An incensed bride punched a wedding crasher in the face after the interloper disrupted her reception by pawing several teenage female guests, according to a criminal complaint.
Cops say that William Dickinson, 25, and two co-workers were drinking at the bar of a Best Western in Eau Claire, Wisconsin Friday night when they decided to crash a wedding reception being held in the hotel.
The goal was “getting laid,”Dickinson’s buddy Patrick Smith later told police.
But Dickinson–wearing jeans and a t-shirt–quickly caused an uproar when he sought to dance with two 17-year-old girls and an 18-year-old woman. Police charge that he inappropriately touched all three teenagers. Two of the victims said Dickinson rubbed and squeezed their buttocks. When a 14-year-old girl confronted him about his behavior, Dickinson allegedly yanked on the child’s hair, causing her pain.
During a scuffle that followed, Dickinson allegedly punched the bride’s father in the face, knocking the man down. Smith said that Dickinson later told him that wedding guests “were mad at him for dancing with the girls and accused him of being a pedophile.”
When questioned by police, Dickinson admitted decking the bride’s father, adding that he planned to ground and pound the man, “but then realized that he was so old so he stopped punching him.” Dickinson, police reported, said that he “liked to fight people.”
Dickinson, the complaint notes, later apologized to the bride, saying that he “hoped he didn’t ruin her party.” The woman responded by punching the wedding crasher (seen above) in the face. “Dickinson said he probably deserved it,” cops noted.
Dickinson was charged with physical abuse of a child, a felony, disorderly conduct, and two counts of fourth-degree sexual assault (the latter two charges are misdemeanors). Dickinson was freed from jail Tuesday after posting $1000 bond.
A Circuit Court judge has ordered Dickinson to have no contact with “any underage females,” including the teens he allegedly groped at the wedding reception. Additionally, he must “maintain absolute sobriety” and stay out of “any taverns, bars, or place where alcohol is primarily served/sold.”
I guess he really does not like working the morning shift at Taco Bell.
Taco Bell employee is facing arrest after allegedly throwing a “hot burrito” at his manager because he was “upset over having to work the morning shift,” South Carolina police report.
Spartanburg cops were called to a Taco Bell Monday afternoon after employee Christopher Dalton got into a dispute with Patricia Keeley, his manager.
Keeley told an officer that Dalton was upset over his work schedule and “was getting into several verbal disputes with other coworkers.” Keeley said that when she told Dalton to “stop being a crybaby,” he exploded.
Dalton allegedly “slung” a burrito at Keeley, who told police that “the melted cheese got all over her left arm and went all down her left side and leg.” Keeley added that the airborne burrito “made a mess of the entire kitchen as well, getting cheese over all the appliances.”
Before storming out of the fast food restaurant (pictured below), Dalton “took off his headset and broke it on his knee and threw it on the ground, causing it to break into several pieces.”
After taking photos of “Keeley and the mess made,” police filed for a warrant charging Dalton, a Spartanburg resident, with misdemeanor assault.
These idiots want to control everyone on Social Media.
There is a growing drumbeat for tech regulation coming from the establishment, the latest example being Salesforce.com CEO Mark Benioff’s call, made at Davos, for the world to “wake up to the threat from tech giants.” But what kind of regulation are they looking for?
Benioff compared the tech giants to tobacco companies, suggesting that their product is “addictive” and in some cases “bad for people” before alluding to the “manipulation” of elections by “outside forces.”
“I think you’d do it exactly the same way you’d regulate the cigarette industry. You know, here’s a product, cigarettes, they’re addictive, they’re not good for you, maybe there’s all kinds of different forces getting you to do different things …”
The Salesforce.com CEO’s comments echo the narrative of the left, which is that “fake news,” spread through social media and financed by Russia, put Donald Trump in the White House. Aside from the inflated claims and Red Scare-level establishment panic, the subtext of the argument is that users of social media platforms can’t be trusted to choose what information they receive. Unless social media companies limit access to information, they will be manipulated by hostile forces (and many on the left consider Breitbart News and the alternative media to be synonymous with “fake news.”)
It’s a narrative that says the free flow of information is dangerous, because voters are stupid and easily misinformed. It’s a narrative hostile to the idea of human rationality, one that says free speech and the free marketplace of ideas are flawed, because human beings — given the chance — will choose bad speech and bad ideas. Instead, governments and Silicon Valley gatekeepers should act as enlightened overlords, deciding what information the mentally feeble users receive. Rupert Murdoch expressed this opinion last week, when he said Facebook and other social media platforms should pay reputable new sources to atone for the crime of spreading “scurrilous news sources,” referring to the alternative media.
The right wants regulation too, but of a very different kind. Multiple right-wing commentators have called for Google and Facebook, whose market share eclipses old 20th-century monopolies like Standard Oil and the Bell System, to be regulated like utilities.
The impetus is the threat of political bias from companies that now have more influence over the flow of news and information than any other company in history. Facebook, through a recent change to its news feed algorithm, threatens to undercut the success of new media outlets. Google, by tweaking its search results, could swing an election anywhere in the world. Twitter has been the birthplace of entire political movements.
Yet all of these companies are subject to less regulation on viewpoint neutrality than a small-time radio or TV broadcast station, which are subject to the equal time rule (not to be confused with the Fairness Doctrine.) This states that broadcast stations must give equal and equivalent airtime to political candidates who request it. Give a Democrat five minutes, and you have to give his opponent five minutes too.
Unlike Benioff’s suggestion, the equal time rule weakens rather than strengthens the power of information gatekeepers, limiting their ability to choose what the public sees. Instead of one “unbiased” source who claims to offer the whole truth without bias (arguably an impossible feat for anyone, let alone a mainstream news company), the public will see two competing sets of partisan information, and decide for themselves which one rings true. It’s regulation that affirms, rather than denigrates, the intelligence of voters.
Tech companies, despite having political influence that vastly exceed a single T.V or radio station, are subject to no such rule, which means they can kick off or censor political candidates at will — as they’ve done to Roger Stone and Rep. Marsha Blackburn.
In addition to the utility argument, which would subject the tech giants to similar rules on content neutrality that were previously applied to ISPs under Title II regulations, conservatives have also suggested tying social media company’s legal immunity to viewpoint neutrality. Section 230 of the Communications Decency Act exempts social media companies from legal liability for posts made by their users — without this protection, there is no way the tech giants could have grown to the size that they have achieved.
The legislation was written with the justification that the Internet offers a forum for “true diversity of political discourse,” and the “user control over what information is received by individuals” must be maximized. Conservatives want to tie the immunity more closely to its justification; if social media companies fail to deliver political diversity (say, by banning their prominent conservative users, as Twitter has done), then they lose the protection of Section 230.
Facebook, by insisting on ranking news content via an algorithm that favors so-called “broadly trusted” sources, instead of letting users decide what they see, is also violating the spirit of Section 230. They aren’t maximizing user control over the information they receive. As with political diversity, this could again be strengthened so that tech companies that meddle too much in their users’ ability to choose their own information sources without giving them a chance to opt-out should also lose the protections of section 230.
This, unlike the “solutions” suggested by the left, is again a type of regulation based on an optimistic view of users’ intelligence. The subtext is that users can be trusted to choose their own information sources, without the need to be protected from nefarious influences by Facebook, Google, and Twitter.
The elites at Davos, terrified of the unwashed masses, don’t think users can be trusted. They’re terrified of the choices being made by ordinary people, from the sites they read to the candidates they vote for, and they desperately want to regain control. Unable to countenance that their worldview might be flawed, they’ve convinced themselves that voters are stupid, and led astray by “fake news.”
Heck, even if they’re right and voters are morons, that doesn’t imply the elites are geniuses by process of elimination. They might be even bigger morons! The reason we have free speech isn’t that everyone is perfectly rational, but because no-one is, and therefore no-one should be allowed to go unchallenged. That’s why restoring their ability to control the flow of information, something now being loudly demanded by the left, must be opposed at all costs. Censorship is caused by people who believe that everyone except themselves are idiots.
Pope Francis denounced “fake news” as evil, comparing it to the snake that tempted Eve in the Garden of Eden.
In his annual social communications message, Francis dedicated his missive this year to “fake news and journalism for peace,” saying misinformation dates back to the Biblical beginning of time.
“The strategy of this skilled ‘Father of Lies’ is precisely mimicry, that sly and dangerous form of seduction that worms its way into the heart with false and alluring arguments,” he said, adding “fake news” played on stereotypes and prejudices. “This biblical episode brings to light an essential element for our reflection: There is no such thing as harmless disinformation; on the contrary, trusting in falsehood can have dire consequences.”
Francis then called on journalists to be “protectors of the news” and to rediscover the dignity of their profession. He said it was their responsibility to communicate the truth.
“The tragedy of misinformation is that it discredits others, presenting them as enemies, to the point of demonizing them and fomenting conflict,” Francis said.
A journalism of peace, Francis said, is one that is truthful, and devoid of “rhetorical slogans and sensational headlines.”
Yes He Worships the Devil.
“A journalism created by people for people, one that is at the service of all, especially those – and they are the majority in our world – who have no voice,” he said. “A journalism less concentrated on breaking news than on exploring the underlying causes of conflict, in order to promote deeper understanding and contribute to their resolution by setting in place virtuous process. A journalism committed to pointing out alternatives to the escalation of shouting matches and verbal violence.”
The Pontiff’s message comes after he faced unprecedented bad press during his South American tour. It also comes a week after President Trump announced his “Fake News Awards” winners.
The message made no reference to how some public figures often label unflattering or critical reports “fake news” to try to discredit the information.
Francis has frequently railed about journalists, and before he became pope was known for his frosty relations with the Argentine media. Just this week, while chatting with reporters aboard the papal plane, he admitted he hated giving interviews and joked: “And look at the job God gave me now.”
Bob Mueller is a self-righteous POS that should be investigated.
Special counsel Robert Mueller may have helped cover up connections between a Saudi family and the 9/11 terror attacks, according to Tuesday report from conservative watchdog group Judicial Watch.
Court documents obtained by Judicial Watch show that as FBI director, Mueller was “likely involved” in releasing deceptive agency statements to cover up a connection between a Saudi Arabian family living in Florida and the 9/11 hijackers. The statements were tailored to discredit a 2011 story exposing an FBI investigation into the family, who lived in Sarasota, Fla. The investigation was also withheld from Congress, according to Judicial Watch.
The FBI investigation into the Saudis came when news stories found that they had abruptly left the country two weeks before 9/11, reportedly leaving behind their cars, furniture, clothes, and other personal items.
“Though the recently filed court documents reveal Mueller received a briefing about the Sarasota Saudi investigation, the FBI continued to publicly deny it existed and it appears that the lies were approved by Mueller,” Judicial Watch wrote. “Not surprisingly, he didn’t respond to questions about this new discovery emailed to his office by the news organization that uncovered it.”
Some republicans and supporters of President Donald Trump have been clamoring for him to fire Mueller in recent months as they perceive his credibility to be waning. They cite that more than half of Mueller’s team has worked for former Secretary of State Hillary Clinton or the Clinton Foundation or have a history of donating to Democrats.
Judicial Watch filed a lawsuit in early December demanding that Mueller release hundreds of anti-Trump text messages exchanged by FBI agent Peter Strzok – who was on Mueller’s Russia investigation team – and FBI lawyer Lisa Page throughout 2017. Now, with some of the messages released, it’s become clearthat Strzok may have thought the investigation was a dead end.
Why don’t he interview Peter Strzok, Obama, or Hillary?
Special Counsel Robert Mueller is seeking an interview with President Donald Trump about his decisions to dismiss FBI Director James Comey and National Security Adviser Michael Flynn.
The Washington Post reports that Trump’s team has crafted negotiating terms for his interview with Mueller’s investigative team that could be presented to Mueller as soon as next week, according to two sources familiar with the special counsel’s plans.
According to the report, Mueller’s interest in those firings indicates his Russia probe is focusing on possible efforts by Trump to obstruct the investigation:
The president’s legal team hopes to provide Trump’s testimony in a hybrid form — answering some questions in a face-to-face interview and others in a written statement.
Those discussions come amid signs of stepped-up activity by the special counsel. Last week, Attorney General Jeff Sessions was interviewed for several hours by Mueller’s investigators, according to Justice Department officials.
A spokesman for the special counsel’s office, Peter Carr, declined to comment. A White House spokesman referred questions to the president’s legal team. Two attorneys for Trump, Jay Sekulow and John Dowd, declined to comment
Within the past two weeks, the special counsel’s office has indicated to the White House that the two central subjects that investigators wish to discuss with the president are the departures of Flynn and Comey and the events surrounding their firings.
Trump has been unclear on whether he would meet with Mueller, saying Jan. 10, “we’ll see what happens.” He has repeatedly said there was “no collusion” between his campaign and the Kremlin, and he has reportedly told his lawyers he has no worries about being interviewed since he has nothing to hide.
Trump fired Comey in May of 2017, and Comey has testified about previous conversations with Trump where he said the president asked him about laying off investigating Flynn.
Mueller interviewed Comey last year, the New York Times reported, and Comey was asked about the memos he kept about conversations with Trump while he was FBI director.
Trump fired Flynn in February after revelations that he misled Vice President Mike Pence and other administration officials about discussions with Sergey Kislyak, the Russian ambassador to the U.S.
Flynn pleaded guilty in December to making false statements to the FBI about his communications with Kislyak. Trump then tweeted he fired Flynn “because he lied to the Vice President and the FBI,” even though the White House had before only cited his lying to Pence as the reason for his ouster.
Mueller is also supposed to be interested in Trump’s prior pressuring of Sessions to quit. Trump reportedly berated Sessions and demanded that he resign for recusing himself from the Russia investigation and the resulting appointment of Mueller.
It was reported that Sessions offered his resignation, but White House advisers convinced Trump that Sessions’ departure would only add to the administration’s troubles.
