I can't speak to this being the case because I am not, in fact, African-American, but I did read alot of explanations from southern African-American voters about why they choose Joe Biden. Part of it boils down to this: Bernie Sanders is promising alot. And what they've seen all their lives (especially the older ones) is that when a left-leaning politician promises something, that means the right is going to make it seem like those things are going to be going "those people". Meaning these very same voters. Though it isn't TRUE by any statistical measure, when you say you are promising things to people, a certain segment of the country is going to think "oh, those minorities in the city". They know this, they've seen the game played a 100 times. So even though they AGREE with Bernie on most issues, they didn't feel white voters would be comfortable with him, and the reason for that eventual discomfort would rest on making them the scapegoat for why those things shouldn't happen. They voted for a candidate they think moderate white people in the suburbs can stomach, and they did so on purpose.
Biden also, not for nothing, willingly took a back seat and played second fiddle to the first black President. He was loyal, and he never wavered in that loyalty, never tried to show up his boss, never assumed he knew better. To many black voters, this is something they may have never seen in their daily lives, where they get dismissed just by walking into a room. You can't underestimate what Obama meant for African-Americans born early enough to have lived through the Civil Rights movement or the immediate aftermath, especially in the South. His election to them was akin to a religious miracle in this country. Biden's steadfast partnership with Obama means they can trust him by default.
But frankly, it basically boils down to "this Bernie guy ain't gonna be able to do any of this shit", and while I supported Bernie over Biden, and think his policies are where we should be heading (especially in light of this pandemic), they are CORRECT in that assessment. I don't know a single issue in Bernie's main platform (Medicare for All, free college and $15 national minimum wage) that could ACTUALLY PASS Congress. African-American voters have been accepting incremental change for decades. Bernie was promising revolution. They don't believe there is time for revolution when it comes to defeating Trump.
Democrats old enough to remember these broke hard for Biden, per exit polls. Personally I never bought that Sanders was a weak general election candidate. Matchup polling--nationally and in the battleground states--showed that both Biden and Sanders do pretty well against Trump, with a very tiny edge going to Biden.
I also think voters are fooling themselves if they think the dirt being dug up against Biden is somehow unique to him being the presumptive nominee. If instead Sanders was in his place, we'd be hearing all about Sanders supporting Castro, the Sandinistas, even the USSR, and, yes, perhaps even far-fetched allegations of sexual misconduct. And who knows what else. The idea that conservatives somehow could not pull these dirty tricks against Sanders is wishful thinking.
I am a little weary of Democrats constantly quaking at the shadow of McGovern and Mondale. There was a period from the moment the Civil Rights Act passed to essentially 1992 where Republicans basically owned the White House. The only reason they lost it for 4 years was because Nixon (like the current resident) was a flat-out criminal. Otherwise, no Democrat is sitting in the Oval Office for almost 25 years. This was, mostly, BECAUSE of the Civil Rights Act. Nixon swallowed every southern Democrat into the Republican party, and Reagan winked and nodded to the same people with a grandfatherly charm (see welfare queens, young bucks, and Philadelphia, MS). Reagan was the smiling face of a party that had Strom Thurmond and Jesse Helms in high positions of power WELL into the 1990s, and they are two of the most vile men to ever hold Senate seats. Ironically enough, Joe Biden was likely good friends with both, because he actually DOES believe in the magic of bipartisanship, which I frankly think is borderline insane in 2020, but many people WANT to believe in it.
Given all of the above would Trump consider trying to create and distribute money outside the normal approvals mechanism? Yes, absolutely he would. I see no reason at all to believe he would be dissuaded from action by any of the existing political norms. However, I should clarify that the above is a theoretical exercise in thinking about what is possible. I think the chance this will actually happen is incredibly remote. That's not because Trump would be deterred by principles, but because there are quicker and easier routes for him to take if he is concerned he is likely to lose to Biden - like putting off the election, sabotaging turnout or creating foreign crises for distraction & to stoke nationalist support.
Just about exhausted my desire to talk on this subject. But he can't. He can't just spend huge sums of money without congressional approval. And there is nothing magical in generating revenue via MMT that gives him this power. If he had this power he could do it with or without MMT/printing money. This is, I think, the fundamental point you're missing.
People relying on "Trump can't" do something have received shocks before. What is the immovable legislative or procedural obstacle that you think would prevent this (and forget MMT - Trump is never going to be bound by what a theoretical economic model says is a good idea)?
As I said before, I don't think Trump will actually try to bypass Congress by sending out cash in his own name, but I've set out the factors that lead me to believe it is not impossible - which of these do you think I'm mistaken about?
- the constitution gives Congress the power to set budgets and approve appropriations from the Treasury. Newly printed money would be, at least arguably, outside the budgetary framework and not an appropriation from the Treasury. SCOTUS could block it anyway on the grounds that it generally undermines the spirit of the constitution (and they probably would do this, although you should note the increasing influence on SCOTUS of the strict constructionist approach to legal interpretation), but there's no guarantee about that.
- even if Congress does not have absolute power in this area, there would still need to be a law under which Trump issued the money (and I agree it's impossible to imagine the current Congress passing a new law). However, given how amorphous presidential emergency powers are, it would surprise me if SCOTUS blocked a distribution using those powers (assuming they were already willing to let it past a more general constitutional test).
- Trump can sack people on the Fed governing board if he can show good cause for that (and that would be a relatively minor legislative hurdle if he's already got this far). He can then appoint their replacements (without Senate confirmation, at least in the short term) until he gets a majority willing to do what he wants. He could then make use of the existing Fed procedural mechanisms to actually do a distribution.
Given all of the above would Trump consider trying to create and distribute money outside the normal approvals mechanism? Yes, absolutely he would. I see no reason at all to believe he would be dissuaded from action by any of the existing political norms. However, I should clarify that the above is a theoretical exercise in thinking about what is possible. I think the chance this will actually happen is incredibly remote. That's not because Trump would be deterred by principles, but because there are quicker and easier routes for him to take if he is concerned he is likely to lose to Biden - like putting off the election, sabotaging turnout or creating foreign crises for distraction & to stoke nationalist support.
Just about exhausted my desire to talk on this subject. But he can't. He can't just spend huge sums of money without congressional approval. And there is nothing magical in generating revenue via MMT that gives him this power. If he had this power he could do it with or without MMT/printing money. This is, I think, the fundamental point you're missing.
People relying on "Trump can't" do something have received shocks before. What is the immovable legislative or procedural obstacle that you think would prevent this (and forget MMT - Trump is never going to be bound by what a theoretical economic model says is a good idea)?
As I said before, I don't think Trump will actually try to bypass Congress by sending out cash in his own name, but I've set out the factors that lead me to believe it is not impossible - which of these do you think I'm mistaken about?
- the constitution gives Congress the power to set budgets and approve appropriations from the Treasury. Newly printed money would be, at least arguably, outside the budgetary framework and not an appropriation from the Treasury. SCOTUS could block it anyway on the grounds that it generally undermines the spirit of the constitution (and they probably would do this, although you should note the increasing influence on SCOTUS of the strict constructionist approach to legal interpretation), but there's no guarantee about that.
- even if Congress does not have absolute power in this area, there would still need to be a law under which Trump issued the money (and I agree it's impossible to imagine the current Congress passing a new law). However, given how amorphous presidential emergency powers are, it would surprise me if SCOTUS blocked a distribution using those powers (assuming they were already willing to let it past a more general constitutional test).
- Trump can sack people on the Fed governing board if he can show good cause for that (and that would be a relatively minor legislative hurdle if he's already got this far). He can then appoint their replacements (without Senate confirmation, at least in the short term) until he gets a majority willing to do what he wants. He could then make use of the existing Fed procedural mechanisms to actually do a distribution.
Congress controls the spending process. Trump cannot hand out outlays on something new without a legislative bill authorizing that spending. And if you want to argue that he can somehow abrogate constitutional law on this issue, I suppose that's technically true. But then we're in "Trump can impose martial law" or "Trump can expand the Supreme Court" or "Trump can cancel the November election" territory. Yes, of course, I'll concede that Trump could hypothetically ignore constitutional law, carry out a legislative coup, or whatever you want to imagine. But that would be true of *anything*, if other institutions somehow couldn't stop him.
All I'm saying, and what I've been stressing for awhile, is that using the Fed in the way you're talking about doesn't give him a *special* ability to do what you're talking about. Trump has no *more* authority to write stimulus checks to citizens or businesses if he authorizes MMT than if he merely authorizes spending via normal deficit means. Which is, as I've stressed, your hypothesis about the central bank printing money directly to pay for things is a conflation of two separate processes. Within the US, at the very least. Though I suspect this applies pretty broadly for most high-income democracies.
It's important to note that the US federal government already pools all federal revenues into a common fund and then outlays that money essentially wily-nily. For example, Social Security taxes have long produced more revenue than their outlays. The government doesn't save that money in a fund, it used SS revenues to pay for other expenses. Those old enough to remember the 2000 presidential race might remember Al Gore's "lockbox" which was a proposal to end that practice.
They're still lying. But this is the biggest one yet. They have the real numbers, but they're going to move forward anyway. So when Trump gives his constantly changing "success" numbers in the number of deaths, be fully aware that he has been told what will really happen. They all have. They've opted for human sacrifice:
Propaganda or not, that's an accurate summary of the sorts of statements we've been getting from Trump, Fox News, and various right wing commentators. You don't have to lie to make the US government's response to SARS-CoV-2 look bad, just repeat exactly what Trump's said.
Jesus Christ. And this is just about 24 hours after a grocery or department store in Oklahoma (I forget which) had to (or decided to) rescind their mask requirement after customers starting verbally abusing and threatening employees. So it's not just the government they are mad at. They are now demanding private businesses have no right to set the rules within their own stores. These people are not feeling economic anxiety. They are just demanding everyone else put their life on the line so they can get their tips frosted and have an appetizer sampler at Chili's. And if you don't give in to every single one of their whims, even if you are a PRIVATE BUSINESS following the rules, they just might shoot your employees in the fucking head:
Boredom and inconvenience are not an excuse for this kind of shit. Again, America is not capable of dealing with the COVID-19. We've now entered the temper tantrum phase. Imagine living through two World Wars and the Great Depression. We're being asked to sit inside for awhile. No other country is dealing with this. It's perfectly analogous to our response to mass shootings. Paralyzed and impotent in the face of a diseased, coddled culture that has no real empathy or sense of civic duty.
I just read about that Family Dollar store killing in Flint. It's absolutely crazy how this entire family just wigged out over the mom and daughter having to wear masks. So the mom, dad and son are now all facing 1st degree murder charges. Absolutely nuts...
Presumably, people like this have jobs they go to and function at. I assume they are able to get out of bed in the morning and tie their shoes without assistance. My question, when seeing this, is how:
First on the docket, after a mass shooting in N.B. the Federal Liberal bans 1500 types of assault rifles. It is now illegal to sell, use or transport these weapons. The cute part about this is that the "ban will be enacted through regulations approved by an order-in-council from cabinet — not through legislation."
That means, the only party that would have fought this type of popular legislation, the Conservatives can claim that the Liberals acted inappropriately using the cover of a pandemic to pass a knee jerk order that leaves both sides on the gun debate unhappy as even though there is a two year grace period to allow a buy back program for these gun owners, there may also be a grandfather clause allowing them to keep them. The National Posts, Matt Gurney has a good opinion piece of it here
The crackdown on legal firearms ownership, which was announced by Prime Minister Justin Trudeau on May 1, is another shining moment in the long history of dysfunctional Canadian gun control proposals. It will accomplish nothing in particular, but will come at considerable public expense. It will not improve public safety, nor will it will please either side of this contentious debate.
What it will do is give both Liberals and Conservatives an opportunity to fundraise off the issue — one could be forgiven for wondering if that’s literally the only point to any of this. So, again: a textbook example of Canadian gun control politics.
The government announced that it is “banning“ 1,500 different kinds of “assault weapons.” That sounds impressive. It’s not — not a ban, and not impressive. It’s really 11 types of rifles, each with many, many different versions produced by different manufacturers — that’s where the 1,500 figure comes from. None of the weapons are a true military-type rifle, capable of fully automatic fire or equipped with high-capacity magazines, which have been banned in Canada for decades. The list is really a grab bag of fairly mundane semi-automatic rifles. It’s hardly an exhaustive list — many other comparable rifles were unaffected by the announcement. The only real thing that binds these rifles together is a link to prominent mass shootings (and even that isn’t the case for all of them).
In short, the Liberals have “banned” some guns, ignored a bunch of other comparable ones and called it a day. This is going to outrage the gun owners and the shooting industry, infuriate the anti-gun activists and do little else.
My opinion is that it's 'something,' and that it is a step in the right direction. That doesn't mean a government in the future can't take another step and ban the other comparable guns that were not on this list. I also don't mind the way they pushed this through as, even though they have a minority government, they would have gotten enough votes from the NDP to make it a reality. Or maybe not, maybe the NDP would have pushed for more guns to be part of the legislation and refused to sign it if it didn't making it a futile exercise of pandering to the same voters.
The second one is that Ontario is allowing reopening a tiny fraction of businesses starting May 4. These businesses are "seasonal businesses and some essential construction projects." Read seasonal businesses as landscapers and garden centres and they all must follow strict, allegedly monitored, "public health measures and operate safely." So kinda good. It is a nice, very small step to getting things back to normal and for someone who was passed off as a Trump Clone when he was elected, Ford has been handling this crisis remarkably IMO.
The mass shooting was in Nova Scotia. Spent the following week sending messages of condolence to friends here who lost friends in the mass murder. Some action was going to have to have been taken with respect to further restricting semi-automatic weapons in Canada, and I don't really have an issue with it. By and large, you probably don't need to have a semi, and those that could require it to hunt (Indigenous hunters) are exempt under Section 35. Like you say, it's something, or at least the start of something.
However, the shooter in this case was driving a mocked up police cruiser that had, apparently, been purchased at an auction. Given that he was able to elude earlier arrest, and secure the trust of passing motorists, and subsequently shoot them as a result, it seems just as prudent to ensure something like that doesn't happen again. I'd almost rather have the guns available than provide another psychopath with the opportunity to gain the trust of victims by being able to masquerade as a Mountie.
As for Ford, he has done a better than expected job of handling the Covid crisis...But let's not forget that he was responsible for massive cuts in the health care industry in the previous two years. Those cuts weakened the system, and in part allowed Covid 19 to gain a foothold more quickly than it might have with a stronger system in place.
First on the docket, after a mass shooting in N.B. the Federal Liberal bans 1500 types of assault rifles. It is now illegal to sell, use or transport these weapons. The cute part about this is that the "ban will be enacted through regulations approved by an order-in-council from cabinet — not through legislation."
That means, the only party that would have fought this type of popular legislation, the Conservatives can claim that the Liberals acted inappropriately using the cover of a pandemic to pass a knee jerk order that leaves both sides on the gun debate unhappy as even though there is a two year grace period to allow a buy back program for these gun owners, there may also be a grandfather clause allowing them to keep them. The National Posts, Matt Gurney has a good opinion piece of it here
The crackdown on legal firearms ownership, which was announced by Prime Minister Justin Trudeau on May 1, is another shining moment in the long history of dysfunctional Canadian gun control proposals. It will accomplish nothing in particular, but will come at considerable public expense. It will not improve public safety, nor will it will please either side of this contentious debate.
What it will do is give both Liberals and Conservatives an opportunity to fundraise off the issue — one could be forgiven for wondering if that’s literally the only point to any of this. So, again: a textbook example of Canadian gun control politics.
The government announced that it is “banning“ 1,500 different kinds of “assault weapons.” That sounds impressive. It’s not — not a ban, and not impressive. It’s really 11 types of rifles, each with many, many different versions produced by different manufacturers — that’s where the 1,500 figure comes from. None of the weapons are a true military-type rifle, capable of fully automatic fire or equipped with high-capacity magazines, which have been banned in Canada for decades. The list is really a grab bag of fairly mundane semi-automatic rifles. It’s hardly an exhaustive list — many other comparable rifles were unaffected by the announcement. The only real thing that binds these rifles together is a link to prominent mass shootings (and even that isn’t the case for all of them).
In short, the Liberals have “banned” some guns, ignored a bunch of other comparable ones and called it a day. This is going to outrage the gun owners and the shooting industry, infuriate the anti-gun activists and do little else.
My opinion is that it's 'something,' and that it is a step in the right direction. That doesn't mean a government in the future can't take another step and ban the other comparable guns that were not on this list. I also don't mind the way they pushed this through as, even though they have a minority government, they would have gotten enough votes from the NDP to make it a reality. Or maybe not, maybe the NDP would have pushed for more guns to be part of the legislation and refused to sign it if it didn't making it a futile exercise of pandering to the same voters.
The second one is that Ontario is allowing reopening a tiny fraction of businesses starting May 4. These businesses are "seasonal businesses and some essential construction projects." Read seasonal businesses as landscapers and garden centres and they all must follow strict, allegedly monitored, "public health measures and operate safely." So kinda good. It is a nice, very small step to getting things back to normal and for someone who was passed off as a Trump Clone when he was elected, Ford has been handling this crisis remarkably IMO.
The mass shooting was in Nova Scotia. Spent the following week sending messages of condolence to friends here who lost friends in the mass murder. Some action was going to have to have been taken with respect to further restricting semi-automatic weapons in Canada, and I don't really have an issue with it. By and large, you probably don't need to have a semi, and those that could require it to hunt (Indigenous hunters) are exempt under Section 35. Like you say, it's something, or at least the start of something.
However, the shooter in this case was driving a mocked up police cruiser that had, apparently, been purchased at an auction. Given that he was able to elude earlier arrest, and secure the trust of passing motorists, and subsequently shoot them as a result, it seems just as prudent to ensure something like that doesn't happen again. I'd almost rather have the guns available than provide another psychopath with the opportunity to gain the trust of victims by being able to masquerade as a Mountie.
As for Ford, he has done a better than expected job of handling the Covid crisis...But let's not forget that he was responsible for massive cuts in the health care industry in the previous two years. Those cuts weakened the system, and in part allowed Covid 19 to gain a foothold more quickly than it might have with a stronger system in place.
Ya, the police car thing is a little mucked up and I have heard of it being used before (I just can’t remember when).
Police car auctions are basically the forced attempting to recoup some money when they decommission a vehicle and happens more often than a regular person would realize. They are usually bought by private security firms though.
I get the idea that steps should be taken to curb this from happening again but I honestly don’t see what, without infringing on individual liberties or taking away a reliable revenue stream of decommissioned cars.
~
Honestly the cuts to healthcare did little to speed up the spread of covid. The shortage of medical supplies wasn’t as dire here as it was in say California. Hospitals didn’t run out of anything and looking back (with knowing someone who works in a hospital), I’d even go as far as to say elective surgeries didn’t need to be cancelled. Don’t confuse that with they shouldn’t have been cancelled, they should have.
Yes, in the early weeks people were being asked to reuse masks but that didn’t last long and had more to do with a global shortage than Ontario cutting back costs. The reusing of masks is no longer happening.
COVID spreads because of it’s long incubation period. You can have the best healthcare in the world and it’ll mean nothing if social distancing isn’t enforced.
Also do not forget what this conservative government inherited from the outgoing Liberals a close to 15 billion dollar deficit. This isn’t like a federal government deficit, Ontario has zero sway over banks so that deficit means something and should be balanced - something needed to give.
It’s also a good thing to note that the PC government actually increased healthcare spending by 1.4 billion dollars. People tend to forget that because the media focused on the buck a beer pledge than anything else.
They aren't explicitly saying it in these terms, but it's become quite clear to me that the US and the UK are pursuing herd immunity strategies, at what will be the expense of hundreds of thousands of lives at a minimum here in America. They have calculated the people who will be lost (old folks, the poor, and minorities) are simply not worth the lost money in the economy. They are sacrifices as sure as the virgin village girl who is thrown into a volcano. Within the last 24 hours, FOX News has even started to mock the idea of social distancing even on cursory level. I can name at least half a dozen countries off the top of my head who did NOT adapt this policy, are in no worse shape economically, and are barely seeing any deaths each day at all. Because they value their citizens more than money.
They aren't explicitly saying it in these terms, but it's become quite clear to me that the US and the UK are pursuing herd immunity strategies, at what will be the expense of hundreds of thousands of lives at a minimum here in America. They have calculated the people who will be lost (old folks, the poor, and minorities) are simply not worth the lost money in the economy. They are sacrifices as sure as the virgin village girl who is thrown into a volcano. Within the last 24 hours, FOX News has even started to mock the idea of social distancing even on cursory level. I can name at least half a dozen countries off the top of my head who did NOT adapt this policy, are in no worse shape economically, and are barely seeing any deaths each day at all. Because they value their citizens more than money.
You can reasonably make that case for the US, but the UK is no longer pursuing that strategy. The sort of outline timeline involved in decisions here is as follows:
- Jan 29th. First diagnosed case - a Chinese national on holiday here.
- Feb 23rd. Italy introduces its first lockdown in the most affected northern towns.
- Feb 28th. First British death, aboard the Diamond Princess cruise ship.#
- Mar 4th. Signs that the disease is accelerating in the UK with 34 cases identified to take the total to 87.
- Mar 11th. Emergency financial aid of £12bn announced by Chancellor as part of the standard UK budget announcement. First public mention of the idea of herd immunity.
- Mar 12th. Prime Minister announces a movement to the next stage in the Covid-19 strategy. Containment, based on tracking each case, was no longer possible due to the growth in numbers (the limited testing ability available also meant from this date only hospital patients were tested, thus we lost track of the extent of spread within the community which was previously being tracked). Mitigation was the next step with the aim of preventing the NHS from being over-run.
- Mar 16th first daily press briefing. After several days of announcing gradual increase in restrictions, the PM makes clear how serious the situation now is and advises everyone to stay at home where possible.
- Mar 17th the Chancellor announces unprecedented emergency funding of £330bn in loans and £20bn in tax cuts and grants (more would follow in succeeding days). Remember, this is less than a week after his annual budget, making a total mockery of that.
- Mar 23rd. After several further announcements tightening restrictions, the PM announces a much more comprehensive lockdown, this time with legal backing. This has continued essentially unchanged up to now.
What was not obvious in March (at least it fooled me) was that the idea of promoting herd immunity was developed off the cuff. Discussions now published from the advisory groups show 2 points of contention in the run up to the first major restrictions announced on 12th March. First there was concern about singling out the over-70s as a risk group. Second, there was a desire to find a justification for not cancelling large sporting events, such as football (based on opinion polling in early March that the majority of people would not support the cancellation of these). The idea of herd immunity provided a way to justify these points to the public, while fitting neatly with the 4 stage strategy already published for Covid-19 - as that was not intended to entirely suppress the disease, but just slow it down.
The announcement on 16th March followed the new modelling showing that the current strategy was likely to lead to at least 250,000 deaths. That prompted a major shift in the government's thinking and the previous planning was ditched in favor of a return to a full attempt at suppression. The idea of herd immunity has not been policy since then.
Looking at the decision process, I would say there were 2 main errors: Lack of preparation
Preparations were woefully inadequate even after it was clear from the Italian experience what a problem there would be if the disease were allowed to take hold. The UK is currently recruiting 18,000 people to help in tracking the disease - if that process had been started in February it could have been a major help. Like most countries there's been a strain on PPE, but much of that could have been avoided if planning had started earlier - for instance by putting out a call for industrial partners a month earlier than was done. Perhaps most shocking, the UK was horribly slow in building up testing capacity. The decision to abandon testing in the community is a significant reason why there have been so many deaths in care homes recently (the shortage of PPE in that setting is another major factor). Insufficient leadership
A major influence on early policy was how acceptable that was expected to be to the public. That's absolutely right in principle and understandable. However, with the benefit of hindsight it's reasonable to argue that government had enough information by late February to have decided they should be leading the public, rather than waiting for attitudes to catch up.
Given the nature of a democracy, I don't think there was ever much prospect of the sort of tough action seen later as long as cases were low. I can imagine some of the newspapers having a field day if a lockdown had been announced in early March for instance, when there were less than 100 cases in the UK. However, at that stage the disease was doubling around every 2.5 days. If the current level of restrictions had been put in place even a couple of weeks earlier, which would probably have been just about possible (even if unpopular initially), the numbers of cases expected now would be less than 2% of the current figure. Just how quickly things were moving is graphically illustrated by the decision to announce a standard budget on 11th March - then only 5 days later (by which stage expected cases had risen by 400%), announce a major shift in policy as Covid-19 had come to dominate the whole political agenda.
Edit: Well that explains it. I found it really odd that the article I referenced above was the only one I found when I searched. Turns out I spelled the victims name wrong.
Edit: Well that explains it. I found it really odd that the article I referenced above was the only one I found when I searched. Turns out I spelled the victims name wrong.
Has anyone every thought of calling the cops instead of barricading someone in-between two pick-ups with people in the back toting shotguns?? Hell, the cops might have killed him too, but I know damn sure THESE fuckers had no business doing any of this. They have no authority or jurisdiction in this matter. IF they suspected he was a burglar (and isn't it always amazing that EVERY FUCKING TIME one of these incidents comes up the first line in the story afterwards is "there have been alot of burglaries lately"), the only thing you are able to do is call law enforcement. I love how the article takes the last paragraph to smear the deceased, which is par for the course. Criminalize the murdered person and make the trigger men seem like saints. The video is right there. He did NOT start anything. He was ambushed by 3 or 4 armed men in pick-up trucks on a road. His family said he was out for a run. I used to be a runner. I immediately looked at his stride in the first part of the video before it's evident what he is facing. He is not running from anyone as if he was trying to get away. He is clearly in the stride of a distance runner.
I read the comment section on the article. The resident conservative chud poster says over and over again that if someone confronts you with a gun, do what they say and talk things out rather than attacking them. Ummmm, excuse me?? Now it's not just cops who can tell you what to do with a gun pointed at you, but regular citizens playing vigilante in their pick-up trucks?? What that poster really means to say is "know your place, boy, or you'll end up dead". Fuck man. I mean, really. 4 armed people using pick-ups as road-blocks, and yet somehow, the black kid is still the "danger". Where was his gun, in the waistband of his elastic basketball shorts?? How do they imagine it would have stayed put while he was running at full speed?? Even if he WAS a burglar (which hasn't remotely been established), it's still a cold-blooded execution.
It's very hard to tell what actually happened here. I hear gunshots but where they are coming from isn't clear. It could be from the gun he is trying to take from the guy during the struggle. I'm gonna wait until I hear more information before I make a judgement. I wrongly condemned George Zimmerman as a murderer, until I watched the entire trial.
Regardless, charging a group of armed men while you are unarmed isn't a recipe for success, and can result in them having the legal justification to shoot you. It's not acceptable even if someone is harassing you anyway.
It is more likely than not that this was just a case of straight up murder since there wasn't any serious bodily injury involved and a normal fight with no injuries usually isn't sufficient. However, if he was trying to grab the gun, that's a different story.
I lost everything that I typed about that story but:
I don't believe the two men. It's Trayvon Martin all over again. There was no proof of him being part of any robbery. Acting suspicious reads as "being black" during the entire thing. So these two asshats run down a guy with their pickup trucks waving a shotgun around and their not charged? They should have been made an example of. They both should be behind bars waiting trial. They should not have been granted bail as they have the money to be a flight risk. I guess being connected as a retired DA investigator has its reach. It's pathetic.
What's even more pathetic this happened in February. It does not take 2 and half months to review security videos. These mofos are god damn stalling hoping it goes away.
Lets assume there was a scuffle for the shotgun as mentioned on the article and the reverse happened and the son was shot dead instead of Arbery. Do you think, for a single second, that the cops would wait two and half months to charge him with minimum manslaughter?
Pathetic. But what does one expect to come from the American justice system these days when you are black,
It's very hard to tell what actually happened here. I hear gunshots but where they are coming from isn't clear. It could be from the gun he is trying to take from the guy during the struggle. I'm gonna wait until I hear more information before I make a judgement. I wrongly condemned George Zimmerman as a murderer, until I watched the entire trial.
Regardless, charging a group of armed men while you are unarmed isn't a recipe for success, and can result in them having the legal justification to shoot you. It's not acceptable even if someone is harassing you anyway.
It is more likely than not that this was just a case of straight up murder since there wasn't any serious bodily injury involved and a normal fight with no injuries usually isn't sufficient. However, if he was trying to grab the gun, that's a different story.
George Zimmerman was told, directly, by the cops, to mind his own business. At what point does a child being stalked by a vigilante in the dark have the right to stand THEIR ground?? And Zimmerman's behavior since the trial has validated everything ever said about him at the time. I still maintain he will murder again before it's all said and done.
And come on, barricading someone inbetween vehicles that on their own could be deadly with shotguns is not "harrassment", it's an implicit threat of deadly violence. He TRIED to run to the right of the front pick-up and they stopped him. If those "men" were half as macho as they thought they were, they wouldn't need firearms and multi-ton pick-ups to handle their shit.
It's very hard to tell what actually happened here. I hear gunshots but where they are coming from isn't clear. It could be from the gun he is trying to take from the guy during the struggle. I'm gonna wait until I hear more information before I make a judgement. I wrongly condemned George Zimmerman as a murderer, until I watched the entire trial.
Regardless, charging a group of armed men while you are unarmed isn't a recipe for success, and can result in them having the legal justification to shoot you. It's not acceptable even if someone is harassing you anyway.
It is more likely than not that this was just a case of straight up murder since there wasn't any serious bodily injury involved and a normal fight with no injuries usually isn't sufficient. However, if he was trying to grab the gun, that's a different story.
George Zimmerman was told, directly, by the cops, to mind his own business. At what point does a child being stalked by a vigilante in the dark have the right to stand THEIR ground?? And Zimmerman's behavior since the trial has validated everything ever said about him at the time. I still maintain he will murder again before it's all said and done.
That was the entire argument, basically. Zimmerman was a bad man, therefore he was a murderer. Bad men shouldn't have rights. It doesn't work that way in reality. Every credible witness, including the closest one to the scene, testified to the fact that he avoided trying to use his gun until he was on the ground, getting his head pounded in.
Stand your ground law doesn't allow you to shoot people who stop you to ask you questions, nor should it allow severe assault for the same reasons. A 9/11 operator also isn't a cop, and aren't supposed to give legal advice of any sort since they aren't trained for it and can be held responsible. This also came up during the trial.
From what I can see, no explicit cause of death for Ahmoud has been assigned other than 'gunshot wounds'. I find it very curious that there's been no mention of where this man was shot. If it was a shot in the leg (you can sort of see him limping after the second gunshot in the video) there may be a case that there was a tussle for the gun with tragic results - still at least manslaughter if you ask me but that's beside the point. If the deadly gunshot wound was anywhere else, it really looks like murder to me.
It's very hard to tell what actually happened here. I hear gunshots but where they are coming from isn't clear. It could be from the gun he is trying to take from the guy during the struggle. I'm gonna wait until I hear more information before I make a judgement. I wrongly condemned George Zimmerman as a murderer, until I watched the entire trial.
Regardless, charging a group of armed men while you are unarmed isn't a recipe for success, and can result in them having the legal justification to shoot you. It's not acceptable even if someone is harassing you anyway.
It is more likely than not that this was just a case of straight up murder since there wasn't any serious bodily injury involved and a normal fight with no injuries usually isn't sufficient. However, if he was trying to grab the gun, that's a different story.
George Zimmerman was told, directly, by the cops, to mind his own business. At what point does a child being stalked by a vigilante in the dark have the right to stand THEIR ground?? And Zimmerman's behavior since the trial has validated everything ever said about him at the time. I still maintain he will murder again before it's all said and done.
That was the entire argument, basically. Zimmerman was a bad man, therefore he was a murderer. Bad men shouldn't have rights. It doesn't work that way in reality. Every credible witness, including the closest one to the scene, testified to the fact that he avoided trying to use his gun until he was on the ground, getting his head pounded in.
Stand your ground law doesn't allow you to shoot people who stop you to ask you questions, nor should it allow severe assault for the same reasons. A 9/11 operator also isn't a cop, and aren't supposed to give legal advice of any sort since they aren't trained for it and can be held responsible. This also came up during the trial.
This was *not* the prosecutor's arguments. Remember, Zimmerman was tried by the state for murder. If you think they can indict someone on such a flimsy basis as "he was bad" I dunno what to tell you. That's not a clear reading of the facts.
Zimmerman pursued another human being and then initiated an altercation with them that led to the other human being getting shot. Maybe you don't believe the prosecution did enough to make that case, but that was their case. IMO, even if you think Zimmerman might have been justified in the final moments where he was forced to draw his weapon, a series of reckless choices by Zimmerman led to that happening, and were completely avoidable.
It's very hard to tell what actually happened here. I hear gunshots but where they are coming from isn't clear. It could be from the gun he is trying to take from the guy during the struggle. I'm gonna wait until I hear more information before I make a judgement. I wrongly condemned George Zimmerman as a murderer, until I watched the entire trial.
Regardless, charging a group of armed men while you are unarmed isn't a recipe for success, and can result in them having the legal justification to shoot you. It's not acceptable even if someone is harassing you anyway.
It is more likely than not that this was just a case of straight up murder since there wasn't any serious bodily injury involved and a normal fight with no injuries usually isn't sufficient. However, if he was trying to grab the gun, that's a different story.
George Zimmerman was told, directly, by the cops, to mind his own business. At what point does a child being stalked by a vigilante in the dark have the right to stand THEIR ground?? And Zimmerman's behavior since the trial has validated everything ever said about him at the time. I still maintain he will murder again before it's all said and done.
That was the entire argument, basically. Zimmerman was a bad man, therefore he was a murderer. Bad men shouldn't have rights. It doesn't work that way in reality. Every credible witness, including the closest one to the scene, testified to the fact that he avoided trying to use his gun until he was on the ground, getting his head pounded in.
Stand your ground law doesn't allow you to shoot people who stop you to ask you questions, nor should it allow severe assault for the same reasons. A 9/11 operator also isn't a cop, and aren't supposed to give legal advice of any sort since they aren't trained for it and can be held responsible. This also came up during the trial.
Did Zimmerman kill Trayvon Martin?
If the answer is yes, then Zimmerman is a murderer.
Just because backwatered states like Florida have draconian laws that acquit people of violent acts doesn't take away that Martin is dead at the hands of Zimmerman.
It's also worth noting the one witness and person's account we didn't hear about at the Zimmerman trial was Martin's because he was dead. Martin acted in self defense. What? Would you stop beating up an armed person who approached you from behind? Idiotic argument.
?
It's very hard to tell what actually happened here. I hear gunshots but where they are coming from isn't clear. It could be from the gun he is trying to take from the guy during the struggle. I'm gonna wait until I hear more information before I make a judgement. I wrongly condemned George Zimmerman as a murderer, until I watched the entire trial.
Regardless, charging a group of armed men while you are unarmed isn't a recipe for success, and can result in them having the legal justification to shoot you. It's not acceptable even if someone is harassing you anyway.
It is more likely than not that this was just a case of straight up murder since there wasn't any serious bodily injury involved and a normal fight with no injuries usually isn't sufficient. However, if he was trying to grab the gun, that's a different story.
George Zimmerman was told, directly, by the cops, to mind his own business. At what point does a child being stalked by a vigilante in the dark have the right to stand THEIR ground?? And Zimmerman's behavior since the trial has validated everything ever said about him at the time. I still maintain he will murder again before it's all said and done.
That was the entire argument, basically. Zimmerman was a bad man, therefore he was a murderer. Bad men shouldn't have rights. It doesn't work that way in reality. Every credible witness, including the closest one to the scene, testified to the fact that he avoided trying to use his gun until he was on the ground, getting his head pounded in.
Stand your ground law doesn't allow you to shoot people who stop you to ask you questions, nor should it allow severe assault for the same reasons. A 9/11 operator also isn't a cop, and aren't supposed to give legal advice of any sort since they aren't trained for it and can be held responsible. This also came up during the trial.
Did Zimmerman kill Trayvon Martin?
If the answer is yes, then Zimmerman is a murderer.
That's a very simplistic definition of murder. Glad you're not a judge...
Simple question: does anyone think for one second if the roles were reversed in this case in Georgia that the dead man wouldn't be in jail awaiting trial?? Does anyone HONESTLY believe that??
It's very hard to tell what actually happened here. I hear gunshots but where they are coming from isn't clear. It could be from the gun he is trying to take from the guy during the struggle. I'm gonna wait until I hear more information before I make a judgement. I wrongly condemned George Zimmerman as a murderer, until I watched the entire trial.
Regardless, charging a group of armed men while you are unarmed isn't a recipe for success, and can result in them having the legal justification to shoot you. It's not acceptable even if someone is harassing you anyway.
It is more likely than not that this was just a case of straight up murder since there wasn't any serious bodily injury involved and a normal fight with no injuries usually isn't sufficient. However, if he was trying to grab the gun, that's a different story.
George Zimmerman was told, directly, by the cops, to mind his own business. At what point does a child being stalked by a vigilante in the dark have the right to stand THEIR ground?? And Zimmerman's behavior since the trial has validated everything ever said about him at the time. I still maintain he will murder again before it's all said and done.
That was the entire argument, basically. Zimmerman was a bad man, therefore he was a murderer. Bad men shouldn't have rights. It doesn't work that way in reality. Every credible witness, including the closest one to the scene, testified to the fact that he avoided trying to use his gun until he was on the ground, getting his head pounded in.
Stand your ground law doesn't allow you to shoot people who stop you to ask you questions, nor should it allow severe assault for the same reasons. A 9/11 operator also isn't a cop, and aren't supposed to give legal advice of any sort since they aren't trained for it and can be held responsible. This also came up during the trial.
Did Zimmerman kill Trayvon Martin?
If the answer is yes, then Zimmerman is a murderer.
Just because backwatered states like Florida have draconian laws that acquit people of violent acts doesn't take away that Martin is dead at the hands of Zimmerman.
It's also worth noting the one witness and person's account we didn't hear about at the Zimmerman trial was Martin's because he was dead. Martin acted in self defense. What? Would you stop beating up an armed person who approached you from behind? Idiotic argument.
?
He did not act in self defense, that much is clear. A person approaching you and asking questions, however unjustified, isn't a form of assault, and doesn't require a violent response. He could have even gotten violent and still lived had he stopped after he knocked him to the ground. But no, he got on top of him and kept going, to the point where a jury found a reasonable belief on Zimmerman's part that he would endure serious bodily injury or death. There is a constant stream of excuse-making on the part of the assailants in these sort of situations and I don't understand it. It was *not* a justified response.
Comments
Biden also, not for nothing, willingly took a back seat and played second fiddle to the first black President. He was loyal, and he never wavered in that loyalty, never tried to show up his boss, never assumed he knew better. To many black voters, this is something they may have never seen in their daily lives, where they get dismissed just by walking into a room. You can't underestimate what Obama meant for African-Americans born early enough to have lived through the Civil Rights movement or the immediate aftermath, especially in the South. His election to them was akin to a religious miracle in this country. Biden's steadfast partnership with Obama means they can trust him by default.
But frankly, it basically boils down to "this Bernie guy ain't gonna be able to do any of this shit", and while I supported Bernie over Biden, and think his policies are where we should be heading (especially in light of this pandemic), they are CORRECT in that assessment. I don't know a single issue in Bernie's main platform (Medicare for All, free college and $15 national minimum wage) that could ACTUALLY PASS Congress. African-American voters have been accepting incremental change for decades. Bernie was promising revolution. They don't believe there is time for revolution when it comes to defeating Trump.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1984_United_States_presidential_election
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1972_United_States_presidential_election
Democrats old enough to remember these broke hard for Biden, per exit polls. Personally I never bought that Sanders was a weak general election candidate. Matchup polling--nationally and in the battleground states--showed that both Biden and Sanders do pretty well against Trump, with a very tiny edge going to Biden.
I also think voters are fooling themselves if they think the dirt being dug up against Biden is somehow unique to him being the presumptive nominee. If instead Sanders was in his place, we'd be hearing all about Sanders supporting Castro, the Sandinistas, even the USSR, and, yes, perhaps even far-fetched allegations of sexual misconduct. And who knows what else. The idea that conservatives somehow could not pull these dirty tricks against Sanders is wishful thinking.
People relying on "Trump can't" do something have received shocks before. What is the immovable legislative or procedural obstacle that you think would prevent this (and forget MMT - Trump is never going to be bound by what a theoretical economic model says is a good idea)?
As I said before, I don't think Trump will actually try to bypass Congress by sending out cash in his own name, but I've set out the factors that lead me to believe it is not impossible - which of these do you think I'm mistaken about?
- the constitution gives Congress the power to set budgets and approve appropriations from the Treasury. Newly printed money would be, at least arguably, outside the budgetary framework and not an appropriation from the Treasury. SCOTUS could block it anyway on the grounds that it generally undermines the spirit of the constitution (and they probably would do this, although you should note the increasing influence on SCOTUS of the strict constructionist approach to legal interpretation), but there's no guarantee about that.
- even if Congress does not have absolute power in this area, there would still need to be a law under which Trump issued the money (and I agree it's impossible to imagine the current Congress passing a new law). However, given how amorphous presidential emergency powers are, it would surprise me if SCOTUS blocked a distribution using those powers (assuming they were already willing to let it past a more general constitutional test).
- Trump can sack people on the Fed governing board if he can show good cause for that (and that would be a relatively minor legislative hurdle if he's already got this far). He can then appoint their replacements (without Senate confirmation, at least in the short term) until he gets a majority willing to do what he wants. He could then make use of the existing Fed procedural mechanisms to actually do a distribution.
Congress controls the spending process. Trump cannot hand out outlays on something new without a legislative bill authorizing that spending. And if you want to argue that he can somehow abrogate constitutional law on this issue, I suppose that's technically true. But then we're in "Trump can impose martial law" or "Trump can expand the Supreme Court" or "Trump can cancel the November election" territory. Yes, of course, I'll concede that Trump could hypothetically ignore constitutional law, carry out a legislative coup, or whatever you want to imagine. But that would be true of *anything*, if other institutions somehow couldn't stop him.
All I'm saying, and what I've been stressing for awhile, is that using the Fed in the way you're talking about doesn't give him a *special* ability to do what you're talking about. Trump has no *more* authority to write stimulus checks to citizens or businesses if he authorizes MMT than if he merely authorizes spending via normal deficit means. Which is, as I've stressed, your hypothesis about the central bank printing money directly to pay for things is a conflation of two separate processes. Within the US, at the very least. Though I suspect this applies pretty broadly for most high-income democracies.
stilled lolled through out it.
https://www.cnn.com/2020/05/04/us/michigan-security-guard-mask-killing-trnd/index.html
https://www.nbcnews.com/news/us-news/oklahoma-city-ends-face-mask-rule-shoppers-after-store-employees-n1198736
Boredom and inconvenience are not an excuse for this kind of shit. Again, America is not capable of dealing with the COVID-19. We've now entered the temper tantrum phase. Imagine living through two World Wars and the Great Depression. We're being asked to sit inside for awhile. No other country is dealing with this. It's perfectly analogous to our response to mass shootings. Paralyzed and impotent in the face of a diseased, coddled culture that has no real empathy or sense of civic duty.
https://www.google.com/amp/s/www.wnem.com/news/men-accused-of-killing-security-guard-at-family-dollar-considered-armed-dangerous/article_4163fb72-8e36-11ea-8f05-9bc8d25366e4.amp.html
The mass shooting was in Nova Scotia. Spent the following week sending messages of condolence to friends here who lost friends in the mass murder. Some action was going to have to have been taken with respect to further restricting semi-automatic weapons in Canada, and I don't really have an issue with it. By and large, you probably don't need to have a semi, and those that could require it to hunt (Indigenous hunters) are exempt under Section 35. Like you say, it's something, or at least the start of something.
However, the shooter in this case was driving a mocked up police cruiser that had, apparently, been purchased at an auction. Given that he was able to elude earlier arrest, and secure the trust of passing motorists, and subsequently shoot them as a result, it seems just as prudent to ensure something like that doesn't happen again. I'd almost rather have the guns available than provide another psychopath with the opportunity to gain the trust of victims by being able to masquerade as a Mountie.
As for Ford, he has done a better than expected job of handling the Covid crisis...But let's not forget that he was responsible for massive cuts in the health care industry in the previous two years. Those cuts weakened the system, and in part allowed Covid 19 to gain a foothold more quickly than it might have with a stronger system in place.
Ya, the police car thing is a little mucked up and I have heard of it being used before (I just can’t remember when).
Police car auctions are basically the forced attempting to recoup some money when they decommission a vehicle and happens more often than a regular person would realize. They are usually bought by private security firms though.
I get the idea that steps should be taken to curb this from happening again but I honestly don’t see what, without infringing on individual liberties or taking away a reliable revenue stream of decommissioned cars.
~
Honestly the cuts to healthcare did little to speed up the spread of covid. The shortage of medical supplies wasn’t as dire here as it was in say California. Hospitals didn’t run out of anything and looking back (with knowing someone who works in a hospital), I’d even go as far as to say elective surgeries didn’t need to be cancelled. Don’t confuse that with they shouldn’t have been cancelled, they should have.
Yes, in the early weeks people were being asked to reuse masks but that didn’t last long and had more to do with a global shortage than Ontario cutting back costs. The reusing of masks is no longer happening.
COVID spreads because of it’s long incubation period. You can have the best healthcare in the world and it’ll mean nothing if social distancing isn’t enforced.
Also do not forget what this conservative government inherited from the outgoing Liberals a close to 15 billion dollar deficit. This isn’t like a federal government deficit, Ontario has zero sway over banks so that deficit means something and should be balanced - something needed to give.
It’s also a good thing to note that the PC government actually increased healthcare spending by 1.4 billion dollars. People tend to forget that because the media focused on the buck a beer pledge than anything else.
You can read more here if you like: https://www.iheartradio.ca/610cktb/news/recap-what-is-in-ontario-s-budget-and-how-will-it-impact-you-1.9066805
You can reasonably make that case for the US, but the UK is no longer pursuing that strategy. The sort of outline timeline involved in decisions here is as follows:
- Jan 29th. First diagnosed case - a Chinese national on holiday here.
- Feb 23rd. Italy introduces its first lockdown in the most affected northern towns.
- Feb 28th. First British death, aboard the Diamond Princess cruise ship.#
- Mar 4th. Signs that the disease is accelerating in the UK with 34 cases identified to take the total to 87.
- Mar 11th. Emergency financial aid of £12bn announced by Chancellor as part of the standard UK budget announcement. First public mention of the idea of herd immunity.
- Mar 12th. Prime Minister announces a movement to the next stage in the Covid-19 strategy. Containment, based on tracking each case, was no longer possible due to the growth in numbers (the limited testing ability available also meant from this date only hospital patients were tested, thus we lost track of the extent of spread within the community which was previously being tracked). Mitigation was the next step with the aim of preventing the NHS from being over-run.
- Mar 16th first daily press briefing. After several days of announcing gradual increase in restrictions, the PM makes clear how serious the situation now is and advises everyone to stay at home where possible.
- Mar 17th the Chancellor announces unprecedented emergency funding of £330bn in loans and £20bn in tax cuts and grants (more would follow in succeeding days). Remember, this is less than a week after his annual budget, making a total mockery of that.
- Mar 23rd. After several further announcements tightening restrictions, the PM announces a much more comprehensive lockdown, this time with legal backing. This has continued essentially unchanged up to now.
What was not obvious in March (at least it fooled me) was that the idea of promoting herd immunity was developed off the cuff. Discussions now published from the advisory groups show 2 points of contention in the run up to the first major restrictions announced on 12th March. First there was concern about singling out the over-70s as a risk group. Second, there was a desire to find a justification for not cancelling large sporting events, such as football (based on opinion polling in early March that the majority of people would not support the cancellation of these). The idea of herd immunity provided a way to justify these points to the public, while fitting neatly with the 4 stage strategy already published for Covid-19 - as that was not intended to entirely suppress the disease, but just slow it down.
The announcement on 16th March followed the new modelling showing that the current strategy was likely to lead to at least 250,000 deaths. That prompted a major shift in the government's thinking and the previous planning was ditched in favor of a return to a full attempt at suppression. The idea of herd immunity has not been policy since then.
Looking at the decision process, I would say there were 2 main errors:
Lack of preparation
Preparations were woefully inadequate even after it was clear from the Italian experience what a problem there would be if the disease were allowed to take hold. The UK is currently recruiting 18,000 people to help in tracking the disease - if that process had been started in February it could have been a major help. Like most countries there's been a strain on PPE, but much of that could have been avoided if planning had started earlier - for instance by putting out a call for industrial partners a month earlier than was done. Perhaps most shocking, the UK was horribly slow in building up testing capacity. The decision to abandon testing in the community is a significant reason why there have been so many deaths in care homes recently (the shortage of PPE in that setting is another major factor).
Insufficient leadership
A major influence on early policy was how acceptable that was expected to be to the public. That's absolutely right in principle and understandable. However, with the benefit of hindsight it's reasonable to argue that government had enough information by late February to have decided they should be leading the public, rather than waiting for attitudes to catch up.
Given the nature of a democracy, I don't think there was ever much prospect of the sort of tough action seen later as long as cases were low. I can imagine some of the newspapers having a field day if a lockdown had been announced in early March for instance, when there were less than 100 cases in the UK. However, at that stage the disease was doubling around every 2.5 days. If the current level of restrictions had been put in place even a couple of weeks earlier, which would probably have been just about possible (even if unpopular initially), the numbers of cases expected now would be less than 2% of the current figure. Just how quickly things were moving is graphically illustrated by the decision to announce a standard budget on 11th March - then only 5 days later (by which stage expected cases had risen by 400%), announce a major shift in policy as Covid-19 had come to dominate the whole political agenda.
Found this article with more details on that incident.
https://thebrunswicknews.com/news/local_news/police-report-sheds-more-light-on-satilla-shores-shooting/article_2d7c05c8-36d3-55b5-ae11-60ea763095b3.html
Edit: Well that explains it. I found it really odd that the article I referenced above was the only one I found when I searched. Turns out I spelled the victims name wrong.
Has anyone every thought of calling the cops instead of barricading someone in-between two pick-ups with people in the back toting shotguns?? Hell, the cops might have killed him too, but I know damn sure THESE fuckers had no business doing any of this. They have no authority or jurisdiction in this matter. IF they suspected he was a burglar (and isn't it always amazing that EVERY FUCKING TIME one of these incidents comes up the first line in the story afterwards is "there have been alot of burglaries lately"), the only thing you are able to do is call law enforcement. I love how the article takes the last paragraph to smear the deceased, which is par for the course. Criminalize the murdered person and make the trigger men seem like saints. The video is right there. He did NOT start anything. He was ambushed by 3 or 4 armed men in pick-up trucks on a road. His family said he was out for a run. I used to be a runner. I immediately looked at his stride in the first part of the video before it's evident what he is facing. He is not running from anyone as if he was trying to get away. He is clearly in the stride of a distance runner.
I read the comment section on the article. The resident conservative chud poster says over and over again that if someone confronts you with a gun, do what they say and talk things out rather than attacking them. Ummmm, excuse me?? Now it's not just cops who can tell you what to do with a gun pointed at you, but regular citizens playing vigilante in their pick-up trucks?? What that poster really means to say is "know your place, boy, or you'll end up dead". Fuck man. I mean, really. 4 armed people using pick-ups as road-blocks, and yet somehow, the black kid is still the "danger". Where was his gun, in the waistband of his elastic basketball shorts?? How do they imagine it would have stayed put while he was running at full speed?? Even if he WAS a burglar (which hasn't remotely been established), it's still a cold-blooded execution.
Regardless, charging a group of armed men while you are unarmed isn't a recipe for success, and can result in them having the legal justification to shoot you. It's not acceptable even if someone is harassing you anyway.
It is more likely than not that this was just a case of straight up murder since there wasn't any serious bodily injury involved and a normal fight with no injuries usually isn't sufficient. However, if he was trying to grab the gun, that's a different story.
I don't believe the two men. It's Trayvon Martin all over again. There was no proof of him being part of any robbery. Acting suspicious reads as "being black" during the entire thing. So these two asshats run down a guy with their pickup trucks waving a shotgun around and their not charged? They should have been made an example of. They both should be behind bars waiting trial. They should not have been granted bail as they have the money to be a flight risk. I guess being connected as a retired DA investigator has its reach. It's pathetic.
What's even more pathetic this happened in February. It does not take 2 and half months to review security videos. These mofos are god damn stalling hoping it goes away.
Lets assume there was a scuffle for the shotgun as mentioned on the article and the reverse happened and the son was shot dead instead of Arbery. Do you think, for a single second, that the cops would wait two and half months to charge him with minimum manslaughter?
Pathetic. But what does one expect to come from the American justice system these days when you are black,
George Zimmerman was told, directly, by the cops, to mind his own business. At what point does a child being stalked by a vigilante in the dark have the right to stand THEIR ground?? And Zimmerman's behavior since the trial has validated everything ever said about him at the time. I still maintain he will murder again before it's all said and done.
And come on, barricading someone inbetween vehicles that on their own could be deadly with shotguns is not "harrassment", it's an implicit threat of deadly violence. He TRIED to run to the right of the front pick-up and they stopped him. If those "men" were half as macho as they thought they were, they wouldn't need firearms and multi-ton pick-ups to handle their shit.
That was the entire argument, basically. Zimmerman was a bad man, therefore he was a murderer. Bad men shouldn't have rights. It doesn't work that way in reality. Every credible witness, including the closest one to the scene, testified to the fact that he avoided trying to use his gun until he was on the ground, getting his head pounded in.
Stand your ground law doesn't allow you to shoot people who stop you to ask you questions, nor should it allow severe assault for the same reasons. A 9/11 operator also isn't a cop, and aren't supposed to give legal advice of any sort since they aren't trained for it and can be held responsible. This also came up during the trial.
This was *not* the prosecutor's arguments. Remember, Zimmerman was tried by the state for murder. If you think they can indict someone on such a flimsy basis as "he was bad" I dunno what to tell you. That's not a clear reading of the facts.
Zimmerman pursued another human being and then initiated an altercation with them that led to the other human being getting shot. Maybe you don't believe the prosecution did enough to make that case, but that was their case. IMO, even if you think Zimmerman might have been justified in the final moments where he was forced to draw his weapon, a series of reckless choices by Zimmerman led to that happening, and were completely avoidable.
Did Zimmerman kill Trayvon Martin?
If the answer is yes, then Zimmerman is a murderer.
Just because backwatered states like Florida have draconian laws that acquit people of violent acts doesn't take away that Martin is dead at the hands of Zimmerman.
It's also worth noting the one witness and person's account we didn't hear about at the Zimmerman trial was Martin's because he was dead. Martin acted in self defense. What? Would you stop beating up an armed person who approached you from behind? Idiotic argument.
?
That's a very simplistic definition of murder. Glad you're not a judge...
He did not act in self defense, that much is clear. A person approaching you and asking questions, however unjustified, isn't a form of assault, and doesn't require a violent response. He could have even gotten violent and still lived had he stopped after he knocked him to the ground. But no, he got on top of him and kept going, to the point where a jury found a reasonable belief on Zimmerman's part that he would endure serious bodily injury or death. There is a constant stream of excuse-making on the part of the assailants in these sort of situations and I don't understand it. It was *not* a justified response.