So, by following the same logic, "everyone is entitled to free health care, no exceptions" would be a bad policy? *shrug* In general, though, yes--"no exceptions" or "one size fits all" leads to ridiculous policies, as do "zero tolerance" laws/regulations.
I have a question about British politics. Mind indulging me?
I read recently that the British European Parliamentary Elections are going to be held soon (very soon. Next week, I think?). I read that the general front runner for winning is actually the Brexit Party (as lead by Nigel Farage, formerly of UKIP).
Any insight as to why that is? I ask because it seems like there's a small drift in general opinion polls away from Brexit and towards Remain. I understand that on some level, this is probably because of the nature of a multi-party parliamentary democracy system, but it still seems interesting to me that this is one of very, very few opportunities for voters to cast a vote that tangentially signals their position on Brexit. I would have expected Remain to try to muscle ahead.
My other thought is that there might just be an absolute ton of dissatisfaction with the two major parties (Conservative and Labour) right now, and that this is voters kind of rejecting their combined handling of Brexit.
Looking at opinion polling, it seems like the Conservatives are taking the biggest losses here (Which makes a sort of sense, since I guess the majority of the defecting voters to Brexit Party are from the Conservatives?).
Any thoughts so to why this may be?
I'll take a stab at this one too .
One important thing to understand about the EP elections is that the Conservative party leader Theresa May repeatedly stated that they would not take place, as her deal with the EU would be passed by Parliament. As a result of this uncertainty as to whether the elections would even occur the electorate are somewhat confused, and the main political parties are in a somewhat disorganised condition.
The Conservative Party's core vote are outraged that these elections are even taking place, and many have previously voted for UKIP so are willing to switch to other parties to express their displeasure. The Conservatives are barely even campaigning, as these elections are a sign of their legislative failure.
The Labour party are badly split on the issue, and are now less trying to ride two horses than being torn between them. Their leader is unenthusiastic about the EU, and their strategists are aware that choosing to support either Remain or Leave will lose some of their support in the short term.
The Remain supporting parties- Greens, Lib Dems, Change UK- are badly compromised by their inability to form an alliance because of the relatively short time period they had to submit their candidates. As a result there is some infighting even though collectively there are more remain votes than leave.
The Brexit party has very skilfully evaded such necessities as policies by effectively being a vehicle for Farage.
His former party UKIP are to its right, which give it a veneer of respectability as well. It may also be noted that the Brexit party have a rather relaxed approach to checking from where precisely its funding is derived....
It should also be noted that different media outlets will put their own spin on results. In the recent local elections the relative success of remain parties was variously interpreted . In the EU elections the disunity of the remain parties will likely lead to Farage's party taking many seats, even if they get a lower vote share than UKIP previously managed. The higher the overall turnout, the less likely his party is to do well however.
So, by following the same logic, "everyone is entitled to free health care, no exceptions" would be a bad policy? *shrug* In general, though, yes--"no exceptions" or "one size fits all" leads to ridiculous policies, as do "zero tolerance" laws/regulations.
"everyone is entitled to free health care, no exceptions"; it's not free. It's you getting something back for your tax dollars and you contributing something to society. You don't have to suffer from a for-profit healthcare system. It's a basic responsibility for the government to help make sure you don't die and (to protect you and to not kill you). Think of it as their end of the deal as part of the contract you have with the government as a citizen: If all hell breaks loose again you may be asked to give your life for your country someday, the least they can do is help take care of it until then lol.
I have a question about British politics. Mind indulging me?
I read recently that the British European Parliamentary Elections are going to be held soon (very soon. Next week, I think?). I read that the general front runner for winning is actually the Brexit Party (as lead by Nigel Farage, formerly of UKIP).
Any insight as to why that is? I ask because it seems like there's a small drift in general opinion polls away from Brexit and towards Remain. I understand that on some level, this is probably because of the nature of a multi-party parliamentary democracy system, but it still seems interesting to me that this is one of very, very few opportunities for voters to cast a vote that tangentially signals their position on Brexit. I would have expected Remain to try to muscle ahead.
My other thought is that there might just be an absolute ton of dissatisfaction with the two major parties (Conservative and Labour) right now, and that this is voters kind of rejecting their combined handling of Brexit.
Looking at opinion polling, it seems like the Conservatives are taking the biggest losses here (Which makes a sort of sense, since I guess the majority of the defecting voters to Brexit Party are from the Conservatives?).
Any thoughts so to why this may be?
I'll take a stab at this one too .
One important thing to understand about the EP elections is that the Conservative party leader Theresa May repeatedly stated that they would not take place, as her deal with the EU would be passed by Parliament. As a result of this uncertainty as to whether the elections would even occur the electorate are somewhat confused, and the main political parties are in a somewhat disorganised condition.
The Conservative Party's core vote are outraged that these elections are even taking place, and many have previously voted for UKIP so are willing to switch to other parties to express their displeasure. The Conservatives are barely even campaigning, as these elections are a sign of their legislative failure.
The Labour party are badly split on the issue, and are now less trying to ride two horses than being torn between them. Their leader is unenthusiastic about the EU, and their strategists are aware that choosing to support either Remain or Leave will lose some of their support in the short term.
The Remain supporting parties- Greens, Lib Dems, Change UK- are badly compromised by their inability to form an alliance because of the relatively short time period they had to submit their candidates. As a result there is some infighting even though collectively there are more remain votes than leave.
The Brexit party has very skilfully evaded such necessities as policies by effectively being a vehicle for Farage.
His former party UKIP are to its right, which give it a veneer of respectability as well. It may also be noted that the Brexit party have a rather relaxed approach to checking from where precisely its funding is derived....
It should also be noted that different media outlets will put their own spin on results. In the recent local elections the relative success of remain parties was variously interpreted . In the EU elections the disunity of the remain parties will likely lead to Farage's party taking many seats, even if they get a lower vote share than UKIP previously managed. The higher the overall turnout, the less likely his party is to do well however.
I agree with @Mantis37's analysis about the election (which is on 23rd May). Some additional points I would make are:
- European elections have not traditionally been about Europe, but this one will be. That means that the Brexit party is able to compete strongly, despite being a single issue party with no manifesto, traditional structure or governance arrangements.
- Voters' affiliations to their Brexit choice (leave or remain) currently tend to be stronger than their affiliation to a politicial party. That's why so many traditional Labour and (particularly) Conservative voters are likely to vote for the Brexit party.
- The Brexit party is likely to get more votes than any other party (I would guess 25-30% nationally). The way the voting system works the % of seats won will be somewhat higher than the % of votes for the most popular party, so that could translate into more like 40% of seats.
- The anti-Brexit parties are likely to collectively get something approaching the Brexit party vote, but will get fewer than half the seats due to their vote being split.
- Strongly leave voters will mainly vote for the Brexit party. Strongly remain voters will be more split between the anti-Brexit parties, Labour and Scottish/Welsh nationalists. That will make it difficult to see from the results how a potential second referendum would go. My guess is that there would be a slight underlying majority for remain, but the fact that won't be visible will make it easy for Farage and the Brexiteers in the Conservative party to claim that the results reflect a majority desire to leave (while continuing to resist pressure to actually test that in a referendum).
Time to add being on your own front lawn with your dog and children to the list of things black men can't do in America. I honestly don't understand how they haven't burned this whole damn thing down at this point. If this shit was happening to white people on a regular basis there would be riots outside every police station in the country. The structure of policing in this country needs to be torn out root and stem and built from the ground up. It's not redeemable in it's current state:
And before people chime in "why couldn't he have just calmly shown the officer his ID??" all I have to say is NO. Cops do not just get to roll up to someone's personal property with no warrant, no probable cause (other than skin color) and accuse someone of not only not owning their own f*****g dog, but accuse them of being a fugitive from justice in a state they don't even live in or have any connection to, and demand they produce papers. If this happened to anyone here, they would be livid our of their minds.
Alabama governor signed the pro-violence against women law. "Pro-lifers" are fine with putting people's lives in danger and locking up doctors longer than rapists and murderers.
I wonder when people are going to wake up to the fact that once they are finished with Roe and jailing doctors, they are coming for birth control and jailing women. And since about 1 in 4 women have had an abortion, it's going to make paying for the prison system in this country even more absurdly ridiculous than it already is. These laws go into effect, you are going to have women coming into hospitals dealing with miscarriages being asked questions by cops like it's a murder investigation, because, in many cases, it's going to be totally impossible to tell the difference between a self-induced abortion and a miscarriage. But I suppose we'll then force the women to undergo medical examinations to discern which it may have been, that is if we can find enough doctors who aren't in prison or on parole to perform said examination. I'm sure this is going to be great entertainment for the (overwhelmingly) male legislators who are making these decisions.
I understand that the issue is shockingly complex in a parliamentary system, but the Brexit Party is kind of showing me one thing: If voter preference to Brexit vs Remain appears to be momentarily stronger than their ideological predisposition, it seems like this would be an excellent opportunity for Labour to get entirely behind Remain and attempt to court the 50+% of voters that prefer that outcome.
Or, at least, get an alliance going with the other remain parties to hold the majority. I guess the biggest problem is Corbyn's euroskepticism. Makes you wonder if a more unified Labour leader behind Remain could have been more effective...
I understand that the issue is shockingly complex in a parliamentary system, but the Brexit Party is kind of showing me one thing: If voter preference to Brexit vs Remain appears to be momentarily stronger than their ideological predisposition, it seems like this would be an excellent opportunity for Labour to get entirely behind Remain and attempt to court the 50+% of voters that prefer that outcome.
Or, at least, get an alliance going with the other remain parties to hold the majority. I guess the biggest problem is Corbyn's euroskepticism. Makes you wonder if a more unified Labour leader behind Remain could have been more effective...
The difficulty is that there's only a weak correlation between party affiliation and view on Brexit. While not quite as badly split as the Conservatives, there are a significant number of Labour voters and MPs that back Brexit. Corbyn's desire to keep them on board is as much the reason for fudging the issue as his own Euro-scepticism. Whether tactically that's a wise move is questionable as it makes him look weak and indecisive and pisses off plenty of remainers in the party - but there are no easy answers and I can understand how Labour have got into the current mess.
May's attempts to keep the Brexiteers on board over many months was something of a mirror image of the Labour situation. In retrospect it may seem obvious that policy was doomed to failure and has just resulted in wasting a lot of time and hardening attitudes all round. Things were a bit less clear in Jan 2017 when May's negotiating objectives were set in the Mansion House speech, though even then there were many people warning it was unrealistic to expect the EU to offer the type of deal the government sought.
I wonder when people are going to wake up to the fact that once they are finished with Roe and jailing doctors, they are coming for birth control
There was actually an amendment to the Alabama bill which would have made getting a vasectomy a criminal offense, but that was defeated.
Of course it was. Because that would be infringing upon a MALE'S reproductive rights. As a matter of fact, if Democrats realized what they were up against, they would start introducing bills criminalizing vasectomies all over the country. It's the only type of response that they'll show some actual respect for. Since the right no longer speaks in any language except the naked exercise of power, it's long past time to return the favor.
Time to add being on your own front lawn with your dog and children to the list of things black men can't do in America. I honestly don't understand how they haven't burned this whole damn thing down at this point. If this shit was happening to white people on a regular basis there would be riots outside every police station in the country. The structure of policing in this country needs to be torn out root and stem and built from the ground up. It's not redeemable in it's current state:
And before people chime in "why couldn't he have just calmly shown the officer his ID??" all I have to say is NO. Cops do not just get to roll up to someone's personal property with no warrant, no probable cause (other than skin color) and accuse someone of not only not owning their own f*****g dog, but accuse them of being a fugitive from justice in a state they don't even live in or have any connection to, and demand they produce papers. If this happened to anyone here, they would be livid our of their minds.
A few things:
1. I loathe videos where it starts in the middle. You literally have to take the submitters words for it that he "politely declined." At the start of the video, the man being restrained with one hand by the cop was clearly agitated. Back-up was already called as the cop did say "we're waiting for the cavalry." Basically he was being restrained to prevent him from doing something stupid (or just going into his house where a warrant would be needed - or just stake out his house and wait for him to leave again, both not ideal). It should also be noted that the wallet was in the guys hand the entire time.
2. Now people aren't recording 24/7, and usually when it deals with cops, the recording starts once things start to escalate, so I really can't fault them for missing the beginning; however, the video was also heavily edited in a lot of places potentially taking out key interactions to make it look worse than it actually is. Such as at the 2:30 and the 2:35 mark. If you are attempting to show what happens, you show the whole video. If you are attempting to make it a narrative, you edit it. It was clearly edited at a key point, taking out a substantial conversation as the suspect was no longer restrained and they were showing a picture. What happened prior to that? What was said, what was discussed? Was it actually about the resemblance of the dog, prior to the resemblance of the man? Who knows, all you know is that it was edited.
3. Through out the video, the police officer was calm while he had two people screaming at him. If the officer attempted to cuff him as the video claims, the cuffs would have been out the entire time and the suspect probably in them. Once again, the suspect was being restrained by one wrist and elbow. Why he was restrained happened before the video started. We don't know what happened.
4. If it was about a warrant of an arrest regarding a dog in Louisiana, the cop might have matched the description of the dog first and the person second. From his cruiser, on the street, one may not be able to make out anything but key details to match a picture. The police officer was even willing to drop it before backup arrived by taking the suspect to his cruiser to retrieve his phone. During that scene, you can even see the cop reach into his pocket looking for the phone. The man continues to flip out. This is where the video starts getting edited.
5. A report, with the potential suspects name needs to be filed for two reasons: once they complain (and obviously they will), they need to cross reference that officers notes to what is being described. Two, it is to prevent this individual from being harassed about his dog in the future if that is what the confrontation was about to begin with. Nothing stopping another officer from driving down that street a week later and saying "isn't that the dog from the Louisiana report," and this incident playing out all over again. A name is needed for the report or every black man with locs is going to claim that they were the one that the officer harassed.
6. You have no idea why the officer was there to begin with. Perhaps it was one of the neighbours who called about the dog after seeing it online or whatever. Who knows. You can't jump to conclusion that an officer was driving down the street, sees a black man, stops his car and approaches for no reason. I don't know about where you live, but cops rarely, ever, unless they are called, drive down residential streets. And as I said many times in this thread before, regardless of the reasoning, you don't want cops ignoring calls. They should respond to every single last one. Why the officer was there to begin with is a question that needs to be answered before jumping to the conclusion that it's because he's actually racist.
7. All that said, I can understand the suspects frustration with the incident in its entirety and I do not think he did anything wrong. In my dream world, I can see the officer pulling up to the house a week later to apologize to the man for making the assumption that he was the guy in the warrant. Obviously, in todays day and age with no one allowed to make a mistake because it might lead to a lawsuit, that will never happen.
First of all, what is the difference between being inside his house and on his lawn?? And to "prevent him from going inside where a warrant would be needed"?? So now the officer is free to PHYSICALLY restrain someone from taking refuge in their own home from possible arrest for a crime they didn't even commit?? Really?? It's HIS property. This cop has NO warrant. He has NO right to ask this man for identification at his own domicile. None:
The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.
But as far as I can tell, cops haven't been bothering with this antiquated idea of "warrants" for some time now. I don't even know why we still require them. Because (as with everything else going on right now) there are no rules whatsoever for those that are wielding the power. They can break them with absolute immunity. Apparently the cop insist he does have a warrant. For SOMEONE ELSE who IS NOT the man in the video!!!! If this cop wants to pull this shit, he can go before a judge and get probable cause for search and seizure. Until that time, the moment this guy asked him to get the hell off his property and leave him alone, that should have been the end of it. Let's not even get into the absurdity of the idea of some guy with a house, front yard and kids playing in it is your likely perp in a interstate canine kidnapping case. And as for some citizen calling it in, I wouldn't doubt that they did. Are you at all familiar with the never-ending litany of ridiculous bullshit black people get the cops called on them about in this country?? Because it includes things like having BBQs in public parks and children selling lemonade on the street without a permit.
And I don't know what the cops are like in Canada, but once you cross the border, Dorothy and Toto aren't in Kansas anymore. I base this on nothing more than that the cops of almost ANY other Western country are likely paragons of virtue compared to this one, where the combination of nearly unbridled power and deification by Hollywood, politicians and society in general has resulted in a situation where the average citizen has rights ONLY if the particular cop you are interacting with decides you do. American police are one-man dictatorships on any patch of grass they are standing on.
Sorry. No where in that bolded area does it say the word property?
So sadly no, if you are on your front lawn and a law enforcement officer approaches you, they do not need a warrant to walk up on your driveway (where this entire video took place) and ask you questions. However, if you go into your house and do not answer the door, then the cop is out of luck until you leave again. This man had every opportunity to take this course of action because what you don't see in the video is either the kids he was playing with or the dog. Its safe to assume, they were ushered into the house soon after the cop arrived, why the man wasn't, who knows.
Once again, this man was being lightly restrained until backup arrives because he was acting in an agitated manner. Without seeing the first part of the confrontation, we do not know what led to this agitated state. At that point, the officer, for his own safety, will not let go until backup arrives. Letting go, can actually escalate a situation like that.
If you watch it closely, you'll also noticed some other irregularities regarding the confrontation besides the two edits I mentioned earlier. At the 25 second mark, the officer is explaining something to the man, but the background music volume was raised to drown it out. That goes on to the .44 mark. A whole 20 seconds of audio missing from the video. Why? Because it doesn't fit the narrative of "this cop is wrongfully arresting a black man in his front yard." We are also not privy to the picture the cop is looking at. We only have the man's reaction of "that's not me!!!" Who knows how similar he was to the picture.
The whole "other state" thing is almost BS as it is only about a 2hr drive to Louisiana from Harris County (Houston). It is more than reasonable to assume that a person has visited that state on more than one occasion.
In the UK one reason why "property" isn't included in the list of things that require a search warrant is so that the police can search your car (for alcohol, drugs etc.) if you are pulled over for a driving offence.
In the UK one reason why "property" isn't included in the list of things that require a search warrant is so that the police can search your car (for alcohol, drugs etc.) if you are pulled over for a driving offence.
Can’t do this in Canada. Even if the police officer suspects drinking and driving, they can’t search the car for open bottles. if they are in plain view when pulled over, that’s a different story - but same thing applies if a cop comes to your door for a noise complaint, you open the door and they witness hard drug use in the hallway. They are witnessing a crime in action, they now have a right to enter the premises.
But he didn't have the right person. He had the wrong person. And kept insisting the man was someone else because of a random call from a citizen (according to what I have read). Imagine being accused of being a criminal and wanted fugitive out of the blue on your own front lawn, and then having to explain and convince someone you aren't a COMPLETELY different person than the one this cop who basically dropped out of the sky on top of you says you are. Except everyone here will have to "imagine" it because it will never happen to them if they live 1000 years.
But yeah, if we want to let the cop off the hook, then let's get back to this idea of random citizens calling the cops on black people the MOMENT they feel the slightest bit annoyed or fearful. This is what got Tamir Rice killed. It's what I outlined in almost a dozen examples in a post last year. The cops getting called on a black real estate agent by some lady next door to the house he was selling. A man moving into his new apartment having the cops called by someone IN that apartment complex who didn't think he should have been there. The now famous Starbucks incident, where the absolutely 100% common practice of waiting 5 minutes for your friend to arrive was criminalized. And on and on and on it goes. Look at the background in the video. Those are nice houses. This is a middle-class neighborhood. In all likelihood, this guy has done EXACTLY what is always demanded of black people. He's made it, or so he thinks. Now he realizes that no matter how successful he becomes, he can't escape the fact that he is black in America and that not only the cops, but clearly, his OWN NEIGHBORS in a nice area of town, will never view him as anything other than a potential criminal.
We cannot waste time stating how things *should* be when we have to deal with the reality of how things *are*. Police officers have always been mini-dictators with absolute authority in their immediate vicinity; this applies to all of us but especially to those who are not white. Even if the officer in question in wrong, as he most likely is in this case, when that officer is present that is *not* the time to protest your rights or tell them that they are wrong. I don't say that because I value "law and order" over "individual rights"--my views are actually the opposite of that--I say it because I don't want to see another person killed by police when the situation does not call for such an extreme response. When police ask for id, just give it to them even if the law says you don't really have to--the police on the scene will find a way to charge you with "failure to comply", "resisting arrest", or take your refusal as "this person is trying to hide something they must have done--only guilty people act like that". Remember--police typically presume that people are guilty until proven innocent and they always think they are right. Had this guy just handed over his id the situation probably would have been over relatively quickly and without escalation.
As far as warrants are concerned, those are legitimate and part of the normal law enforcement process...but...those "no knock" warrants that SWAT teams have been using in recent years are *not* normal and wind up causing more chaos, death, and destruction than might have been caused by the people against whom they are issued. Just ask that old lady whose dog was shot in front of her or that infant into whose crib the SWAT teams threw the flash bang.
These abortion bans in red states are not about life or babies.
If Alabama loves babies so much why are they #46 in maternal mortality and 50th in infant mortality? Why are they #37th in child and teen deaths, 46th in child poverty, and 50th in public education?
Why doesn't the bill in Alabama apply to fertility clinics? They can throw about hundreds of fertilized eggs without fear because the egg in a lab is not inside a woman. These bills are about controlling women and right wing geriatric incels are running the show.
Abortion bans aren't just about controlling women's bodies it's about controlling women through women's sexuality. Republicans work to limit birth control, sex education and are out to attack and ban anything that falls outside their own religious morals. The core ideology of the right wing is that men own the the world and you are their property. You and I are there to benefit them.
Women who own and control their own sexuality and decisions threaten this male-dominated system. What better way to control women than to take away their ability to vote if they control their own bodies or have a miscarriage?
But he didn't have the right person. He had the wrong person. And kept insisting the man was someone else because of a random call from a citizen (according to what I have read). Imagine being accused of being a criminal and wanted fugitive out of the blue on your own front lawn, and then having to explain and convince someone you aren't a COMPLETELY different person than the one this cop who basically dropped out of the sky on top of you says you are. Except everyone here will have to "imagine" it because it will never happen to them if they live 1000 years.
But yeah, if we want to let the cop off the hook, then let's get back to this idea of random citizens calling the cops on black people the MOMENT they feel the slightest bit annoyed or fearful. This is what got Tamir Rice killed. It's what I outlined in almost a dozen examples in a post last year. The cops getting called on a black real estate agent by some lady next door to the house he was selling. A man moving into his new apartment having the cops called by someone IN that apartment complex who didn't think he should have been there. The now famous Starbucks incident, where the absolutely 100% common practice of waiting 5 minutes for your friend to arrive was criminalized. And on and on and on it goes. Look at the background in the video. Those are nice houses. This is a middle-class neighborhood. In all likelihood, this guy has done EXACTLY what is always demanded of black people. He's made it, or so he thinks. Now he realizes that no matter how successful he becomes, he can't escape the fact that he is black in America and that not only the cops, but clearly, his OWN NEIGHBORS in a nice area of town, will never view him as anything other than a potential criminal.
We’re going to be talking in circles so I am going to leave it at these 4 questions:
Did this officer draw his weapon?
Did this officer use excessive force?
Did this officer not have cause?
Did the officer wrongfully detain (cuffed and searched) the suspect?
If the answer to these questions is no, you really can’t compare it to any situation where a person ended up killed. That is stereotyping police as much as stereotyping a person for the colour of your skin. With the beginning of the encounter missing we really do not know how it escalated to that point but throughout the video the cop was never in the wrong except maybe when they grabbed the guy’s wallet from his hand to get his name for the report, but even that, is minor.
But yes, it isn’t the police we need to look at in these situations. It is the general public. The police are just trying to do their job. Yes there are shitty cops who shouldn’t have a badge, let alone a gun, but I don’t think this cop in this video is one of them.
I also feel for the guy but this incident wasn’t a wrongful arrest, police brutality, or anything else. It was a cop attempting to do his job, the best way he could in a difficult situation.
Did this officer draw his weapon?
Did this officer use excessive force?
Did this officer not have cause?
Did the officer wrongfully detain (cuffed and searched) the suspect?
He did not draw his weapon, he did use excessive force, he did not have cause, and he did detain the suspect. You're either detained or you're free to go. "Light restraint" is nonsense when everyone involved knows that it would be prosecutable and potentially fatal to break that restraint.
Alabama happens to be dead last out of 50 states in infant mortality rate. Georgia is 43rd. Clearly two states that value life very, very deeply. How about they fix their clearly broken healthcare systems before inserting themselves in women's uteruses.
How about the men begin taking charge of their sexual behavior, as well? Guys, just go get a reversible vasectomy when you are 18--I would say when you are 16 but that requires parental consent a urologist willing to perform the procedure, but there probably aren't any of those. This would dramatically decrease the number of unwanted children/abortions and when you grow up later in life--I hope you become mature at some point--you can get it reversed then have children. Yes, the incidence of STDs would increase but the alternatives are worse.
How about the men begin taking charge of their sexual behavior, as well? Guys, just go get a reversible vasectomy when you are 18--I would say when you are 16 but that requires parental consent a urologist willing to perform the procedure, but there probably aren't any of those. This would dramatically decrease the number of unwanted children/abortions and when you grow up later in life--I hope you become mature at some point--you can get it reversed then have children. Yes, the incidence of STDs would increase but the alternatives are worse.
The fact that this alternative is so far from the realm of discussion about this topic tells you nearly everything you need to know about it. Shifting part or equal burden onto the man isn't only not part of the discussion, but it isn't even being considered. How big a leap is it to go from a barely formed fetus being a human being to passing laws protecting sperm and eggs that could POTENTIALLY create a life?? At this point we are passing laws accusing people of murder based on something that can only be confirmed via a medical test (or home version of it). So, I'll ask again, does ANYONE trust the governments in these red states to be able to legitimately differentiate between a miscarriage and a self-induced abortion?? Because I sure as hell don't. And they WILL come after women who have miscarriages. Because they already have:
How about the men begin taking charge of their sexual behavior, as well? Guys, just go get a reversible vasectomy when you are 18--I would say when you are 16 but that requires parental consent a urologist willing to perform the procedure, but there probably aren't any of those. This would dramatically decrease the number of unwanted children/abortions and when you grow up later in life--I hope you become mature at some point--you can get it reversed then have children. Yes, the incidence of STDs would increase but the alternatives are worse.
I know a guy who got a vasectomy and ended up unable to walk without extreme agony. Doctor told him he was one in a million, what a lucky fellow. Considering the thousands of these surgeries every year it's not so uncommon.
We don't need people getting extra surgeries that aren't medically necessary.
Many years ago I was auditing a company and when I came in on Monday morning I politely greeted the finance director with something like "hello, how are you". The expected response would be something like "fine, how are you". The actual response was rather more unexpected "not good. I've had a vasectomy and it's gone wrong". That wasn't a conversation I wanted to keep going for long ...
My father’s vasectomy was also botched. Had internal bleeding that was first classified as just normal bruising. It took them (and stubborn him of not going to the hospital) a month to determine it was internal. He had to go for a second operation and couldn’t work for a couple of months while his groin was iced.
He had to take pictures for paid leave. It looked like someone took a sledgehammer to his groin area.
You’d have to wonder how common botched vasectomies are when 3 people in a random internet thread, all from different corners of the world knew a person who’s operation went horribly wrong.
Comments
https://www.cbsnews.com/amp/news/ohio-abortion-heartbeat-bill-pregnant-11-year-old-rape-victim-barred-abortion-after-new-ohio-abortion-bill-2019-05-13/#aoh=15579583873161&csi=1&referrer=https://www.google.com&amp_tf=From %1$s
Here's why:
https://www.livescience.com/19584-10-year-birth.html
"No exceptions" is bad policy. People will die. Don't vote Republican.
So, by following the same logic, "everyone is entitled to free health care, no exceptions" would be a bad policy? *shrug* In general, though, yes--"no exceptions" or "one size fits all" leads to ridiculous policies, as do "zero tolerance" laws/regulations.
I'll take a stab at this one too
One important thing to understand about the EP elections is that the Conservative party leader Theresa May repeatedly stated that they would not take place, as her deal with the EU would be passed by Parliament. As a result of this uncertainty as to whether the elections would even occur the electorate are somewhat confused, and the main political parties are in a somewhat disorganised condition.
The Conservative Party's core vote are outraged that these elections are even taking place, and many have previously voted for UKIP so are willing to switch to other parties to express their displeasure. The Conservatives are barely even campaigning, as these elections are a sign of their legislative failure.
The Labour party are badly split on the issue, and are now less trying to ride two horses than being torn between them. Their leader is unenthusiastic about the EU, and their strategists are aware that choosing to support either Remain or Leave will lose some of their support in the short term.
The Remain supporting parties- Greens, Lib Dems, Change UK- are badly compromised by their inability to form an alliance because of the relatively short time period they had to submit their candidates. As a result there is some infighting even though collectively there are more remain votes than leave.
The Brexit party has very skilfully evaded such necessities as policies by effectively being a vehicle for Farage.
https://www.politics.co.uk/blogs/2019/05/09/the-brexit-party-is-a-post-politics-entity
His former party UKIP are to its right, which give it a veneer of respectability as well. It may also be noted that the Brexit party have a rather relaxed approach to checking from where precisely its funding is derived....
https://bylinetimes.com/2019/05/14/brexit-party-donations-an-open-invitation-to-launder-money/
It should also be noted that different media outlets will put their own spin on results. In the recent local elections the relative success of remain parties was variously interpreted
"everyone is entitled to free health care, no exceptions"; it's not free. It's you getting something back for your tax dollars and you contributing something to society. You don't have to suffer from a for-profit healthcare system. It's a basic responsibility for the government to help make sure you don't die and (to protect you and to not kill you). Think of it as their end of the deal as part of the contract you have with the government as a citizen: If all hell breaks loose again you may be asked to give your life for your country someday, the least they can do is help take care of it until then lol.
Agreed here.
I agree with @Mantis37's analysis about the election (which is on 23rd May). Some additional points I would make are:
- European elections have not traditionally been about Europe, but this one will be. That means that the Brexit party is able to compete strongly, despite being a single issue party with no manifesto, traditional structure or governance arrangements.
- Voters' affiliations to their Brexit choice (leave or remain) currently tend to be stronger than their affiliation to a politicial party. That's why so many traditional Labour and (particularly) Conservative voters are likely to vote for the Brexit party.
- The Brexit party is likely to get more votes than any other party (I would guess 25-30% nationally). The way the voting system works the % of seats won will be somewhat higher than the % of votes for the most popular party, so that could translate into more like 40% of seats.
- The anti-Brexit parties are likely to collectively get something approaching the Brexit party vote, but will get fewer than half the seats due to their vote being split.
- Strongly leave voters will mainly vote for the Brexit party. Strongly remain voters will be more split between the anti-Brexit parties, Labour and Scottish/Welsh nationalists. That will make it difficult to see from the results how a potential second referendum would go. My guess is that there would be a slight underlying majority for remain, but the fact that won't be visible will make it easy for Farage and the Brexiteers in the Conservative party to claim that the results reflect a majority desire to leave (while continuing to resist pressure to actually test that in a referendum).
Disagree here, but we're not going to go down that rabbit hole because that sort of endless back-and-forth is part of why I disappeared.
And before people chime in "why couldn't he have just calmly shown the officer his ID??" all I have to say is NO. Cops do not just get to roll up to someone's personal property with no warrant, no probable cause (other than skin color) and accuse someone of not only not owning their own f*****g dog, but accuse them of being a fugitive from justice in a state they don't even live in or have any connection to, and demand they produce papers. If this happened to anyone here, they would be livid our of their minds.
I understand that the issue is shockingly complex in a parliamentary system, but the Brexit Party is kind of showing me one thing: If voter preference to Brexit vs Remain appears to be momentarily stronger than their ideological predisposition, it seems like this would be an excellent opportunity for Labour to get entirely behind Remain and attempt to court the 50+% of voters that prefer that outcome.
Or, at least, get an alliance going with the other remain parties to hold the majority. I guess the biggest problem is Corbyn's euroskepticism. Makes you wonder if a more unified Labour leader behind Remain could have been more effective...
There was actually an amendment to the Alabama bill which would have made getting a vasectomy a criminal offense, but that was defeated.
The difficulty is that there's only a weak correlation between party affiliation and view on Brexit. While not quite as badly split as the Conservatives, there are a significant number of Labour voters and MPs that back Brexit. Corbyn's desire to keep them on board is as much the reason for fudging the issue as his own Euro-scepticism. Whether tactically that's a wise move is questionable as it makes him look weak and indecisive and pisses off plenty of remainers in the party - but there are no easy answers and I can understand how Labour have got into the current mess.
May's attempts to keep the Brexiteers on board over many months was something of a mirror image of the Labour situation. In retrospect it may seem obvious that policy was doomed to failure and has just resulted in wasting a lot of time and hardening attitudes all round. Things were a bit less clear in Jan 2017 when May's negotiating objectives were set in the Mansion House speech, though even then there were many people warning it was unrealistic to expect the EU to offer the type of deal the government sought.
Of course it was. Because that would be infringing upon a MALE'S reproductive rights. As a matter of fact, if Democrats realized what they were up against, they would start introducing bills criminalizing vasectomies all over the country. It's the only type of response that they'll show some actual respect for. Since the right no longer speaks in any language except the naked exercise of power, it's long past time to return the favor.
A few things:
1. I loathe videos where it starts in the middle. You literally have to take the submitters words for it that he "politely declined." At the start of the video, the man being restrained with one hand by the cop was clearly agitated. Back-up was already called as the cop did say "we're waiting for the cavalry." Basically he was being restrained to prevent him from doing something stupid (or just going into his house where a warrant would be needed - or just stake out his house and wait for him to leave again, both not ideal). It should also be noted that the wallet was in the guys hand the entire time.
2. Now people aren't recording 24/7, and usually when it deals with cops, the recording starts once things start to escalate, so I really can't fault them for missing the beginning; however, the video was also heavily edited in a lot of places potentially taking out key interactions to make it look worse than it actually is. Such as at the 2:30 and the 2:35 mark. If you are attempting to show what happens, you show the whole video. If you are attempting to make it a narrative, you edit it. It was clearly edited at a key point, taking out a substantial conversation as the suspect was no longer restrained and they were showing a picture. What happened prior to that? What was said, what was discussed? Was it actually about the resemblance of the dog, prior to the resemblance of the man? Who knows, all you know is that it was edited.
3. Through out the video, the police officer was calm while he had two people screaming at him. If the officer attempted to cuff him as the video claims, the cuffs would have been out the entire time and the suspect probably in them. Once again, the suspect was being restrained by one wrist and elbow. Why he was restrained happened before the video started. We don't know what happened.
4. If it was about a warrant of an arrest regarding a dog in Louisiana, the cop might have matched the description of the dog first and the person second. From his cruiser, on the street, one may not be able to make out anything but key details to match a picture. The police officer was even willing to drop it before backup arrived by taking the suspect to his cruiser to retrieve his phone. During that scene, you can even see the cop reach into his pocket looking for the phone. The man continues to flip out. This is where the video starts getting edited.
5. A report, with the potential suspects name needs to be filed for two reasons: once they complain (and obviously they will), they need to cross reference that officers notes to what is being described. Two, it is to prevent this individual from being harassed about his dog in the future if that is what the confrontation was about to begin with. Nothing stopping another officer from driving down that street a week later and saying "isn't that the dog from the Louisiana report," and this incident playing out all over again. A name is needed for the report or every black man with locs is going to claim that they were the one that the officer harassed.
6. You have no idea why the officer was there to begin with. Perhaps it was one of the neighbours who called about the dog after seeing it online or whatever. Who knows. You can't jump to conclusion that an officer was driving down the street, sees a black man, stops his car and approaches for no reason. I don't know about where you live, but cops rarely, ever, unless they are called, drive down residential streets. And as I said many times in this thread before, regardless of the reasoning, you don't want cops ignoring calls. They should respond to every single last one. Why the officer was there to begin with is a question that needs to be answered before jumping to the conclusion that it's because he's actually racist.
7. All that said, I can understand the suspects frustration with the incident in its entirety and I do not think he did anything wrong. In my dream world, I can see the officer pulling up to the house a week later to apologize to the man for making the assumption that he was the guy in the warrant. Obviously, in todays day and age with no one allowed to make a mistake because it might lead to a lawsuit, that will never happen.
The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.
But as far as I can tell, cops haven't been bothering with this antiquated idea of "warrants" for some time now. I don't even know why we still require them. Because (as with everything else going on right now) there are no rules whatsoever for those that are wielding the power. They can break them with absolute immunity. Apparently the cop insist he does have a warrant. For SOMEONE ELSE who IS NOT the man in the video!!!! If this cop wants to pull this shit, he can go before a judge and get probable cause for search and seizure. Until that time, the moment this guy asked him to get the hell off his property and leave him alone, that should have been the end of it. Let's not even get into the absurdity of the idea of some guy with a house, front yard and kids playing in it is your likely perp in a interstate canine kidnapping case. And as for some citizen calling it in, I wouldn't doubt that they did. Are you at all familiar with the never-ending litany of ridiculous bullshit black people get the cops called on them about in this country?? Because it includes things like having BBQs in public parks and children selling lemonade on the street without a permit.
And I don't know what the cops are like in Canada, but once you cross the border, Dorothy and Toto aren't in Kansas anymore. I base this on nothing more than that the cops of almost ANY other Western country are likely paragons of virtue compared to this one, where the combination of nearly unbridled power and deification by Hollywood, politicians and society in general has resulted in a situation where the average citizen has rights ONLY if the particular cop you are interacting with decides you do. American police are one-man dictatorships on any patch of grass they are standing on.
So sadly no, if you are on your front lawn and a law enforcement officer approaches you, they do not need a warrant to walk up on your driveway (where this entire video took place) and ask you questions. However, if you go into your house and do not answer the door, then the cop is out of luck until you leave again. This man had every opportunity to take this course of action because what you don't see in the video is either the kids he was playing with or the dog. Its safe to assume, they were ushered into the house soon after the cop arrived, why the man wasn't, who knows.
Once again, this man was being lightly restrained until backup arrives because he was acting in an agitated manner. Without seeing the first part of the confrontation, we do not know what led to this agitated state. At that point, the officer, for his own safety, will not let go until backup arrives. Letting go, can actually escalate a situation like that.
If you watch it closely, you'll also noticed some other irregularities regarding the confrontation besides the two edits I mentioned earlier. At the 25 second mark, the officer is explaining something to the man, but the background music volume was raised to drown it out. That goes on to the .44 mark. A whole 20 seconds of audio missing from the video. Why? Because it doesn't fit the narrative of "this cop is wrongfully arresting a black man in his front yard." We are also not privy to the picture the cop is looking at. We only have the man's reaction of "that's not me!!!" Who knows how similar he was to the picture.
The whole "other state" thing is almost BS as it is only about a 2hr drive to Louisiana from Harris County (Houston). It is more than reasonable to assume that a person has visited that state on more than one occasion.
Can’t do this in Canada. Even if the police officer suspects drinking and driving, they can’t search the car for open bottles. if they are in plain view when pulled over, that’s a different story - but same thing applies if a cop comes to your door for a noise complaint, you open the door and they witness hard drug use in the hallway. They are witnessing a crime in action, they now have a right to enter the premises.
But yeah, if we want to let the cop off the hook, then let's get back to this idea of random citizens calling the cops on black people the MOMENT they feel the slightest bit annoyed or fearful. This is what got Tamir Rice killed. It's what I outlined in almost a dozen examples in a post last year. The cops getting called on a black real estate agent by some lady next door to the house he was selling. A man moving into his new apartment having the cops called by someone IN that apartment complex who didn't think he should have been there. The now famous Starbucks incident, where the absolutely 100% common practice of waiting 5 minutes for your friend to arrive was criminalized. And on and on and on it goes. Look at the background in the video. Those are nice houses. This is a middle-class neighborhood. In all likelihood, this guy has done EXACTLY what is always demanded of black people. He's made it, or so he thinks. Now he realizes that no matter how successful he becomes, he can't escape the fact that he is black in America and that not only the cops, but clearly, his OWN NEIGHBORS in a nice area of town, will never view him as anything other than a potential criminal.
As far as warrants are concerned, those are legitimate and part of the normal law enforcement process...but...those "no knock" warrants that SWAT teams have been using in recent years are *not* normal and wind up causing more chaos, death, and destruction than might have been caused by the people against whom they are issued. Just ask that old lady whose dog was shot in front of her or that infant into whose crib the SWAT teams threw the flash bang.
If Alabama loves babies so much why are they #46 in maternal mortality and 50th in infant mortality? Why are they #37th in child and teen deaths, 46th in child poverty, and 50th in public education?
Why doesn't the bill in Alabama apply to fertility clinics? They can throw about hundreds of fertilized eggs without fear because the egg in a lab is not inside a woman. These bills are about controlling women and right wing geriatric incels are running the show.
Abortion bans aren't just about controlling women's bodies it's about controlling women through women's sexuality. Republicans work to limit birth control, sex education and are out to attack and ban anything that falls outside their own religious morals. The core ideology of the right wing is that men own the the world and you are their property. You and I are there to benefit them.
Women who own and control their own sexuality and decisions threaten this male-dominated system. What better way to control women than to take away their ability to vote if they control their own bodies or have a miscarriage?
We’re going to be talking in circles so I am going to leave it at these 4 questions:
Did this officer draw his weapon?
Did this officer use excessive force?
Did this officer not have cause?
Did the officer wrongfully detain (cuffed and searched) the suspect?
If the answer to these questions is no, you really can’t compare it to any situation where a person ended up killed. That is stereotyping police as much as stereotyping a person for the colour of your skin. With the beginning of the encounter missing we really do not know how it escalated to that point but throughout the video the cop was never in the wrong except maybe when they grabbed the guy’s wallet from his hand to get his name for the report, but even that, is minor.
But yes, it isn’t the police we need to look at in these situations. It is the general public. The police are just trying to do their job. Yes there are shitty cops who shouldn’t have a badge, let alone a gun, but I don’t think this cop in this video is one of them.
I also feel for the guy but this incident wasn’t a wrongful arrest, police brutality, or anything else. It was a cop attempting to do his job, the best way he could in a difficult situation.
He did not draw his weapon, he did use excessive force, he did not have cause, and he did detain the suspect. You're either detained or you're free to go. "Light restraint" is nonsense when everyone involved knows that it would be prosecutable and potentially fatal to break that restraint.
I'm honestly shocked that you think this is okay.
The fact that this alternative is so far from the realm of discussion about this topic tells you nearly everything you need to know about it. Shifting part or equal burden onto the man isn't only not part of the discussion, but it isn't even being considered. How big a leap is it to go from a barely formed fetus being a human being to passing laws protecting sperm and eggs that could POTENTIALLY create a life?? At this point we are passing laws accusing people of murder based on something that can only be confirmed via a medical test (or home version of it). So, I'll ask again, does ANYONE trust the governments in these red states to be able to legitimately differentiate between a miscarriage and a self-induced abortion?? Because I sure as hell don't. And they WILL come after women who have miscarriages. Because they already have:
https://www.harpersbazaar.com/culture/politics/a27454956/what-does-georgias-abortion-law-mean-women-who-miscarry/
I know a guy who got a vasectomy and ended up unable to walk without extreme agony. Doctor told him he was one in a million, what a lucky fellow. Considering the thousands of these surgeries every year it's not so uncommon.
We don't need people getting extra surgeries that aren't medically necessary.
My father’s vasectomy was also botched. Had internal bleeding that was first classified as just normal bruising. It took them (and stubborn him of not going to the hospital) a month to determine it was internal. He had to go for a second operation and couldn’t work for a couple of months while his groin was iced.
He had to take pictures for paid leave. It looked like someone took a sledgehammer to his groin area.
You’d have to wonder how common botched vasectomies are when 3 people in a random internet thread, all from different corners of the world knew a person who’s operation went horribly wrong.