Share this page!

Daniel A. Horwitz Profile picture
Twitter logo
16 Jun, 6 tweets, 3 min read
Ah yes, “passes away” is definitely how one would reasonably describe being killed by tasing.
Imagine writing this after your department tases a guy to death. Image
Are you under the impression that his failure to speak clearly (he was deaf, btw) caused his death, or was your bad tweet a side effect of licking boots?

Hold up. Are you saying his death was *caused* by something? I heard he had “passed away following a police response.”

More seriously, since you’re clearly the type of idiot who will uncritically accept anything police put in a press release, you won’t be happy on this page.
The word you’re looking for is “skeptic,” but whatever else you do on your own time is your business.
No, ya dummy, my first instinct was to express skepticism about the exonerative tense used to describe this eyebrow-raising sequence of events in a police press release —the only source from which you have uncritically derived your “information.” Image

• • •

Missing some Tweet in this thread? You can try to force a refresh
　

Keep Current with Daniel A. Horwitz

Daniel A. Horwitz Profile picture

Stay in touch and get notified when new unrolls are available from this author!

Read all threads

This Thread may be Removed Anytime!

PDF

Twitter may remove this content at anytime! Save it as PDF for later use!

Try unrolling a thread yourself!

how to unroll video
  1. Follow @ThreadReaderApp to mention us!

  2. From a Twitter thread mention us with a keyword "unroll"
@threadreaderapp unroll

Practice here first or read more on our help page!

More from @danielahorwitz

Daniel A. Horwitz Profile picture
12 Jun
The automatic stay is so stupid and susceptible to pervasive abuse.
It also assumes, often wrongly, that the sole purpose of civil claims is to obtain money or property.
Very solid intro here, though: opn.ca6.uscourts.gov/opinions.pdf/2…
Read 4 tweets
Daniel A. Horwitz Profile picture
12 Jun
I have argued for years that huge chunks of our Establishment Clause jurisprudence are exposed by the simple fact that if you switched the word “God” in whatever prayer, symbol, etc. people claim is perfectly fine to “Allah,” the very same people would have a fucking aneurysm.
This is also the most unintentionally funny news clip I’ve seen in awhile. They introduce Mr. Dumb Dumb by claiming that the charge that he “melted down” about this was “clickbait,” and he responds by launching right into demanding a(n obviously baseless) criminal investigation.
“It’s also illegal [@BadLegalTakes] and in violation of federal [@BadLegalTakes] and state [@BadLegalTakes] laws.”
Read 9 tweets
Daniel A. Horwitz Profile picture
8 Jun
For the eleventy billionth time, deciding what speech you want to carry and what speech you want to exclude is an *exercise* of the First Amendment—not a violation of it—and “amending Section 230” won’t alter that reality, because the First Amendment itself protects that right.
Their angle is that while Facebook, Twitter, Google, and other behemoths can afford the compliance costs of Section 230 reform, their would-be competitors can’t. Regulating the competition out of business is a tactic as old as time.
We can always have this unhinged lunatic again.
Read 5 tweets
Daniel A. Horwitz Profile picture
25 May
.@iamstevenhale hits a bullseye. nashvillescene.com/news/pith-in-t…
I should note: The problem here is not retroactivity. The Board of Parole just needs to use its uncontroversial, existing authority to give new hearing dates to anyone who is presumptively entitled to release under this new law, which they refuse to do.
To illustrate by example: There are people who will become presumptively entitled to release in July 2021. Many of those people won't be given a parole hearing until 2022 or beyond, though, which means they won't be released for years. That's a BOP choice.
Read 4 tweets
Daniel A. Horwitz Profile picture
20 May
Ok folks, let’s talk about constitutional litigation for a second, since some of you are pretty confused about it.

lawandcrime.com/high-profile/t…
To begin, while the vast majority of laws are presumed (and are) constitutional, that presumption flips—dramatically—in certain contexts. Generally speaking, compelling people to say things that they don’t want to say is one of those contexts.
It’s that flipped presumption—where the Government has to meet the burden of proving that a law is constitutional—that leads to cases like this: tennessean.com/story/news/201…
Read 22 tweets
Daniel A. Horwitz Profile picture
19 May
How would you feel if your jurisdiction passed a law compelling you to post your policy on misunderstanding the compelled speech doctrine?
Of course I have an answer to this extremely easy question, which was lower in the thread, but if you want more than that you can pay my retainer.
Good thing for plaintiffs that the relevant standard isn't "whether @AaronWorthing sees a viewpoint being compelled," then.
Read 4 tweets

Did Thread Reader help you today?

Support us! We are indie developers!

This site is made by just two indie developers on a laptop doing marketing, support and development! Read more about the story.

Become a Premium Member ($3/month or $30/year) and get exclusive features!

Become Premium

Too expensive? Make a small donation by buying us coffee ($5) or help with server cost ($10)

Donate via Paypal Become our Patreon

Thank you for your support!

Follow Us on Twitter!

Like this author's thread?

Get emails when @danielahorwitz has new unrolls!

Check out other threads from @danielahorwitz!

Read all threads by @danielahorwitz

:(