San Bernadino shooting

[Wrath of Dagon]

How do you make a picture full size instead of thumbnail?

[ktchong]

More on the Regressive Left aka "SJW" aka Social Justice Warriors, and how it relates to contemporary radical feminism (i.e., 4th and 5th waves):

 

 

P.S. Joe Rogan is not a liberal - he is an independent.  i.e., he used to support Ron Paul, now he is supporting Bernie Sanders.

 

Edited December 6, 2015 by ktchong

[Barothmuk]

More on the Regressive Left aka "SJW" aka Social Justice Warriors, and how it relates to contemporary radical feminism (i.e., 4th and 5th waves)

I watched the first video and this wasn't discussed at all.

 

 

There's also no such thing as 4th and 5th waves

I don't know who gets to decide this

 

 

[GhoulishVisage]

How do you make a picture full size instead of thumbnail?

 

Upload to imgur and link it here with the image button instead of uploading directly here.

[Wrath of Dagon]

OK, thanks.

[ktchong]

"There's also no such thing as 4th and 5th waves"

 

The Guardian: The fourth wave of feminism: meet the rebel women aka "Feminazi"

 

The Guardian via Raw Story: Teen spirit: Meet the fifth-wave feminists aka "Tumblr Feminism"

 

Every wave has become more idiocratic and SJW than the last.

 

FYI, The Guardian is the archetype of Regressive Leftist press that pushes the SJW agenda, so their reports are biased.

Edited December 7, 2015 by ktchong

[Barothmuk]

"There's also no such thing as 4th and 5th waves"

 

The Guardian: The fourth wave of feminism: meet the rebel women aka "Feminazi"

 

The Guardian via Raw Story: Teen spirit: Meet the fifth-wave feminists aka "Tumblr Feminism"

These articles do not explain how these stories constitute the development of "4th" or "5th" waves and only seem to use these titles in the headline.

 

I strongly suspect you're just using terms with no understanding of the meaning.

[ktchong]

 

"There's also no such thing as 4th and 5th waves"

 

The Guardian: The fourth wave of feminism: meet the rebel women aka "Feminazi"

 

The Guardian via Raw Story: Teen spirit: Meet the fifth-wave feminists aka "Tumblr Feminism"

These articles do not explain how these stories constitute the development of "4th" or "5th" waves and only seem to use these titles in the headline.

 

I strongly suspect you're just using terms with no understanding of the meaning.

 

 

Honestly I could care less about feminism and what waves they are.  I just know that every time I pointed out to a feminist that feminists are a problem and want to censor speech, she would reply,  "oh it's not me or all feminists... it's the 4th and 5th waves."   Do I care?  Not really.  It is really the majority of the vocal feminists, along with Islam apologists, who are the problem and the main components of the "Regressive Left". 

 

But let's get back to the Regressive Left as it relates to Islam:

 

 

 

Again, let me re-emphasize: the concept of the "moderate" is very different for Muslims.   When a Muslim self-identifies as "moderate", his/her definition of "moderate" is not what you think it is:

 

 

 

Here is the video of the Muslim "Peace" Conference in Oslo, Norway: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bV710c1dgpU  - find out for yourselves what the "peaceful" Muslims' definition of "moderate" is.  Now, no one else put those words in their mouths or force them to raise their hands.

 

The problem is... those Muslims do not see themselves as extremists.  They think of themselves as "moderate" or "normal" Muslims.  ALL OF THEM IN THAT CONFERENCE ROOM OF "PEACE".  And the "Regressive Leftists" want to sacrifice liberal values to defer to those people in the name of "diversity", "tolerance" and "multiculturalism". 

 

I notice there is a Muslim member in here from Malaysia who has been defending Islam and spilling deceptions in this thread.  Just as a reminder: 86 percent of Muslims in Malaysia support making Sharia laws the laws of the land, (at 2:32 in the first video.)  Ask her if she is among the "86 percent" who want Sharia law to become the law of the land and be enforced onto the Chinese and Indian non-Muslims in Malaysia. 

 

Ask her if she agrees men and women should "sit separate". 

 

Ask her if she agrees the punishments as prescribed in the Quran and Sunnah, whether it is death, whether it is stoning for adulterers, whatever it is, if it is from allah and his messenger, that is the best punishment ever possible for humankind, and that is what we should apply in the world.

 

Ask her.

 

And then ask her if she thinks of herself as a radical extremists.

 

My guess is, she will be evasive and avoid answering the questions.

 

P.S. That member is Qistina. 

 

More P.S. My point is, as liberals, we have to defend our principles against Islam whose so many ideas are the antitheses of liberal ideals.  Liberal principles and Islamic principles cannot co-exist.  Right now, Regressive Leftists are betraying and sacrificing liberal principles to appease Muslims.  That has to stop.  I am just glad that liberals are finally waking up and standing up against the regression.

Edited December 7, 2015 by ktchong

[Calax]

 

 

"There's also no such thing as 4th and 5th waves"

 

The Guardian: The fourth wave of feminism: meet the rebel women aka "Feminazi"

 

The Guardian via Raw Story: Teen spirit: Meet the fifth-wave feminists aka "Tumblr Feminism"

These articles do not explain how these stories constitute the development of "4th" or "5th" waves and only seem to use these titles in the headline.

 

I strongly suspect you're just using terms with no understanding of the meaning.

 

 

Honestly I could care less about feminism and what waves they are.  I just know that every time I pointed out to a feminist that feminists are a problem and want to censor speech, she would reply,  "oh it's not me or all feminists... it's the 4th and 5th waves."   Do I care?  Not really.  It is really the majority of the vocal feminists, along with Islam apologists, who are the problem and the main components of the "Regressive Left". 

 

But let's get back to the Regressive Left as it relates to Islam:

 

 

 

Again, let me re-emphasize: the concept of the "moderate" is very different for Muslims.   When a Muslim self-identifies as "moderate", his/her definition of "moderate" is not what you think it is:

 

 

 

Here is the video of the Muslim "Peace" Conference in Oslo, Norway: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bV710c1dgpU  - find out for yourselves what the "peaceful" Muslims' definition of "moderate" is.  Now, no one else put those words in their mouths or force them to raise their hands.

 

The problem is... they do not see themselves as extremists.  They think of themselves as "moderate" or "normal" Muslims.  ALL OF THEM IN THAT CONFERENCE ROOM.  And the "Regressive Leftists" want to sacrifice liberal values to defer to those people in the name of "diversity", "tolerance" and "multiculturalism". 

 

I notice there is a Muslim member in here from Malaysia who has been defending Islam and spilling deceptions in this thread.  Just as a reminder: 86 percent of Muslims in Malaysia support making Sharia laws the laws of the land, (at 2:32 in the first video.)  Ask her if she is among the "86 percent" who want Sharia law to become the law of the land and be enforced onto the Chinese and Indian non-Muslims in Malaysia. 

 

Ask her if she agrees men and women should "sit separate". 

 

Ask her if she agrees the punishments as prescribed in the Quran and Sunna, whether it is death, whether it is stoning for adulterers, whatever it is, if it is from allah and his messenger, that is the best punishment ever possible for humankind, and that is what we should apply in the world.

 

Ask her.

 

And then ask her if she thinks of herself as a radical extremists.

 

I have to ask, do you consider America to have been founded on christian ideals and consider it as a Christian nation?

 

The reason I ask is that most of the people I've seen who declare "Islam is Evil! Kill it with Fire!" generally hold that opinion and refuse to believe that they could possibly be hypocritical by declaring that opinion. And many of the same groups that use the language you do with regard to Sharia Law, are also the same ones who try to defend the placement of the 10 commandments at courthouses.

 

That group in the youtube you're decrying are effectively the same as the various Conservative Christian groups who want English to be the official language of America, and for Christianity to be recognized as THE Faith of the USA, ignoring the consequences that might have for other faiths. And yet if you were to sit any one of those individuals down they'd consider themselves Moderate reasonable people because the lens that they view the world through is so self centric that they don't consider the farther reaching impacts of what they set in motion.

[Leferd]

For those who missed President Obama's address to the nation.

 

 

Starts at 28:50.

 

[ktchong]

I am an atheist.  So are almost everyone in the videos I posted here, i.e., Richard Dawkins, Bill Maher, Dusty, Jacklyn Glenn, i.e., they are well-known atheists and liberals, and big critics of Islam who have recently called out and distanced themselves from "Regressive Leftists". 

 

Joe Rogan is an independent politically, (he supported Ron Paul in the past, but he currently supports Bernie Sanders,) but also an atheist.  He is a social liberal but libertarian on economic and political issues.  He is an, atheist.

 

Paul Joseph Watson (the guy with the British accent) is a libertarian and, again, an atheist.  He is the only conservative in my videos - but he is a libertarian (hence, a conservative) but NOT a Christian.

 

My problem with Regressive Leftists and Islam is that, when a liberal criticizes Christianity, (and liberals often do), other regressive leftists do not try to censor or ostracize him/her.   In fact, the regressive  liberals will cheer him/her on.   On the other hand, whenever a liberal criticizes Islam, the regressives will do everything in their power to silence, shame and destroy him/her.  This has gone for too long for in Europe, and this political correctness has crept into American sociopolitical landscape in the past decade or so.  It has to be stopped before America regressed and devolved into the situation like in Europe, where Muslims are running amok.  I am just glad that many liberals are now fighting back instead of being rolled over like liberals did in Europe.

 

There is a civil war brewing among liberals over Islam, over the very soul of liberalism in America.  The very nature of Islam is the antithesis of the core of liberalism in so many ways.   Liberals should not betray and sacrifice our core principles just to appease Muslims, to promote the agenda of "multiculturalism".  Those Regressive Leftists or Regressive Liberals, who want to censor speech and abridge freedom to defer to Islam, are traitors to the liberal principles.  Here in the West, liberals should not become more Islamic; muslims should become more liberal - yet Regressive Leftists are turning it upside-down.

Edited December 7, 2015 by ktchong

[Cantousent]

Ironically, I *am* one of those conservative Christians. I don't take offense at you, Super Cal. I have some extreme views, to be sure. ...But, having been most often faced with either atheists or protestants who were at odds with my denomination more often than other religions, I've come to be at peace with other religious, spiritual, or even downright kind of nutty beliefs. Other people have articulated beliefs with which I agree, and have done so more artfully than could I, so I'll merely point to posters such as Gromnir to capture a lot of my conflicted views on these issues. Not that I agree with Grom in totality, but enough that I don't feel like detailing my personal views at this point.

 

I see the idea of making English the official language as being different from making Christianity the national religion, and being far closer to conservative Christians than most folks here by my reckoning, I would suggest that most of the tea party conservative Christians don't propose such a move. Many if not most of them I have met *would* support making English the official language. I don't advocate either view. In terms of religion, it would be in defiance of the document I hold almost as closely as my bible, the Constitution. In terms of language, the best way for people to advance in this country is to learn English and express themselves well using it. We shouldn't further punish people who don't know it. We should rather encourage people to know English and, if they can, learn at least one other language. Hopefully something more useful than one that's been dead lo these hundreds of years. Hell, it would be great if all Americans knew English and Spanish. ...Or English and French. Whatever.

 

Now to the impetus for my posting. I'm not a mod in this forum, and I'm leery of reporting threads generally, but please don't attack each other. Don't let outside events cause you to hate folks on the net. Fight their views, their religions, their politics, and even their sports teams, but treat the person gently, even as you ravage their arguments. There, I've been preachy and I'll forgive and not be offended by a little bit of blow-back, but even then try to keep it civil.

[Barothmuk]

Honestly I could care less about feminism and what waves they are.

You can't properly hate something without putting in the effort to know why you hate it.

 

I notice this trend among the right more than the left. Basically right-wingers will complain about "the left" all the time all the while having only the most basic understanding of who or what "the left" actually is. More often than not they're not even opposing the left but instead an entirely imagined left.

 

Honestly the only people who truly hate the left are other leftists.

Edited December 7, 2015 by Barothmuk

[ktchong]

I do not hate feminists.  I am annoyed by them - and on particular issues.

Edited December 7, 2015 by ktchong

[Barothmuk]

Potato potato.

[Calax]

I see the idea of making English the official language as being different from making Christianity the national religion, and being far closer to conservative Christians than most folks here by my reckoning, I would suggest that most of the tea party conservative Christians don't propose such a move. Many if not most of them I have met *would* support making English the official language. I don't advocate either view. In terms of religion, it would be in defiance of the document I hold almost as closely as my bible, the Constitution. In terms of language, the best way for people to advance in this country is to learn English and express themselves well using it. We shouldn't further punish people who don't know it. We should rather encourage people to know English and, if they can, learn at least one other language. Hopefully something more useful than one that's been dead lo these hundreds of years. Hell, it would be great if all Americans knew English and Spanish. ...Or English and French. Whatever.

I was making a heavy generalization about the incredibly reactionary folk. Those who view Ted Cruz as being the best candidate for the presidency and that he most closely aligns himself to the Republican ideals. This generalization is effectively built out of an **** I knew as a kid and had to grow up with, due to friendships me and my brother had. 

 

The type of person who'll sit and say that "Black people have a culture of not learning and being proud of it". And state that Muslims in their totality are terrorists, while declaring that liberals like my family are going to cause the downfall of society because they reward those who earn nothing. And yes, these are things this person actually said to me specifically.

 

As to Bill Mahr and Dawkins. They are smart people, and when I first joined this board 10 years ago (holy **** it's been 10 years?) I was one who'd post about them as the true keepers of the light of Prometheus. But I've had a change of heart when I really looked at their methodology of instruction and PR. They're honestly no better than the God Botherers who declare that you're going to hell if you don't quote John 3:16 every morning during a shower. For them there can be no reason anyone would look beyond themselves to explain the world, or that there are perfectly reasonable people who agree with everything they say, but still believe that there is a higher power.

 

Instead they put on their Athiest boxing gloves and look for fights. They look for reasons to point and laugh at how stupid the devoted are, ignoring the fact that that persons spirituality might be the only thing holding them together mentally, or that religious charities are some of the most capable charities in the world due to the easy ability to transcend nationality.

 

For the record, i'd probably be closest related to Agnostic because while I can conceptualize a higher power, I choose not to care that much about it's particular involvement in my life at this point. What is, is, and if there's anything after death well, that'll be something new to experience.

 

And, from what I've seen in the public sphere, Most liberals who are of an Athiest bent, they'll happily help pile onto something stupid like the Westboro Baptist church, and the reason they're reacting and "apologists" of Islam, is because the western world is happily lumping in the ISIS groups with those like Malcom X, Saladin, or the Sultan of Oman. Which is effectively lumping Hitler in with Cant, Mother Theresa, and John the Baptist.

[Wrath of Dagon]

Speaking of the Left and the Islamists: http://www.americanthinker.com/articles/2015/11/the_strange_case_of_the_secular_progressiveislamist_alliance.html

[Qistina]

 

I notice there is a Muslim member in here from Malaysia who has been defending Islam and spilling deceptions in this thread.  Just as a reminder: 86 percent of Muslims in Malaysia support making Sharia laws the laws of the land, (at 2:32 in the first video.)  Ask her if she is among the "86 percent" who want Sharia law to become the law of the land and be enforced onto the Chinese and Indian non-Muslims in Malaysia. 

 

Ask her if she agrees men and women should "sit separate". 

 

Ask her if she agrees the punishments as prescribed in the Quran and Sunnah, whether it is death, whether it is stoning for adulterers, whatever it is, if it is from allah and his messenger, that is the best punishment ever possible for humankind, and that is what we should apply in the world.

 

Ask her.

 

And then ask her if she thinks of herself as a radical extremists.

 

My guess is, she will be evasive and avoid answering the questions.

 

P.S. That member is Qistina. 

 

I have made a post regarding your questions, read them

 

Not all your questions are answered however

 

http://forums.obsidian.net/topic/83373-what-do-you-know-about-islam/

Edited December 7, 2015 by Qistina

[Volourn]

btw,   I read some post about some poor  previous immigrant Muslim woman being yelled at on the bus 'to go home'.  Anyways, while I ertainly disapprove of such boorish behaviour by the toolbag who did it made me chuckle on the hilarity of the situation. People accuse anyone of being 'racist' (Muslims aren't a race people. Even whitey can be Muslim) whenever they say things like these. Some things to ponder.

 

a) People equate someone being mean on the bus to claim how 'tough Muslims' have it in the West... meanwhile in  Muslim/Arab countries Muslims are killing Muslims by the score.

 

b) Again, they claim Muslims have it tough in the West largely b/c someone said mean things to them on the bus... meanwhile people are being  mass murdered  by (extremist0 Muslims and people make excuses for it by  saying they arne't ;real' Muslims. The arrogance that shwos is the same that ISIS: their violence against iother Muslims is their beleif that THEY are the 'real' Muslims. Don't we see the sad irony on that?

 

c)  Peopel crying over statements like 'Muslim go home' when said to an actual immigrant. While scummy I cna't feel TOO bad for it. Why? I'm a natural born Kanadian yet I'm often told often and loudly that I 'should go back home' EVEN THOUGH I WAS BORN IN KANADA. I'm also labeled rapist, murderer, conquerer, slaver, and a whole bunch of other nasty things even though I have never committed such sins simply because of my skin. So don't come crying to me b/c someone said mean things to you on the bus.  Go find the pity party bus.

 

LOGIC. DOES. NOT. MAKE. SENSE.

 

Violence not done in self defense against unarmed innocents is NEVER excuseable. It was wrong with the crazy white shot up the abortion clinic. It is wrong when crazy muslims do it. No matter the religion.

 

ALSO: NEWSFLASH AGAIN: Hating religion is not racist.  Muslimk or Christianity is not a race. For exmaple, equating whitey with catholicsm is stupid since many blacks are christians. And, non, Arabs can be Muslim and Arabs can be non Muslim.

 

\AGAIN. Hating Islam is NOT racism. LMAO

Edited December 7, 2015 by Volourn

[Fionavar]

Play nice in the sandbox

 

[aluminiumtrioxid]

 

As to Bill Mahr and Dawkins. They are smart people, and when I first joined this board 10 years ago (holy **** it's been 10 years?) I was one who'd post about them as the true keepers of the light of Prometheus. But I've had a change of heart when I really looked at their methodology of instruction and PR. They're honestly no better than the God Botherers who declare that you're going to hell if you don't quote John 3:16 every morning during a shower. For them there can be no reason anyone would look beyond themselves to explain the world, or that there are perfectly reasonable people who agree with everything they say, but still believe that there is a higher power.

 

Instead they put on their Athiest boxing gloves and look for fights.

 

 

Finally, somebody said it.

[213374U]

sorry, is not at all similar.  are you a convicted felon with a history o' violence? even if you were, if you did not give CONSENT, the cops could not enter your home. the case you cite would not allow entry or search.

 

Fair enough, I was wrong about the security sweep. I read an old news item that pointed to this case and misrepresented facts.

 

Thing is, sadly I don't really need to make up hypothetical scenarios, when actual real life occurrences illustrate the point better. In this case, they were serving a warrant, "probable cause" being trace amounts of weed found in the trash. No previous criminal record, no history of violence. Funny that you mentioned me coming out of my boudoir brandishing a butter knife (and in a pink robe no less, whatever floats your boat I guess...), because that's basically what happened in this case. No questions asked, just some guy getting shot in the face inside his house, in the middle of the night, by militarized police. Must have been one of those "fatally stoopid" folks you mentioned.

 

That's for a minor drug-related offense. Are they going to go any easier on suspected terrorists?

 

Interesting asides about the British in Boston, and regarding the exclusionary rule not applying even when knock-and-announce is violated.

 

SCOTUS recently left the ruling in place, btw.

 

edit: thanks for the exhaustive explanation, too.

Edited December 7, 2015 by 213374U

[Cantousent]

...And that hits the point home, my numbered friend. I agree with Grom on this, I'll admit, but when you're the 'nosy neighbor' like me, you have to ask yourself, "What if this guy is just trying his best to get ready for some sort of med school thing? Maybe boards or something? What if I call the cops on some innocent guy and something happens to him?" The problem, as I see it, is where do we draw the line? If I hear gunfire, I should call. I'm pretty sure most folks would agree with that. The other scenarios are just too tough to call because there will always be a rational argument for either side and you have to decide. For myself, I know how I come across on the forum and I'm okay with that. It's part of the reason I was willing to be up front about my own personal experience. I've been foolish and callow and maudlin and cruel on these boards, so I might as well be genuine also. So, to that end, I would say this, I think the vast majority of my neighbors have been happy to have someone who takes at least some interest in them than wish I would bugger the hell off. I know a couple over the years who've wished I were gone, but I'd like to think they didn't hate me, just thought I was a pain in the ass.

 

I'm not trying to apologize for being the nosy neighbor. I kind of like the phrase, actually. Reminds me of Mrs. Crabitz (sp) from Bewitched. Only, I'm not trying to dig up dirt. I'm legitimately concerned about my neighbors. Nonetheless, that works both ways. I don't want my neighbors being punished because I'm a busy body. Certainly, I don't want anyone to die for a small amount of pot any more than I want to overlook truly suspicious activity and see a bunch of people getting murdered because I was too cowardly to say something. So I'm not arguing with you, although I'm perfectly happy if you argue with my points I've made here. I'm more pointing out that these personal decisions face us every day and they're not as clear cut as either side make them seem. I don't exist in a neighborhood occupied by politics. I exist in one populated by people and that means having to sort through a bunch of nonsense in order to make a decision and not always knowing if I'm right or wrong.

[Longknife]

As to Bill Mahr and Dawkins. They are smart people, and when I first joined this board 10 years ago (holy **** it's been 10 years?) I was one who'd post about them as the true keepers of the light of Prometheus. But I've had a change of heart when I really looked at their methodology of instruction and PR. They're honestly no better than the God Botherers who declare that you're going to hell if you don't quote John 3:16 every morning during a shower. For them there can be no reason anyone would look beyond themselves to explain the world, or that there are perfectly reasonable people who agree with everything they say, but still believe that there is a higher power.

 

Instead they put on their Athiest boxing gloves and look for fights.

 

 

I've always seen Dawkins be really respectful about this stuff. Personally haven't seen him be inflammatory, but rather I've just seen a guy who loves logic that for whatever reason can't pick up on the fact that this isn't a fight worth having.

 

Maher is a different story. Smug douche who's always speaking with a pretentious mocking tone towards those that disagree.

 

 

Either way, I've always distanced myself from the Athiest crowd, personally.

 

When I was in pre-school, my mom put me in a Christian pre-school because she thought Christianity taught good morals, so I knew about Jesus from a young age. When we moved to Oklahoma when I was about 6, then suddenly everyone wanted to know if I was a christian. I had no clue what that was, nor why they cared. I encountered a lot of very hostile people who insisted I convert, while justifying how hostile, persistant and rude they were about the issue by saying "it's ok because I'm right and my beliefs are the correct beliefs so in the end I'm saving you and helping you go to heaven." There were only very few kids who weren't Christian in that area, and I was probably the quietest (though I prefer the term "smartest" :D ) about my beliefs. Other kids would get rebellious about it and announce they were athiests while trying to debate the Christians over and over.....while justifying how hostile, persistant and rude they were about the issue by saying "it's ok because I'm right and there is no God." Always confused me how the athiests could never figure out they'd become exactly what they hated.

[Gromnir]

 

sorry, is not at all similar.  are you a convicted felon with a history o' violence? even if you were, if you did not give CONSENT, the cops could not enter your home. the case you cite would not allow entry or search.

 

Fair enough, I was wrong about the security sweep. I read an old news item that pointed to this case and misrepresented facts.

 

Thing is, sadly I don't really need to make up hypothetical scenarios, when actual real life occurrences illustrate the point better. In this case, they were serving a warrant, "probable cause" being trace amounts of weed found in the trash. No previous criminal record, no history of violence. Funny that you mentioned me coming out of my boudoir brandishing a butter knife (and in a pink robe no less, whatever floats your boat I guess...), because that's basically what happened in this case. No questions asked, just some guy getting shot in the face inside his house, in the middle of the night, by militarized police. Must have been one of those "fatally stoopid" folks you mentioned.

 

That's for a minor drug-related offense. Are they going to go any easier on suspected terrorists?

 

Interesting asides about the British in Boston, and regarding the exclusionary rule not applying even when knock-and-announce is violated.

 

SCOTUS recently left the ruling in place, btw.

 

edit: thanks for the exhaustive explanation, too.

 

again, your initial hypo were not similar and we already observed that there is indeed a problem regarding police training in regards to suspects with weapons, so you is largely repeating.  

 

*shrug*

 

swat-style raids has become more prevalent precisely 'cause serving warrants is dangerous to cops and bystanders.  like it or not, we gots a well-armed citizenry, and our criminal element tends to be better armed than our law-abiding citizens... except in the deep south.  no doubt after the first few times cops get injured/killed while serving drug offense warrants, local law enforcement agencies, often with support o' voters, authorize increasing force to protect cops while carrying out LEGAL warrants.  the op-ed writer suggests that warrants is handed out by judges like candy at halloween, but he don't exact offer support for such... most likely 'cause he is trying to sell another book. 

 

also, you are confused.  you are getting refusal to award tort damages confused with Constitutional issues.  this case were not actual a 4th amendment case but rather were the kinda thing you might see on a first year law student exam... for torts.  the Court agreed that the cop entry in the case you linked were illegal, but no damages were awarded 'cause the son o' the PLAINTIFF's actions were a superseding cause o' his death.  the evidence found in the apartment woulda' been excluded. in any event, am  not sure if we can agree with the decision (which has NOT been addressed by SCOTUS) but is not a 4th amendment case as is being presented.

 

but again, in our opinion (not legal, but personal) am agreeing that there is something fundamental wrong with cop training in 2015.  far too many folks that is "armed" is getting shot and killed.  the cops is seen as dirty by the public when they shoot #'s brandishing his butter knife, but for the most part the cops is doing what they is trained.  am also not a fan o' fleeing felon standard.  regardless, we agree that changes is needed.

 

HA! Good Fun!