Top products from r/JusticeServed

We found 23 product mentions on r/JusticeServed. We ranked the 78 resulting products by number of redditors who mentioned them. Here are the top 20.

Next page

Top comments that mention products on r/JusticeServed:

u/stanfan114 · 1 pointr/JusticeServed

I don't have the model in front of me, it is a Chinese unit I got for about $50. The only thing I don't like about it is it will either record five minutes at a time then go back and record over it, or will record on the whole SD card then run out of memory and I have to manually erase the card. I wish it would loop the whole card.

It is pretty close to this unit:

u/undrwatersquad · 1 pointr/JusticeServed

No sir, thank you. I guess my memory is bad because I remember a lot less words from your original posts.

I recommend this: Scholastic Dictionary of Spelling

I used it back in grade school to learn spelling, I really recommend it.

u/AnxiousBasterd · 1 pointr/JusticeServed

Ok you sent me a blog post, I have a book from Stanford Press signed by several eminent scholars.

The black book of communism

u/skpicky · 1 pointr/JusticeServed

Do you mean this one? with the recommended 32gb card, how much time in the loop?

u/SigmundFloyd76 · 7 pointsr/JusticeServed

I read Crime Control as Industry in the late 90's.

I've watched in horror over the last 15 or so years as his predictions all came true. It's getting close to 1% of the general population being incarcerated.

He even predicted a 9/11-like event that would serve to further entrench new attitudes on "security". Seriously. Written in '94.

u/CPSFrequentCustomer · 1 pointr/JusticeServed

This book on the case was a nerve-racking read. I was stressed throughout. This guy and his family controlled the town with terror for years.

u/lukeman3000 · 2 pointsr/JusticeServed

Verbal judo is not about how to insult people or attack them. Conversely, it's about using empathy to persuade, and to build/maintain relationships even with total strangers.


u/MyOverflow · 4 pointsr/JusticeServed

>I am assuming the guilty have been figured out with the use of DNA evidence.

You're assuming that the prosecutor or investigators would never present falsified evidence. That is not the case at all. [Note: Each word is a separate link.] In fact, I would argue that this is already enough reason for capital punishment to be considered morally wrong and shouldn't be allowed.

“It is better that ten guilty persons escape than that one innocent suffer.” - William Blackstone

u/RogerVanRabbit · 4 pointsr/JusticeServed

Actually, Dave Grossman did a more comprehensive study & analysis as per his book "On Killing: The Psychological Cost of Learning to Kill in War and Society", and it does show a lot of the same stuff. He does say that the WWII study is not beyond reproach though, you are right. But there's something to it If I remember well.

u/GroundhogExpert · 7 pointsr/JusticeServed

>First off, you forgot to drop your logic library on me as you promised.

I could try to teach calculus to a fish, I suspect both would be equally effective. But here you go: Buy the e-reader copy and start reading. I doubt very much you will, and if you do, I doubt very much you'll make a sincere effort. You're not interested in being smart, that takes work, you're content with the mere appearance. You're vapid and shallow.

>Second, no need for ad hominem.

Not anywhere here have I engaged in ad hominem reasoning. You're too stupid to understand the concepts you use? Pathetic.

>Yes, I don't believe fascists deserve a platform. It's the same reason they don't allow footage of Hitler or Nazi rhetoric in Germany

I think that's a major mistake. The benefit of some bad ideas around is that we get to beat those ideas up with good ideas and sharpen our intellect, the alternative is something we could call "dead dogma." When ideas, even good ones, remain unchallenged for too long, the people holding them forget why, and they make poor cases for why those good ideas are good. That's the breeding ground for fanaticism, for extremism, for small minded people like you.

>or why here in the US you can't yell "fire" in a theater when there's no threat.

Absolutely not. If you can't tell the difference between political speech and speech that will likely result in injury by natural reaction, then you're not smart enough to justify talking to. And I sincerely mean that. The US does NOT abridge or even cool political speech. To conflate that with screaming "fire" in a crowded theater is one of the dumbest things I've heard in a while, and it's done so with arrogance that you actually have a cogent point. Fuck you're sad.

u/SD_1974 · 1 pointr/JusticeServed

What type of evidence would you like to see of the word ‘fascist’ being used to describe someone who doesn’t fit the academic description;

“a form of radical, right-wing, authoritarian ultranationalism, characterized by dictatorial power, forcible suppression of opposition, and strong regimentation of society and of the economy”

“Fascists believe that liberal democracy is obsolete and regard the complete mobilization of society under a totalitarian one-party state as necessary to prepare a nation for armed conflict and to respond effectively to economic difficulties. Such a state is led by a strong leader—such as a dictator and a martial government composed of the members of the governing fascist party—to forge national unity and maintain a stable and orderly society. Fascism rejects assertions that violence is automatically negative in nature and views political violence, war, and imperialism as means that can achieve national rejuvenation.”








u/MonacoE92 · 0 pointsr/JusticeServed

I don't know what you mean with "alive" vs dead. There is nothing in the law that talks about "alive".

Imminent threat means right that very second. You can't say "Well I thought he COULD be a threat so I shot him some more". That's a felony. It's called manslaughter, or 2nd degree murder if the prosecutor chooses to go that route.

Once the threat is no longer there (i.e. a guy who has been shot 20 times and dropped his gun and collapsed into a crumpled up heap) you can no longer shoot. The law is extremely clear on this and there are cases upon cases of precedent further proving what it means. You can not shoot unless a threat of imminent death or great bodily harm is there. My original point is that had this been a civilian and not a cop, they likely would have faced the possibility of jail time.

I highly recommend you read this book by an expert firearms instructor and former criminal defense attorney if you would like to better understand the law on deadly force:

u/FlashGenius · 0 pointsr/JusticeServed

"Hitler did not speak publicly about the killings, and seems never to have visited the concentration camps."

A quote lifted directly from wikipedia, which seems well sourced from this text:

So, it seems as if Hitler did not actually ever physically attack any of the people he persecuted. He simply instituted policies which led to the genocide of millions. Completely different.

Lets be real. People like you are why Hitler rose to power.

"Oh, there is no way he actually means to kill every single jew."

"They're just words, he wouldn't actually start a global war just to start eradicating the races he hates. He's just saying that!"

"See, they're just separating our neighbors out and sending them away, to make sure that no enemies of the state are hiding among them! Sure is funny how they are all jews, though... I think I remember something about that. Whatever!"

Fucking hell. Your belief that all beliefs are fine is so dangerous. Yes, thought crime is awful, but when you have people believing that they are superior simply because they have white skin, and that everyone with differing views and skin color should die, simply because they are different, a line has to be drawn.

When there is someone in the streets willing to talk about how much they hate jews, blacks, and all the shades in between, up until he gets knocked out, that is incredibly scary to me. This is not thought crime. This is proclaiming to the world that "Yes, I am a Nazi, and I do not give a fuck what anyone else thinks of that". Letting them do that is a travesty to every single life lost in WWII.

WE WENT TO WAR WITH THESE PEOPLE, BECAUSE THEY WERE PUTTING THEIR BELIEFS INTO ACTION. Sure, the US didn't join the war until Pearl Harbor, but we were still supporting the Allies through trading. Letting them even have a chance to put their beliefs into action again is fucking stupid.

Many European countries outlawed both the promotion of Nazism and Holocaust Denial. I agree with that. Letting it fester will bring nothing good to the world.

This man we watched knew exactly what he was doing. He was riling people, he was looking to make people angry. Look at his body language. Everything up until he held his hand up screamed "Come at me". He was looking for a fight, but he was not prepared for it. Have you heard of the concept of "Fighting Words"? It is a legitimate legal term.

He swung first, with his words.

But hey, I'm just a cynic. You don't have to listen to me. The world does need some idealism.

u/phunkysox · 1 pointr/JusticeServed

In fact, gun-related crime increased for years after the 1996 “ban," and the only way disputants can claim that violent crime decreased is by widening the window of time beyond 10 years.

As John Lott has correctly noted, violent crime increased immediately after the “ban,” and homicides and armed robberies continued the upward trend until 2000, never dropping below 1996 levels until after 2010 (in the case of armed robberies, they still hadn’t gone below 1996 levels by 2010).

As Miguel Faria, MD. Noted, after the Aussie “ban” was insituted:

That same year in the state of Victoria, there was a 300 percent increase in homicides committed with firearms. The following year, robberies increased almost 60 percent in South Australia. By 1999, assaults had increased in New South Wales by almost 20 percent. Two years following the gun ban/confiscation, armed robberies rose by 73 percent, unarmed robberies by 28 percent, kidnappings by 38 percent, assaults by 17 percent and manslaughter by 29 percent, according to the Australian Bureau of Statistics.

John Lott also notes that gun ownership eventually returned to per-capita levels that mirrored the rates prior to the “ban.” So, first, the claim that the “ban” saw a resultant decrease in violent crime, including homicides, is false. Second, violent crime rates only began to decrease years later, as guns returned to Australian hands against the wishes of the politicians writing the laws.

All this while, the “ban” created what one might expect: a huge and dangerous black market for firearms in Oz. It seems many Aussies who wanted to use guns still found them, and peacefully-minded people were forced to go to the black market.

Meanwhile, during the same early-year period of the Aussie “ban,” the U.S. saw a staggering increase in gun ownership, and violent crime, including gun-related homicides and other acts, decreased dramatically.

And guess what? Even after Bill Clinton’s presidency inspired worried gun owners to keep and bear more arms, the per-capita ownership of firearms continued to increase upon his departure, and violent crime continued to decrease.

Here is the link to the FBI’s Uniform Crime Reporting stats from 2007 to 2011 to prove it. Between 2007 and 2011, the number of violent crimes committed with a gun decreased by over 220,000.

As Larry Bell wrote for Forbes on a Pew studyof gun homicide rates between 1993 and 2013:

Their accounting shows a 49 percent decline in the homicide rate, and a 75 percent decline of non-fatal violent crime victimization.

Meanwhile, in the U.K., violent crime and gun crime increased after their draconian gun “bans” of 1997. Over the next two years, as Dr. Faria and I noted in my book, “Live Free or Die”:

While robberies rose 81% in England and Wales , they fell 21% in the US. Likewise, assaults increased 53% in England and Wales, but declined 27% in the US.

Even the old image of the unarmed British Bobby was lost after the “gun ban,” as the U.K. government created armed “19” units to combat violence.

The “hot burglary” rate per-capita in the U.K. is also much higher (50%) than in the US (13%). That means that thieves don’t case a home as often in the U.K., and they do case them in the U.S. Why? As John Lott notes in his monumental book, “More Guns, Less Crime,” interviews with actual criminals tell us that they case homes to avoid confrontations with potentially armed residents.

So what is the takeaway?

How about this: criminals change their behavior when they suspect a potential victim or group of potential victims might be armed. They hunt for easier prey