Gromnir

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!

as you might guess, we don't agree with your analysis, but is not your fault 'cause articles you read is ****e. previous standard before Court in the 60s created qualified immunity were total immunity. qualified were the activist Court members limiting the common law standard. is thus a complete misinterpretation o' Thomas' comments in the abc article. also, qualified immunity is not specific a cop thing. if the Court changes, they gotta change for all government agents acting in their official capacity. nope. not gonna happen. regardless, is a civil liability issue-- not criminal. am not certain potential civil liability is what is gonna be the magic wand which does away with police violence. whatever impact it has will be felt most by municipalities as they is gonna necessarily be co-defendants in the claims brought 'gainst cops for badness. only certainty we see from bolstering the standard (again, previous standard were total immunity, so what folks actual want is a more rigorous measure rather than less) is a whole lotta lawyers getting rich. sounds better to describe as lifting or removing qualified immunity as 'posed to bolstering, and that is the kinda hair-brained hijinks legislative bodies may indulge. am knowing folks want/need to do something, and exorcise qualified immunity for cops sounds like something. we got no doubt if such a resolution passed and became law, then state and local police/sheriffs would alter their training schemes immediate, which would be a good thing. maybe make a difference? dunno. regardless, we do know the real winners would be the lawyers. ... gd has convinced us. this is a fine idea and we support it completely. end retirement and get to enjoy our personal joel grey moment? HA! Good Fun!

is wrong way to consider the issue. assume for a moment trump has authority to label a domestic quasi-organization such as antifa as a terrorist group. now imagine all the other similar groups with little organization save an online presence. how many such associations o' american citizens has members who has advocated and indulged in violence at one time or another? consider what it means if any antifa analogous association o' americans may be labeled as a terrorist group. always consider these kinda moves when used as a weapon pointed at something/somebody you cherish. also, the idea that with all the race and religion driven groups in america which advocate and indulge in violence, antifa is the group which would brings 'bout a fundamental change in the way we define terrorism perpetrated by american citizens on american soil is kinda mind blowing. am nevertheless dismayed by the increasing popularity o' antifa. for funsies, ask an antifa member to define fascism and see 'em struggle. *shrug* confront fascists and capitalists with means up to and including violence is so utter wrong and broken we have a hard time expressing our rejection. who are these people and what is the hole in their education which needs be filled? HA! Good Fun!

belated submission to the earlier best anti-war songs... can't believe we forgot to include. HA! Good Fun!

complete inversion and you wouldn't accept such nonsense from others making such specious arguments, but you are embracing yourself. Gromnir is pointing out trump errors and mistakes. converse, medicine dan is not defending substance o' arguments, but is instead attacking the motives o' Gromnir and others... which he knows is a logic fail and weak. even if you genuine believe a person is utterly partisan and indulging in obvious hypocrisy, that don't mean their argument is a fail. nevertheless, you has replaced perceived flaw in messenger with any attempt to refute arguments. all the trump criticisms fail, and medicine dan need not respond on merits, 'cause all those attacking trump is mean spirited. bah. nonsense. am gonna give you perhaps more credit than you deserve and posit that you would never defend such intellectual flimflammery on any other issue save trump. "What I'm suggesting is that people wait for robust clinical trials of the drug." that is exact what dr. fauci suggested and is at the heart o' the criticism o' trump regarding hydroxy. BEFORE promoting hydroxy and creating synthetic shortages o' a medicine which helps keep lupus patients alive, trump shoulda' waited for robust clinical trials. when trump were questioned as to why he were advocating untested drug insofar as covid-19 instead o' taking medicine dan advice, trump doubled-down. nevertheless, medicine dan is defending trump from those who has asked trump why he did not do as medicine dan suggest is the reasonable course o' action? madness indeed. and no, you don't drive us crazy. sadly. am sad to say that medicine dan curious obtuseness on all things trump is just so... ordinary. never thought it would be ordinary, but have become numb to it. were initial curious to see such zealotry from the fox talking heads and from gun-toting crazies at (fill in the blank here with protest dujour whether it be white supremacists with tiki torches in virginia or confederate flag waving nutters fighting stay-at-home orders in michigan). not driven least bit crazy but am admitted disappointed 'cause am knowing medicine dan can be better. HA! Good Fun!

already addressed. "barr has public stated in the past, and nobody understood full/fool implications 'til now, that the Constitutional method for curbing executive authority is singular: impeachment. executive branch cannot do anything to stop President by the very nature o' executive branch authority and the Court should not 'cause abuses o' executive power is ultimate a political question." the Courts tend to avoid stepping in for these matters. such reticence is wise save for when it becomes an excuse to avoid conflict. if the Court won't step in 'cause o' separation of powers, then only remedy is impeachment. whom the gods wish to punish, they grant wishes. have heard gd support general notion o' judicial restraint on more than one occasion. is a fine thing too, right up until the Court decides not to intervene in some government excess gd sees as a bridge too far. HA! Good Fun!

so medicine dan does wanna discuss hydroxy? didn't wanna discuss 'til he finds what appears to be a life preserver for trump? 'course the lifeline doesn't actual legitimize what is the irresponsible promotion by trump o' hydroxy, which medicine dan is still missing as the point o' the animosity o' trump's double-down behaviour as 'posed to any kinda misplaced anger at a drug. again, anger weren't 'bout hydroxy but rather trump's initial reckless promotion o' an unproven drug which resulted in shortages for those people who genuine do benefit from the drug. when confronted with the lack o' scientific support for promoting an unproven drug simple to provide hope to the masses (is least skeevy argument in favor o' trump's promotion 'cause otherwise is worst kinda self-serving cronyism) trump doubled-down and increased the promotion o' hydroxy contemporaneous with being questioned 'bout every subsequent hydroxy study which appears to call its covid-19 benefits into question. for chrissakes, the media, as a whole, did their freaking job insofar as hydroxy is concerned. the % o' americans who has any idea o' what is possible benefits and the subsequent side effects o' hydroxy in the treatment o' covid-19 patients at the time trump first promoted would be negligible. media sources did due diligence and presented facts o' covid-19 to understandable ignorant public. reasonable media then did responsible and asked the President why he would advocate so strong for hydroxy in spite o' so little scientific support while simultaneous observing the potential dangers o' promoting a drug not approved for treating. point out dr. fauci reservations is counting as hounding the President? observe shortages suffered by lupus patients is unfair? mention va studies and others which question hydroxy efficacy? how on earth does medicine dan see such as unreasonable? such questions is, paradoxical, only unreasonable 'cause the President doesn't have good responses. consider for a moment a change in reality: if trump had scientific data and preponderance o' expert support on hydroxy issues, such questions as medicine dan is seeming seeing as unfair would be labeled as softballs lobbed up to make trump look good. internet is only place we may have these kinda discussions. in rl we use understanding and empathy 'cause confront the obtuse with their unreasonable and irrational support o' trump behaviours does not promote constructive dialectic. such ineffectual understanding in the face o' rejection o' sound argument and clear facts is so exhausting. get to throw of shackles o' nice behaviour. medicine dan, and the like, will spin every trump criticism. why? question trump 'bout idiocy such as crowd size, cancer causing windmill sound and sharpie altered weather maps is inverted and becomes criticism o' liberal media hounding the President? and those is the minor lies and mistakes which trump promotes. is maddening. is madness. HA! Good Fun!

everybody is a Constitutional law expert? *shrug* regardless folks have not been paying attention the last few years as trump violated Constitution on numerous occasions. for chrissakes, he is funding his wall boondoggle with money Congress says he should not be using for an emergency Congress has explicit stated ain't an emergency. so much for the power o' the purse and limits o' Congressional grants o' authority. doesn't matter what is legal if the only remedy is impeachment. william barr is the guy who is legitimizing what trump is doing, and barr, for all his faults, is no idiot. barr's reading o' the Constitution is fringe but not wholly singular and he is using this moment and this President to redefine the scope o' executive power for all time, and you should be frightened by that fact. as we has mentioned previous in this thread, barr views the entirety o' executive power as vested in one office: The President of the United States of America. as such, the notion o' independent executive branch watch dogs such as inspector generals who answer to Congress and the like is in fact antithetical to the Constitution 'cause their authority comes from the President. can't have doj investigate or prosecute President for same reason as the authority to do such investigations necessarily comes from the President and is unthinkable for President to be subject to investigations unless the President allows such. barr has public stated in the past, and nobody understood full/fool implications 'til now, that the Constitutional method for curbing executive authority is singular: impeachment. executive branch cannot do anything to stop President by the very nature o' executive branch authority and the Court should not 'cause abuses o' executive power is ultimate a political question. such a position from barr, while fringe, is further complicated by the almost uniquely barr belief that POTUS need not acquiesce to impeachment investigations undertaken by Congress. nobody saw that coming until barr took the reigns at doj. everybody just assumed President were subject to such investigations 'cause every President and every Court had agreed that impeachment were unique and President had to bend complete before Congress when impeachment were invoked. the recent ukraine kerfuffle makes such less certain as just that question is criminal slow working its way through the Courts. we spent the past +3 years detailing on numerous occasions how the Constitution prevents trump from doing ____________. such a recognition doesn't matter if the only remedy is impeachment. HA! Good Fun!

a few observations from a person who worked in corrections back in the 90s and personally saw how cops dealt with minor citizens on hundreds/thousands o' occasions. admitted temporal remote. we worked at a juvenile detention facility as a "counselor." the job title were a bit misleading as while we did counsel near constant, our main job were security/intake and j-unit staff. our j-unit were high security, housing offenders who were being held on such charges as rape and murder or including residents who were otherwise too violent to be housed with other kids. 'course calling 'em kids could be misleading as the j-unit folks were usual 'tween sixteen and seventeen and were never ceasing to amaze us just how many such kids were 6'4" and 240-300 lbs. sheesh. each unit held, on average, 'tween 25 and 45 residents. doesn't take a math genius to figure out how many kids were held at the hall at any one time given basic understanding o' english alphabet and some simple multiplication, yes? summer were most dense populated season for the hall and we would get severe overcrowding past capacity with as many as three kids housed in a room designed for one. sidenote: more than a few kids would admit they purposefully got busted during the summer 'cause at least the hall had ac. staff at the hall were diverse. white and male were perhaps the most represented demographic 'mongst staff, but nowhere near population levels. females, regardless o' race, were a bit underrepresented. contact sport experience were common-- many football players from local colleges. in spite o' fact there were much diversity amongst the frontline staff at the juvenile hall and probation in general, there were a noticeable skew towards white and male mongst the supervisors. unlike cops, "counselors" at the hall were all having a 4-year degree, even part-timers such as Gromnir. were kinda standard in the area for sheriff department noobs to start at the county jail while probation department noobs started at juvenile hall. we worked at the hall for 'tween 20 and 60 hours a week for 'bout three years while simultaneous doing the full-time student bit. we needed money. ... am thinking it would be difficult to communicate the scope o' casual brutality which is endemic in law enforcement. am suspecting there were a fair 'mount o' racism involved in the use o' violence we saw daily, but perhaps not in the way one might expect. regardless, am only imagining the degree o' valid rage the population would embrace if Gromnir had somehow secret filmed an ordinary week at the hall and then released "highlights" to the public. again, regardless o' size, am still talking 'bout kids 'cause is a juvenile hall situation. even so, "agitation," particular once there were any kinda reasonable threat to staff or other residents, were handled swiftly and decisively. the common slang for taking an unruly resident to the ground was referred to as a "dip." as you might imagine, it were not uncommon for a resident to become injured when dipped by a cop or probation counselor during the intake process. while we never saw anybody place a knee to the back o' the neck o' a kid, we did see kids twisted up in intentional unpleasant positions until they became compliant. as a matter o' fact, our original training were referred to as pain compliance before a lawsuit resulted in changes. training didn't change much but name were altered to MAB. sidenote: an armbar followed by a circle down to the prone position were our de facto move, but am admitting, if forced into a grapple, we used outer reap throw on more than one occasion. can google vids if you wish. concrete walls and floors in confined areas meant such moves, more than once, resulted in at least minor injuries. but again, am talking 'bout kids. in spite o' fact Gromnir were more reserved 'bout placing hands on a resident than many o' our fellows, if you had video compilation o' every single time we dipped a kid, it would look terrible, 'cause it were terrible. j-unit were split into two wings. why not just one big unit instead o' a "bubble" separating two? gangs. if you had nortenos and surenos or crips and bloods in same living space, they would eventual go after each other en masse. the thing is, there were just too many gangs and too many personal grievances to prevent such mass combats from happening, and happening all too often. there were dozens o' asian gangs and the peckerwoods and aryan brotherhood had a presence too. try and keep track o' all the vendettas going on outside the hall to predict when such stuff would become a conflagration in the hall were beyond the pay grade o' a part-timer such as Gromnir. nevertheless, we would be one o' the two staff, as often as not, on the floor in j-unit watching for any sign o' aggression beyond the normal level expected when you got a bunch o' killers and rapists and car jackers and l00ns on/off their meds. we never left work w/o a serious tension headache. stressful. our stress were in spite o' fact we had a reputation 'mongst the residents such that badness were less likely to happen when we worked. a kid awaiting trial for double homicide explained it to us once when the discussion o' which staff they never messed with came up during a commercial break o' tv watching. apparently Gromnir has "serial killer eyes," whatever that means. have a person who has killed two people tell us we got serial killer eyes were... disconcerting. we worked with a few staff who were not reserved 'bout placing their hands on residents. our easiest days in j-unit were the ones we worked with mr. B_____, an ex-college football player at 'bout 6'2" and 280 pounds. mr. B_____ were not only skilled at communicating and counseling residents, he were an intimidating presence who would not hesitate to lay hands on a resident. never seemed personal for mr. B_______, but he were not gentle and video compilation woulda' made him seem monstrous. a different mr. B_______ we worked along side were a couple inches taller and a few pounds heavier than his unrelated but near twin, but he were not near as effective a staff member. the other mr. B_______ took things personal and he were clear looking for an excuse to prove his toughness. kids became agitated in general when the other mr. B_____ were working, making our job tougher. both mr. B were black. we didn't consider valid any racial angle to the propensity for violence o' either mr. B. however, we did feel some sympathy for a few o' our white and male colleagues as they were often accused o' racial motivation for their actions by residents 'cause the kids knew it were an effective indefensible accusation. sadly, the one thing which would get you universal %$#@ed as a staff member at the hall is the perception o' weakness or fear. this is where our whole long post kinda gets to real point. whether were cops bringing in residents or staff dealing with kids in units, you couldn't show weakness or you would never hear the end o' it. once you got a reputation for hesitancy or fearfulness, you would be mocked open and taken advantage of at every opportunity. job would become impossible difficult if you were constant being tested. most juvenile hall staff quit once they developed a reputation as being weak. so, how do you prove you ain't afraid... 'cause not everybody has serial killer eyes. the f'ing attitude test. am suspecting has been 'round as long as there has been cops. is not specific race-based, but is in fact universal. if a suspect fails the attitude test, the ordinary cop feels compelled to act. is not written in law anywheres, but can't look weak in front o' the suspect or fellow cops neither. the cop must do something. all too often, "do something" is including violence. intimidating men get less leeway with the attitude test. why? obvious. if a 112 pound nerdling with a pocket protector and glasses get mouthy with a cop, is there gonna be a real fear in the encounter? could' be and depends on the situation, but a large man gets less wiggle-room from attitude test 'cause is ultimately 'bout fear. is 'bout perception o' looking weak. if you fail the attitude test and create a situation where the cop needs defend his reputation against perceived weakness, chances are better than fair you are gonna suffer violence at the hands o' a cop. yes, there is too many people who discover they like the rush which comes from twisting up another human being. unlike gd, we do not believe the nature o' the cop job is a magnet for such people. the a-hole cops who enjoy hurting others learn to love their job, and they ain't self-aware enough to recognize how a fail o' the attitude test is NOT a reasonable excuse to hurt others. the #1 factor in decreasing police excessive force complaints is educational level. call it correlative rather than causation not much matter to us. is simple fact that regardless o' race or hierarchy level, as education level increases, excessive force complaints decrease. regardless, violence amongst US law enforcement is pervasive enough such that it is ordinary. the problem is compounded by the universal adoption by cops everywhere, to varying degrees, o' the attitude test. we got a well-armed populace which means cops, in every encounter, need be afraid for their lives. fearful and criminally uneducated is not a great combination and yet such is the norm for most o' US police. is a tough job to be finding and retaining enough prospects even with relative good pay. we always condemn wiki, so we deserve rebuke for linking, but look at list and recognize the fed has absolute no jurisdiction or authority over any o' state/county/municipal police departments save for general funding provided to State, which often has little/negligible impact on individual municipalities anyways. try and fix police violence at a national level may be required, but is actual prohibited. fubar. ... will cheese off vol, but am thinking the way to best address excessive force complaints 'gainst cops is to hire educated women to be cops. sexist? *shrug* would be legal hurdles as well, but blame on enculturation or biology or whatnot and result is in american women is more likely to wanna talk through problems than our men. our three years o' experience don't give us some special kinda insight but we did observe how women cops and juvenile hall staff were no less effective even if they were less quick to getting to the dipping. more education and more women fixes problems.... not just cop problems neither. HA! Good Fun!

quick notes: westmark is best book in the trilogy and am most ambivalent 'bout the final volume. is always disappointing when the final volume o' a series is least memorable. am actual envious o' kids these days 'cause they have a chance to read gaiman's the graveyard book while still young. and to bring back to movies, miss peregrine's home for peculiar children is fun and excellent books which may be ignored 'cause o' a forgettable movie. HA! Good Fun!

somehow missed an enoch blues submission. first steps on his personal road to damascus? HA! Good Fun!

we have championed lloyd alexander more than once on these boards. when we mention how the best and most often overlooked fantasy authors is those who crafted books for a younger audience, lloyd alexander is getting frequent mention along with the likes o' madeleine l'engle, norton juster, and neil gaiman, to name only a few. that said, while we do much enjoy the prydain books, am gonna observe our favorite lloyd alexander series is actual westmark. is fantasy, but perhaps not in the way folks tend to think o' fantasy. no magic. regardless, if hurl has not read westmark, we highly recommend. HA! Good Fun!

*chuckle* didn't realize obsidian implemented parliamentary procedure. medicineD may respond or not as the spirit moves him. that said, we will once again echo others and observe how trump promotion o' hydroxychloroquine ain't 'bout drug efficacy anymore than were the kerfuffle over inauguration regarding crowd size were 'bout the number o' people who came out to view trump's inauguration. yet again, it is the double-down strategy shady mentioned which has the trump loyalists falling for 3rd-rate sleight o' hand. as for solution worse than the cure schtick, we may turn on fox news to get that bit o' curious punditry from any number o' opinion personalities. is a roiling quagmire o' bs we do not care to enter w/o a hazmat suit. only curious aspect is where folks need be on the bs receptivity scale to embrace this noisome bit o' pseudo-profound nonsense. however, for those who ain't seen yet, U.S. Could Have Saved 36,000 Lives If Social Distancing Started 1 Week Earlier: Study because testing were an early fail, containment efforts were effective taken off the table as possible solutions. mitigation became focus o' any solution and social distancing were recognized as kinda the only viable response 'cause alternative woulda' been to do nothing and rely on development o' herd immunity, which at the time had an estimated cost in US lives o' 'tween one and two million with vast majority o' those deaths being 'mongst elderly and/or poor. might be worthwhile to consider mistakes of past to inform solutions for future, yes? surge were the great nightmare during early stages. good news is the curve were, in most places, flattened. therefore, with recognition o' at least momentary flattening, it makes sense to reflect 'pon easing o' social distancing restrictions. that said, the concerns regarding easing o' social distancing restrictions has remained constant 'cause the obstacles to reasonable reopen has never actual been addressed. prerequisite to any informed reopening scheme is dependent 'pon implementation o' basic widespread safety measures to protect returning workers, adequate access to ppe for everybody who needs, as well as a robust scheme for testing and contact tracing supported by necessary manpower and resources. even the white house recognized such prereqs. reopen in spite o' absence o' such prereqs being met is what concerns the science folks. is not a matter o' people rejecting reopen but is rather concerns 'bout state and fed once again mishandling pandemic related efforts. current solutions adopted by many states appear to ignore history and are dependent on a gambler mentality more than science. don't meet most/any o' the science informed prereqs? well... uh... the alternative is worse than the whatever? fauci and other genuine experts has observed how every major viral pandemic has had a second wave occur approximate six months after start of the initial wave. doesn't matter what time o' year the first wave began neither. assume a return o' covid-19 by september is the safe money bet. is no surprise china is starting to see resurgence o' covid and we expect their infection numbers will increase throughout may, june and july in spite o' their willingness to take draconian measures to contain the disease. in other words, we got a very short time to get our $%&@ together and would be ill-advised to risk spikes 'tween now and fall. is all well and good to consider easing social distancing, but should be informed and guided by the science and the data. more important, just as the US had time from mid january to early march to prepare for covid-19, the US now has time to prepare for the inevitable second wave. a return to normalcy is not and should not be the goal given the certitude o' a viral resurgence. history will not be kind to the US and our initial efforts to confront the pandemic in spite of early warnings. to compound early foolishness with criminal obtuse indifference to certainty o' a second wave would be unforgivable. ease current restrictions contemporaneous with state and fed plans and resources to address spikes 'tween now and inevitable second wave? is anybody actual rejecting such? try and convince us with campaign worthy slogan that such prereqs is worse than the cure is less than convincing.... and again, we can get such silliness from tune into fox and drinking the kool aid... or perhaps bleach is your beverage de jour? repeat cause is important: containment of covid-19 were impossible in the US 'cause we failed to appropriate respond to multiple warnings which began surfacing in january o' 2020. such failures, while tragic and regrettable, at least have value if they serve to educate and prepare us to better handle the inevitable return o' covid-19 this fall. misguided efforts to return to normalcy w/o simultaneous preparing for a second wave is both dangerous and stoopid. HA! Good Fun!

trump loyalty baffles us. the double-down on stoopid or wrong is shrugged off by trump loyalists, while responsible journalism is derided. whether is injecting disinfectant, cancer causing sound from windmills or sharpie altered hurricane forecasts, is the media which is at fault. what? the media didn't immediate vilify hydroxy championing by trump, 'cause honestly, how many folks in the media knew anything 'bout hydroxychloroquine? journalists did what they were s'posed to do-- they interviewed/asked actual experts to figure out what is hydroxy and why it would be a treatment getting Presidential approval. so when indisputed medical experts such as fauci suggested it were too early to advocate hydroxy and that it were arguable irresponsible to promote such a drug w/o more rigorous and controlled testing, journalists questioned trump 'bout his advocacy. blame on media? why? 'course predictable, trump doubled-down and suggested plots and conspiracies in addition to making claim the drug were perfect safe and people should take for covid-19. weren't a major issue until trump made it an issue. nevertheless, is somehow media's fault. btw, in case medicine dan missed it, we had the hydroxychloroquine discussion earlier in this thread and personal we can see some arguable optimism for use by young and healthy patients. for older patients with comorbidities unlikely to be facing cytokine storm scenario from covid-19... nevertheless, 'cause has been known for decades hydroxy has positive lab results on viruses in lab situations, every time a new virus appears, hydroxy gets tested, as it should. has never proven effective in the past outside o' a lab, but is no reason not to at least test. regardless, a reasonable person might question why trump were so dogged advocating hydroxy in spite o' expert cautions... just as a reasonable person might be concerned 'bout trump's windmill crusade and his willingness to alter weather maps. a reasonable person might... trump loyalists abandon reasonable. blame media. blame democrats. blame religious minorities such as muslims and jews. blame immigrants. this kinda endemic obtuseness wouldn't bother us save that on a national scale is dangerous. is dangerous when the leader is 'bove question and his followers is so quick to cast blame elsewheres. am gonna remind medicine dan and others how this double-down behaviour were a day 1 (and earlier) issue. inauguration crowd size were not a big deal, until the administration lied 'bout it. the press weren't dogged 'bout crowd size-- crowd size were meaningful to few save for trump. media kept asking 'cause the administration were gaslighting and were attempting to force parks service and other nonpartisan bureaucrats to lie on behalf o' the administration. shoulda' been a warning to the trump loyalists that their champion were willing to gaslight and come up with "alternative facts" bs to defend what shoulda' been an issue o' limited consequence. if trump would lie 'bout inconsequential, then why not the important stuff? oh, and medicine dan, seeing as how he is now a medical professional, should be particular concerned 'bout the President's irresponsible advocacy o' hydroxy. 'cause o' the President advocating w/o legit scientific basis, there is now a shortage o' hydroxy for people who suffer from lupus... unless you are rich and wealthy and have connections. understandably, and for what should be obvious reasons, lupus patients who use immunosuppressives has had to alter their medication regimen during the current pandemic. so for lupus patients hoping to manage their condition, hydroxychloroquine and chloroquine are the options. am suspecting some in media do take perverse pleasure at seeing every new study which supports notion hydroxy is as ineffective regarding covid-19 as every past virus. unfortunate. no doubt there is more than a few media folks who, understandable, want trump to fail. go figure. is no surprise some take personal being labeled as enemies o' the state for reporting. fact some in the media want trump to fail is unfortunate, but such bias don't make their reporting o' trump blunders wrong. however, it don't take any kinda mental gymnastics to recognize media bias while simultaneous admitting trump is a mendacious and skeevy huckster who will invariably double-down on every falsehood and mistake no matter how minor. HA! Good Fun!

... am such a nerd 'cause we immediately thought o'... HA! Good Fun!

the thing is, involuntary servitude is legal a bit different than seat belts, drinking age and speed limits, which is why we mentioned abortion. the US already provides all kinda advantages to those who serve in the military with va loans and gi college benefits. is not taking too much effort to functional expand such programs for "national" service while simultaneous diminishing benefits for those who forego such service. make fed funding programs contingent 'pon fulfillment o' those programs which aid those who served is gonna presumptive pass Constitutional review. best way to make a national service program work is with private and social pressure as 'posed to government. convince all the private universities and most major businesses to voluntarily adopt a policy whereby those who complete national service is given preferential treatment and you wouldn't need worry 'bout the Constitution. however, broad cultural/social change takes leadership as well as a nation far less polarized than 2020 USA. HA! Good Fun!

as well as a minimum age for alcohol consumption. no fed highway construction funds for states unless they set minimum age for alcohol to at least 21. south dakota, previous, were 19 minimum. HA! Good Fun!

Gromnir has no defense from people in supermarkets ignoring social distancing. again, a bunch o' folks may be maintaining social distancing and all it takes is one idjit to infect all the people being reasonable. with asymptomatic people spreading, we may never know who were the person who infected us. handful o' obtuse libertarians is actual a common problem we face when shopping. am personal maintaining social distance when a jackarse comes up from behind, brushing past us to get at yogurts or a box o' facial tissue, coughing w/o wearing a mask. wtf? is a story that chris cuomo might o' been out o' his home during his self-imposed quarantine, and you know he ain't alone. quarantine means different things to different people, or so it seems. is stories, more than one, o' infected people going to grocery stores and gas stations 'cause, y'know, they have to get gas and food. infected person touches a gas pump handle and six hour later Gromnir might get the virus 'cause we used same gas pump? wtf? seen those images from how a single infected person in a restaurant in china infected nine people 'cause o' air conditioning? wtf? sorry, but this is just so wrong. the guidelines has been communicated and these folks is doing anyways. who doesn't know guidelines and reasons for guidelines at this point? heck, guidelines don't matter if the libertarians clowns genuine believe the current situation is a panic-driven hoax and that covid-19 is no worse than the flu. so wrong. HA! Good Fun!

fed prerequisites on funding which encourage or discourage behaviours is commonplace and established law. example: no fed tax payer dollars to fund abortions is okie dokie even though it disproportionate affects women who need medicaid. takes only a little creativity to prevent money from going to those who avoid service. HA! Good Fun!

history and recent photographic evidence suggest otherwise. "i wouldn't be doing..." is irrelevant. as we noted, takes one libertarian who knows covid is a hoax in a supermarket to infect many. takes one libertarian capitalist dumping toxic waste on his own private land to poison an entire community. takes one drunk driver to cause an accident resulting in death o' a woman and her kids. assume most people is responsible is nice and swell and maybe even accurate, but it don't matter. the costs o' having a minority o' folks acting like ignoramuses is too high in too many cases. yeah, the argument that no cost is too high when human lives are at stake is also bs. like it or not, liberty does have an attendant body count. sounds callous but is unavoidable. we wouldn't have a reasonable person standard in law if people were invariable reasonable. would be no point in identifying behaviour as reckless if such recklessness never happened. a large enough sampling o' people results in a functional gurantee o' stoopid and selfish. people is predictable stoopid and selfish in enough numbers that it is irresponsible to ignore the need to protect innocent citizens from the stoopid and selfish. the costs is too high. HA! Good Fun!

13th amendment prohibits slavery and, o' more immediate significance, involuntary servitude. is a whole lotta positives regarding national service, but 13th amendment makes this a non-starter 'cause while such service don't confer ownership rights o' your person to the government, it does most definite involve involuntary servitude. need a new amendment to implement practical national service. there is ways to implement national service, but wouldn't be national so much as state and would be voluntary but nevertheless prohibitive to avoid. examples: fed government only provides funding to universities which require students to have completed "national" service or fulfilled requirements for an appropriate waiver. banks benefit from fdic and other fed programs only if they comply with lending practices which overwhelming favor those who has completed "national" service or appropriate waiver. etc. hardly straightforward. am not denying there is positives to national service, but from a pure practical pov such service is legal problematic. HA! Good Fun!