-
[QUOTE=worstblogever;4996987]That's the tour of duty for our military. That's a college education for any other degree. [B]Don't see as why that's too big of an ask for someone who we're trusting to be arbiters of the law, and be trained to know when and when not to use deadly force.[/B][/QUOTE]
It's not but too many cities have a police shortage.
Same with Hospitals with doctors and nurses.
Along with schools.
While a school can LEGALLY get a way with not having a full time teacher in a classroom, it's hard to do that in a city needing say 50 cops.
It's not too big to ask but how long as folks going to wait for a healthy police force?
Dallas has been BEGGING for recruits now going 7 years while being on police chief number 3.
-
Kelly barely managed to hold off Robert DiNicola in the 2018 elections, winning office with 51% of the vote.
And guess what? He’s still a bastard of a legislator:
[LIST][*]January 23rd, 2019: Rep. Kelly [URL="https://www.govtrack.us/congress/votes/116-2019/h49"]voted against HR 648[/URL], because he was gleefully enjoying the longest government shutdown in history. [*]February 28th, 2019: Mike Kelly [URL="https://www.govtrack.us/congress/votes/116-2019/h103"]votes against HR 1112[/URL], a bill which would have required universal background checks on all firearm purchases, and close the gun show loophole.[*]March 14th, 2019: Rep. Kelly [URL="https://www.govtrack.us/congress/votes/116-2019/h94"]votes against HJR 46[/URL], which sane members of Congress voted for to reject Donald Trump’s “national emergency” regarding the U.S. border and his attempts to reallocate funds for a border wall without Congressional approval.[*]April 4th, 2019: Mike Kelly is one of 158 Republicans who choose to [URL="https://www.govtrack.us/congress/votes/116-2019/h156"]vote against the re-authorization of the Violence Against Women Act[/URL], likely because they feel the 2nd Amendment remaining absolute is more important than preventing people with a history of domestic abuse from owning a firearm (which statistics show, makes them more likely to use those firearms against women in their lives). [*]May 17th, 2019: Kelly [URL="https://www.govtrack.us/congress/votes/116-2019/h217"]votes against The Equality Act[/URL], which would have prevented discrimination towards Americans based on their gender identity or sexual orientation.[*]June 4th, 2019: Rep. Kelly [URL="https://www.govtrack.us/congress/votes/116-2019/h240"]votes against the Dreamers Act[/URL], because he’s too xenophobic and partisan to care about immigration reform. [*]July 16th, 2019: Mike Kelly [URL="https://www.govtrack.us/congress/votes/116-2019/h482"]votes against a resolution to condemn Donald Trump for his racist statements that four people of color in Congress should “go back where they came from”[/URL]. [*]October 17th, 2019: Rep. Kelly is [URL="https://www.govtrack.us/congress/votes/116-2019/h560"]one of 60 Republicans who vote against HJ Res 77[/URL], which opposed Donald Trump’s disastrous decision to abandon Syrian Kurdish forces in Northeast Syria to the mercies of a Turkish invasion.[*]October 23rd, 2019: Kelly is [URL="https://www.dailykos.com/stories/2019/10/23/1894623/-Roll-discredits-here-are-the-Repubs-who-tried-to-barge-in-on-a-CLASSIFIED-hearing?utm_campaign=trending"]one of 41 Republicans who, while staring down the possibility of Donald Trump being impeached, stage a ridiculous publicity stunt in response by crashing a classified impeachment inquiry hearing for a “protest”[/URL].[*]December 18th, 2019: Rep. Kelly ignores his Congressional duty to hold a president who has been proven to commit high crimes and misdemeanors accountable and [URL="https://www.govtrack.us/congress/votes/116-2019/h695"]votes against the impeachment of Donald Trump[/URL]. [/LIST]
Mike Kelly’s seat was one of the top Democratic targets in 2020 to be flipped and further their majority advantage in the House. And he’s still in the middle of controversy. Because Mike Kelly still owns car dealerships… and [URL="https://www.wtae.com/article/pennsylvania-law-allows-sale-of-potentially-dangerous-recalled-vehicles/27274283"]has benefited from a law that allows him to sell models of cars that have been recalled by their manufacturers. And, over alll, the practice has resulted in 24 deaths around the country, including vehicles with defective airbags that kill passengers[/URL]. Mike Kelly’s own dealerships have sold 17 recalled vehicles, and thus far, and luckily, he hasn’t managed to sell anyone a death trap yet.
Yet.
What has caused far more deaths is Covid-19. And Mike Kelly tested positive in March, and during a couple weeks of debilitating infection, he managed to lose 30 pounds, but was lucky enough to never see symptoms any worse than congestion other than the weight loss. One would hope that this would motivate Kelly to make statements that would benefit the public interest and advise people to go along with “stay at home” orders.
Not so much. Mike Kelly mostly [URL="https://abcnews.go.com/Politics/pa-rep-mike-kelly-covid-19-survivor-disagrees/story?id=70754208"]likes to mention he was taking hydroxychloriquine as a treatment[/URL], and while he admits he can’t prove it helped him recover, he still seems to promote the dangerous drug that kills more people than it saves. Because this man is a moron who will put coal in the train engine that is Donald Trump’s stupidity whenever he can.
Just keep your fingers crossed that people in Pennsylvania’s 16th Congressional District don’t consider his illness a free pass to give him another two years in the House.
-
[QUOTE=Tami;4996957]It's not the 22nd he should be thinking about, it's the 25th and Article II, Section 4. There are more than one way to remove a bad president.[/QUOTE]
He's largely neutralized them because the people that can make the request of congress are almost universally a cluster either of sycophants, co-conspirators in his schemes, opportunistic vultures looking to take his place, or all of the above.
-
[QUOTE=worstblogever;4996987]That's the tour of duty for our military. That's a college education for any other degree. Don't see as why that's too big of an ask for someone who we're trusting to be arbiters of the law, and be trained to know when and when not to use deadly force.[/QUOTE]
There are 2 year enlistments cycles in the military, they there are when and to whom it is available is based on the need of the military. Most large metropolitan police departments require any one that is applying to have 60 hours college credit or a least 2 years of military service with an honorable discharge. You also have to pass a civil service exam and physical before you are admitted into an academy. Oddly enough it is not an issue of initial training but the continuing training that that is required after. This training is watered down-just show up to pass done just for compliance purposing, these are the programs that need to be addressed.
-
[QUOTE=worstblogever;4996987][B][U]That's the tour of duty for our military. That's a college education for any other degree[/U][/B]. Don't see as why that's too big of an ask for someone who we're trusting to be arbiters of the law, and be trained to know when and when not to use deadly force.[/QUOTE]
That's correct. However, the police are grossly underpaid, so there's no back end for the officer, thus the college example is not germane. The tour of duty for the services includes all the training, and the time they spend in unit, including paid leave, so the four year police training program is not an apples to apples comparison either.
I do wonder if something more akin to Army/Air Force Reserves would be feasible. Make a portion of the force part-time, so they are an integrated part of a local community rather than a continually segregated clique outside of it.
-
[QUOTE]President Rodrigo Duterte of the Philippines is expected to sign sweeping antiterrorism legislation that critics said would allow the authorities to classify government opponents as terrorists and detain people for critical social media posts[/QUOTE] [URL="https://twitter.com/nytimes/status/1268517884189388800?s=20"]Twitter Link[/URL]
-
[QUOTE=DrNewGod;4996999]He's largely neutralized them because the people that can make the request of congress are almost universally a cluster either of sycophants, co-conspirators in his schemes, opportunistic vultures looking to take his place, or all of the above.[/QUOTE]
Plus the 25th requires cabinet heads, and Trump is using as many 'acting' heads as he can. Part of me wonders is the 25th is part of the reason why. At the very least it would let him stretch things out with court challenges.
-
[QUOTE=jetengine;4996496]So to summarise
You think the police had their chance despite It being readily apparent they've bungled it horribly and you value property over lives. Since the current deaths are fairly minimal compared to the river of blood you'll get with the military, at which you've shrugged your shoulders.
Once again, wanting to kill your own citizens isnt a sign of patriotism.[/QUOTE]
There is the argument that the military would be better at handling the situation. [URL="https://twitter.com/DavidAFrench/status/1268421673201606656"]David French sums it up.[/URL]
[QUOTE]Soldiers are generally more-disciplined and more-restrained than cops.
Americans who aren't familiar with our modern military don't truly realize that the Guard (and the regular army, though I oppose invoking Insurrection Act) will likely be quite effective at 1) ending rioting while 2) protecting the right of peaceful protest.
This is partly because troops (who've often experienced time downrange or are led by men and women who've been downrange) are less-easily rattled and less likely to be fearful in the face of urban unrest. Looting in Chelsea is nothing compared to unrest in Anbar. Moreover, the chain of command is extremely focused on not destroying trust in the military for the sake of Trump's political id (see Gen. Milley's memo today). It took decades to build trust. They don't want to toss it away in a summer. [/QUOTE]
[QUOTE=MacrossPlus;4996900]What’s everyone’s thoughts on the theory of abolishing the police and replacing it with something else?[/QUOTE][URL="https://twitter.com/mightygodking/status/1267094255467737089"]I agree with MGK on this.[/URL]
[QUOTE]Possibly unpopular opinion right now: while I am totally on board with "fire all the police and just start over fresh" when I see someone say "we don't even NEED police" I just sorta side-eye them cynically like the entire point of the state as a concept is that there is collective agreement that the state is allowed to enforce law, and yeah the threat of violence/coercive behaviour is part of that ability to enforce because human beings sometimes need to be coerced!
"but we can replace the police with a new institution that doesn't hurt people needlessly" and I mean look you can call this new institution "Dave" but Dave is still gonna be the police, basically, because the function has to be more or less the same thing[/QUOTE]
-
[QUOTE=Mister Mets;4997026]There is the argument that the military would be better at handling the situation. [URL="https://twitter.com/DavidAFrench/status/1268421673201606656"]David French sums it up.[/URL]
[URL="https://twitter.com/mightygodking/status/1267094255467737089"]I agree with MGK on this.[/URL][/QUOTE]
Military seemingly got the job done in 92 during the LA riots, so maybe they actually can do a better job than the police are at the moment.
Still iffy about using the Insurrection act without consent, but in the least that article makes me feel better about the situation.
-
[QUOTE=skyvolt2000;4996995]It's not but too many cities have a police shortage.
Same with Hospitals with doctors and nurses.
[B]Along with schools.
While a school can LEGALLY get a way with not having a full time teacher in a classroom, it's hard to do that in a city needing say 50 cops.[/B]
It's not too big to ask but how long as folks going to wait for a healthy police force?
Dallas has been BEGGING for recruits now going 7 years while being on police chief number 3.[/QUOTE]
Not an apt comparison. Classrooms being overcrowded and shortages of teachers have been a problem for decades.
-
Journalists on twitter are pretty upset that the New York Times published an op-ed online by Senator Tom Cotton calling for military intervention in preventing riots, which is a position with widespread support.
[URL="https://twitter.com/conor64/status/1268350593610813441"]Connor Friedersdorf of the Atlantic considers the implications.
[/URL][QUOTE]"There is ascendant pressure on journalists to reify positions that are held by a minority of the public and a supermajority of journalists. If it succeeds it will not advance social justice. It will make journalistic institutions that value social justice less influential." [/QUOTE]
[URL="https://twitter.com/zackbeauchamp/status/1268585470579146752"]As another example Zack Beauchamp of Vox apologized for being dismissive of calls to abolish the police.
[/URL]
[QUOTE=The Cool Thatguy;4996632]I think another problem, mixed in with all this but not addressed, is that frankly it seemed as if officers are placing their safety over that of the public.
I mean, we all remember that one cop who shot a woman who'd reported a possible rapist in the area. He made a split second decision, to shoot through the damn door at a possible threat than actually try to see what was the matter.
We all remember that African American therapist who was shot while laying on the ground next to his developmentally disabled charge. The cops came loaded for bear because they thought his toy truck might be a weapon.
And hell, SWATing? Police overreaction, their unwillingness to access the situation before going in guns blazing, is so reliable that jerk gamers will do it to hurt people who beat them in games.
Protect and serve seems to be a polite suggestion.[/QUOTE]One conversation we're going to need to have is about the acceptable level of risk for police. There may be a net gain in lives saved if there were official policies about cops having to tolerate a higher level of risk than they currently do. This will not be a politically easy conversation.
[QUOTE=skyvolt2000;4996676]Candance Owens is trending on Twitter.
Calling Floyd another Mike Brown.
Didn't Floyd comply with cops? Only to have his neck stepped on for 9 minutes?
Was it ever confirmed he was breaking the law?.[/QUOTE]It appears he did not comply, as he didn't get into their car. He was high on fentanyl, so that might have been a factor for atypical behavior.
[url]https://www.bbc.com/news/world-us-canada-52861726[/url]
[url]https://www.nbc-2.com/story/42208047/autopsy-shows-george-floyd-had-covid19-meth-and-fentanyl-in-his-system[/url]
This does not in any way justify what the police did.
[QUOTE=skyvolt2000;4996740]It seems Floyd tested positive for Covid 19.[/QUOTE]He had antibodies in his system, so he likely had it some point earlier.
[url]https://apnews.com/82b8119dd8e753494f755a186f5720b9[/url]
[QUOTE=worstblogever;4996912]They should be required to go through a more extensive training that goes for a full 4 years, including courses in both ethics, as well as Constitutional law before they're active duty. Focusing on community service and de-escalation would be a plus.
A doctor requires 8 years of school before we trust them to have a life in their hands. Cops are getting guns and the same with almost no training.[/QUOTE]
-
[QUOTE=XPac;4997038]Military seemingly got the job done in 92 during the LA riots, so maybe they actually can do a better job than the police are at the moment.
Still iffy about using the Insurrection act without consent, but in the least that article makes me feel better about the situation.[/QUOTE]
The last time the Act was used with out the consent of the State was in Alabama to enforce desegregation of schools... that's right the US Army occupied public schools so that people of color can go there.
I always find it funny when people refer to the Army as a "broad sword" or a "hammer" in the need of a scalpel. The chances are people who say such things never served, or if they did not in a combat MOS. The US army are discipline individuals with an operational knowledge of engagement that more than capable.
-
[QUOTE]Trump's was asked how to address the problem of low trust in the police among African Americans. Here's the transcript of his response.[/QUOTE] [URL="https://twitter.com/ddale8/status/1268622750463062017?s=20"]Twitter Link[/URL]
[img]https://pbs.twimg.com/media/EZsNiwiWsAIsbvg?format=png&name=900x900[/img]
-
[URL="https://www.denverpost.com/2020/06/04/john-hickenlooper-ethics-us-senate-2020/"]The Colorado Senate race is widely seen as the Democrats' best opportunity for a pick-up. And now their likely candidate, former Governor John Hickenlooper, is refusing a subpoena from the state Attorney General (who is also a Democrat.)
[/URL]
[QUOTE][B][SIZE=4]John Hickenlooper refuses to comply with subpoena in ethics case[/SIZE][/B]
Colorado Attorney General’s Office says it will enforce subpoena
U.S. Senate candidate John Hickenlooper refused to comply with a subpoena Thursday morning, so the Colorado Attorney General’s Office will enforce it.
Hickenlooper was scheduled to testify virtually before the state’s Independent Ethics Commission about his alleged violations of Colorado’s gift ban. He refused to appear because he believes the hearing would violate his due process rights.
“I believe our subpoena was very clear,” said Commissioner William Leone. Hickenlooper, he added, was “required to attend by virtue of that subpoena. He currently, in my view, is in contempt of that subpoena.”
The commission voted 5-0 to have the Attorney General’s Office enforce the subpoena. After the vote, commission Chair Elizabeth Espinosa Krupa said, “The Attorney General’s Office says it has a team on its way to enforce the subpoena.”
The commission then moved ahead with a hearing about Hickenlooper’s flights on private jets as governor and the Attorney General’s Office crafted a motion at Denver District Court to enforce the subpoena and force Hickenlooper’s testimony.
“The judge will then determine whether or not to issue an order, and timing depends on the judge,” said Lawrence Pacheco, an Attorney General’s Office spokesman.
Hickenlooper stands accused of violating the Colorado Constitution’s ban on gifts when he accepted private jet flights from wealthy friends and businesses as governor. He has maintained his innocence and accused the Public Trust Institute, which filed the ethics complaint, of playing politics with Colorado ethics laws.
“John Hickenlooper has made clear he will testify in person. Today’s debacle of a hearing has made clear that WebEx doesn’t work for a legal proceeding like this,” said Melissa Miller, a spokeswoman for Hickenlooper, referring to the video conferencing program. “We will be opposing the motion to enforce the subpoena.”
Thursday’s hearing followed a weeks-long dispute between Hickenlooper’s attorneys and the Independent Ethics Commission in which Hickenlooper announced he would not testify, was subpoenaed by the IEC, fought that subpoena in court, then lost his court fight.
“Last night, a Denver District Court judge issued an order confirming John Hickenlooper is compelled to testify today and yet John Hickenlooper defied the legal orders and refused to appear at his own ethics trial,” said Frank McNulty, founder of the Public Trust Institute. “Do these seem like actions of an innocent man?”
Hickenlooper will face Andrew Romanoff in a Democratic primary June 30. The winner will take on Sen. Cory Gardner, a Yuma Republican, in early November. [/QUOTE]
-
[QUOTE]To fully understand @RandPaul's racism, examine some law. This goes beyond the beautiful moral arguments of @SenBooker.
I recognized the words Paul wants in the law. It's the since-repudiated Bush Admin's post-9/11 definition of torture of terrorists, with black people now.....the "terrorists." Yes, for @RandPaul lynching is only a problem if lynched African Americans are subjected to the level of torture and cruel/inhuman punishment that was used on terrorists - an extreme definition that has been rejected in global prosecutions of torturers.../2[/QUOTE] [URL="https://twitter.com/kurteichenwald/status/1268630542607683584?s=20"]Twitter Thread Link[/URL]