Gromnir

misunderstand. dui and arrest is not same. sure, you get a citation no matter what, but arrest is not same. if brooks had been a white guy slumped behind wheel, he woulda' gotten the dui once he failed sobriety, but that is not same as arrest. HA! Good Fun! ps we did specific address just this point btw. brooks, regardless o' race, were not a guy who would be given a citation and then sent on his way. *shrug*

depends. for those curious 'bout brooks situation: 1) do a search for fleeing felon rule. you may be surprised. 2) tasers is not nice, but is not the core problem the suspect didn't just point the taser at the cops following him. watch video close. looks as if mr. brooks discharges the device-- possibly even hit the nearest pursuer. cop stumbles immediate after taser is discharged by brooks and falls against a car. taser is kinda a red herring though. the suspect had already shown a willingness to assault police officers in their earlier attempt to arrest him. cop training almost anywhere would establish that the subject in question is dangerous, and cop training and reasoning is simple: a suspect who has shown a willingness to use force on police is a threat to public. ipso facto... 3) @HoonDing is actual right 'bout race, but am not thinking for reasons most will embrace... as usual, many will disagree with Gromnir. regardless o' race, once you trigger cop training and experience regarding violence, you have already passed the rubicon. vol enjoys posting videos and links to events where white folks suffered at the hands o' cops. he is wrong to claim there is no cop racism 'cause such events occur, but it is true cops is less hesitant to use excess force 'pon whites than many would like to believe. is not as if this stuff only happens to minorities. once you put a cop in a situation where they is needing respond to challenges to authority and situations which has possibility o' putting self, other officers or innocent bystanders at risk, then far too many cops will use force, and then punish the suspect for providing the cop an excuse to use force. need serious changes to training. HOWEVER ... the racism likely started before the drama and not once we saw the suspect fighting with cops-- punching 'em, grabbing the taser, fleeing and then discharging taser at pursuers. if cops show up and find a drunk guy asleep in his car at a wendy's drive-thru, and the guy is white, how much effort do the "protect and serve" cops make to see that drunk guy gets a ride home... safe? even if suspect is drunk and belligerent and repeated fails the attitude test, particular if suspect is appearing to be an upstanding, middle-class white guy, the first impulse o' cops on scene is gonna be other than arrest. yeah, arrest is ez to argue is reasonable. brooks failed sobriety and fell asleep at wheel at a wendy's-- this is not a person you give a citation to and then send him on his way. brooks is exactly the guy who gets in an accident minutes later and kills multiple people 'cause he were too drunk to drive safe. drunk tanks at local jails o' every major city is filled with such people all too often. is not gonna be difficult for cops to show it were complete reasonable to arrest brooks. nevertheless, the whole situation coulda' played out different if the cops were more inclined to help brooks. a couple o' atlanta cops came across a drunk black man in a parking lot. what are chances brooks were belligerent? am suspecting brooks failed the attitude test immediate. drunk white guy in same situation and the cops woulda' been more likely to channel their inner andy griffith, perhaps rolling their eyes a bit, but doing everything they can to get drunk guy home safe. @IndiraLightfoot asks why cops weren't more careful and aware given situation. from cop pov, and as hard as may be to believe, they probable were being careful. the initial skuffle, even after the suspect became violent, did not see the cops respond with night sticks and other similar heavy-handed options. from cop pov, they no doubt believed they were being careful. have tried to explain how casual is cop violence on these boards. initial skuffle were, God save us all, restrained. however, in a high pressure situation, cop training and experience takes over, as it is s'posed to do. brooks, a fleeing felon, escapes from cops and fires taser at one pursuer, possible hitting him. again, need serious changes to cop training. regardless, am thinking many people is gonna be shocked by the actual results o' the now inevitable case 'gainst the cops. oh, and for the fox viewers, Atlanta erupts after Rayshard Brooks death prompts police chief to step down story at fox focuses on the violence o' the protesters. is unfortunate when protesters respond with violence, 'cause many of those moderate white voters whose support the protesters need if there is gonna be meaningful change, see brooks video and is appalled, but they see wendy's burn and is similar horrified.

is the second year since 2008 we will miss the berkeley juneteenth observances, and second year in a row we miss. covid-19 has us avoiding crowds this year, so we will be observing in spirit as 'posed to person. oddly enough, as last year were first time we missed since 2008, am believing we mentioned our fail on the obsidian message board. and to be complete honest, our primary inspiration for making the drive to the bay area to be observing juneteenth is the music festival which is part o' berkeley's offering. not need to go to berkeley for juneteenth, but is worth the drive for the music. HA! Good Fun! ps a 4' high wood and wire fence along the US-mexico border would be no less effective a solution than the steel monstrosity, but it would be far cheaper.

so you are autonomous and independent save for when you must needs deny The State? ... am knowing gd is keeding 'bout his ineffectual bit o' dramatic posturing, but as long as gd doesn't build a massive steel wall along his border, painted black o' course, your efforts wouldn't be as idiotic as the multi-billion dollar lunacy in which the US is engaged. HA! Good Fun!

every history teacher who ever had vol as a student is weeping. HA! Good Fun!

would be fun, just to see us get eviscerated on national tv for the second time in our life. am predicting categories such as the following: french poets, jazz, the kentucky derby, stamps, chinese emperors, seinfeld. ... HA! Good Fun!

already were. edward g. robinson, an excellent actor who were unfortunate typecast a bit too often, were advocating civil rights reform and championing an end to workplace discrimination based on race way back in the 1940s. more vocal support such as his back in the 40s and we might not be where we are today. he also had an extensive private art collection, but am not sure how relevant such is. guy had gravitas even playing a scene with mcqueen, malden, calloway and ann-margret, 'mongst others. ... am also a big fan o' karl malden, but am honest not aware o' his political activities or skew. could show his famous on the waterfront scene, which would also be relevant in its own way. a few degrees o' separation makes near anything relevant if you got a little imagination and a bit o' trivia-level knowledge. HA! Good Fun!

not 100% certain what your personal pov is, but personal, we do this all the time. example: somebody gets apoplectic angry 'bout south park scientology jokes and we draw tentative conclusion the person is either a follower o' scientology, and/or is a person who will be offended by many o' our personal opinions 'bout scientology. depending on the nature o' our relationship, we will take the crude litmus test o' measured offense and decide whether or not to discuss scientology in the person's presence. reasonable and ordinary. HA! Good Fun!

am pretty sure more than a few folk has been offended by line drawings, animated or not, since the first cave paintings. we look at such drawings etched on stone walls and marvel, but that fat buffalo getting speared were just as likely to be a political cartoon with a fat chief standing in for the buffalo from the artist's pov. just as many folks were likely offended when artist, at fat chief's direction, used the cave paintings to sell his "victories" to the people. elerond got this one right oh, and if you saw some o' the old looney toons from the 1930s and weren't offended, we feel sorry for you and am recognizing why we still got so much room for improvement in this nation. HA! Good Fun!

first, your response proves our point 'bout personal lens, so ty. second... no. you balk at what you recognize is beneficial change 'cause o' some imaginary threat to liberty? yes, as soon as there is another school or mass shooting, and the killer is wielding an ar-15, we will again need revisit gun control, albeit stoopidly as many folks will insist on mislabeling such weapons as automatic and/or a high-powered military weapon. so what? is actual LESS gun control today than most o' US history. for a long time gun control were handled by having draconian restrictions on gun powder possession. later, virtual every western town had prohibitions on firearms w/i city limits, particular where law enforcement personnel were limited. changes and alterations to gun control law has, quixotic, led to more firearms freedom than the framers woulda'/coulda' possible imagined. more recent, auto weapon ban didn't result in some kinda inexorable slide into the abyss, did it? yes, every time there is a mass shooting there will be cries for more gun control, just as has been the case for decades. so what? is more than a few western and civilized nations where gun ownership is almost reaching US per capita levels, but restrictions on handguns has resulted in relative tiny numbers o' gun related homicides. other nations didn't face some kinda liberty apocalypse by prohibiting handguns. heck, on the first page o' the coronavirus thread, our genesis post observed how state adopted covid-19 measures would lead to l00ny 2nd amendment freaks claiming such protections were just a first step in the government's move to come for their guns. folks are so predictable. somehow every government action may be viewed as a precursor to the State coming after their guns. am not gonna get sucked in by such silliness. statistics uncontroverted show handguns gets owners killed far more often than they save lives o' owner or family. get rid o' handguns would make cops less jumpy. get rid o' handguns would decrease suicide rates, 'cause as we has pointed out previous, suicide is, god help us, an act o' convenience which may be serious curtailed simple by forcing the potential suicide to take another step towards the gaping maw o' oblivion. etc. and yeah, second amendment, as current read by Court, means handguns is here to stay. nevertheless, give up on a good idea 'cause o' the hoard o' hobgoblins gd imagines is not convincing. oh, and am just fine with digging up and lynching the confederacy, but only if is done with full knowledge as 'posed to ignorance. is too easy to dismiss the south and southerners as a bunch o' ignorant monsters who ignored the humanity o' their fellow man and, for a variety o' reasons, fought a bloody conflict in part to maintain one o' the more vulgar and repugnant institutions devised by the human race. is a far more complex conflict than some kinda oversimplified binary choice o' good northerners and evil southerners. slavery is/was evil, but even Gromnir admits reducing the entire civil war to a good v. evil choice is foolishly oversimplified. it is possible for brave and honourable people to fight and die for an unjust cause. the south suffered so terrible and yet they continued to fight. folks in new york and massachusetts were going on holiday and having picnics as if there were no war while thousands, black and white, were starving in south carolina. the war were very different for the north than it were for the south. failure to recognize the terrible sacrifices suffered by the south is one reason why northerners can't figure out why the losers o' the civil war remember the war different than yankees. tear down the statues erected during the 1920s and 50s? fine. burn even the memory o' the confederacy? is arguable Gromnir has done so more than once, at least in our heart. even so, am bothered by the tidal loathing o' the confederacy, which ebbs and flows depending on otherwise remote related acts o' racial injustice. if the inspiration to tear down statues and raze the confederacy is an evil perpetrated in 2020 minneapolis, then am thinking folks need stop and reflect before indulging in their passions. HA! Good Fun!

am honest too lazy to look up current numbers, but in 2016, ~90 unarmed americans were killed by police. of those ninety, a smidge over 50% o' the dead and unarmed persons were black... and almost invariably, "armed" meant the person were in possession o' a handgun. various people is gonna look at such numbers based on own personal lens. 2nd amendment folks will balk at suggestion (reality) handgun possession leads to a much higher rate o' getting death by cop or death by accident. many white conservatives will see higher rate o' black deaths from cop as no more than proof blacks is committing more crime and resisting more frequent. some folks will look at 90 when compared to total arrests and police confrontations and wonder what all the concern is 'bout... qq over yet another nothingburger, or somesuch. blm supporters will see disproportionate black killings as unconscionable and mere tip o' the iceberg when all police killings is considered. ... discuss race insta polarizes folks. is particular tough on law enforcement. tell a moderate/liberal white cop how he is a bigot whether he realizes or not is probable a less than constructive way to get such cops to buy-in to a program for changing use o' force schemes. is a good chance a white cop passed over for promotion twice in favor o' a minority applicant is gonna secret be grumbling 'bout affirmative action even if the minority applicants were clear more qualified-- again starting at disadvantage to buy-in. got a non-minority cop who has faced multiple ia investigations 'cause minorities complained 'bout treatment and even if the cop had started as a blm supporter who marched along with protesters after michael brown shooting, there is a good chance cop is no longer as sympathetic. etc. there is a race problem for cops and daniel shaver incident(s) don't in anyway diminish the need for change. the fact a large % o' times cops go rogue the victim is white don't somehow erase what is disproportionate happening to minorities. that said, given current environment and America's inability to discuss race w/o it turning into a metaphorical blood bath (or worse-- have angry white participants to such conversations simple holding their opinions to themselves and getting angrier and angrier,) has us dubious 'bout the success o' a race-focused plan to deal with cop violence. cop violence in the US is bad and is bad regardless o' the race o' the cop or the victim. and yes, cop violence is levied disproportionate 'pon minorites. fact. the thing is, am believing there is a cop solution to cop violence, but pretend as if there is a solution to cop racism without a broader and more general fix to USA cultural and social racism is a pipe dream. you aren't gonna somehow fix cop racism without addressing centuries o' systemic racism which lead to our current income disparity issues. you aren't gonna fix cop racism without addressing historical racism which has lead to minority distrust o' government institutions. you aren't gonna fix cop racism until you fix educational and healthcare racism. look to board responses and see just how resistant is more than a few folks to wanna recognize cop racism as a problem and then imagine how much more difficult it will be to engage actual cops in meaningful change. am thinking an attempt to address cop racism is laudable but ultimately a waste o' effort w/o simultaneous addressing broader race concerns and problems. raise your hand if you believe such a sea change o' American culture and law is gonna happen anytime soon. cop violence is not an issue beyond the ability o' state and local governments to address. is a difficult problem but is one which offers room for improvement and a legit possibility for short and long-term change. try and fix cop racism, as if such improvement may be achieved w/o larger (and less likely) societal changes, strikes us as being o' being beyond any sorta realistic hope in 2020. am not suggesting folks ignore cop racism. contrary, we need learn to discuss race issues in this country w/o everybody having their brains dribble outta their skulls whenever race is mentioned. learn to deal with racism is an enormous problem and is a generational fix. as a people we need to deal with US racism, but we also need deal with cop violence. general rule: when faced with a seeming insurmountable problem, am finding it is always beneficial to choose to focus on one aspect o' the problem which may be fixed. be paralyzed by the enormity o' an obstacle benefits none. obstacles typical appear less monolithic once you make constructive headway, even if change is small. so focus on cop violence w/o ignore cop racism. even so, recognize you ain't gonna fix cop racism w/o changing American racism. HA! Good Fun!

compared to vol, hurl is just a n00b, so misunderstanding is understandable. point o' fact, am thinking vol would be disappointed if we were to give him some kinda special clemency. HA! Good Fun!

am recalling an ai oddity from a couple years ago... could google if we were intrigued enough to do so. regardless, had two ai set to communicate with each other and the ai kinda sponatneous developed their own language and shorthand such that researchers couldn't follow what were being communicated. the ai were promptly shut down. were a facebook experiment o' all things. HA! Good Fun!

not internet. likely bad reading skills from vol. internet will tell vol there were eighteen complaints for chauvin, but only two disciplines, with one case still open. now, in retrospect, is strong reason to believe chauvin shoulda' been disciplined more. is perhaps a good argument for why police should not be investigating themselves. nevertheless, vol misinterpreted and mental transposed discipline and complaint. bad vol. HA! Good Fun!

no. chauvin were disciplined twice-- two times in eighteen years. HA! Good Fun!

just as likely and far more terrible is the following explanation: derek chauvin thought he were doing his job. sooper cop were training. chauvin likely were racist, but, for sake of argument, let's say he were also trying his best to teach rookies the skills necessary to be effective pO'leese. when were the last time most o' us posters here on the obsidian boards were punched in the face by somebody serious wanting to do us harm? how many o' us wouldn't go out of our way to avoid even the possibility o' such violence? with floyd resisting, even just a little, sooper cop has opportunity to show rookies how hard one need be as a cop, 'cause that is what chauvin believed were necessary. maybe chauvin went further than he typical would precise 'cause, god help him, he saw the floyd confrontation as a teachable moment. as 'posed to a monster who saw floyd as bug-like, is more or less disturbing to see chauvin as a diligent trainer o' rookie cops doing his best to pass on skills needed by the next generation o' police? now keep in mind, gd theory and Gromnir suggestion is NOT mutual exclusive, but am thinking is a mistake to try and dehumanize folks such as chauvin. am not doubting chauvin is a deeply flawed man. even so, would be a mistake to not consider the possibility that chauvin were, in the moment, doing what he thought were right... and that is the real stuff o' nightmares, eh? complete aside, and no doubt seeming inconsequential to present debate is our belief cop overtime exploitation is not helping excessive force problem. cops, in many departments, have an opportunity to make as much/more money per annum in overtime as they does in base pay. recognition a large % o' cops take advantage o' overtime opportunities to an unhealthy degree-- is only slight hyperbole to suggest sleep deprived cops is nearing the norm as 'posed to the exception. as such, all too often cops is in high intensity situations where they need make split second value judgements while burdened by both fear and sleep deprivation. what could possible go wrong? @Agiel the message from wh to governors regarding how to deal with protesters does not place an emphasis on winning hearts and minds. anybody surprised? HA! Good Fun!

these guys do not get it, but there is a reason they don't get it. is similar as to why police association in buffalo didn't get it after the old guy they pushed fell and cracked his skull while cops moved on looking for more folks to push and shove and strike. cops got a whole lotta experience and training which reinforces their notions o' what is reasonable use o' force. training tells 'em, literal, is best to not hesitate when themselves, other cops and civilian bystanders could be injured by a suspect-- go straight to violence. the one cop in the minneapolis situation who expressed concern over what were happening to george floyd were the guy with only four days o' experience on the job. is precise 'cause he had so little on-job experience that we suspect he were better able to see the situation reasonable. the other cops, 'cause o' years o' reinforced training and observation o' fellow cops, knew that even when a fellow cop may be going too far, as 'tween fellow cops and a suspect who gave police an excuse, fellow cop always gets benefit o' the doubt. and just 'cause am suspecting our message might get lost, am believing racism is a big problem with the police. again, cops is looking for an excuse once they is in a situation where they believe it is essential they show they ain't weak. fail attitude test and riot control is just such situations. cops is far less reluctant to restrain self if the suspect is a minority. there is centuries o' systemic racism which has led minorities to be distrustful o' police, so is hardly surprising minorities express such distrust when confronted by cops. distrust expressed becomes yet another excuse for cops. unfortunate, we, as a people, can't discuss racism. other than to admit racism is bad we can't talk 'bout race issues in a real way in this country 'cause it makes everybody uncomfortable, and Gromnir don't see any fix for that issue. race is an important factor in the excessive force by cop debate, however, am thinking people need realize just how casual is the everyday violence and brutality US cops traffic. just as bob kroll don't get it, am thinking ordinary viewer is similar misunderstanding. we looks at george floyd and see the exception, 'cause the knee to the back o' the neck lasted near nine minutes. such violence must needs have been motivated by mental illness or racism or... whatever. no excuse for such violence in that situation, so must needs be something else. cops see different. cops see only thing wrong being the nine minutes as 'posed to perhaps three. if george floyd had been pinned such for a minute-and-a-half, and lived, nobody would care and would be no protests, or so goes the cop narrative. cops don't see anything wrong with the initial use o' force and until we get to such a root problem, will be no change. the old guy in buffalo weren't pushed 'cause he were white or old or 'cause the cops were mentally ill. old guy were pushed 'cause cops were in a crowd control situation surrounded by dozens o' other cops and the cops believed their training and fellow cops demanded a show o' force. am not wanting to marginalize the racism aspect if for no other reason than fact we have been on the receiving end o' such... more than once. nevertheless, having kinda, to a limited degree, seen the law enforcement side o' the equation, am recognizing all too well just how fundamental and foundational is violence in the US police experience. if you address police excessive force as a race issue, then am suspecting change will not be achieved 'cause in pressure situations, which is what cops face all the time, they is gonna revert to training and experience. *shrug* am not having any real answers on this issue. institutional and legal obstacles to change is worse than many is aware. cultural issues is at least a generation or two removed from making change possible. every person has a camera phone, so we the public is actual finally getting to see some o' such violence. also, we got a extreme diverse population in the US with massive income disparity issues which tend to fall along racial lines. for chrissakes, we has spent a fair time in asia and US police coddle suspects compared to what we has seen in even Japan. this kinda thing is handled and reported different in other nations and where is largely a homogenous society, this crap is functional less an issue. am all out o' answers. HA! Good Fun!

city council voted to defund and disband. is not same as disbanding. city charter requires police, so to actual disband, particular by city council vote over protests o' mayor, there likely needs be a public vote. council vote is a political publicity stunt. as an aside, am recalling when the minneapolis hoopla over defund started, the local sheriff said he wouldn't help unless a plan were developed to deal with consequences o' defunding... which didn't happen. defund ain't an end o' days scenario for cop presence in minneapolis, but some kinda thought as to what happens in the near and far future is required. regardless, is all theatre at this point, and the nutters buying out local ammo supplies and arming themselves for the inevitable apocalypse in the face o' such imaginary drama is not gonna help the problem. sheesh. HA! Good Fun!

police militarization is not a new board issue, but we keep having same debates. particular following the great recession, when local police departments were experiencing severe budget shortfalls, cost issues o' militarization appeared less than wise, especial given how such militarization plays to cameras during inevitable eventual crisis. honest, after 2011 financial crisis, we thought many departments had decided voluntarily to reduce militarization 'cause o' cost issues, but is too many folks getting palms liberal greased during such transactions for military grade hardware and resulting maintenance contracts to end the idiocy complete. am suspicious o' a 2020 change. too much money. defund cops however, is kinda newish, but may not be as crazy as it sounds... although still crazy/stupid when done w/o a plan and simple as a knee jerk response. am knowing with michael brown and george floyd we has stressed how just how many police departments we got nationally in the USA. am also having noted the multiplicity o' such departments for same jurisdictions. states invariable have state police and counties have sheriffs. got an accident or crime committed on highway 16 in CA, which is a 2-lane country road for much o' its length despite images "highway" might evoke, and you might see chp, sheriff and local township police all showing up at the scene. if is an officer involved shooting, then state police could be called in as well. particular for european folks hearing o' defund police, there is inevitable confusion 'bout what such impact would have on citizenry in terms o' police coverage. defund ferguson or even la city police doesn't necessarily mean less police response in ferguson or la city. state and county police forces exist simultaneous in same jurisdictions with defunding municipalities and they arguable may take up the slack o' defunded city. municipalities brazen defunding police is an easy move for many cash strapped city mayors who love an excuse to remove a huge cost from their budgets while simultaneous leaving impression with many angry voters that they is doing such 'cause o' concerns regarding police violence and racism. as with so many issues, "follow the money" is always a good rule o' thumb when trying to explain government action. 'course defund cops looks much different from perspective o' elected sheriffs who is most immediate gonna be left taking up the slack when municipal police sudden reduce their footprint in an area. apoplectic fury? open weeping? sheriff reactions to mayors promise to defund are no doubt mixed and colorful. however, get rid o' some o' the overlap resulting from seeing as many as 4 and 5 police bodies all having arguable jurisdiction for a crime in a city is not inherent bad. each police department has own standards and training and each police body is likely to investigate itself whenever there is an initial issue o' cop excess. such multiplicity is part o' what is making uniform training standards and reporting guidelines so impractical regardless o' legal issues. even if every sane person were to wake up tomorrow and agree police need make arguable improvements to police training, reporting and self-investigation, implementing such changes become a complete charlie fox when rational implementation o' such changes is considered. regardless, defund police is another one o' those issues which is a bit more complex than it may appear to be at first blush... although precise 'cause is so complex it is admitted brodenagian stoopid when such changes is made w/o reflection and planning. HA! Good Fun! ps most social change is stoopid when viewed practical. is why is so important for young people to be involved in the political process. young folks unknowing and/or uncaring o' practical costs will demand change. as concerned as is Gromnir 'bout stoopid young people demanding the impossible and unreasonable, am glad those young and dumb is the voice o' optimistic unreasonable. "all progress depends on the unreasonable man."

true. every american fighter jock since the 40s knows the real story. warning: please note the song were crafted, or so one story goes, by american ww2 fighter pilots who were decided not woke or political aware. nevertheless, the tune, with customized lyrics, is still sung by drunk fighter pilots in bars 'cross the globe, and is probably hummed in more than a few ****pits. hell is full o' saints and popes, but there are no fighter pilots down in hell. HA! Good Fun!

there is no leader o' a movement to frame protests. such gatherings is visceral and unspecific expressions o' frustration and anger. protesters want change, whatever that means. would be nice if there were some kinda unifying voice and leadership for the protests. somebody in Congress? then again, am suspecting anybody who would step forward to be face/voice o' the 2020 protests would get labeled as a terrorist by the current administration. HA! Good Fun!

the problem from a legal standpoint is that the cop job is inherently scary and frightening. is almost no situation where a cop cannot get decent expert testimony to back her/him up and support notion they were in a state o' heightened anxiety. beyond a reasonable doubt is also an extreme forgiving standard. is tough to fail a person on beyond a reasonable doubt when at issue is a split-second value judgement during a necessarily tense encounter. folks look at extreme low conviction rates o' cops as proof o' something skeevy but is not genuine surprising. juries do not like to convict cops, but beyond such is the reality o' beyond reasonable doubt criminal standard being applied to a high intensity situation with almost zero time for reflection by the cop. and cop training tends to be suspect. force, up to and including deadly, is complete justified by cop training if there is any threat o' injury to self, other cops or otherwise innocent civilians. juries hear what cops is trained to do in situations and then already muddled situation becomes more opaque. reasonable is the standard for torts-- civil. defendant in a civil case need be reasonable and is only o' a preponderance o' evidence required for a jury/judge to find liability. beyond a reasonable doubt is a much more difficult standard than preponderance, and even for manslaughter you need recklessness as 'posed to unreasonable. @Hurlshot mentions accountability, but to whom is police accountable? why is there no good statistics for police shooting and excessive force encounters? we have answered this previous and we keep mentioning, but am thinking it ain't ever gonna be accepted 'cause it feels wrong. regardless, those state and municipal police departments, o' which there is near 15k in the US, don't owe any accounting to the federal government. the Constitution, for better or worse, specific reserves police power to states, which is why US is almost unique in not having a national police force. 'cause o' Constitution, no national accounting enforceable and no national training standard. there is south dakota v. dole, which we has also mentioned previous, but am thinking such complicates matter unnecessarily. nevertheless, if any is interested in how fed might plausible enforce police standards and accountability, do a search for south dakota v. dole. while recognizing yet again that there is 15k police departments which need be monitored and for training and accountability and we ask for persons to think o' practicality o' such on top o' obvious legal hurdles. nevertheless, google south dakota v. dole if interested. and arrest somebody who does not wanna be arrested, regardless o' crime, raises potential for force to be applied. unfortunate am thinking hurl has this aspect reversed. there is no good reason to resist arrest. particular if you believe cops is racist or prone to violence, why would you resist arrest? we will mention homelessness and mental health in a bit which complicates, but is a culture in this country which promotes being confrontational with cops which is profound dumb given recognition o' police willingness to use use force. why arrest somebody for passing funny money? why not? is a crime with, in theory, big penalties. has nothing whatsoever to do with shop owner where bad money were passed 'cause in criminal is always State v. Defendant. oddly enough, pass a bad check under a thousand dollars, in most jurisdictions, is only a misdemeanor. however, pass bad currency carries up to 20 freaking years o' fed time. frame the infraction so it appears so trivial an arrest is unnecessary is a failure to recognize actual nature o' the potential crime. arrest is perfect legit and resist is almost always stoopid. admission: back when we were a freshman at Cal, we almost got arrested. had the misfortune, for various reasons, o' being on streets o' danville at 2:00 am. a minority with a hoodie at 2:00 am were enough to attract police attention, so when the cop cruiser pulled up and police asked Gromnir for id and demanded an explanation for what we were doing, we provided the id and then suggested the cops engage in physical impossible sexual self gratification if they desired any additional information... at which point alpha cop got outta car and advanced towards us threatening. luckily alpha's partner intervened. instead o' the confrontation escalating, the cops got back in their car... at which point they followed us for twenty minutes until we arrived at a gas station where our ride picked us up and drove us back to campus. in retrospect we knew how close we were to being f'd up by police, which woulda' changed our life trajectory considerable. why did we get mouthy with cops? answer: 'cause we were so smart and we knew our rights and we were offended at being targeted by cops. grow up on reservation and then go to a rather rough high school on south side of chicago for four years had ingrained in us fundamental contempt o' cop. should we have been feeling threatened by cops for getting chippy with them at 2am? no. law were on our side, but we knew the reality o' the situation and nevertheless put our self in a bad situation. the thing is our behaviour, while ill-advised, were hardly unique to Gromnir. if cops justifiable or unjustly seek to arrest you, there is no good reason for resisting save to protect a family member from immediate harm. none. nevertheless, in spite o' cop casual brutality, too many persons give cops the excuse they want. *shrug* this is an exceeding complex issue and is no Court case or single legislative action which is gonna fix the problem. is a deep issue with historical, cultural and legal obstacles which complicate. am not suggesting do nothing 'cause is difficult, but am knowing many people feel frustrated 'cause governments ignore the problems and do nothing no matter how many times we see examples o' police violence perpetrated on otherwise innocent citizens. ordinary and everyday police violence is particular troublesome considering US homelessness and mental health issues in this country which has our most vulnerable populations understandably failing the attitude test almost before a police encounter begins. the problem is vast and complicated by Constitutional limits which means achieving change should not be expected save at local level. local level is where folks should focus efforts. but is unsatisfactory. HA! Good Fun!

well, that is near enough the definition o' intentional. the cop intended to push the older civilian gentleman. weren't an accident. fact the results were far more extreme than anticipated is not making the action unitenional. consequences unintended? sure, but is not unforeseen consequences. is not act of god unlikely. if orogun pushed vol as the cop pushed the old guy, then orogun would be on the hook for battery-- civil and criminal. makes sense, no? pushing the old guy were not a mistake. we rare punish mistake in this country. however, we do punish consequences, even unintended consequences, from intended bad acts. particular with civil penalties, we hold folks accountable for consequences. am believing what gd were asking earlier in the thread is why the cop standard is different than the ordinary person standard. in the present circumstance with the buffalo video, unlawful touching is less clear precise 'cause is a cop. the old guy in the video appeared to touch an officer with the phone in his right hand. like it or not, technical, that action by the old man would be unlawful and potential battery as a harmful/offensive/illegal touching. even such a small and insignificant gesture may make a physical response by the cops legal. as disconcerting as it may be to hear it, in the crowd control scenario being shown, particular after the old guy actual touched the cop, is quite possible the cop's actions would not be found as a matter o' law to be unlawful. regardless, if you defy a cop and fail the attitude test, then there is a high probability the cop will use violence if any excuse to do so is provided. legal it takes very little to legitimize cop force. resist arrest. physical contact initiated by plaintiff/suspect. fleeing felon rule. etc. we should, as a nation, examine the issues o' appropriate use o' police force, but is an extreme complex issue. is no simple Court decision or piece o' obvious legislation which is gonna fix. HA! Good Fun!

and that is why your transparent and obtuse defense is so disheartening. again, you didn't wanna discuss. you evaded and deflected. however, the moment you see a shred o' support for what you imagine is trump's position, you hop right back into the discussion and share your proofs that people is attacking trump instead o' issue, when reverse is case-- you are defending trump instead o' the issue. regardless o' recent news, the reasonable path is to let the science answer the question BEFORE strenuous advocating a drug with known side effects which is particular problematic for the people most at risk from covid-19. the comorbidities for covid-19 is like a laundry list o' the warnings for those discouraged from taking hydroxy under normal conditions. and yet you, a medical professional, can't keep self from defending trump bluster and irresponsibility. so far, science has not been kind to trump's claims. as a med professional, medicine dan should know it is irresponsible to be promoting a covid-19 treatment/drug which has so many side effects and potential dangerous drug interactions when there is no proven benefits for treatment. "After all, while I made no firm claims about the drug, others did." so, "some people say?" how very trump. nevertheless, you are unwilling to recognize that your ambivalence 'bout hydroxy should be a condemnation o' trump's support of an as yet unproven treatment for covid-19 which is causing freaking shortages for lupus patients for chrissakes. hold self out as some kinda authority or expert or person with particular interest and yet ignore that so far the only demonstrable medical impact trump promotion has had is lupus patients having to voluntarily reduce dosages 'cause o' a supply shortage. keep saying Gromnir is attacking trump while you is discussing issue? ignores fact you made claim to not be interested in issue and didn't wanna discuss. nevertheless, you should recognize how inverted you got it, but you don't. you wanna defend trump w/o actual discussing the issue. just as with trump crowd size, windmills and sharpiegate, we are discussing hydroxy because o' trump. should be a non issue. should be waiting for science. instead, medicine dan rises to defend trump's hydroxy puffery every couple o' pages. as before, am willing to wait for science, but am doubting medicine dan will be able to restrain self, 'cause medicine dan is defending trump and not the science, and trump support o' an unproven covid-19 treatment will be at issue before science is. HA! Good Fun!

medicine dan pleads for restraint and caution, right up until there is any info which might lessen or legitimize trump's irresponsible promotion o' a drug untested for covid-19 treatment. suddenly feels chatty 'bout hydroxy. fact medicine dan can't or won't admit what he is doing is disheartening but not surprising. and still missing the point 'bout the real issue. again, the answer to the question o' why media is beating trump on hydroxy is 'cause trump, instead o' being reasonable and letting science answer the question as to whether hydroxy has value for covid-19 treatment, keeps pushing and promoting. is no mystery. President should not have been promoting a drug untested for covid-19, particular as such promotion caused serious shortages for lupus patients. period. is no way to make trump the victim w/o twisting self in a hypocritical knot. suggestion: do as you recommend for trump. trump's promotion were unwarranted and irresponsible. medicine dan defense o' trump is similar unwarranted and unreasonable. fact you can't or refuse to admit is symptomatic. perhaps unaware, you are making same fail as trump. double-down does not help you anymore than it helps trump salvage his cancer causing sound from windmill claims or his sharpie altered weather maps. elsa wants you to let it go. HA! Good Fun!