|
Now that we have a new thread, 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 complete and thorough read before posting! NOTE: When providing a source, please provide a very brief summary on what it's about and what purpose it adds to the discussion. The supporting statement should clearly explain why the subject is relevant and needs to be discussed. Please follow this rule especially for tweets.
Your supporting statement should always come BEFORE you provide the source.If you have any questions, comments, concern, or feedback regarding the USPMT, then please use this thread: http://www.teamliquid.net/forum/website-feedback/510156-us-politics-thread |
On June 02 2018 02:05 Dangermousecatdog wrote:
I read the article. The guy got killed over a noise complaint. A policeman comes over to investigate, which is reasonable, up till the point he started shooting through a closing or closed garage door. I don't even understand.
It's simple:
Newman was placed in a very difficult situation and like so many fellow law enforcement officers must do every day, he made the best decision he could for the safety of his partner, himself and the public given the circumstances he faced
He had to decide, do I strafe this man with 4 bullets in 1.2seconds or do I settle this loud music issue by talking to him. It was a difficult situation and he made the best decision. /s
I wonder how the mom who called in the complaint feels
|
On June 02 2018 02:02 plasmidghost wrote:
Realistically, what can Congress do to stop Trump form arbitrarily imposing tariffs on things?
pass laws to change what the president is allowed to do unilaterally. trump's unilateral tariffs are based off of prior congressional legislation authorizing presidents to do that were passed a long time ago. congress could rewrite those laws if it wanted. with a 2/3 vote in both chambers they could override any trump veto.
|
On June 02 2018 02:18 FueledUpAndReadyToGo wrote:
I wonder how the mom who called in the complaint feels
According to the Sacramento Bee, Dave Reiling was watching TV in his trailer when he heard the crash of glass breaking. As he looked outside, he saw that two of his trucks’ windows were broken and a man in a hoodie was nearby. And so he called 911 to report the incident.
What happened after is well-known and well-documented.
“It worries me to call 911 because you may get another cop out here and shoot somebody else. They got to get more training in,” Reiling told the Bee.
“It makes me never want to call 911 again,” he added. “They shot an innocent person.”
Source
From another story. I legit feel bad for this guy, because what he did wasn't unreasonable. If someone is outside breaking car windows, me from 10 years ago would have called the cops too. Today I would just say "Nah, we all got insurance. No one needs to get shot over this stupid shit."
|
On June 02 2018 02:18 FueledUpAndReadyToGo wrote:Show nested quote +On June 02 2018 02:05 Dangermousecatdog wrote:
I read the article. The guy got killed over a noise complaint. A policeman comes over to investigate, which is reasonable, up till the point he started shooting through a closing or closed garage door. I don't even understand. It's simple: Show nested quote +Newman was placed in a very difficult situation and like so many fellow law enforcement officers must do every day, he made the best decision he could for the safety of his partner, himself and the public given the circumstances he faced He had to decide, do I strafe this man with 4 bullets in 1.2seconds or do I settle this loud music issue by talking to him. It was a difficult situation and he made the best decision. /s I wonder how the mom who called in the complaint feels
I wonder how his oldest daughter feels. According to the article, she saw the officer shoot from a bench across the street. She also testified that he didn't have a gun in his hands.
|
On June 02 2018 02:23 zlefin wrote:Show nested quote +On June 02 2018 02:02 plasmidghost wrote:
Realistically, what can Congress do to stop Trump form arbitrarily imposing tariffs on things? pass laws to change what the president is allowed to do unilaterally. trump's unilateral tariffs are based off of prior congressional legislation authorizing presidents to do that were passed a long time ago. congress could rewrite those laws if it wanted. with a 2/3 vote in both chambers they could override any trump veto.
Bingo.
Not that it’s realistic (very often if it involves Congressional action, the answer is No), but that it’s the only action Congress can take.
|
On June 01 2018 23:39 a_flayer wrote:Show nested quote +On June 01 2018 17:23 iamthedave wrote:On June 01 2018 05:31 Mohdoo wrote:
It is extremely important that North America and Europe don't blink and have absolute resolve. Allowing Trump to win a game of chicken will empower him politically and allow him to drastically increase this behavior. This needs to be strongly punished and NA/EU need to be willing to bleed for this. Protectionism needs to be shut down immediately. Don't worry, dude. If there's one thing we Europeans can do, it's be stubborn and win trade wars. We're veterans at it. Not to mention the US's political structure is very easy to 'sanction snipe'. Can't do that with us. Uhm... yeah, sorry, what? "We Europeans?" What are you talking about, Islander?
I'M IN DENIAL, LET ME HAVE THIS
|
On June 02 2018 00:22 Plansix wrote:
And how we will be forced to buy electricity from coal plants to assure the industry doesn’t go out of business. This is cronyism at its finest, using Cold War era laws to justify proping up political allies. And hurting other industries that are in the same market.
This sounds to me like TEH EVUL GOVUNMENT interfering in state activities to me. Very non-Republican.
As to the other topic in the last couple of pages... I wish it was an anomaly?
I imagine the jurors genuinely didn't think the officer was responsible. People operate on the principle - seemingly - that if an officer fires his gun, he clearly had a good reason to do so. Otherwise he wouldn't have done it. Right? RIGHT?
But I can't think of many more obvious examples of an absolute mockery of the idea of 'justice' then this one. I'll just echo sentiments; 1 dollar each (before being reduced to nothing) for the pain and suffering of having their father killed in their own home, and said home then destroyed by tear gas, is so far past heartless and cruel that I have to think at some point they were actively seeking to punish the family for taking the matter to court. Unless it's all some bizarre legal technicality that I simply am in no position to be aware of.
On the other hand... surely they'll find traction on appeal? I mean... the simple facts of the case are so crazy that I can't see how an appeal could fail. Especially with the funeral costs being so high.
On June 02 2018 01:44 On_Slaught wrote:Show nested quote +On June 01 2018 23:58 NovaTheFeared wrote:
I believe the damages were $1 each and the liability was 99/1 therefore they receive $.01 each. Because he was drunk its kicked from 4cents to 0. The numbers served only to insult and degrade the family. Jury should be ashamed. Isn't this kinda how Killmonger got created? Feel terrible for the kids.
Nope, that was black-on-black violence. But it is the kind of thing that fills him with RAEG and made him decide to try and kill the world with Wakanda's weapons.
You know, I actually feel more terrible for the mother. How is she supposed to guide her children through this? How is she supposed to help them make sense of it all? And she's old enough to feel the pain of the whole thing, the insulting settlement, the judicial cruelty, all of it.
Awful, awful thing to do to a fellow human. Everyone involved in the judiciary around there should be ashamed, from the judge on downward.
Though as a slight query: why is his being drunk so important? Is him being drunk supposed to make it easier for her to bear him being dead? Or does being drunk make it more his fault that he got shot?
On June 02 2018 02:36 Howie_Dewitt wrote:Show nested quote +On June 02 2018 02:18 FueledUpAndReadyToGo wrote:On June 02 2018 02:05 Dangermousecatdog wrote:
I read the article. The guy got killed over a noise complaint. A policeman comes over to investigate, which is reasonable, up till the point he started shooting through a closing or closed garage door. I don't even understand. It's simple: Newman was placed in a very difficult situation and like so many fellow law enforcement officers must do every day, he made the best decision he could for the safety of his partner, himself and the public given the circumstances he faced He had to decide, do I strafe this man with 4 bullets in 1.2seconds or do I settle this loud music issue by talking to him. It was a difficult situation and he made the best decision. /s I wonder how the mom who called in the complaint feels I wonder how his oldest daughter feels. According to the article, she saw the officer shoot from a bench across the street. She also testified that he didn't have a gun in his hands.
Side note: Unadvertised benefit of increased gun control!
No more cops getting to simply shout 'GUN!' and then murder people and get away with it, because they saw a black person with a gun they legally purchased and weren't using in a threatening manner.
Winner winner, chicken dinner, as they say around here.
|
His tariffs are bad trade policy and will hurt America. But the part of the coalition that elected him that I disagree with wants this and needs a second example of trade protectionism not working. Smoot hawley lessons from a few generations removed, if you will. Best thing that comes out of this in a couple years is the political will to take tariffs out of the hands of a single person at the head of the executive.
|
On June 02 2018 02:51 Danglars wrote:Show nested quote +On June 02 2018 02:23 zlefin wrote:On June 02 2018 02:02 plasmidghost wrote:
Realistically, what can Congress do to stop Trump form arbitrarily imposing tariffs on things? pass laws to change what the president is allowed to do unilaterally. trump's unilateral tariffs are based off of prior congressional legislation authorizing presidents to do that were passed a long time ago. congress could rewrite those laws if it wanted. with a 2/3 vote in both chambers they could override any trump veto. Bingo. Not that it’s realistic (very often if it involves Congressional action, the answer is No), but that it’s the only action Congress can take.
Thanks for the replies. I doubt this current Republican party is going to stand up to Trump with elections just around the corner
|
https://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/2018/06/report-department-of-energy-recommends-bail-out-of-failing-coal-plants/
This afternoon White House Secretary Sarah Sanders said that President Trump told Energy Secretary Rick Perry to "prepare immediate steps" to prevent coal plants from early closure.
...
The memo suggests that the Energy Department could force grid operators to buy power or electric generation capacity from a list of pre-determined power plants for two years, “to forestall any future actions toward retirement, decommissioning or deactivation.”
Fun stuff.
Trump is literally forcing operators to use coal.
Great for the miners. Bad for anyone wanting to improve the grid in meaningful ways.
Literally nothing but bad decisions coming out of the white house in the last few days.
|
NK June 12 meeting is apparently back on. For some reason Pompeo keeps talking about denuclearization and how NK is up for it. Does anyone really believe this is even a remote possibility? I can see no situation where they denuclearize which means nothing good will come from these talks. However if Trumps ego is hurt, plenty bad could come from them.
|
United States43598 Posts
On June 01 2018 22:15 Plansix wrote:
None of our allies are happy being labeled national security risks. Like super pissed.
Protecting domestic industry really is a national security issue though. The US isn't at war right now but there is a national security need to retain the industrial capacity to fight a major war.
|
On June 02 2018 04:29 KwarK wrote:Show nested quote +On June 01 2018 22:15 Plansix wrote:
None of our allies are happy being labeled national security risks. Like super pissed. Protecting domestic industry really is a national security issue though. The US isn't at war right now but there is a national security need to retain the industrial capacity to fight a major war.
the steel that is being hit by those tariffs isn't and wouldn't be used for tanks or other stuff though. It's consumer grade steel we're talking about.
The kind of steel you need to build tanks is not being targeted because the US specializes in that field and thus doesn't need to import it.
|
United States43598 Posts
On June 02 2018 02:11 Plansix wrote:
The police report sounds like some hot bullshit, but I don't think there were any other witnesses. If that is the case, I understand why the DA wouldn't have charged the cop. The cop's account of the events would be hard to challenged without physical evidence the cop screwed up or a witness to challenge the cop's version of the events.
This creates a pretty messed up incentive.
mod edit: image macro removed due to forum guidelines.
|
On June 02 2018 04:39 KwarK wrote:Show nested quote +On June 02 2018 02:11 Plansix wrote:
The police report sounds like some hot bullshit, but I don't think there were any other witnesses. If that is the case, I understand why the DA wouldn't have charged the cop. The cop's account of the events would be hard to challenged without physical evidence the cop screwed up or a witness to challenge the cop's version of the events. This creates a pretty messed up incentive. mod edit: image macro removed due to forum guidelines.
There is a reason that witness in organized crime cases ended up dead. But from a practical concern, they still need to prove the cop completely screwed up in a criminal court to get him convicted.
|
On June 02 2018 03:48 plasmidghost wrote:Show nested quote +On June 02 2018 02:51 Danglars wrote:On June 02 2018 02:23 zlefin wrote:On June 02 2018 02:02 plasmidghost wrote:
Realistically, what can Congress do to stop Trump form arbitrarily imposing tariffs on things? pass laws to change what the president is allowed to do unilaterally. trump's unilateral tariffs are based off of prior congressional legislation authorizing presidents to do that were passed a long time ago. congress could rewrite those laws if it wanted. with a 2/3 vote in both chambers they could override any trump veto. Bingo. Not that it’s realistic (very often if it involves Congressional action, the answer is No), but that it’s the only action Congress can take. Thanks for the replies. I doubt this current Republican party is going to stand up to Trump with elections just around the corner
it is indeed very doubtful; but not impossible. there's a lot of moneyed business interests involved who might prod republicans to act.
|
|
|
Leader decides not to be held hostage every 5 years by trade agreement.
|
On June 02 2018 04:46 Plansix wrote:Show nested quote +On June 02 2018 04:39 KwarK wrote:On June 02 2018 02:11 Plansix wrote:
The police report sounds like some hot bullshit, but I don't think there were any other witnesses. If that is the case, I understand why the DA wouldn't have charged the cop. The cop's account of the events would be hard to challenged without physical evidence the cop screwed up or a witness to challenge the cop's version of the events. This creates a pretty messed up incentive. mod edit: image macro removed due to forum guidelines. There is a reason that witness in organized crime cases ended up dead. But from a practical concern, they still need to prove the cop completely screwed up in a criminal court to get him convicted.
Reverse the burden of proof. I know you would need a law for that, and congress never does things, but still. That is a simple solution. Instead of people having to prove that a cop murdered someone each time they do, have the cop have to prove that killing a person was justified. And don't accept "I felt threatened" as reasonable prove.
Even further, do that every time a cop fires a bullet. If no one was hurt, you probably don't need a court case, but have cops justify each bullet they fire to some oversight agency. Make it really annoying paperwork, too.
But every time someone gets hurt do to police action, have a court case as a standard, in addition to some internal review. Once again, don't have the people who work with the cops in question involved in any way. You need an independent group that is not local to be the accuser in those cases, because anything else is utterly stupid.
|
On June 02 2018 06:10 Simberto wrote:Show nested quote +On June 02 2018 04:46 Plansix wrote:On June 02 2018 04:39 KwarK wrote:On June 02 2018 02:11 Plansix wrote:
The police report sounds like some hot bullshit, but I don't think there were any other witnesses. If that is the case, I understand why the DA wouldn't have charged the cop. The cop's account of the events would be hard to challenged without physical evidence the cop screwed up or a witness to challenge the cop's version of the events. This creates a pretty messed up incentive. + Show Spoiler + There is a reason that witness in organized crime cases ended up dead. But from a practical concern, they still need to prove the cop completely screwed up in a criminal court to get him convicted. Reverse the burden of proof. I know you would need a law for that, and congress never does things, but still. That is a simple solution. Instead of people having to prove that a cop murdered someone each time they do, have the cop have to prove that killing a person was justified. And don't accept "I felt threatened" as reasonable prove. Even further, do that every time a cop fires a bullet. If no one was hurt, you probably don't need a court case, but have cops justify each bullet they fire to some oversight agency. Make it really annoying paperwork, too. But every time someone gets hurt do to police action, have a court case as a standard, in addition to some internal review. Once again, don't have the people who work with the cops in question involved in any way. You need an independent group that is not local to be the accuser in those cases, because anything else is utterly stupid.
it'd have to be done as a state law (and thus done in each state). I don't think there's a general federal basis for such a law.
i'm pretty sure it's already the case that the cop has to prove the killing was justified; from a legal perspective it'd be an affirmative defense. the problem is that juries are simply very willing to believe the cop in suhc cases.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT![[image loading]](https://i.imgflip.com/2bfzbb.jpg)
