I for one will welcome the new province of Califoregon to the fold. Likewise, Washington will now be part of the Province of Columbia (further confusing sixth grade geography lessons, but we can drop the "British" part by now) From Vancouver to Vancouver.
no... we laughed at your glorious vision (and, it would seem, capacity to participate) of it. that the American Union has been on life support practically since the USSR fell was hardly a unique perspective.
Neat to know that in RL, all it would have taken was a chubby Asian guy with a skateboard shield to stop Freddy.
DAMN! When I saw the pic at first glance I didn't see he was holding two toads - I thought it was a two headed toad, which would even put the bible to shame in epic scariness. Side note they had a series of small earthquakes around Yellowstone and they have that whole "caldera" thing going on which would wipe out much of our country. Not saying it would happen in 2020 but given our track record so far this year....do the math!
I hope you are right, and since you know the discourse and I don't, chances are you are. To me, this seems like a very weak statement in a situation where soldiers are looking to their leaders in uncertainty over the legality of their orders, because it does not address that issue. At best, it seems to say, 'Make sure your orders are legal.' Which in my book is cowardice from a leader who should be making sure that that is the case themselves. But again, perhaps I am misreading it completely.
I guess whoever shot him didn't think his life mattered. https://www.cnn.com/2020/06/03/us/david-dorn-st-louis-police-shot-trnd/index.html
This article explains well what I think is wrong with qualified immunity. https://www.usatoday.com/story/opin...ied-immunity-supreme-court-column/5283349002/
They'll have to isolate him from other inmates. He still might have an "accident" in the shower or in the yard, and nobody will see a thing. There's not much you can threaten a lifer with. Just ask Jeffrey Dahmer.
According to this article, the Supreme Court could take it up and strike it down fairly easily. https://reason.com/2020/05/29/the-s...mmunity-and-prevent-cases-like-george-floyds/
Here’s some no-brained reforms being considered. https://reason.com/2020/06/03/here-...-cities-and-states-are-considering-right-now/
It is misleading to say that qualified immunity eliminates liability for police officers. What it does is say that an officer should not be held liable for an alleged constitutional violation if a reasonable officer could have been unaware at the time it was a constitutional violation. The officer still can be held liable for, say, wrongful death or other violations of state law. Beyond that, it is not as unfair as these attorneys make it out. Obviously, if the standard is "no officer has been held liable for a use of force violation during a Tuesday in a leap year" or something that would be ridiculous. Without knowing more about the cases cied above, those seem like bad applications of the principle, but that doesn't mean that punishing someone for something that had not been established as a constitutional issue at the time is a good idea.
Maybe I'm really misunderstanding these protests, but from all the footage and streams I've watched there don't seem to be many chants regarding the constitutional basis of government spending. You made the claim trying to say that your Libertarian stance is a solution to the situation (or at least would help prevent situations like this). Please, lay out the logic. How do social welfare programs cause entrenched racism and a hyper-militarised police? How do interstate commerce regulations make police officers automatically see black people as dangerous criminals? You keep pulling out these I told you so's, so please, tell us.
Not to put words in Lanzman's mouth, but I imagine the argument goes something like: Victimless or minor crimes are a huge factor in why cops are empowered to use force. If drugs were legal, not only would drug-related crime drop dramatically but also police would be less likely to develop racial stereotypes and harmful mindsets from thinking of themselves as drug warriors, so to speak. Also, if police did not have to enforce all unnecessary laws on the books, there would be dramatically fewer interventions and thus dramatically fewer chances of excessive force. If there were no law against counterfeit $20s, George Floyd would be alive today. If there were no laws against unlicensed sales of loose cigs, Eric Garner would be alive today.
Oh c'mon. The issue here is the mindset of the cops, not the crimes. If a cop has it in his head that black folk are less than human or more likely to be violent or whatever racist bullshit they think, they're going to approach ANY encounter with blacks in a hostile manner. That doesn't mean taking crimes off the books - it means changing the mindset. Counterfeiting is a problem - you don't solve one problem by ignoring another, especially when it does nothing to address the root cause. The cops'll still be racist. Sure, they might have less excuse to kick off, but now you have counterfeiters running wild. Stop BOTH.