Yeah, I been hearing this for about 4 years now.

It’s literally the reason the cover art exists. To entice you to judge it positively and pick up the book for a closer look.

Whenever I hear anyone say that, I conclude it’s one of those things that somehow meant something slightly different when the phrase was coined. Either that or we’re all just a bunch of goobers.

That’s fair! Stories like this remind me that not every single thing is going in the wrong direction, just yet.

💯

Regardless, if he had someone in his life to guide him in any way, I can bet that’s not the approach he’d be taking. This kid landed here by neglect, I guarantee it.

I kinda feel like this is a sincere attempt to improve his chances, and while yes I see the creepiness, I feel a bit sad for him also.

Willing to bet a makeover would help him more than anything he puts on a shirt, and no one in his life to tell him that.

I didn’t suggest there was, but I’ve rephrased my point about as many times as I’m willing to already.

While that fight should continue, society has more mundane tools to ostracize & make people’s lives hell.

I’m not a defender of the concept of Qualified Immunity, my point is that it’s not an absolute shield. Even if it successfully shielded them from 100% of civil rights cases (which it objectively has not) it provides no protection from criminal charges.

I won’t argue against the idea that it covers them far more than can be rationally defended, I’m just saying it’s not an absolute shield, and (in my opinion) there is every reason to imagine that the specific group we are discussing here will routinely violate the rights of the people they detain in such an egregious fashion as to satisfy even that narrow range of criteria in a higher than you might expect number of civil cases once this is all said and done.

I’d settle for fair prosecution using the body of US law that existed up to the inauguration of Trump47.

Qualified immunity specifically does not apply in cases where someone’s clearly established civil rights were violated, though the criteria for that is specific. Further, it applies only to civil cases, not criminal cases. It may certainly help them in some instances, but it’s not going to be a blanket shield.

1 Was a constitutional right violated?

2 Was the right clearly established at the time of the alleged violation?

https://www.justia.com/civil-rights/government-violations-of-civil-rights/qualified-immunity/

Under this doctrine, government agents—including but not limited to police officers—can never be sued for violating someone’s civil rights, unless they violated “clearly established law.” While this is an amorphous, malleable standard, it generally requires civil rights plaintiffs to show not just a clear legal rule, but a prior case with functionally identical facts.

In other words, it is entirely possible—and quite common—for courts to hold that government agents did violate someone’s rights, but that the victim has no legal remedy, simply because that precise sort of misconduct had not occurred in past cases.

https://www.americanbar.org/groups/public_education/publications/insights-on-law-and-society/volume-21/issue-1/qualified-immunity/

While yes, IANAL, I’m exceptionally doubtful that clearly established constitutional rights aren’t being violated by the behaviors of ICE under Trump, in many, many circumstances.

Just so we’re clear, this isn’t Truth Social or X. Folks only engage with the bigots and racists here for fun. When it’s done being fun you just get blocked. If that’s an entertaining way for you to conduct yourself online, go right ahead.

Not very damn much it would seem. I still think you’ve got some misdirected hostility though.

Some dummy with a sign “It’s not supposed to be like this!”

I mean, it’s not supposed to be like this.

Hay guys the magas are starting to show up finally. This should be fun.