US Politics Mega-thread - Page 3489

The Obama administration announced new measures on Tuesday to combat the growing epidemic of heroin and prescription opioid abuse, most of which are centered on prevention and treatment, not crime-fighting.

The White House is committing $116m to support treatment, with nine actions that include expanding access to care and drugs for combatting overdoses. It also proposed $7m in US justice department funding to increase community policing.

Michael Collins, deputy director for national affairs at the Drug Policy Alliance, said the increased focus on helping addicts rather than interdicting drugs and incarcerating dealers continues Obama’s commitment to “doing more than previous administrations to roll back the war on drugs”.

But Collins questioned where the funds would come from to pay for the proposed measures, and called the policing proposal a “step backward”

Tuesday’s announcement builds on Obama’s call last month for an additional $1.1bn in congressional funding to fight the growing public health problem, according to the White House. Opioids have killed 28,647 people in 2014, a four-fold increase in opioid overdoses since 2000, according to the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention.

Obama is expected to discuss the plan Tuesday afternoon on a panel at theNational Prescription Drug Abuse Heroin Summit in Atlanta.

The most significant monetary investment in the plan is $94m in “new funding” that Health and Human Services Department (HHS) released earlier this month, so that 271 Community Health Centers could expand “medication-assisted treatment of opioid use disorders in underserved communities”. This funding could result in the centers treating 124,000 new patients, according to the White House.

The plan also includes $11m for states to distribute naloxone, a drug that reverses opioid overdoses, and an HHS proposed rule that would allow qualified doctors to increase the number of patients to whom they can prescribe buprenorphine, a drug that combats opioid addiction, from 100 to 200.

The report from the Jupiter Police Department said Corey Lewandowski, 42, was charged for intentionally grabbing and bruising the arm of Michelle Fields, a reporter at the time for the conservative news outlet Breitbart, against her will at a Trump campaign event on March 8.

"Mr. Lewandowski is absolutely innocent of this charge," Trump's campaign said in a statement. "He will enter a plea of not guilty and looks forward to his day in court. He is completely confident that he will be exonerated."

On March 30 2016 01:23 Plansix wrote:
Battery is unwanted physical contact of any sort. If you are pushed, its battery. It’s the name of the crime. Assault is verbal/nonverbal threats of violence or intimidation. And that video doesn’t prove anything. He could have grabbed her so hard it caused physical harm and we wouldn’t know. The police generally don't pull the trigger on these without some reasonable amount of evidence.

But this is Florida, so who knows.

On March 30 2016 01:23 Plansix wrote:
Battery is unwanted physical contact of any sort. If you are pushed, its battery. It’s the name of the crime. Assault is verbal/nonverbal threats of violence or intimidation. And that video doesn’t prove anything. He could have grabbed her so hard it caused physical harm and we wouldn’t know. The police generally don't pull the trigger on these without some reasonable amount of evidence.

But this is Florida, so who knows.

On March 30 2016 01:26 m4ini wrote:


.. eh?

If "unwanted physical contact" is considered battery, the video certainly is evidence. As it clearly shows the dude pulling her back (rather forceful, too).

That, by the definition you've given, is battery. And the video, again, clearly shows that. Now, the trump campaign states that nothing like that ever happened. Even when it's right there on the video. And that statement was made after this particular video was released.

On March 30 2016 01:32 Plansix wrote:

Oh, I am sorry. I thought you were saying that nothing wrong took place from the video. I misread your post. I agree that the police should have charged him if the reporter pressed charges. He had unlimited ways to handle that better.

Any unwanted physical contact- including if you were obstructing a path and were moved aside? That seems awfully broad- does physical harm have to do with the degree of battery (small fine and go) or have to do with whether battery occurred in the first place?

She's not blocking a path. She's walking next to Drumpf, obstructing no one.

I think that's a different issue than "pushing someone out of the way of the presidential candidate".

On March 30 2016 00:42 oneofthem wrote:
there is ample opportunity for a split of the dem party. give these guys a region of the country to run and see how. that works out.


oh wait

On March 30 2016 01:31 Falling wrote:

Any unwanted physical contact- including if you were obstructing a path and were moved aside? That seems awfully broad- does physical harm have to do with the degree of battery (small fine and go) or have to do with whether battery occurred in the first place?

I guess when I see battery I am most used to it actually being 'assault and battery' and not battery all on it's own, so the actions in the video seemed like a pretty non-issue, but perhaps not in a very strict interpretation of the law?

On March 30 2016 01:38 Falling wrote:

Fair enough. I'm just trying to get a sense of what battery is all by itself. In a hypothetical scenario where she was intentionally in their path (a protestor say), could they move her aside?

On March 30 2016 01:38 Falling wrote:

Fair enough. I'm just trying to get a sense of what battery is all by itself. In a hypothetical scenario where she was intentionally in their path (a protestor say), could they move her aside?

On March 30 2016 01:31 Falling wrote:

Any unwanted physical contact- including if you were obstructing a path and were moved aside? That seems awfully broad- does physical harm have to do with the degree of battery (small fine and go) or have to do with whether battery occurred in the first place?

I guess when I see battery I am most used to it actually being 'assault and battery' and not battery all on it's own, so the actions in the video seemed like a pretty non-issue, but perhaps not in a very strict interpretation of the law?

On March 30 2016 01:49 cLutZ wrote:


Unwanted, unlawful, physical contact. Now, every statute is a little different in defining what is unlawful, but typically you have a mens rea element of recklessness +. This is a decent summary from what I've skimmed.

Many states follow the common-law approach and require specific intent or purposely, or general intent or knowingly. [2] Others include reckless intent, [3] or negligent intent. [4]