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.
On June 01 2016 01:18 KwarK wrote: The reason I wouldn't fight back against a police officer who violated my constitutional rights is because I'm a rich, educated white guy who has sufficient faith in the system working, or at least working for the likes of me, that I would fight back with the tools within the system. But I understand that my experience of the world is not universal and while I can disagree with the choices of others I hesitate to fall into the "why don't the poor just buy more money?" chasm.
I think people expect that it doesn't matter what your experience in the world is. It's that if an officer stops you and questions you, you simply obey and answer the questions. If you haven't done anything wrong, there is literally nothing they can do to stop you short of drumming up false charges. Which probably isn't worth it for most police officers. Not saying it doesn't, hasn't, or will not happen. But I think if any person who has nothing illegal on them simply complies with "yes sirs" "no sirs" will almost always be fine and get off regardless of race.
On June 01 2016 01:08 LegalLord wrote: The problem is that the "black community" (if you can call it that - it is by all means a diverse population) has an unfortunate habit of not being able or willing to differentiate its good members from its bad
It doesn't help that they actively protect people who are clearly lying to the police and other communities about the criminal elements in their community. Again, if BLM took only the men who were clearly killed wrongly by police and not the ones where police were cleared using justified force, they'd be taken a lot more seriously, even if the number is smaller. A small list of hoaxes, some of which are perpetrated by the communities themselves. All from a journalist who singles out black crime and black mob violence in all areas of life will be shown in the vids below. Known crack dealer in the community who's been violent in the past? Why'd they have to shoot him?!
So it's not only not being able to or willing to differentiate, sometimes it's active participation in ignoring the recent criminal past of an individual. Ben Shapiro put it very well in this video. Until people see a large % of the black community call out these types of clear obfuscations it will never gain true traction. It will never see a MLK movement. + Show Spoiler +
People lie about criminal activity in their community because the police will not be able to protect them from the criminals that live in their community. And the police do not always act in the best interest of the person reporting the crime. And in some cases, the police are corrupt.
But really, talking about police and black communities nationwide is just pointless generalization. The Boston Police are very different from the LA police in both history and their current relationships with the citizens they work for.
In the situation of a policeman shooting someone who is assaulting him/her, I think you would be hard-pressed to convince any reasonable portion of the population that the officer was in the wrong and the assaulter was justified in his/her actions. There may be reasons why they do it, there may be genuine grievances with the police, but if assaulted the police are justified in using deadly force. I'd like to see someone argue otherwise.
On June 01 2016 02:11 LegalLord wrote: In the situation of a policeman shooting someone who is assaulting him/her, I think you would be hard-pressed to convince any reasonable portion of the population that the officer was in the wrong and the assaulter was justified in his/her actions. There may be reasons why they do it, there may be genuine grievances with the police, but if assaulted the police are justified in using deadly force. I'd like to see someone argue otherwise.
The rest of the western world where police shooting do not enter double digits in a year would probably disagree.
The rest of the western world has a much smaller population and thus much smaller communities. I'm not sure how many black cities you have in the Netherlands. The only slightly comparable example is Brazil because of population size and diversity. Without even touching upon systems of governance and social fabrics. Except in Brazil they kill hundreds in Rio alone. So 320,000,000 getting into double digits, perhaps half of which are justified so 13 or so non-justified shootings on a population of 37,685,000 blacks vs a population of 6.32 million in Rio where hundreds are killed.
I think the police forces in the USA are constantly getting better. And while scrutiny on those police forces is overall a good thing and helps to stem corruption, I think relatively being a police officer in the Netherlands is 100x easier than being a police officer in many diverse cities in America.
On June 01 2016 02:11 LegalLord wrote: In the situation of a policeman shooting someone who is assaulting him/her, I think you would be hard-pressed to convince any reasonable portion of the population that the officer was in the wrong and the assaulter was justified in his/her actions. There may be reasons why they do it, there may be genuine grievances with the police, but if assaulted the police are justified in using deadly force. I'd like to see someone argue otherwise.
The rest of the western world where police shooting do not enter double digits in a year would probably disagree.
How so? Do police in other countries not shoot criminals when assaulted? Is this just a strawman that tries to say "US sux and everything about it is bad cuz crime statistics" without giving any depth to that argument?
On May 31 2016 09:57 kwizach wrote: [quote] Actually, when it comes to tax transparency, Clinton is the transparent candidate and Sanders isn't. As David Cay Johnston argues here, Sanders is helping the future candidates who will want to keep their tax returns secret. He's doing a disservice to existing standards of transparency.
If Brock isn't paying you, he should be.
This right here is exactly why the Sander's movement will collapse into nothing. Every argument, even from Bernie, rapidly devolves into ad hominem accusations of corruption. Even my Bernie friends on Facebook do it. You go straight to personal insults even when dealing with other Liberals. How do you think that will go over with Conservatives? Conservatives and Liberals can have real political convictions without being in the thrall of Wall Street or some other imaginary Bernie boogieman.
EDIT: prediction: when Bernie gets voted down by the delegates and his campaign loses finally, all Bernie will have left are his accusations that everyone who beat him is Corrupt. He is a small man who belittles anyone who disagrees with him as being Corrupted by Wall Street or the Establishment. He will flame out with nothing left but the recriminations.
That's not even a comment on corruption, that's a comment on Kwiz doing what Brock is paying people to do (his version, not the internet's interpretation). It's actually a compliment, though I understand the confusion.
If you're going to go for ad hominems, at least own up to them instead of pretending you're not trying to be insulting. The irony of you making that comment is quite remarkable, though.
On May 31 2016 11:05 GreenHorizons wrote:
On May 31 2016 10:42 kwizach wrote:
On May 31 2016 10:16 GreenHorizons wrote:
On May 31 2016 09:57 kwizach wrote: [quote] Actually, when it comes to tax transparency, Clinton is the transparent candidate and Sanders isn't. As David Cay Johnston argues here, Sanders is helping the future candidates who will want to keep their tax returns secret. He's doing a disservice to existing standards of transparency.
If Brock isn't paying you, he should be.
What's interesting now, is because it's leveraged against Hillary's transcripts, she has control over both the "existing standard of transparency" and future standards.
If Hillary want's to keep her transcripts private and her supporters are willing to defend her on it, there will now be a precedent for candidates/spouses to collect millions of dollars for "speaking" to big money donors and then turn around and say that there's no reason the American public should want to know what they said in at those private speeches they got paid millions of dollars to give.
At best the "standard" is one more year. I wish Bernie would release them just to kill the talking point altogether, since Hillary isn't releasing what she said for the money (which is the part people want to know) no matter what, and they are just going to come out in the general anyway.
But alas, Bernie doesn't have the "wingin' it" skills Trump has employed in creating a new campaign rule book, nor does he have quite the widespread brooding contempt with the party to work with. Too bad lifespans aren't a bit longer so his age wasn't such an issue, because in 4-8 years America is finally going to be ready for him.
Ah, the usual deflection. Releasing speech transcripts like these is not something that has ever been expected of any presidential candidate. Releasing one's tax returns is the standard, and it's a very important standard, which is why there was so much pressure on Romney to release his in the 2012 election.
But sure, keep pretending that David Cay Johnston is a "paid shill" as well. The fact is that by refusing to release his tax returns, and by lying about doing so, Sanders is undermining an important standard in presidential politics, and it's a standard that should be absolutely fundamental to anyone who thinks the role of money in politics is an important issue. To quote the article by DCJ I linked to:
In comments to Wolf Blitzer on CNN midday Tuesday, Jane Sanders revealed that she and her husband either lack an understanding of the historic reasons it is crucial that presidential candidates release many years of complete tax returns, that they lack a broad regard for integrity in government, or that they have something to hide.
The latter concern grows from Jane Sanders’ own conduct. First, she falsely asserted that the couple had repeatedly released tax returns, an assertion with no basis in fact as my April 13 National Memo column showed. Then there was her role as the president of a small, financially struggling nonprofit college, where she reportedly funneled $500,000 to her daughter and may have made false statements on bank loan papers.
But even if the Sanders tax returns are clean as a whistle, we should care about the Sanders tax returns. [...] We should care because we want every single person running for president to make public their complete tax returns – including schedules, statements and worksheets – for many years so that we do not ever again have an unindicted felon in the White House or an admitted tax cheat just a heartbeat away.
If a white hat politician like Sanders will not follow a tradition dating to the corrupt, tax-cheating presidency of Richard Nixon and his first vice president, Spiro Agnew, it gives aid and comfort to those who want to hide their black hat conduct. [...]
Plenty of people who want to exercise power over us from 1600 Pennsylvania Avenue will want to keep their tax returns out of public record now and for as long as the United States of America endures. Many of them who have something to hide will cite Sanders as their model. [...]
There is simply no excuse for Sanders not to release his tax returns. That's what's expected of presidential candidates.
I find the balancing between "it's just what's expected" and "it wasn't illegal" fascinating. Nothing illegal about not releasing one's returns, if "not illegal" is the standard for national security emails, I think people aren't going to buy into the whole not releasing one's returns is disqualifying/some devastating action.
...and again with the deflection. Like I said, there is simply no excuse for Sanders not to release his tax returns, and that has nothing to do with Hillary's e-mails. It's absolutely not illegal for him not to release his returns, but that's utterly irrelevant. It wouldn't have been illegal for Romney not to release his returns, but it's nevertheless a standard that is extremely important to uphold.
This is quite literally what I meant.
Correct the Record will work in support of Hillary Clinton’s candidacy for president, aggressively responding to false attacks and misstatements of the secretary’s exemplary record
I know that is what you meant. Which is why I said: "If you're going to go for ad hominems, at least own up to them instead of pretending you're not trying to be insulting. The irony of you making that comment is quite remarkable, though". You didn't mean it as a compliment at all and you know it.
On May 31 2016 11:29 GreenHorizons wrote: You want him to release more of his tax returns, there's no clear precedent for how many years. I agree that he should release another year to stop the line of attack (and keep the tradition). What I should expect Hillary supporters to agree on is that she shouldn't set a precedent for Trump (or someone like him) to go collect millions in speeches and then not even say what was in them if they run in 2020.
Easy -- match Hillary and make his tax returns dating back at least two decades publicly available. Two years' worth of returns is what Romney and McCain released, which is pretty pathetic and which was already well below the existing standard: before McCain, no major party nominee had released less than five years’ worth of tax returns in the last thirty years. Speeches are a completely different matter, regardless of how badly you want to make a false equivalence, since there is no precedent whatsoever for releasing transcripts of such speeches. The precedent would be requiring someone to release them, not the opposite. I don't get why Sanders is being so dodgy with regards to his returns, honestly. It's pretty sad to see him lie about it and oppose transparency.
I wouldn't be shy to own it if that's how I meant it. I genuinely meant you are on point when it comes to putting out the counter information for every point being raised by Sanders and his supporters. I obviously don't agree with a lot of it but you are doing what he said he is paying people for better than wherever those people are. Learn how to take a compliment
Stop insulting everyone's intelligence by pretending that you meant something positive by implying I might be paid (and saying I should be if I wasn't) by David Brock, whom you despise.
On May 31 2016 17:26 GreenHorizons wrote: As for the second part, he's not the nominee though. The precedent for a challenger (particularly to a presumed nominee) is much more speckled. There's no reason for two decades worth, and I wouldn't expect most people to even have that handy.
You don't need to "have that handy", all you need to do is make a request for them. That's why the Sanders' repeated excuses of not having enough time to release them because of being busy with the campaign was bogus. Challenger or not, Sanders is already asking for people's votes to become the next president. It's inexcusable for him to still be dodging what has become a standard for three decades. Again, go read David Cay Johnston's columns on the topic. He's undermining an established transparency standard, which makes him quite hypocritical on the subject of transparency and money in politics.
Brock's a despicable person I wouldn't want my president to be associated with, but I got no beef with a guy making a living (in this case you) getting payed to say things you believe.
Just stop. You know you weren't associating me with David Brock and pretending I was being paid to defend Hillary as a compliment, I know it, everyone knows it. Drop it.
On May 31 2016 22:10 Godwrath wrote: Pretty sure it wasn't a clinton vs trump until kwizach started to make it so with whataboutism when asked about Hillary, but anyways, most people don't call Trump crooked because they call him a crazy nutjob and a unqualified piece of shit.
Uh, no, people were comparing Trump and Clinton before I intervened. I replied to Kwark who was comparing the Republican candidates, who were according to him not even "slightly electable", to "the likes of Hillary" (better but not great). I responded to that by defending Hillary, and later on by pointing out that the e-mail scandal brought up by someone else was utterly unimportant compared what Trump embodies.
On May 31 2016 22:21 farvacola wrote: Besides, the extent to which Clinton's email practices actually put national security at risk has yet to be substantiated by anyone outside the conservative hit-piece squad.
This isn't the type of information that I would expect to see the light of day. The impact of security breaches concerning intelligence matters and espionage aren't the type of dirty laundry that countries air publicly.
So Hillary is crooked based on information you don't have or I misunderstand?
- "No valid info that Clinton put national security at risk" - "Yes but we don't know everything therefore she has to have done it"
Cool logic bro.
And let's not forget about her decades of history in public life that have been plagued by one kind of scandal or another. Yeah, let's just ignore the facts and chalk up the popular perception that Hillary is a liar to the vast right wing conspiracy. It certainly has nothing to do with her own conduct (or that of her husband)....
Hillary has earned her reputation. And the lengths to which y'all go out of your way to ignore her history is nothing short of hysterical.
She has decades of history of being attacked by Republicans over ridiculous conspiracy theories and accusations without merit, like being behind the death of Vince Foster, the whole "Travelgate" and "Filegate" non-issues, Huma Abedin having ties to the Muslim Brotherhood, etc. etc. You're the one ignoring the facts, and unsurprisingly repeating decades of GOP propaganda and smears.
On June 01 2016 01:18 KwarK wrote: The reason I wouldn't fight back against a police officer who violated my constitutional rights is because I'm a rich, educated white guy who has sufficient faith in the system working, or at least working for the likes of me, that I would fight back with the tools within the system. But I understand that my experience of the world is not universal and while I can disagree with the choices of others I hesitate to fall into the "why don't the poor just buy more money?" chasm.
I think people expect that it doesn't matter what your experience in the world is. It's that if an officer stops you and questions you, you simply obey and answer the questions. If you haven't done anything wrong, there is literally nothing they can do to stop you short of drumming up false charges. Which probably isn't worth it for most police officers. Not saying it doesn't, hasn't, or will not happen. But I think if any person who has nothing illegal on them simply complies with "yes sirs" "no sirs" will almost always be fine and get off regardless of race.
Now I have basically zero chance of ever seeing the inside of one of those due to the way I talk, the way I dress and the colour of my skin. Even if I became a drug dealer they'd still know that taking me there would only hurt their chances of securing a conviction. But a black kid who spent most of the time he was meant to be in high school on the streets, had a friend who had his ass beat by cops and is mad about it and then mouths off to the wrong officer at a stop and frisk? He's getting a trip there. And when he reappears a few days later without being charged (because he hadn't dunnuffin) and tells his friends about what happened they too will learn to resent, hate and fear the police as a mob with a license to extort and abuse them.
Police abuse happens. The innocent have an awful lot to fear from people who say things like "the innocent have nothing to fear". The police must be held to a higher standard than the people they swore to respect and parts of the BLM movement (I hesitate to endorse all of it because you'll link a youtube video of an idiot with a megaphone saying "kill all whites" or something) exist purely as a reaction to the sustained failure to meet that standard. Going "keep quiet, be good meek citizens and wait for white people to notice this problem and fix it" isn't going to cut it and when good police officers fail to testify against the bad, when the courts fail to convict guilty police officers and when police departments cover up abuses it's easy to see why disillusionment with the system builds.
Hell, watch this.
Sure, he ran from the police and I by no means advocate doing that. But he also surrendered, showed that his hands were empty and then lay face down, arms and legs spread on the ground. And then four of them beat the shit out of him while a fifth watched. As they beat him they yelled "stop resisting" mockingly. All five of the officers filed false reports affirming that the suspect resisted arrest and that the use of force was necessary. One of them was an award winning officer who had been previously commended on his community service.
Four of the officers were allowed to resign after they were made aware of a video of the incident. A fifth refused to admit any wrongdoing and insists it was justified and is currently facing charges.
On June 01 2016 02:11 LegalLord wrote: In the situation of a policeman shooting someone who is assaulting him/her, I think you would be hard-pressed to convince any reasonable portion of the population that the officer was in the wrong and the assaulter was justified in his/her actions. There may be reasons why they do it, there may be genuine grievances with the police, but if assaulted the police are justified in using deadly force. I'd like to see someone argue otherwise.
The rest of the western world where police shooting do not enter double digits in a year would probably disagree.
There might be some confounding factor like the fact that the US has gun homicide rates ten to forty times higher than those countries to begin with.
I am fine with police using lethal force as long as it is reported, documents and put out for public review every single time it happens. I don’t need overwhelming details or for it to be online, but that information should available to the public upon request.
Currently there push back by many police departments across the country to simply report when they use lethal force. People have been beating the drum in Florida, who straight up doesn’t even track the use of force by their police.
And people like to shake their finger at the “black community” for supporting less than awesome people. But police departments and police unions are guilty of the same problem. Backing shitty cops who clearly fucked up or did things they were not supposed to do, simply out of self preservation.
Edit: Chicago never ceases to amaze me with the bullshit their local goverment pulls.
On June 01 2016 02:11 LegalLord wrote: In the situation of a policeman shooting someone who is assaulting him/her, I think you would be hard-pressed to convince any reasonable portion of the population that the officer was in the wrong and the assaulter was justified in his/her actions. There may be reasons why they do it, there may be genuine grievances with the police, but if assaulted the police are justified in using deadly force. I'd like to see someone argue otherwise.
The rest of the western world where police shooting do not enter double digits in a year would probably disagree.
There might be some confounding factor like the fact that the US has gun homicide rates ten to forty times higher than those countries to begin with.
Still, I feel like the police in the US have more of a warzone mentality even before you consider the guns. It's them against the public, and it shouldn't be.
Looks like David Brock got to Governor Brown. Governor Brown will be able to retire comfortably on his upcoming Goldman Sachs speeches.
"The stakes couldn’t be higher. Our country faces an existential threat from climate change and the spread of nuclear weapons. A new cold war is on the horizon. This is no time for Democrats to keep fighting each other. The general election has already begun. Hillary Clinton, with her long experience, especially as Secretary of State, has a firm grasp of the issues and will be prepared to lead our country on day one."
On June 01 2016 02:11 LegalLord wrote: In the situation of a policeman shooting someone who is assaulting him/her, I think you would be hard-pressed to convince any reasonable portion of the population that the officer was in the wrong and the assaulter was justified in his/her actions. There may be reasons why they do it, there may be genuine grievances with the police, but if assaulted the police are justified in using deadly force. I'd like to see someone argue otherwise.
The rest of the western world where police shooting do not enter double digits in a year would probably disagree.
How so? Do police in other countries not shoot criminals when assaulted? Is this just a strawman that tries to say "US sux and everything about it is bad cuz crime statistics" without giving any depth to that argument?
I'd like you to elaborate.
Apparently the police in the rest of the western world shoot a lot less people (I don't think anyone is arguing against this, right?).
This can only lead to two conclusions. Either policemen are attacked a lot less in the rest of the world, or they react with less deadly force if they are (It is also possible that the police shoot more people when not attacked, but i find this to be rather unlikely). The answer is probably a combination of the two factors mentioned above.
I am going to take a look at some statistics now, but i am not sure how comparable they actually are, as i am not quite certain what actually classifies as "officers were assaulted" (49,851 cases in the US in 2013 according to the FBI. These are not only FBI agents, but all law enforcement officers combined. Or if that is the same things as "Cops that are victims of violence" (11795 in Germany in 2013 according to this source (Focus, based on data from the police union, sadly in German).
Assuming this data is reasonable, this leads to roughly 16 cases per 100000 citizens in the US, and 14/100000 in Germany, so roughly equal numbers here. So the police in the US do kill a lot more citizens as a reaction to a roughly equal number of attacks on them when compared to Germany. It might be the case that the attacks on officers are more dangerous in the US, or that they are perceived to be more dangerous. A suspicious person might come to the conclusion that that might have something to do with an overabundance of guns, but that is surely not the case, since guns only protect people. Another explanation could be that the police in the US are less well trained in deescalation methods and non-lethal ways of resolving such a situation.
The fact still stands, the US police shoots a lot more people than other western nations police forces.
On June 01 2016 02:36 CannonsNCarriers wrote: Looks like David Brock got to Governor Brown. Governor Brown will be able to retire comfortably on his upcoming Goldman Sachs speeches.
"The stakes couldn’t be higher. Our country faces an existential threat from climate change and the spread of nuclear weapons. A new cold war is on the horizon. This is no time for Democrats to keep fighting each other. The general election has already begun. Hillary Clinton, with her long experience, especially as Secretary of State, has a firm grasp of the issues and will be prepared to lead our country on day one."
On June 01 2016 02:36 CannonsNCarriers wrote: Looks like David Brock got to Governor Brown. Governor Brown will be able to retire comfortably on his upcoming Goldman Sachs speeches.
"The stakes couldn’t be higher. Our country faces an existential threat from climate change and the spread of nuclear weapons. A new cold war is on the horizon. This is no time for Democrats to keep fighting each other. The general election has already begun. Hillary Clinton, with her long experience, especially as Secretary of State, has a firm grasp of the issues and will be prepared to lead our country on day one."
Jerry Brown ran an insurgent liberal campaign against a Clinton back in '92 with individual donations capped at $200. He started running on campaign finance reform, but managed to expand his platform as the primary went on. I've been reading about it, it's quite interesting.
On June 01 2016 02:11 LegalLord wrote: In the situation of a policeman shooting someone who is assaulting him/her, I think you would be hard-pressed to convince any reasonable portion of the population that the officer was in the wrong and the assaulter was justified in his/her actions. There may be reasons why they do it, there may be genuine grievances with the police, but if assaulted the police are justified in using deadly force. I'd like to see someone argue otherwise.
The rest of the western world where police shooting do not enter double digits in a year would probably disagree.
How so? Do police in other countries not shoot criminals when assaulted? Is this just a strawman that tries to say "US sux and everything about it is bad cuz crime statistics" without giving any depth to that argument?
I'd like you to elaborate.
Do police in other countries shoot less when assaulted? Ehm is this an actual question, have we not had pages upon pages of these discussion every month when another police shooting takes place?
Yes, they shoot less.
There is no strawman in "US police shoot a disproportionate amount of people compared to any other first world country". Its statistical fact.
Heck we don't even know just how bad police shootings are in the US because for some unfathomable reason police departments are not required to report shootings...
On June 01 2016 02:36 CannonsNCarriers wrote: Looks like David Brock got to Governor Brown. Governor Brown will be able to retire comfortably on his upcoming Goldman Sachs speeches.
"The stakes couldn’t be higher. Our country faces an existential threat from climate change and the spread of nuclear weapons. A new cold war is on the horizon. This is no time for Democrats to keep fighting each other. The general election has already begun. Hillary Clinton, with her long experience, especially as Secretary of State, has a firm grasp of the issues and will be prepared to lead our country on day one."
A major political figure endorses Clinton? Sanders fans are now more confident in their decision on Bernie.
Plainly, this is proof that Bernie is winning in California. The Establishment is rallying around their soon-to-be-indicted candidate. The good soldiers of https://www.reddit.com/r/SandersForPresident/ have suppressed this news and kept it off the front page, thereby preventing Corrupt messaging of the Establishment from tainting turnout.
On June 01 2016 02:36 CannonsNCarriers wrote: Looks like David Brock got to Governor Brown. Governor Brown will be able to retire comfortably on his upcoming Goldman Sachs speeches.
"The stakes couldn’t be higher. Our country faces an existential threat from climate change and the spread of nuclear weapons. A new cold war is on the horizon. This is no time for Democrats to keep fighting each other. The general election has already begun. Hillary Clinton, with her long experience, especially as Secretary of State, has a firm grasp of the issues and will be prepared to lead our country on day one."
A major political figure endorses Clinton? Sanders fans are now more confident in their decision on Bernie.
Plainly, this is proof that Bernie is winning in California. The Establishment is rallying around their soon-to-be-indicted candidate. The good soldiers of https://www.reddit.com/r/SandersForPresident/ have suppressed this news and kept it off the front page, thereby preventing Corrupt messaging of the Establishment from tainting turnout.
For what it's worth, the newly registered democrat numbers are pretty scary from a Clinton vs Sanders perspective. I won't be surprised if he ends up winning by a bit. This is his final stand and his only chance to create an *actual* legacy. If he loses California, he loses so much leverage that everything he gains will mostly be symbolic. Winning California proves he is someone who the democratic party should care about.
On June 01 2016 02:11 LegalLord wrote: In the situation of a policeman shooting someone who is assaulting him/her, I think you would be hard-pressed to convince any reasonable portion of the population that the officer was in the wrong and the assaulter was justified in his/her actions. There may be reasons why they do it, there may be genuine grievances with the police, but if assaulted the police are justified in using deadly force. I'd like to see someone argue otherwise.
The rest of the western world where police shooting do not enter double digits in a year would probably disagree.
There might be some confounding factor like the fact that the US has gun homicide rates ten to forty times higher than those countries to begin with.
Still, I feel like the police in the US have more of a warzone mentality even before you consider the guns. It's them against the public, and it shouldn't be.
I mean it's like a one-size-fits-all problem, right? The US has some serious crime and gang problems, and I'd want tough guys and SWAT teams and undercovers. But I also want them to be smart enough not to do shit like tackle college students and send the SWAT team into the house of a guy with a prescription and murder people. Maybe I'm splitting hairs but I what I really want is for them to be more judicious. Not that the militarization is bad per se, but it being misdirected is.
EPT
