|
Monkey Fracas posted:
Christiano Ronaldo won the Ballon d'Or and turned into a weepy dick with hands on his feet.
|
#
?
Jan 15, 2014 08:02
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 1, 2024 15:49 |
|
|
Melaneus posted:That looks nothing like Dug from Pixar's Up Ramirez you hack This is great. Between this and that Mallard parody a few pages back, the bar's been set pretty high for cartoon edits this year.
|
|
#
?
Jan 15, 2014 08:39
|
|
|
 A friend linked to this on facebook (via "Occupy Monsanto"). This Pablo Stanley has more things at http://www.stanleycolors.com/ it isn't that great...
|
|
#
?
Jan 15, 2014 09:34
|
|
|
Horon posted:
"I'm not wearing hockey pads."
|
|
#
?
Jan 15, 2014 09:53
|
|
|
This been posted yet?  Story behind this is that Florida cops beat the poo poo out of a Schizophrenic homeless man with the mind of a child on camera. The homeless man later died of his injuries. They were found not guilty after an internet campaign forced the cops to actually be put on trial.
|
|
#
?
Jan 15, 2014 10:24
|
|
|
Gonzo McFee posted:This been posted yet? Actually that was in Fullerton, California a little outside of L.A., not in Florida. And the verdict is sickening. I can't understand how anyone could listen to the audio of that poor confused man being beaten to death and not convict.
|
|
#
?
Jan 15, 2014 10:27
|
|
|
Actually, this happened in Fullerton, which is in Orange County California. Aside from that,  EDIT: D'oh, not fast enough.
|
|
#
?
Jan 15, 2014 10:28
|
|
|
Sorry, Don't know my American Geography. Scottish and all that. But everywhere you go, for all time, Cops are violent sociopathic bastards or sociopathic bastard enablers.
|
|
#
?
Jan 15, 2014 10:33
|
|
|
What's the reasoning for not guilty?
|
|
#
?
Jan 15, 2014 10:41
|
|
|
pillsburysoldier posted:What's the reasoning for not guilty?
|
|
#
?
Jan 15, 2014 10:42
|
|
|
pillsburysoldier posted:What's the reasoning for not guilty? Death by cop is a natural death if you're homeless, mentally ill or in any way not a middle class white person.
|
|
#
?
Jan 15, 2014 10:43
|
|
|
pillsburysoldier posted:What's the reasoning for not guilty? Well the defense used a few arguments, that Kelly Thomas's past drug use had weakened his heart and thus had a large hand in his death (the coroner who performed the autopsy basically called this smoke screening bullshit on the stand), that Kelly Thomas was violent and threatening (as the cartoon states on video Thomas is constantly apologizing and screaming out for his daddy) and that the officers were just doing their job and had no malice (Officer Ramos is on tape holding up his fists and saying 'See this? They're about to gently caress you up.'). So really it just straight up cops can murder people as blatantly as they want.
|
|
#
?
Jan 15, 2014 10:54
|
|
|
pillsburysoldier posted:What's the reasoning for not guilty? Cops generally aren't held responsible for things they do while wearing the uniform. The argument usually is, "but if cops have to worry about whether or not violence is appropriate, they won't be able to shoot the bad guys fast enough, and then the cops will die!" The safety of police is of upmost importance, overriding the safety of civilians, even though you'd think police kind of signed up for a job involving putting themselves in danger to protect the public.
|
|
#
?
Jan 15, 2014 10:54
|
|
|
Okay, I'm about to crash, so here's a giant dump. Of cartoons. 1  ...is this the first one using this really obvious metaphor? 2  Obligatory Whiskey Sours joke goes here. 3  Well, it's a convenient thing that guy is reading about BRIDGEGATE while watching the news on it. 4  Oh no. No, no, no. You better not be going where I think you're going, comics! Cease and desist! It's more...CHRISTIE ON THE BRIDGE TOOOOONS! 5  Well, at least now he's not TRAPPED on the bridge... 6  ...dammit. Well, at least I don't have one where he's dealing with an angry motorist on the bridge! 7  ....fine, at least there isn't a really disturbingly detailed drawing of him being a giant fat tub of lard blocking the bridge! 8  Yaaaargh! I did not need to see the Christhudda! 9  I feel your pain, brother. 10  Man, I could sure use a drink. Wait...that reminds me of a topic... 11  For some reason the skulls remind me of David Dees... 12  You know, you'd think a rich guy would have a better pad. All he's got is a $10 table from Wal-Mart and a plastic flower. 13  Props to a Shel Silverstein reference that isn't terrible. 14  Then maybe you shouldn't go to Fort Marie Antoinette. 15  Pfft. Just let the Republicans have their way and birth control's going to just get banned anyway. 16  Uh...that is terrible Spanish...sorry, Spanglish. 17  Take THAT Guernica! (Bushica?) 18  Okay, not gonna lie. I like the details on his shirt. They don't use crappy labeling to tell us who the guy is either. 19  Oh no, Bad Santa is lurking somewhere close! 20  I knew it! He's just in a normal person disguise! 21  Oh, take that Bad Santa! Now you don't have a home anymore! 22  ADN (Any Day Now). 23  Dude, I don't see why you're so upset. Clearly, that drone is flying in to help you!
|
|
#
?
Jan 15, 2014 11:02
|
|
|
And on the cops topic, Derf
|
|
#
?
Jan 15, 2014 11:33
|
|
|
Rebochan posted:3
|
|
#
?
Jan 15, 2014 13:37
|
|
|
I'm honestly a bit shocked that Lester isn't getting as embarrassingly tribal over the bridge thing as the other conservative hacks have been ("criticize a Republican??? RAAAAAA  "). He's not nearly as much of a Tea Party shill as Branco or Ramirez, and they've been bitter as gently caress over people daring to report this, even though Christie falling from grace helps the Tea Party.e: VVVVVVVVVVV This was 99 out of 100 Stephanie McMillan cartoons too. VVVVVVVVVV loquacius fucked around with this message at 15:10 on Jan 15, 2014 |
|
#
?
Jan 15, 2014 14:24
|
|
|
I'm not sure why Monte Wolverton's comics annoy me so much, considering he doesn't espouse bad opinions or have terrible art. I think it has something to do with how the majority of his work can be summarized as "Look at this cartoonishly evil man, don't you just hate how cartoonishly evil he is? Here, I'll have him say something blatantly self-serving, in case the point wasn't clear enough already." Oh. I just noticed it took two people this time around to create the newest Wolverton masterpiece. Heh.
|
|
#
?
Jan 15, 2014 15:04
|
|
|
oobey posted:I'm not sure why Monte Wolverton's comics annoy me so much, considering he doesn't espouse bad opinions or have terrible art. I think it has something to do with how the majority of his work can be summarized as "Look at this cartoonishly evil man, don't you just hate how cartoonishly evil he is? Here, I'll have him say something blatantly self-serving, in case the point wasn't clear enough already." While Monte's brick-to-the-face lack of subtlety is bad, what annoys me about him is that he's nowhere near as good a cartoonist as his dad, and I wonder if he'd even be a working cartoonist if he didn't have the Wolverton name to trade on.
|
|
#
?
Jan 15, 2014 15:26
|
|
|
At least his opinions aren't lovely. There are countless people who got their careers through nepotism and use that position to complain about dirty poors. Hey, I managed to make it, why can't you  Having said that, Wolverton the 2nd is so forgettable that I actually had to scroll back up to his cartoon to remember what his toons even look like.
|
|
#
?
Jan 15, 2014 16:12
|
|
|
oobey posted:I'm not sure why Monte Wolverton's comics annoy me so much, considering he doesn't espouse bad opinions or have terrible art. I think it has something to do with how the majority of his work can be summarized as "Look at this cartoonishly evil man, don't you just hate how cartoonishly evil he is? Here, I'll have him say something blatantly self-serving, in case the point wasn't clear enough already." While not the worst, I'd hardly describe his art as 'good'. Well, maybe it is, but I can't tell because of all the drat labels.
|
|
#
?
Jan 15, 2014 16:20
|
|
|
pillsburysoldier posted:What's the reasoning for not guilty? The was most likely authority boot-licking trash but I'd at least like to hear their reasoning before cementing my opinion.
|
|
#
?
Jan 15, 2014 16:27
|
|
|
Radish posted:The was most likely authority boot-licking trash but I'd at least like to hear their reasoning before cementing my opinion. cafel posted:Well the defense used a few arguments, that Kelly Thomas's past drug use had weakened his heart and thus had a large hand in his death (the coroner who performed the autopsy basically called this smoke screening bullshit on the stand), that Kelly Thomas was violent and threatening (as the cartoon states on video Thomas is constantly apologizing and screaming out for his daddy) and that the officers were just doing their job and had no malice (Officer Ramos is on tape holding up his fists and saying 'See this? They're about to gently caress you up.'). Ditocoaf posted:Cops generally aren't held responsible for things they do while wearing the uniform. The argument usually is, "but if cops have to worry about whether or not violence is appropriate, they won't be able to shoot the bad guys fast enough, and then the cops will die!" The safety of police is of upmost importance, overriding the safety of civilians, even though you'd think police kind of signed up for a job involving putting themselves in danger to protect the public.
|
|
#
?
Jan 15, 2014 16:50
|
|
|
Is it correct to assume that US juries, being made up out of ordinary citizens, do not state reasons for why they acquitted somebody?
|
|
#
?
Jan 15, 2014 16:58
|
|
|
Randler posted:Is it correct to assume that US juries, being made up out of ordinary citizens, do not state reasons for why they acquitted somebody? As far as I know while there are certain things they're supposed to say like if it's because of diminished responsibility they're not required to explain anything at all. But they could tell a reporter about it, you know, if they wanted to.
|
|
#
?
Jan 15, 2014 17:00
|
|
|
Randler posted:Is it correct to assume that US juries, being made up out of ordinary citizens, do not state reasons for why they acquitted somebody? As far as I know, yeah. We just kind of have to guess what we think they thought the most effective argument/reasoning was.
|
|
#
?
Jan 15, 2014 17:10
|
|
|
Randler posted:Is it correct to assume that US juries, being made up out of ordinary citizens, do not state reasons for why they acquitted somebody? The court where the trial took place has a history of never convicting cops.
|
|
#
?
Jan 15, 2014 17:26
|
|
|
Rebochan posted:3 Haha I know this is just Mike Lester trying to pave the primary road for PRESIDENT ALLEN WEST but I still enjoyed this more than any other Lester cartoon ever. Manuel Calavera posted:And on the cops topic, Derf Meanwhile this annoyed the poo poo out of me... "Hey, remember those wacky news stories that clogged your newsfeed two weeks ago? Here's what they were, if you forgot!" How long before Derf ends up illustrating a loving Daily Currant link??
|
|
#
?
Jan 15, 2014 18:01
|
|
|
Comparing the Christie bridge scandal to Obama's scandals to try and make them seem worse is the new Dog-On-Roof strawman cartoon series for conservatives to cheerlead their own players despite doing something really bad.
|
|
#
?
Jan 15, 2014 18:13
|
|
|
 1 2 3 4
|
|
#
?
Jan 15, 2014 18:36
|
|
|
Iran doesn't have the delivery capability to strike the US and has explicitly said it would never nuke Israel because doing so would also kill Palestinians. Besides, is the way to prevent Iran from attacking us really to attack them?
|
|
#
?
Jan 15, 2014 18:39
|
|
|
quiggy stardust posted:Iran doesn't have the delivery capability to strike the US and has explicitly said it would never nuke Israel because doing so would also kill Palestinians. Besides, is the way to prevent Iran from attacking us really to attack them? See your problem is you put more thought into it than imagining a Middle Eastern dude cackling manically while fiddling with some wires coming out of the side of Fat Man.
|
|
#
?
Jan 15, 2014 18:41
|
|
|
Monkey Fracas posted:See your problem is you put more thought into it than imagining a Middle Eastern dude cackling manically while fiddling with some wires coming out of the side of Fat Man. Really, "any day now" is all the commentary that cartoon merited.
|
|
#
?
Jan 15, 2014 18:42
|
|
|
ANY DAY NOW! E: ^^^  Seriously?I want to point out for the record that Skeleton Obama may be the least racist portrayal of Obama by either McCoy. I was honestly expecting a skeleton with giant purple lips. WampaLord fucked around with this message at 18:47 on Jan 15, 2014 |
|
#
?
Jan 15, 2014 18:43
|
|
|
WampaLord posted:ANY DAY NOW! Actually: America's focus on Iran distracted it from the true enemy, Skynet. A judgement day cartoon.
|
|
#
?
Jan 15, 2014 18:45
|
|
|
"Give peace a chance" -a sentiment completely worthy of ridicule on scorn. He couldn't have bothered to reframe it so it at least said something like "Iran is peaceful" or "No War with Iran"? I guess I don't know why I expected better from the guy who draws Obama with purple lips every time.
|
|
#
?
Jan 15, 2014 18:46
|
|
|
I never really even get what they're suggesting with all of the "any day now" cartoons- Invade Iran? Nuke Iran before they nuke us? More economic sanctions? Just be dicks to them for no reason because gently caress 'Em? To answer my own question: there is a person with a "D" next to their name in the White House.
|
|
#
?
Jan 15, 2014 18:48
|
|
|
Bicyclops posted:"Give peace a chance" This is what conservatives actually believe. See, there are some people who are just evil, and they are waiting for us good people to let our guard down so they can sucker-punch us. "Giving peace a chance" is like giving these evil people an engraved invitation to destroy us and everything we hold dear, including our precious "peace." Anyone who denies this is gullible at best. EDIT: And it's not just the dumb conservatives who believe this, either. Just ask my father, the libertarian atheist professor at a top-tier law school, and he will sincerely paraphrase the above paragraph. Pththya-lyi fucked around with this message at 19:06 on Jan 15, 2014 |
|
#
?
Jan 15, 2014 18:59
|
|
|
Monkey Fracas posted:I never really even get what they're suggesting with all of the "any day now" cartoons- Invade Iran? Nuke Iran before they nuke us? More economic sanctions? Just be dicks to them for no reason because gently caress 'Em? They were complaining about Iran for years, ever since Carter has been in the White House, those older republicans remember that our embassy got stormed and only through the grace of Saint Reagan were we able to beat back the hordes in a few hours when he took the presidency (Yeah like that isn't suspicious at all  . Having a Democrat in the White House reminds them of Carter's failures to "give peace a chance" and Camp David Retreats.Also I don't think many of them believe that Iran would ever make it the states, They are more worried about Isreal being attacked by Nukes than anything else... but once again "ADN" has been around since before Carter so that talks wonders about their capabilities.
|
|
#
?
Jan 15, 2014 18:59
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 1, 2024 15:49 |
|
|
Randler posted:Is it correct to assume that US juries, being made up out of ordinary citizens, do not state reasons for why they acquitted somebody? In general you are correct, a jury's verdict does not state the reasons for the verdict. The exact rules on the verdict depends on the jurisdiction (a case against someone charged with violating the laws of California will use California verdict forms), but most jurisdictions have both "general verdicts" and "special verdicts." A general verdict states the jury's ultimate conclusion and nothing more. So if a defendant is charged with murder and raises a defense of self defense, the jury simply returns a verdict of "guilty" or "not guilty". If it returns a verdict of "not guilty" you have no official way of knowing whether it is because the jury thought the prosecution failed to make a case for murder, or because the defense succeeded in making a case for self defense. I say no official way, because once the jury is released someone can just ask them about the verdict, but their responses carry no legal weight. A special verdict gives some further explanation of a jury's verdict. A special verdict lays out the elements of each offense charged and each defense raised, and asks the jury to record a decision on each element. For example, if the charge is murder in the first degree, the jury would likely be asked to find: 1) did the person charged cause the death of another, 2) did the person charged intend to kill another, and 3) was the person's intent to cause the death of another premeditated. If the jury answered any of these questions "no" then it would enter a verdict of not guilty, and you would be able to see the reason - one of the elements was not met. The same would be true if a defense was raised to the charge. If the jury found that all of the elements of the crime were met, it would then be asked to decide whether each element of the defense was met. The special verdict therefore lets you know whether the jury's decision was based on the crime not being proved, or because the crime was committed but was justified by self defense (or some other justification or excuse). However, even with a special verdict you will not know the jury's reasoning. The jury doesn't explain what particular arguments it found convincing. I understand that most criminal courts prefer the use of general verdicts, rather than special verdicts. Also, it's worth noting that once the jury finds someone not guilty, the jury's reasons don't really matter. A verdict of not guilty cannot be appealed by the prosecution even if the acquittal appears unjustified. Not My Leg fucked around with this message at 19:03 on Jan 15, 2014 |
|
#
?
Jan 15, 2014 19:00
|
|
