I hope this small city has a lot of money to spare in the budget because >canceling or even briefly suspending production of a movie after granting a >permit to film is gonna cost them, perhaps bigly. The studio committed and >expended a great deal of resources in reliance on the permit and unless the >city can show that they've somehow violated the parameters of the permit >(which doesn't include the hurt the feelz of some local residents), the city >will be on the hook for reimbursing all those costs.
They say they're suspending the permit to seek a legal opinion from the city >attorney. Well, all that should have been done *before* issuing the permit. >Not midway through the shoot.
-------------------------------
https://variety.com/2026/film/news/daily-wires-pro-ice-film-temporarily-suspended-montana-1236898635/
. . .
The halting of filming comes days after locals in Livingston protested against >the film's production, which has been reported to include an opening scene >depicting the fatal ICE shooting of Renee Good that occurred in Minnesota >earlier this year.
BTR1701 <atropos@mac.com> wrote:
I hope this small city has a lot of money to spare in the budget because >>canceling or even briefly suspending production of a movie after granting a >>permit to film is gonna cost them, perhaps bigly. The studio committed and >>expended a great deal of resources in reliance on the permit and unless the >>city can show that they've somehow violated the parameters of the permit >>(which doesn't include the hurt the feelz of some local residents), the city >>will be on the hook for reimbursing all those costs.
They say they're suspending the permit to seek a legal opinion from the city >>attorney. Well, all that should have been done *before* issuing the permit. >>Not midway through the shoot.
-------------------------------
https://variety.com/2026/film/news/daily-wires-pro-ice-film-temporarily-suspended-montana-1236898635/
. . .
The halting of filming comes days after locals in Livingston protested against
the film's production, which has been reported to include an opening scene >>depicting the fatal ICE shooting of Renee Good that occurred in Minnesota >>earlier this year.
Of course I agree that it's a contract violation. You agree to host a >production but have zero say in the script. We know there are towns
unhappy with how they are perceived on screen, especially if their town
is the fictional setting of a horrific crime. Mayor Daley famously got
rid of movie productions for decades to change Chicago's image of Al
Capone and gang murders with submachine guns. It didn't work.
That being said, if Good's murder is give a positive spin, that's some >serious fuck.
On Tue, 6 Oct 2026 01:10:54 -0000 (UTC), "Adam H. Kerman"
<ahk@chinet.com> wrote:
BTR1701 <atropos@mac.com> wrote:
I hope this small city has a lot of money to spare in the budget because >>> canceling or even briefly suspending production of a movie after granting a >>> permit to film is gonna cost them, perhaps bigly. The studio committed and >>> expended a great deal of resources in reliance on the permit and unless the >>> city can show that they've somehow violated the parameters of the permit >>> (which doesn't include the hurt the feelz of some local residents), the city
will be on the hook for reimbursing all those costs.
They say they're suspending the permit to seek a legal opinion from the city
attorney. Well, all that should have been done *before* issuing the permit. >>> Not midway through the shoot.
-------------------------------
https://variety.com/2026/film/news/daily-wires-pro-ice-film-temporarily-suspended-montana-1236898635/
. . .
The halting of filming comes days after locals in Livingston protested
against
the film's production, which has been reported to include an opening scene >>> depicting the fatal ICE shooting of Renee Good that occurred in Minnesota >>> earlier this year.
Of course I agree that it's a contract violation. You agree to host a
production but have zero say in the script. We know there are towns
unhappy with how they are perceived on screen, especially if their town
is the fictional setting of a horrific crime. Mayor Daley famously got
rid of movie productions for decades to change Chicago's image of Al
Capone and gang murders with submachine guns. It didn't work.
Though much of the issue seems to be with the production not following
what they agreed to do such as notifying the local businesses and
neighbors of what they intended to do. So they would set off
explosives without warning anyone other than the police beforehand.
Is that justification for shutting down the production. Perhaps not
but it's certainly cause to review the permits with an eye towards
changing things, if allowed.
That being said, if Good's murder is given a positive spin, that's some
serious fuck.
Yeah, the whole idea they are turning her into the murderer is ...
ugh.
Sounds like they wanted to make a movie on the cheap in Montana instead
of where the murder actually occurred, probably for some big tax
breaks. Kind of funny they weren't greeted with open arms even in a
state like that.
Any "pro-ICE film" is going to go over like a lead balloon anyway,
except maybe at the 2028 RNC convention.
On Oct 5, 2026 at 10:30:18 PM PDT, "super70s" <super70s@super70s.invalid> wrote:
Sounds like they wanted to make a movie on the cheap in Montana instead
of where the murder actually occurred, probably for some big tax
breaks. Kind of funny they weren't greeted with open arms even in a
state like that.
They literally were welcomed or they wouldn't have received the permit in the first place, you brain stem.
It was only when a tiny minority of people started screaming and yelling (as leftists always do),
the cowards on the city council started backpedaling
instead of just telling them to shut up and go away, or at the very least just
ignoring them.
Any "pro-ICE film" is going to go over like a lead balloon anyway,
except maybe at the 2028 RNC convention.
Then why have a meltdown over it? Let the studio go bankrupt trying to sell the unsellable.
Haven't you ever read Sun-Tzu? "When your enemy is defeating itself, don't interfere."
I hope this small city has a lot of money to spare in the budget because canceling or even briefly suspending production of a movie after granting a permit to film is gonna cost them, perhaps bigly. The studio committed and expended a great deal of resources in reliance on the permit and unless the city can show that they've somehow violated the parameters of the permit (which doesn't include the hurt the feelz of some local residents), the city will be on the hook for reimbursing all those costs.
They say they're suspending the permit to seek a legal opinion from the city attorney. Well, all that should have been done *before* issuing the permit. Not midway through the shoot.
-------------------------------
https://variety.com/2026/film/news/daily-wires-pro-ice-film-temporarily-suspended-montana-1236898635/
Production of Daily Wire's pro-ICE film PAWN SHOP has been temporarily halted in Livingston, MT, following a Special City Commission Meeting held on Saturday.
The action comes as Livingston locals raised concerns about the film's impact on local business-- and notably the city's sole food bank-- as well as improper notification about hazardous stunts. During the meeting, residents voiced worries about the filming, saying it made them feel unsafe. City Commission member Cindy Daniels explained that she felt that "they've taken advantage of the situation to make their movie. We're not profiting off that movie. So they're not thinking of the veterans that live on K Street. They?re not thinking of the food resource center."
The Livingston Commission concluded: "A motion to immediately temporarily suspend Bonfire Pawn Shop LLC's permit while seeking legal opinion from the city attorney in a timely manner to amend, suspend, or revoke the permit to come back to the commission not after 5:00pm on October 5th."
Daily Wire did not immediately respond to Variety's request for comment.
The halting of filming comes days after locals in Livingston protested against
the film's production, which has been reported to include an opening scene depicting the fatal ICE shooting of Ren‚e Good that occurred in Minnesota earlier this year.
BTR1701 <atropos@mac.com> wrote:
I hope this small city has a lot of money to spare in the budget because
canceling or even briefly suspending production of a movie after granting a >> permit to film is gonna cost them, perhaps bigly. The studio committed and >> expended a great deal of resources in reliance on the permit and unless the >> city can show that they've somehow violated the parameters of the permit
(which doesn't include the hurt the feelz of some local residents), the city >> will be on the hook for reimbursing all those costs.
They say they're suspending the permit to seek a legal opinion from the city >> attorney. Well, all that should have been done *before* issuing the permit. >> Not midway through the shoot.
-------------------------------
https://variety.com/2026/film/news/daily-wires-pro-ice-film-temporarily-suspended-montana-1236898635/
. . .
The halting of filming comes days after locals in Livingston protested
against
the film's production, which has been reported to include an opening scene >> depicting the fatal ICE shooting of Renee Good that occurred in Minnesota
earlier this year.
Of course I agree that it's a contract violation. You agree to host a production but have zero say in the script. We know there are towns
unhappy with how they are perceived on screen, especially if their town
is the fictional setting of a horrific crime. Mayor Daley famously got
rid of movie productions for decades to change Chicago's image of Al
Capone and gang murders with submachine guns. It didn't work.
That being said, if Good's murder is give a positive spin, that's some serious fuck.
the leftist daffodils in Livingston
On 2026-10-06 18:02:23 +0000, BTR1701 said:
the leftist daffodils in Livingston
Yeah they're taking over Montana, time to send in ICE.
. . .
The city did amend the permit, however, and required the production to erect a >"hurt feelz wall" around the shooting location to shield the leftist daffodils >in Livingston from having to witness triggering content being filmed.
BTR1701 <atropos@mac.com> wrote:
. . .
The city did amend the permit, however, and required the production to erect a
"hurt feelz wall" around the shooting location to shield the leftist daffodils
in Livingston from having to witness triggering content being filmed.
Objection, your honor!
The blinders go on the horse, not the river.
On Oct 5, 2026 at 7:15:04 PM PDT, "shawn" <nanoflower@notforg.m.a.i.l.com> wrote:
On Tue, 6 Oct 2026 01:10:54 -0000 (UTC), "Adam H. Kerman"
<ahk@chinet.com> wrote:
BTR1701 <atropos@mac.com> wrote:
I hope this small city has a lot of money to spare in the budget because >>>> canceling or even briefly suspending production of a movie after granting a
permit to film is gonna cost them, perhaps bigly. The studio committed and >>>> expended a great deal of resources in reliance on the permit and unless the
city can show that they've somehow violated the parameters of the permit >>>> (which doesn't include the hurt the feelz of some local residents), the city
will be on the hook for reimbursing all those costs.
They say they're suspending the permit to seek a legal opinion from the city
attorney. Well, all that should have been done *before* issuing the permit.
Not midway through the shoot.
-------------------------------
https://variety.com/2026/film/news/daily-wires-pro-ice-film-temporarily-suspended-montana-1236898635/
. . .
The halting of filming comes days after locals in Livingston protested >>>> against
the film's production, which has been reported to include an opening scene >>>> depicting the fatal ICE shooting of Renee Good that occurred in Minnesota >>>> earlier this year.
Of course I agree that it's a contract violation. You agree to host a
production but have zero say in the script. We know there are towns
unhappy with how they are perceived on screen, especially if their town
is the fictional setting of a horrific crime. Mayor Daley famously got
rid of movie productions for decades to change Chicago's image of Al
Capone and gang murders with submachine guns. It didn't work.
Though much of the issue seems to be with the production not following
what they agreed to do such as notifying the local businesses and
neighbors of what they intended to do. So they would set off
explosives without warning anyone other than the police beforehand.
The police are the ones who should be notifying the locals of such things. If the police are duly notified, then the production has done its due diligence. If the cops fail to spread the word, that's on them.
Is that justification for shutting down the production. Perhaps not
but it's certainly cause to review the permits with an eye towards
changing things, if allowed.
That being said, if Good's murder is given a positive spin, that's some
serious fuck.
Yeah, the whole idea they are turning her into the murderer is ...
ugh.
Par for the course with Hollywood these days. We just discussed how Hollywood (in two different recent productions) has turned Chris Hansen into a perverted
ghoul for running a highly-rated show that honey-trapped and arrested pedophiles and sexual predators. It was almost entirely fabricated and provably so. They tuned the perv catcher into the perv and made the actual pervs his sympathetic victims.
BTR1701 <atropos@mac.com> wrote:
. . .
The city did amend the permit, however, and required the production to erect a
"hurt feelz wall" around the shooting location to shield the leftist daffodils
in Livingston from having to witness triggering content being filmed.
Objection, your honor!
The blinders go on the horse, not the river.
On 10/6/2026 12:30 PM, Adam H. Kerman wrote:
BTR1701 <atropos@mac.com> wrote:
. . .
The city did amend the permit, however, and required the production to
erect a
"hurt feelz wall" around the shooting location to shield the leftist
daffodils
in Livingston from having to witness triggering content being filmed.
Objection, your honor!
The blinders go on the horse, not the river.
Heh.
I spent 2 yrs of weekends in Livingson and there's very few 'leftist daffodils' there. More than half of them own guns and vote R.
. . .
I saw a police bodycam video the other day - which I can't find again
now - which depicted a middle-aged man who had honey-trapped a 21 year
old who came over to have sex with a 9 year old. The 21 year old wore
only a diaper below his waist. The honey-trapper gave the police all
kinds of evidence against the predator including video and texts. The >predator knew his life was over. I'm going to need a lot of convincing >before I believe the honey-trapper was the bad guy in that video....
On 2026-10-06 3:30 p.m., Adam H. Kerman wrote:
BTR1701 <atropos@mac.com> wrote:to erect a
. . .
The city did amend the permit, however, and required the production
"hurt feelz wall" around the shooting location to shield the leftist >daffodils
in Livingston from having to witness triggering content being filmed.
Objection, your honor!
The blinders go on the horse, not the river.
Interesting typo; I'm trying to picture someone blindfolding a river....
Rhino <no_offline_contact@example.com> wrote:
. . .
I saw a police bodycam video the other day - which I can't find again
now - which depicted a middle-aged man who had honey-trapped a 21 year
old who came over to have sex with a 9 year old. The 21 year old wore
only a diaper below his waist. The honey-trapper gave the police all
kinds of evidence against the predator including video and texts. The
predator knew his life was over. I'm going to need a lot of convincing
before I believe the honey-trapper was the bad guy in that video....
I'll play devil's advocate. We have sufficient crimes to solve that we shouldn't create circumstances resulting in new crimes. You don't say
there was evidence of sexual assault in the past. Prey on anyone's
weakness and he could crack.
Rhino <no_offline_contact@example.com> wrote:
On 2026-10-06 3:30 p.m., Adam H. Kerman wrote:
BTR1701 <atropos@mac.com> wrote:to erect a
. . .
The city did amend the permit, however, and required the production
daffodils"hurt feelz wall" around the shooting location to shield the leftist
in Livingston from having to witness triggering content being filmed.
Objection, your honor!
The blinders go on the horse, not the river.
Interesting typo; I'm trying to picture someone blindfolding a river....
No typo.
On 2026-10-06 6:54 p.m., Adam H. Kerman wrote:
Rhino <no_offline_contact@example.com> wrote:
. . .
I saw a police bodycam video the other day - which I can't find again
now - which depicted a middle-aged man who had honey-trapped a 21 year >>>old who came over to have sex with a 9 year old. The 21 year old wore >>>only a diaper below his waist. The honey-trapper gave the police all >>>kinds of evidence against the predator including video and texts. The >>>predator knew his life was over. I'm going to need a lot of convincing >>>before I believe the honey-trapper was the bad guy in that video....
I'll play devil's advocate. We have sufficient crimes to solve that we >>shouldn't create circumstances resulting in new crimes. You don't say
there was evidence of sexual assault in the past. Prey on anyone's
weakness and he could crack.
There *was* past bad behavior from the 21 year old.
On 2026-10-06 6:57 p.m., Adam H. Kerman wrote:
Rhino <no_offline_contact@example.com> wrote:
On 2026-10-06 3:30 p.m., Adam H. Kerman wrote:
BTR1701 <atropos@mac.com> wrote:to erect a
. . .
The city did amend the permit, however, and required the production
daffodils"hurt feelz wall" around the shooting location to shield the leftist
in Livingston from having to witness triggering content being filmed. >>>>Objection, your honor!
The blinders go on the horse, not the river.
Interesting typo; I'm trying to picture someone blindfolding a river....
No typo.
How do you put blinders on a river then?
Rhino <no_offline_contact@example.com> wrote:
On 2026-10-06 6:57 p.m., Adam H. Kerman wrote:
Rhino <no_offline_contact@example.com> wrote:
On 2026-10-06 3:30 p.m., Adam H. Kerman wrote:No typo.
BTR1701 <atropos@mac.com> wrote:to erect a
. . .
The city did amend the permit, however, and required the production
"hurt feelz wall" around the shooting location to shield the leftist >>>> daffodilsObjection, your honor!
in Livingston from having to witness triggering content being filmed. >>>>>
The blinders go on the horse, not the river.
Interesting typo; I'm trying to picture someone blindfolding a river.... >>>
How do you put blinders on a river then?
You've missed the point.
Rhino <no_offline_contact@example.com> wrote:
On 2026-10-06 6:54 p.m., Adam H. Kerman wrote:
Rhino <no_offline_contact@example.com> wrote:
. . .
I saw a police bodycam video the other day - which I can't find again
now - which depicted a middle-aged man who had honey-trapped a 21 year >>>> old who came over to have sex with a 9 year old. The 21 year old wore
only a diaper below his waist. The honey-trapper gave the police all
kinds of evidence against the predator including video and texts. The
predator knew his life was over. I'm going to need a lot of convincing >>>> before I believe the honey-trapper was the bad guy in that video....
I'll play devil's advocate. We have sufficient crimes to solve that we
shouldn't create circumstances resulting in new crimes. You don't say
there was evidence of sexual assault in the past. Prey on anyone's
weakness and he could crack.
There *was* past bad behavior from the 21 year old.
I would have preferred an investigation into those crimes to setting him
up for a new crime. The crime of intending to commit a crime against an imaginary victim seems wrong.
On Oct 6, 2026 at 1:03:31 PM PDT, "suzeeq" <suzee@imbris.com> wrote:
On 10/6/2026 12:30 PM, Adam H. Kerman wrote:
BTR1701 <atropos@mac.com> wrote:
. . .
The city did amend the permit, however, and required the production to >>>> erect a
"hurt feelz wall" around the shooting location to shield the leftist
daffodils
in Livingston from having to witness triggering content being filmed.
Objection, your honor!
The blinders go on the horse, not the river.
Heh.
I spent 2 yrs of weekends in Livingson and there's very few 'leftist
daffodils' there. More than half of them own guns and vote R.
There's been a lot of in-migration from insane Californians since COVID. They flee the nest they've already shit and immediately go about fouling their new nest and reinventing everything they were trying to escape.
How else to explain the city council members who were willing to abrogate the Bill of Rights to suppress a movie because they didn't like the fact that it portrays law enforcement favorably? That's not the behavior of people who "vote R".
On 2026-10-06 20:36:11 +0000, BTR1701 said:
On Oct 6, 2026 at 1:03:31 PM PDT, "suzeeq" <suzee@imbris.com> wrote:
On 10/6/2026 12:30 PM, Adam H. Kerman wrote:
BTR1701 <atropos@mac.com> wrote:
. . .
The city did amend the permit, however, and required the production to >>>>> erect aObjection, your honor!
"hurt feelz wall" around the shooting location to shield the leftist >>>>> daffodils
in Livingston from having to witness triggering content being filmed. >>>>
The blinders go on the horse, not the river.
Heh.
I spent 2 yrs of weekends in Livingson and there's very few 'leftist
daffodils' there. More than half of them own guns and vote R.
There's been a lot of in-migration from insane Californians since COVID.
They
flee the nest they've already shit and immediately go about fouling their >> new
nest and reinventing everything they were trying to escape.
How else to explain the city council members who were willing to abrogate >> the
Bill of Rights to suppress a movie because they didn't like the fact that it
portrays law enforcement favorably? That's not the behavior of people who >> "vote R".
So you have a problem with democracy and majority rule, how 2026
Republican of you.
So it was the leftists that wanted to defy decades of Supreme Court jurisprudence
and censor a film production based on the viewpoint of the
filmmakers. If anyone has a "problem with democracy" here, it's the leftists on the city council and you, presumably, since you identify with their position. For y'all the Bill of Rights is just a suggestion that can be shit-canned the moment someone does or says something you don't like.
On 2026-10-07 04:06:43 +0000, BTR1701 said:
So it was the leftists that wanted to defy decades of Supreme Court
jurisprudence
Laughing and pointing at the presumable supporter of Trump and the
decisions of his SC appointees.
and censor a film production based on the viewpoint of the
filmmakers. If anyone has a "problem with democracy" here, it's the
leftists
on the city council and you, presumably, since you identify with their
position. For y'all the Bill of Rights is just a suggestion that can be
shit-canned the moment someone does or says something you don't like.
Laughing and pointing at the presumable supporter of Trump and his war
on reporters and the 1st Amendment.
On 2026-10-06 20:36:11 +0000, BTR1701 said:
On Oct 6, 2026 at 1:03:31 PM PDT, "suzeeq" <suzee@imbris.com> wrote:
. . .
Heh.
I spent 2 yrs of weekends in Livingson and there's very few 'leftist >>>daffodils' there. More than half of them own guns and vote R.
There's been a lot of in-migration from insane Californians since COVID. They >>flee the nest they've already shit and immediately go about fouling their new >>nest and reinventing everything they were trying to escape.
How else to explain the city council members who were willing to abrogate the >>Bill of Rights to suppress a movie because they didn't like the fact that it >>portrays law enforcement favorably? That's not the behavior of people who >>"vote R".
So you have a problem with democracy and majority rule, how 2026
Republican of you.
On 2026-10-06 9:52 p.m., Adam H. Kerman wrote:
Rhino <no_offline_contact@example.com> wrote:
On 2026-10-06 6:57 p.m., Adam H. Kerman wrote:
Rhino <no_offline_contact@example.com> wrote:
On 2026-10-06 3:30 p.m., Adam H. Kerman wrote:
BTR1701 <atropos@mac.com> wrote:
. . .
The city did amend the permit, however, and required the production >>>>>>>to erect a "hurt feelz wall" around the shooting location to >>>>>>>shield the leftist daffodils in Livingston from having to witness >>>>>>>triggering content being filmed.
Objection, your honor!
The blinders go on the horse, not the river.
Interesting typo; I'm trying to picture someone blindfolding a river....
No typo.
How do you put blinders on a river then?
You've missed the point.
So it would seem....
Care to enlighten me?
Rhino <no_offline_contact@example.com> wrote:
On 2026-10-06 9:52 p.m., Adam H. Kerman wrote:
Rhino <no_offline_contact@example.com> wrote:
On 2026-10-06 6:57 p.m., Adam H. Kerman wrote:
Rhino <no_offline_contact@example.com> wrote:
On 2026-10-06 3:30 p.m., Adam H. Kerman wrote:
BTR1701 <atropos@mac.com> wrote:
. . .
The city did amend the permit, however, and required the production >>>>>>>> to erect a "hurt feelz wall" around the shooting location to
shield the leftist daffodils in Livingston from having to witness >>>>>>>> triggering content being filmed.
Objection, your honor!
The blinders go on the horse, not the river.
Interesting typo; I'm trying to picture someone blindfolding a river....
No typo.
How do you put blinders on a river then?
You've missed the point.
So it would seem....
Care to enlighten me?
A cart horse that might get skittish and panic when crossing a bridge
over a river wore blinders. The existence of the river didn't spook
anyone else, so hiding the river from view, except specific to the
horse, would be unreasonable. Re-read what BTR1701 wrote.
On 2026-10-07 04:06:43 +0000, BTR1701 said:
So it was the leftists that wanted to defy decades of Supreme Court
jurisprudence
Laughing and pointing at the presumable supporter of Trump and the
decisions of his SC appointees.
super70s <super70s@super70s.invalid> wrote:
On 2026-10-07 04:06:43 +0000, BTR1701 said:
So it was the leftists that wanted to defy decades of Supreme Court >>>jurisprudence
Laughing and pointing at the presumable supporter of Trump and the >>decisions of his SC appointees.
These decisions and justices long pre-date not only Trump's tenure as >president but his birth as well.
I'll note that you chose ad hominem over actually addressing the issue.
super70s <super70s@super70s.invalid> wrote:
On 2026-10-07 04:06:43 +0000, BTR1701 said:
So it was the leftists that wanted to defy decades of Supreme Court
jurisprudence
Laughing and pointing at the presumable supporter of Trump and the
decisions of his SC appointees.
These decisions and justices long pre-date not only Trump's tenure as president but his birth as well.
I'll note that you chose ad hominem over actually addressing the issue.
Rhino <no_offline_contact@example.com> wrote:
On 2026-10-06 6:54 p.m., Adam H. Kerman wrote:
Rhino <no_offline_contact@example.com> wrote:
. . .
I saw a police bodycam video the other day - which I can't find again
now - which depicted a middle-aged man who had honey-trapped a 21 year >>>> old who came over to have sex with a 9 year old. The 21 year old wore
only a diaper below his waist. The honey-trapper gave the police all
kinds of evidence against the predator including video and texts. The
predator knew his life was over. I'm going to need a lot of convincing >>>> before I believe the honey-trapper was the bad guy in that video....
I'll play devil's advocate. We have sufficient crimes to solve that we
shouldn't create circumstances resulting in new crimes. You don't say
there was evidence of sexual assault in the past. Prey on anyone's
weakness and he could crack.
There *was* past bad behavior from the 21 year old.
I would have preferred an investigation into those crimes to setting him
up for a new crime. The crime of intending to commit a crime against an imaginary victim seems wrong.
On 2026-10-06 9:48 p.m., Adam H. Kerman wrote:
Rhino <no_offline_contact@example.com> wrote:
On 2026-10-06 6:54 p.m., Adam H. Kerman wrote:
Rhino <no_offline_contact@example.com> wrote:
. . .
I saw a police bodycam video the other day - which I can't find again >>>>> now - which depicted a middle-aged man who had honey-trapped a 21 year >>>>> old who came over to have sex with a 9 year old. The 21 year old wore >>>>> only a diaper below his waist. The honey-trapper gave the police all >>>>> kinds of evidence against the predator including video and texts. The >>>>> predator knew his life was over. I'm going to need a lot of convincing >>>>> before I believe the honey-trapper was the bad guy in that video....
I'll play devil's advocate. We have sufficient crimes to solve that we >>>> shouldn't create circumstances resulting in new crimes. You don't say
there was evidence of sexual assault in the past. Prey on anyone's
weakness and he could crack.
There *was* past bad behavior from the 21 year old.
I would have preferred an investigation into those crimes to setting him
up for a new crime. The crime of intending to commit a crime against an
imaginary victim seems wrong.
That video showed up in my feed again just now in case you want to have
a look:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=086USvkNZcI [14 minutes]
Rhino <no_offline_contact@example.com> wrote:
On 2026-10-06 9:48 p.m., Adam H. Kerman wrote:
Rhino <no_offline_contact@example.com> wrote:
On 2026-10-06 6:54 p.m., Adam H. Kerman wrote:
Rhino <no_offline_contact@example.com> wrote:
. . .
I saw a police bodycam video the other day - which I can't find again >>>>>> now - which depicted a middle-aged man who had honey-trapped a 21 year >>>>>> old who came over to have sex with a 9 year old. The 21 year old wore >>>>>> only a diaper below his waist. The honey-trapper gave the police all >>>>>> kinds of evidence against the predator including video and texts. The >>>>>> predator knew his life was over. I'm going to need a lot of convincing >>>>>> before I believe the honey-trapper was the bad guy in that video....
I'll play devil's advocate. We have sufficient crimes to solve that we >>>>> shouldn't create circumstances resulting in new crimes. You don't say >>>>> there was evidence of sexual assault in the past. Prey on anyone's
weakness and he could crack.
There *was* past bad behavior from the 21 year old.
I would have preferred an investigation into those crimes to setting him >>> up for a new crime. The crime of intending to commit a crime against an
imaginary victim seems wrong.
That video showed up in my feed again just now in case you want to have
a look:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=086USvkNZcI [14 minutes]
Sigh. The child pr0n was AI-created.
On 2026-10-08 11:28 a.m., Adam H. Kerman wrote:
Rhino <no_offline_contact@example.com> wrote:
On 2026-10-06 9:48 p.m., Adam H. Kerman wrote:
Rhino <no_offline_contact@example.com> wrote:
On 2026-10-06 6:54 p.m., Adam H. Kerman wrote:
Rhino <no_offline_contact@example.com> wrote:
. . .
I saw a police bodycam video the other day - which I can't find again >>>>>>> now - which depicted a middle-aged man who had honey-trapped a 21 year >>>>>>> old who came over to have sex with a 9 year old. The 21 year old wore >>>>>>> only a diaper below his waist. The honey-trapper gave the police all >>>>>>> kinds of evidence against the predator including video and texts. The >>>>>>> predator knew his life was over. I'm going to need a lot of convincing >>>>>>> before I believe the honey-trapper was the bad guy in that video.... >>>>I'll play devil's advocate. We have sufficient crimes to solve that we >>>>>> shouldn't create circumstances resulting in new crimes. You don't say >>>>>> there was evidence of sexual assault in the past. Prey on anyone's >>>>>> weakness and he could crack.
There *was* past bad behavior from the 21 year old.
I would have preferred an investigation into those crimes to setting him >>>> up for a new crime. The crime of intending to commit a crime against an >>>> imaginary victim seems wrong.
That video showed up in my feed again just now in case you want to have
a look:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=086USvkNZcI [14 minutes]
Sigh. The child pr0n was AI-created.
I had been told that AIs had guardrails to keep them from doing illegal >things. Either that wasn't true or someone figured out how to beat the >guardrails. (Or maybe only *some* AIs have the guardrails and he used
one that doesn't.)
On 2026-10-08 11:28 a.m., Adam H. Kerman wrote:
Sigh. The child pr0n was AI-created.
I had been told that AIs had guardrails to keep them from doing illegal things. Either that wasn't true or someone figured out how to beat the guardrails. (Or maybe only *some* AIs have the guardrails and he used
one that doesn't.)
suzeeq wrote:
On 10/6/2026 12:30 PM, Adam H. Kerman wrote:
BTR1701 <atropos@mac.com> wrote:
. . .
The city did amend the permit, however, and required the production to >>>> erect a "hurt feelz wall" around the shooting location to shield the
leftist daffodils in Livingston from having to witness triggering
content being filmed.
Objection, your honor!
The blinders go on the horse, not the river.
Heh.
I spent 2 yrs of weekends in Livingson and there's very few 'leftist
daffodils' there. More than half of them own guns and vote R.
Homo capital of the west.
On 10/9/2026 9:34 AM, Nate wrote:
suzeeq wrote:
On 10/6/2026 12:30 PM, Adam H. Kerman wrote:
BTR1701 <atropos@mac.com> wrote:
. . .
The city did amend the permit, however, and required the production to >>>>> erect a "hurt feelz wall" around the shooting location to shield the >>>>> leftist daffodils in Livingston from having to witness triggering
content being filmed.
Objection, your honor!
The blinders go on the horse, not the river.
Heh.
I spent 2 yrs of weekends in Livingson and there's very few 'leftist
daffodils' there. More than half of them own guns and vote R.
Homo capital of the west.
Thpught that was San Francisco, or Provincetown MA/
| Sysop: | Tetrazocine |
|---|---|
| Location: | Melbourne, VIC, Australia |
| Users: | 7 |
| Nodes: | 8 (0 / 8) |
| Uptime: | 95:01:20 |
| Calls: | 221 |
| Files: | 21,513 |
| Messages: | 85,849 |