|
Read the rules in the OP before posting, please.In order to ensure that this thread continues to meet TL standards and follows the proper guidelines, we will be enforcing the rules in the OP more strictly. Be sure to give them a re-read to refresh your memory! The vast majority of you are contributing in a healthy way, keep it up! NOTE: When providing a source, explain why you feel it is relevant and what purpose it adds to the discussion if it's not obvious. Also take note that unsubstantiated tweets/posts meant only to rekindle old arguments can result in a mod action. |
I wish Nixon hadn't been a scumbag crook. We would have had the equivalent of universal healthcare for decades (basically a better ACA that would almost certainly have ended up with a legit public option by the 80s/90s) if he hadn't fucked up.
We can't keep adding patches to the fraying quilt that is the American healthcare system and expect it to keep us warm in our old age. Sadly we're at the point where the patchers and the quilt have been around so long we can't get rid of it without a lot of tears.
|
There's a lot of what if's, most recently if Ted Kennedy had managed to hang on a couple more weeks.
The quilt metaphor is a little vague, but I think I agree.
|
On February 01 2016 01:47 aksfjh wrote:Show nested quote +On February 01 2016 00:54 Jibba wrote:
Beyond that, it's demonstrably brought down health care inflation (reflected in multiple indexes) while actually expanding coverage/adding more people into it. People are upset that they have to pay more to receive the minimum coverage, but the alternative was them not having it or having less-than-adequate coverage, and then driving up costs through ER visits. The first claim of yours is questionable. There's evidence that some, if not most, of the cost savings came from effects of the recession. As for the second part, you are correct. The people that don't benefit (and haven't benefited) much from Obamacare are those that are healthy. For the most part, those people picked up plans (if at all) with a few grand in deductibles and $100-200k in max healthcare coverage. Those plans were dirt-cheap before, because they basically only covered you if you stepped in front of a speeding car and survived. Any serious chronic and terminal illness would have blown past that cap, while any chronic issue that needed consistent therapy and/or drugs wouldn't meet the deductible threshold. Show nested quote +On February 01 2016 01:13 Krikkitone wrote:On January 31 2016 19:37 Gorsameth wrote:On January 31 2016 19:32 Danglars wrote:On January 31 2016 14:24 {CC}StealthBlue wrote:Republicans have spent nearly six years promising to repeal Obamacare and, for most of that time, they have refused to acknowledge what that would mean for the millions who would lose their health insurance.
On Saturday afternoon in Iowa, for at least a few minutes, one Republican couldn't get away with it.
It happened at a Ted Cruz campaign event in Hubbard, a small town smack in the middle of the state. According to reports in The New York Times, The Washington Post and Politico, Cruz fielded a question from Mike Valde, a Democratic voter who had come to the event with a story to tell and a simple question to ask.
The story was about his brother-in-law, a barber named Mark. As Valde told it, Mark was a small business owner who worked so hard that he didn’t even take paid days off. But Mark was unable to afford health insurance until the Affordable Care Act became law. When it did, Mark bought insurance and then, when he started feeling ill, saw a physician -- who promptly diagnosed him with cancer with no hope for recovery. He died last year.
“He had never been to a doctor for years,” Valde said, reportedly on the verge of tears. “Multiple tumors behind his heart, his liver, his pancreas. And they said, ‘We’re sorry, sir, there’s nothing we can do for you.’"
The room fell silent, according to the Times' account, and then Valde, who later told reporters that he was a Hillary Clinton supporter, posed his question: “Mark never had health care until Obamacare. What are you going to replace it with?”
Cruz offered Valde his condolences before launching into the same basic argument that Republicans always make. “Under Obamacare,” Cruz said, “millions of Americans have lost their jobs. Millions of Americans have lost their doctors, have seen their premiums skyrocket.” He pointed out that Obama had promised families would see average savings of $2500 from health care reform, and joked that he’d gladly encourage anybody who'd actually reaped such savings to vote for Clinton -- a quip that drew laughter from the audience. Source I'll give HuffPo props: they started out fine. Republicans have spent six years promising to repeal Obamacare. They could've even written a different article to make good points in that vein. Endless votes ending in vetoes have damaged the credibility of the repeal efforts. Republican leaders have already pledged to do anything to keep the government running, meaning their one card to play is frozen. They've violated campaign pledges and will look to lose seats in both houses in November. After all, they have nothing to show for campaign promises for limited government and health care reform. However, all we get is the bleeding heart tripe that's trotted out every time there's a push for limited government. It doesn't matter if ten families are struggling to cope with their increased health premiums and it's crushing them. They'll find someone with a story to tell hitting all the major heartstrings. He's a hard worker, a small business owner, he didn't get checkups from financial necessity, his life-saving Obamacare came too late! It's a Hollywood plotline, the kind that ignores the millions of others that lost health care plans they liked from Obamacare. Struggling workers sandwiched between rising premiums and rising deductible for the entry-level plans are just a statistic ( NYT). One large health insurance provider pulling out of the exchange Cruz offered Valde his condolences before launching into the same basic argument that Republicans always make. It's actually rather telling, this bit. One side has stopped listening--it doesn't really matter what follows. He asked a question ala "What are you going to do?" If you're a Clinton supporter, or what qualifies as journalists these days, nothing short of a complete disavowal of the policies you advocate to fix the exact problem will suffice. Wrap it up with the contrast of laughter against the grieving man. It suits the hit job that was evident from "refused to acknowledge" onward. The problem is the same as it has always been. So Obamacare is bad. What better system do you have? All Republicans have done is yell "its bad, its bad" over and over again and not once did even a hint of solution present itself. its always "its bad" never "this would be better". ' They (many of the candidates including Cruz) have 'replacement' plans (with varying degrees of detail) some of which would solve the pre-existing condition problem. (at least as much as the ACA has). Why he didn't talk about it here I don't know. Only thing I could find on Cruz's alternative is that he would allow you to buy health insurance from another state. I don't know how that would solve anything.
I agree Cruz has the least in terms of a healthcare plan. However, he has one (even if it is terrible) and other Republican candidates have far more detailed ones.
And when running against an incumbent, when people are unhappy about things, then "this is bad" is most of what you're going to get.
Biggest problem in US healthcare is the multiple interested parties (patient/employeee+employer/government+insurance company+doctors/techs) and oligopoly nature of it. Other countries have something close to a free market or a government regulated monopoly, either of which is better for something like health care. [basically patient+insurance company/government+doctors/techs]
|
On February 01 2016 06:34 GreenHorizons wrote:Show nested quote +On February 01 2016 02:40 Ghostcom wrote:On February 01 2016 02:03 m4ini wrote:http://fusion.net/story/261418/quintonio-legrier-shooting-robert-rialmo-lawsuit/On Thursday, Joel Brodsky, the attorney for officer Rialmo, told Fusion that he plans to file a counter lawsuit against LeGrier’s estate, citing emotional distress and assault. The officer claims LeGrier assaulted him prior to firing his gun. Only in america. Cop shoots teen six times, twice in the back - in the process he also kills an innocent bystander (something i always claimed will happen if cops just empty their mags with foam around their mouths), a mother of five: and now, because that's so distressing to HIM, he's gonna sue the father. Because that whole thing totally was the kids fault, and if the kid would have miraculously survived the execution, he'd be sued for felony murder. The fuck is wrong with chicagos police force? I think you ought to be a little more objective in your assessment. Apparently he sues because the family lied multiple times about the events that unfolded. The city has also assessed that it was legitimate self-defense on the part of the officer. It would seem that there was no foam around the officers mouth (he only fired 6 of 16 shots), nor was it an execution as the officer (according to the city) tried to let the kid surrender and it wasn't until the kid tried to assault him with a bat that he fired. How about we let the courts decide before we jump the gun? Wow... First the kid who was shot called 911 3 times and was just hung up on the first two times... because he didn't give a full name (not required in any way whatsoever). The cop shot an innocent person. Chicago's police are notoriously corrupt, and the courts have been total shit at resolving officer involved homicides, particularly when the victims are POC. Give me a break.
Give me a break from your shitposting.
Do you have any proof or are you simply as always, eager to shout "racist" and "police brutality"?
How is the kid calling the police station 3 times proof of innocence of threatening the cop with a baseball bat? I have no idea about how the Chicago courts have historically handled cases like these - you still need proof to condemn a man. Until you produce any such, blatantly lieing (saying he emptied his magazine when he fired 6/16 and calling it an execution when all facts so far points to it being self-defense) is disgraceful shitposting which does not belong anywhere and second to a court of law, least of all here.
Get the facts straight, then judge the case.
|
I have no idea about how the Chicago courts have historically handled cases like these
Enough said.
blatantly lieing (saying he emptied his magazine when he fired 6/16 and calling it an execution when all facts so far points to it being self-defense) is disgraceful shitposting
That wasn't me.
Not sure what "facts" you're going off of to say all of them point to self-defense.
Besides that, "Self-defense" seems to have an unnecessarily expansive definition when it comes to cops.
Get the facts straight, then judge the case.
911 screwed up. Police shot an innocent person. Police shot a young man who might of had aggression and a bat. That's more than enough facts to say the police did a shitty job.
|
On February 01 2016 08:09 Ghostcom wrote:Show nested quote +On February 01 2016 06:34 GreenHorizons wrote:On February 01 2016 02:40 Ghostcom wrote:On February 01 2016 02:03 m4ini wrote:http://fusion.net/story/261418/quintonio-legrier-shooting-robert-rialmo-lawsuit/On Thursday, Joel Brodsky, the attorney for officer Rialmo, told Fusion that he plans to file a counter lawsuit against LeGrier’s estate, citing emotional distress and assault. The officer claims LeGrier assaulted him prior to firing his gun. Only in america. Cop shoots teen six times, twice in the back - in the process he also kills an innocent bystander (something i always claimed will happen if cops just empty their mags with foam around their mouths), a mother of five: and now, because that's so distressing to HIM, he's gonna sue the father. Because that whole thing totally was the kids fault, and if the kid would have miraculously survived the execution, he'd be sued for felony murder. The fuck is wrong with chicagos police force? I think you ought to be a little more objective in your assessment. Apparently he sues because the family lied multiple times about the events that unfolded. The city has also assessed that it was legitimate self-defense on the part of the officer. It would seem that there was no foam around the officers mouth (he only fired 6 of 16 shots), nor was it an execution as the officer (according to the city) tried to let the kid surrender and it wasn't until the kid tried to assault him with a bat that he fired. How about we let the courts decide before we jump the gun? Wow... First the kid who was shot called 911 3 times and was just hung up on the first two times... because he didn't give a full name (not required in any way whatsoever). The cop shot an innocent person. Chicago's police are notoriously corrupt, and the courts have been total shit at resolving officer involved homicides, particularly when the victims are POC. Give me a break. Give me a break from your shitposting. Do you have any proof or are you simply as always, eager to shout "racist" and "police brutality"? How is the kid calling the police station 3 times proof of innocence of threatening the cop with a baseball bat? I have no idea about how the Chicago courts have historically handled cases like these - you still need proof to condemn a man. Until you produce any such, blatantly lieing (saying he emptied his magazine when he fired 6/16 and calling it an execution when all facts so far points to it being self-defense) is disgraceful shitposting which does not belong anywhere and second to a court of law, least of all here. Get the facts straight, then judge the case.
Considering the purpose of the court is to collect the facts and then judge a case, I think your standard for internet discussion and opinion are unreasonable. The courts fuck up, so I don't know why you are holding this forum to some higher standard. And phrases like "view it objectively" is another way to say, "I don't agree with your opinion". The claims of being threatened with a bat as suspect, as they were giving by the accused officer and partner. And the Chicago do not have a good track record.
|
On February 01 2016 08:09 Ghostcom wrote:Show nested quote +On February 01 2016 06:34 GreenHorizons wrote:On February 01 2016 02:40 Ghostcom wrote:On February 01 2016 02:03 m4ini wrote:http://fusion.net/story/261418/quintonio-legrier-shooting-robert-rialmo-lawsuit/On Thursday, Joel Brodsky, the attorney for officer Rialmo, told Fusion that he plans to file a counter lawsuit against LeGrier’s estate, citing emotional distress and assault. The officer claims LeGrier assaulted him prior to firing his gun. Only in america. Cop shoots teen six times, twice in the back - in the process he also kills an innocent bystander (something i always claimed will happen if cops just empty their mags with foam around their mouths), a mother of five: and now, because that's so distressing to HIM, he's gonna sue the father. Because that whole thing totally was the kids fault, and if the kid would have miraculously survived the execution, he'd be sued for felony murder. The fuck is wrong with chicagos police force? I think you ought to be a little more objective in your assessment. Apparently he sues because the family lied multiple times about the events that unfolded. The city has also assessed that it was legitimate self-defense on the part of the officer. It would seem that there was no foam around the officers mouth (he only fired 6 of 16 shots), nor was it an execution as the officer (according to the city) tried to let the kid surrender and it wasn't until the kid tried to assault him with a bat that he fired. How about we let the courts decide before we jump the gun? Wow... First the kid who was shot called 911 3 times and was just hung up on the first two times... because he didn't give a full name (not required in any way whatsoever). The cop shot an innocent person. Chicago's police are notoriously corrupt, and the courts have been total shit at resolving officer involved homicides, particularly when the victims are POC. Give me a break. Give me a break from your shitposting. Do you have any proof or are you simply as always, eager to shout "racist" and "police brutality"? How is the kid calling the police station 3 times proof of innocence of threatening the cop with a baseball bat? I have no idea about how the Chicago courts have historically handled cases like these - you still need proof to condemn a man. Until you produce any such, blatantly lieing (saying he emptied his magazine when he fired 6/16 and calling it an execution when all facts so far points to it being self-defense) is disgraceful shitposting which does not belong anywhere and second to a court of law, least of all here. Get the facts straight, then judge the case.
If a police officer can't handle a teen with a bat without firing his gun he should be fired. And you also seem to ignore the fact that he was so trigger happy he killed an innocent bystander. IF the kid had a gun, even a fake one, maybe he would have an excuse. But he had a melee weapon ffs..
|
On February 01 2016 10:26 gsgfdf wrote:Show nested quote +On February 01 2016 08:09 Ghostcom wrote:On February 01 2016 06:34 GreenHorizons wrote:On February 01 2016 02:40 Ghostcom wrote:On February 01 2016 02:03 m4ini wrote:http://fusion.net/story/261418/quintonio-legrier-shooting-robert-rialmo-lawsuit/On Thursday, Joel Brodsky, the attorney for officer Rialmo, told Fusion that he plans to file a counter lawsuit against LeGrier’s estate, citing emotional distress and assault. The officer claims LeGrier assaulted him prior to firing his gun. Only in america. Cop shoots teen six times, twice in the back - in the process he also kills an innocent bystander (something i always claimed will happen if cops just empty their mags with foam around their mouths), a mother of five: and now, because that's so distressing to HIM, he's gonna sue the father. Because that whole thing totally was the kids fault, and if the kid would have miraculously survived the execution, he'd be sued for felony murder. The fuck is wrong with chicagos police force? I think you ought to be a little more objective in your assessment. Apparently he sues because the family lied multiple times about the events that unfolded. The city has also assessed that it was legitimate self-defense on the part of the officer. It would seem that there was no foam around the officers mouth (he only fired 6 of 16 shots), nor was it an execution as the officer (according to the city) tried to let the kid surrender and it wasn't until the kid tried to assault him with a bat that he fired. How about we let the courts decide before we jump the gun? Wow... First the kid who was shot called 911 3 times and was just hung up on the first two times... because he didn't give a full name (not required in any way whatsoever). The cop shot an innocent person. Chicago's police are notoriously corrupt, and the courts have been total shit at resolving officer involved homicides, particularly when the victims are POC. Give me a break. Give me a break from your shitposting. Do you have any proof or are you simply as always, eager to shout "racist" and "police brutality"? How is the kid calling the police station 3 times proof of innocence of threatening the cop with a baseball bat? I have no idea about how the Chicago courts have historically handled cases like these - you still need proof to condemn a man. Until you produce any such, blatantly lieing (saying he emptied his magazine when he fired 6/16 and calling it an execution when all facts so far points to it being self-defense) is disgraceful shitposting which does not belong anywhere and second to a court of law, least of all here. Get the facts straight, then judge the case. If a police officer can't handle a teen with a bat without firing his gun he should be fired. And you also seem to ignore the fact that he was so trigger happy he killed an innocent bystander. IF the kid had a gun, even a fake one, maybe he would have an excuse. But he had a melee weapon ffs..
How would you recommend taking down someone swinging a bat at you? This isn't the movies where you can take a beating and keep going, one good swing and you're unconscious, seriously injured, or dead. And a baseball bat has a lot more range than anything you'd have except for a gun or a taser.
Which isn't to say the officer in this situation was justified in firing. But this public perception that anything except a gun is harmless is stupid.
|
Cayman Islands24199 Posts
if the police was equipped with an RPG he would have been justified in blowing up the block.
|
United States43219 Posts
On February 01 2016 10:36 WolfintheSheep wrote:Show nested quote +On February 01 2016 10:26 gsgfdf wrote:On February 01 2016 08:09 Ghostcom wrote:On February 01 2016 06:34 GreenHorizons wrote:On February 01 2016 02:40 Ghostcom wrote:On February 01 2016 02:03 m4ini wrote:http://fusion.net/story/261418/quintonio-legrier-shooting-robert-rialmo-lawsuit/On Thursday, Joel Brodsky, the attorney for officer Rialmo, told Fusion that he plans to file a counter lawsuit against LeGrier’s estate, citing emotional distress and assault. The officer claims LeGrier assaulted him prior to firing his gun. Only in america. Cop shoots teen six times, twice in the back - in the process he also kills an innocent bystander (something i always claimed will happen if cops just empty their mags with foam around their mouths), a mother of five: and now, because that's so distressing to HIM, he's gonna sue the father. Because that whole thing totally was the kids fault, and if the kid would have miraculously survived the execution, he'd be sued for felony murder. The fuck is wrong with chicagos police force? I think you ought to be a little more objective in your assessment. Apparently he sues because the family lied multiple times about the events that unfolded. The city has also assessed that it was legitimate self-defense on the part of the officer. It would seem that there was no foam around the officers mouth (he only fired 6 of 16 shots), nor was it an execution as the officer (according to the city) tried to let the kid surrender and it wasn't until the kid tried to assault him with a bat that he fired. How about we let the courts decide before we jump the gun? Wow... First the kid who was shot called 911 3 times and was just hung up on the first two times... because he didn't give a full name (not required in any way whatsoever). The cop shot an innocent person. Chicago's police are notoriously corrupt, and the courts have been total shit at resolving officer involved homicides, particularly when the victims are POC. Give me a break. Give me a break from your shitposting. Do you have any proof or are you simply as always, eager to shout "racist" and "police brutality"? How is the kid calling the police station 3 times proof of innocence of threatening the cop with a baseball bat? I have no idea about how the Chicago courts have historically handled cases like these - you still need proof to condemn a man. Until you produce any such, blatantly lieing (saying he emptied his magazine when he fired 6/16 and calling it an execution when all facts so far points to it being self-defense) is disgraceful shitposting which does not belong anywhere and second to a court of law, least of all here. Get the facts straight, then judge the case. If a police officer can't handle a teen with a bat without firing his gun he should be fired. And you also seem to ignore the fact that he was so trigger happy he killed an innocent bystander. IF the kid had a gun, even a fake one, maybe he would have an excuse. But he had a melee weapon ffs.. How would you recommend taking down someone swinging a bat at you? This isn't the movies where you can take a beating and keep going, one good swing and you're unconscious, seriously injured, or dead. And a baseball bat has a lot more range than anything you'd have except for a gun or a taser. Which isn't to say the officer in this situation was justified in firing. But this public perception that anything except a gun is harmless is stupid.
Having backup and non lethal weapons. We have baseball bats in the UK and have never yet needed to use guns to stop them.
|
On February 01 2016 10:39 oneofthem wrote:
if the police was equipped with an RPG he would have been justified in blowing up the block.
Good point. Part of the whole issue is that police officers need more compact forms of personal defense that are less lethal than guns.
|
On February 01 2016 07:03 TheTenthDoc wrote:
I wish Nixon hadn't been a scumbag crook. We would have had the equivalent of universal healthcare for decades (basically a better ACA that would almost certainly have ended up with a legit public option by the 80s/90s) if he hadn't fucked up.
We can't keep adding patches to the fraying quilt that is the American healthcare system and expect it to keep us warm in our old age. Sadly we're at the point where the patchers and the quilt have been around so long we can't get rid of it without a lot of tears.
As well as Universal Daycare which passed Congress and was funded, which he then vetoed.
The super PAC dedicated to former Florida Gov. Jeb Bush’s flagging campaign for the GOP presidential nomination raised $15 million in the second half of the year ― a massive drop-off from the $103 million it raised in the first half ― according to a report filed Sunday night with the Federal Election Commission.
The super PAC, Right to Rise, spent $54 million between the beginning of July and the end of last year, leaving it with $59 million in the bank at the beginning of this year, according to the report.
But the group spent at least another $16 million this month on ads seeking to buoy Bush and deflate his rivals headed into Monday’s Iowa caucuses, according to advertising data provided to POLITICO by The Tracking Firm.
The FEC report showed that the majority of the second-half haul ― $10 million ― came from a New York company called C.V. Starr & Co., Inc., which owns and operates insurance agencies.
The CEO and chairman of the company is Hank Greenberg, who, while Bush was governor of Florida, donated $1 million to help the state recover from a series of hurricanes.
Source
|
On February 01 2016 11:10 KwarK wrote:Show nested quote +On February 01 2016 10:36 WolfintheSheep wrote:On February 01 2016 10:26 gsgfdf wrote:On February 01 2016 08:09 Ghostcom wrote:On February 01 2016 06:34 GreenHorizons wrote:On February 01 2016 02:40 Ghostcom wrote:On February 01 2016 02:03 m4ini wrote:http://fusion.net/story/261418/quintonio-legrier-shooting-robert-rialmo-lawsuit/On Thursday, Joel Brodsky, the attorney for officer Rialmo, told Fusion that he plans to file a counter lawsuit against LeGrier’s estate, citing emotional distress and assault. The officer claims LeGrier assaulted him prior to firing his gun. Only in america. Cop shoots teen six times, twice in the back - in the process he also kills an innocent bystander (something i always claimed will happen if cops just empty their mags with foam around their mouths), a mother of five: and now, because that's so distressing to HIM, he's gonna sue the father. Because that whole thing totally was the kids fault, and if the kid would have miraculously survived the execution, he'd be sued for felony murder. The fuck is wrong with chicagos police force? I think you ought to be a little more objective in your assessment. Apparently he sues because the family lied multiple times about the events that unfolded. The city has also assessed that it was legitimate self-defense on the part of the officer. It would seem that there was no foam around the officers mouth (he only fired 6 of 16 shots), nor was it an execution as the officer (according to the city) tried to let the kid surrender and it wasn't until the kid tried to assault him with a bat that he fired. How about we let the courts decide before we jump the gun? Wow... First the kid who was shot called 911 3 times and was just hung up on the first two times... because he didn't give a full name (not required in any way whatsoever). The cop shot an innocent person. Chicago's police are notoriously corrupt, and the courts have been total shit at resolving officer involved homicides, particularly when the victims are POC. Give me a break. Give me a break from your shitposting. Do you have any proof or are you simply as always, eager to shout "racist" and "police brutality"? How is the kid calling the police station 3 times proof of innocence of threatening the cop with a baseball bat? I have no idea about how the Chicago courts have historically handled cases like these - you still need proof to condemn a man. Until you produce any such, blatantly lieing (saying he emptied his magazine when he fired 6/16 and calling it an execution when all facts so far points to it being self-defense) is disgraceful shitposting which does not belong anywhere and second to a court of law, least of all here. Get the facts straight, then judge the case. If a police officer can't handle a teen with a bat without firing his gun he should be fired. And you also seem to ignore the fact that he was so trigger happy he killed an innocent bystander. IF the kid had a gun, even a fake one, maybe he would have an excuse. But he had a melee weapon ffs.. How would you recommend taking down someone swinging a bat at you? This isn't the movies where you can take a beating and keep going, one good swing and you're unconscious, seriously injured, or dead. And a baseball bat has a lot more range than anything you'd have except for a gun or a taser. Which isn't to say the officer in this situation was justified in firing. But this public perception that anything except a gun is harmless is stupid. Having backup and non lethal weapons. We have baseball bats in the UK and have never yet needed to use guns to stop them.
Which is a whole other issue, but yes, police should definitely be armed with non-lethal options.
|
|
|
I feel like the standard for leather force has dropped from last resort to " the office felt justifed due to his/her fears." Like any story they come up with is justification. Like "he was going to throw a rock at me" will be considered acceptable soon. Rocks kill.
|
On February 01 2016 12:50 Plansix wrote:
I feel like the standard for leather force has dropped from last resort to " the office felt justifed due to his/her fears." Like any story they come up with is justification. Like "he was going to throw a rock at me" will be considered acceptable soon. Rocks kill.
They are already letting them off for killing unarmed people, why would they need a rock?
|
On February 01 2016 09:48 Plansix wrote:Show nested quote +On February 01 2016 08:09 Ghostcom wrote:On February 01 2016 06:34 GreenHorizons wrote:On February 01 2016 02:40 Ghostcom wrote:On February 01 2016 02:03 m4ini wrote:http://fusion.net/story/261418/quintonio-legrier-shooting-robert-rialmo-lawsuit/On Thursday, Joel Brodsky, the attorney for officer Rialmo, told Fusion that he plans to file a counter lawsuit against LeGrier’s estate, citing emotional distress and assault. The officer claims LeGrier assaulted him prior to firing his gun. Only in america. Cop shoots teen six times, twice in the back - in the process he also kills an innocent bystander (something i always claimed will happen if cops just empty their mags with foam around their mouths), a mother of five: and now, because that's so distressing to HIM, he's gonna sue the father. Because that whole thing totally was the kids fault, and if the kid would have miraculously survived the execution, he'd be sued for felony murder. The fuck is wrong with chicagos police force? I think you ought to be a little more objective in your assessment. Apparently he sues because the family lied multiple times about the events that unfolded. The city has also assessed that it was legitimate self-defense on the part of the officer. It would seem that there was no foam around the officers mouth (he only fired 6 of 16 shots), nor was it an execution as the officer (according to the city) tried to let the kid surrender and it wasn't until the kid tried to assault him with a bat that he fired. How about we let the courts decide before we jump the gun? Wow... First the kid who was shot called 911 3 times and was just hung up on the first two times... because he didn't give a full name (not required in any way whatsoever). The cop shot an innocent person. Chicago's police are notoriously corrupt, and the courts have been total shit at resolving officer involved homicides, particularly when the victims are POC. Give me a break. Give me a break from your shitposting. Do you have any proof or are you simply as always, eager to shout "racist" and "police brutality"? How is the kid calling the police station 3 times proof of innocence of threatening the cop with a baseball bat? I have no idea about how the Chicago courts have historically handled cases like these - you still need proof to condemn a man. Until you produce any such, blatantly lieing (saying he emptied his magazine when he fired 6/16 and calling it an execution when all facts so far points to it being self-defense) is disgraceful shitposting which does not belong anywhere and second to a court of law, least of all here. Get the facts straight, then judge the case. Considering the purpose of the court is to collect the facts and then judge a case, I think your standard for internet discussion and opinion are unreasonable. The courts fuck up, so I don't know why you are holding this forum to some higher standard. And phrases like "view it objectively" is another way to say, "I don't agree with your opinion". The claims of being threatened with a bat as suspect, as they were giving by the accused officer and partner. And the Chicago do not have a good track record.
My standard for internet discussion is that it should be fact-based - as is also mentioned in the OP of this thread. I have literally no opinion on this case - I don't know what transpired and the facts are lackluster for the moment. But we DO know that the officer did not "empty their mags with foam around their mouths", nor does anything support the notion that it should be "an execution". That is not my opinion - those are facts.
The Chicago courts record in these matters is entirely irrelevant to that objection which I thought was clear from the start (and as you probably know: I wouldn't have commented had their record been relevant because it's a topic I know very little about), but apparently not and that is on me.
And to the greek fellow who thought it proof of trigger-happiness that the mother was killed: Apparently she was killed by a bullet that passed through the alleged assailant - which makes it sheer bad luck and could potentially have happened even if the officer had only fired a single shot.
|
If you shoot at someone while a person stands behind him, hitting the person behind is not exactly bad luck. Of course you are right that this is not proof of trigger happiness but shooting multiple times makes it much more likely to hit the person behind. You would have noticed this if your purported objectivity was not only ever directed along ideological lines.
|
What is your point silynxer? I'm trying very hard to see it, but I simply don't. I have not once talked about whether or not the officer in my opinion was correct in shooting, nor about shooting that many times - I wouldn't presume to know. I'm not absolving the officer of responsibility for either death. I'm even unsure what idelogical line you think it is that I'm pushing?
|
On February 01 2016 16:27 silynxer wrote:
If you shoot at someone while a person stands behind him, hitting the person behind is not exactly bad luck. Of course you are right that this is not proof of trigger happiness but shooting multiple times makes it much more likely to hit the person behind. You would have noticed this if your purported objectivity was not only ever directed along ideological lines.
Shooting multiple times is basically necessity once the decision has been made to fire. You're not shooting to kill them eventually, you're shooting to stop them immediately, and a single bullet is nowhere close to a guarantee that someone is stopped.
There is no police force in the world that has a trained "fire once and wait and see" response, when the use of a firearm is required.
Which still isn't justification for any of the circumstance in question, of course, but these kinds of discussions don't need Hollywood logic distorting things.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
