ShadowDragon8685 t1_jb04h42 wrote

This judge needs to bone up on Streisand, Barbara, Effect Thereof.

The correct response in this case, if the judge's motivation is to support the property-owner status quo, is to declare a mistrial, or whatever the English equivalent of a jury unable to reach a verdict is, and tell the prosecutor to quietly fail to file again.

Jailing them like this is only going to amplify their message. Case in point: I'm some schmuck from New Jersey and had no idea an old British woman and a British woman about my age had glued themselves to a tarmac. Now I do. I hadn't even heard of "Insulate Britain;" now I have.


ShadowDragon8685 t1_jam45h6 wrote

Nope, because the act specifies the specific military awards which it is illegal to fraudulently claim to have earned for tangible benefit.

This is a different "Purple Heart." Which he did "legitimately" earn, by the standard of "the pigs can give themselves whatever medals they wish."


ShadowDragon8685 t1_jalrt6q wrote

> I know. But there is also brand protection. If you can't steal a commercial brand name, I am surprised that one can take a free ride on a military medal.

Funnily enough, works of the United States government (including the military) are public domain.

Also, this would be like saying "I work for Pepsi, and I got this nifty 'best salesman of the year' badge back in '17." That's not a crime unless you're doing it to try to obtain money, property, or other tangible benefit. That could mean trying to get a job based on fraudulently misrepresenting your credentials, or trying to claim some benefit (either governmental or not) offered to veterans (or Pepsi Salesmen of the Year), such as free/reduced meals at restaurants, or being stood for alcohol at a bar by someone lapping up your stories of elite Pepsi salesmanship; it could stretch as far as getting sued by someone who had sex with you, then claims that they would not have done so if they had known you were not what you were pretending to be, which would be an interesting court case.


ShadowDragon8685 t1_jalr0wh wrote

We take the right of free speech very seriously here. Perhaps too seriously; or rather, we permit it to be abused in manners that allow some "Exercising their rights of free speech" to infringe upon others free speech - or other, even-more-serious rights, like life!

But no, it's not even illegal for the cops - or anyone else - to hand out outright fraudulent purple hearts, as long as those wearing them do not fraudulently misrepresent themselves as having earned the genuine article with intent to obtain money, property, or other tangible benefit.


ShadowDragon8685 t1_jalizcx wrote

> As I understand it, the US military has very strict rules on granting awards to protect their integrity. I am surprised that police can actually name a medal 'purple heart'.

Yes, but they can't actually stop someone else from handing out a facsimilie award as long as it's not at any point represented as being the genuine article.


ShadowDragon8685 t1_jaliwl6 wrote

The only police officer who should be wearing a purple heart is one who earned that heart wearing green instead of blue. (Well, unless he was in the Navy, or USCG or USAF I guess. Point is, it should only be worn by someone who catches some enemy fire in contact with the nation's enemies, not the nation's citizens.)


ShadowDragon8685 t1_jaliu87 wrote

> Is there an award for "Impressive de-escalation" or "Showing basic humanity" or "Excellence in the field of NOT killing an unarmed person".

Those awards should be a badge, on your chest, that you get to keep wearing.

Well, maybe "Impressive de-escalation" should be worth something special. Talking someone with a weapon out of suicide-by-cop or out of homicide or something, that should get an award. Maybe authorization to wear a bowler hat on duty, or a shining silver neck-tie-with-sunglasses-shaped medal.


ShadowDragon8685 t1_jalinxv wrote

That is a fucking disgrace.

A police officer should only ever get any award to that effect if it was inflicted by an armed enemy of the United States conducting actions intended in some way or another to bring about the downfall of the United States.

Killed or seriously wounded by a criminal's actions in the line of duty? Okay, sure, something, a blue shield perhaps. But a purple heart? No, not from criminal actions, not from the thunderfucking actions of your thunderfucked pals in blue.

That is for Americans who have met the enemy in combat and taken fire. (There's a reason soldiers refer to it as 'The Enemy Marksmanship Badge'.) Not an opportunistic or desperate criminal.


ShadowDragon8685 t1_jabov7i wrote

They used to just straight-up put small children - both still suckling and not - in prison with their mothers when their mothers were convicted of crimes so the mother would still have to take care of them, so, that's not so unthinkable.

It would, however, be tantamount to unlawful detention under United States Law, which would be unconstitutional.


ShadowDragon8685 t1_j66l3cb wrote

Let's also not forget that thanks to a combination of French generals preparing really really hard for the last war for twenty years, and the Nazis' perfect willingness to invade literally anyone, the Nazis managed to bypass the French army more or less entirely and go running rampage throughout the rest of France, having seized the capitol while the bulk of the French military was still manning the Maginot Line.


ShadowDragon8685 t1_j191la0 wrote

Of course it is. I keep saying that the root of the evil of "conservative" politics is religion.

Someone who is raised, indoctrinated, groomed shall we say, from birth, to listen to what the loud man behind the pulpit says no matter what, to never question that loud, charismatic authority, even when they can see absolutely no evidence of the truthfulness of his words...

Well, a pulpit is basically a fancified podium, isn't it?


ShadowDragon8685 t1_j0fnmad wrote

Bank robbery is not a petty crime. In fact, it's a felony.

Even so, the judge is sure to look at the circumstances and say that he was clearly doing this to be institutionalized. I think the usual response in those cases is to say "you did this to be arrested and incarcerated, so I'm not inclined to reward that behavior by giving you what you want; but if I do not, I have every reason to believe you will commit a far more serious and earnest crime."