't find that here. It's also not like police brutality is solely an American problem when that's incorrect. This is something of an issue in police forces worldwide, that's why Black Lives matter is a global movement.
America imprisons more of it's population than any other country, yet I keep seeing shit like the above, about how much better America is because of your guaranteed rights.
What utter horseshit. Yeah, we deal with the same problems, so the umbrage in my reply was entirely appropriate.
This is an incredible over reaction to what I read. It was hardly an America, fuck yeah response.
Right but the consequences are that he was criminally prosecuted for his association with that group. Just makes me a little uncomfortable because I could see the government just as easily prosecuting someone because they're a member of Amnesty International, or some other "good" group.
But like I said, I'm an American so I often take our first amendment for granted.
(And yes, it was abhorrent what happened to Breonna Taylor, and a violation of her right to association among many other things. Why are you all trying to make a straw man out of me?)
The rights you 'take for granted' are the same illusion the rest of us have. Police routinely violate them and are lauded for it, which means they don't exist.
Your surprise that the UK doesn't have a guaranteed right to freedom of association is no less surprising for me than you believing yours carries any weight whatsoever.
We can fight to hold the police in our respective nations accountable via movements like BLM, but it's those movements that make the rights real. Not some paper written 250 years ago. And certainly not the government that grinds that paper beneath the bootheel of a police state.
Hm. Yea, that's a little less cut and dry. Given the worldwide rise of right wing terrorism, I'm inclined to say "fuck Nazis forever in all the ways" but prosecution for membership alone makes me uncomfortable. I'd have really explore the weeds of UK law and the specifics of this case to make a confident opinion.
The part that is cut and dry is he lied in his application. At the very least he deserves to be fired for that.
Yes, and he can be fired and barred from ever working as a police officer ever again to achieve that goal. But he wasn't just fired. He's going to prison for it.
And Nova, yes governments violate people's rights all the time and nothing is done about it so your conclusion is that we shouldn't even bother having codified rights in the first place? I don't get what you're criticising me of here. Are you suggesting I think Breonna deserved what she got? Because that's a straw man and a total non sequitur with what happened in that article.
Edit: am I missing something from that article? It says he was found guilty, so I'm assuming that means prison time, and not just merely being dismissed from his job.
Yeah the only real difference here is that the UK is able to recognize that white supremacist organizations are terrorists and considers knife fighting instructions a dangerous thing on par with bomb building instructions.
Edit: He was prosecuted for lying on his application and more ok
This is news to me, can you cite where someone was prosecuted for their association alone and not some other crime? I can't find anything with a quick Google search...
I'm criticizing this post, because I can easily replace the "UK" with "US" and it still applies, so I guess, if you didn't mean this to be dripping the contempt that it seems to be, what even are you trying to say or do with this? Because as far as I can tell, you're dunking on the UK for not having a right that you seem to believe you have. You don't.
That's not what the article says. It says:
"[H]e was found guilty of membership of a banned neo-Nazi group."
Yep I was mistaken
They would get him on material support of terrorism for the bomb-making books at the very least. I dunno if simple membership qualifies but likely could be stretched in a case like this.
Yikes, sorry, I didn't mean it to have a contemptuous tone. I was just surprised and a little alarmed by it. I know our rights are as only safe as the paper they're written on. It's depressing.
The article also states that the National Action is the only far-right group proscribed as a terrorist organization by the government in this way, and it was done in response to their celebration of the murder of an MP in 2016.
Which, while it's kind of galling that it's the only far-right organization designated as a terrorist org by the UK, we have to remember that here in the good ol' US of A we have yet to even designate the KKK as a terrorist group.
I wonder how many other officers are members of this far-right organization, since the press was apparently not allowed to report on this until now.
Rock Band DLC | GW:OttW - arrcd | WLD - Thortar