Andy9o8

I only wish he was 10 years younger.

I know quite a few (several dozen) in the beat, tazed or illegally jailed categories. A couple in the shot categories. It's just a matter of being in the right place to know them, and to know (not presume - know) the actual facts.

You know, it's funny - it doesn't escape my notice that the people on these boards who most frequently remind us (I think correctly) that the 2nd Amendment preserves freedom by enabling The People to fight tyranny by using means necessary to actively resist an oppressive government are usually the same ones who bitch the loudest outrage when it's black people who actually do that.

I don't think I've seen any hard data to either support or refute this suggestion. Can you assist?

I doubt most of them have access to toilet paper. Ever see the story about satellite pictures of N Korea at night? Basically the entire country outside of Pyongyang is pitch black - no lights, compared to S Korea & China. But good for them that they're spending money on nuclear weapons while their people starve so The Little Fat Kid can afford his funny haircuts.

Is this a great country, or what?

Seriously? You're the one who launched the detailed misinformation rant about the ME's report in the chokehold case in your post #15. I responded to that. You hijacked your own fucking thread. It's a little late to bitch about it now. Own it.

Hey, "they" have "their" training camps; we have ours.

yes, that would be dysfunctional you are a hero for writing that and so forth and your opinion on what N Korea did to Sony? a bit of a tangent, but my personal take on it N Korea (or whoever) had a tantrum, like a baby child. Sony buckled under it, like a bad parent with a baby child. I don't want tantrums to be watered down to the point of being meaningless.

That's just been answered. You're grasping at straws. He died from the totality of force applied upon him, including the choke hold, even if not exclusively from the choke-hold. You really need to stop massaging the half-facts. You're not convincing anyone. That's also been answered. We're not going to keep repeating ourselves just because you do. "Last word" does not equal "correct".

I clearly did not say that. If you need to spin-up someone's words to fit your agenda, you've already lost the debate. Ditto. My meaning is obvious to an honest reader of my comments, your spin-up notwithstanding. I'm just not willing to play that game with you.

The M.E. never said that he died of asphyxiation. If someone puts you in a chokehold and you die from having your airways restricted, you will die due to asphyxiation. You're re-hashing the same bullshit argument as was hashed in the Garner thread 2 weeks ago. The medical examiner's office said: "The cause of Garner's death was "compression of neck (choke hold), compression of chest and prone positioning during physical restraint by police". That is what it is: the totality of the officers' force. Your twiddling doesn't change that. First, the GJ has issued no such finding of fact, nor did it issue any findings of fact re: the specific medical causes of death, so you're simply making that up. Second, the all the GJ did was - at the prosecutor's urging - decline to find that the officer's conduct amounted to certain specific crimes under New York law. Nothing more. QuoteThat particular Grand Jury was made up of more than a handful of black people. Are you saying that they're wrong or incompetent? Another re-hash. As has also been discussed, of the 23 grand jurors, 9 were non-white. It takes a vote of 12 to indict. Thus even if every non-white grand juror, plus 2 more, voted to indict, there still would have been no indictment. Grand juries virtually always (about 90% of the time) rubber-stamp what the prosecutor asks them to do. This prosecutor was clearly inclined to not prosecute the officer, so it's no surprise that the (majority votes on the) GJ ultimately took the path he led them down. There are plenty of actual facts and policies about that case to debate about. Please don't insult our intelligence by acting as though your presumptions have been established as facts. They have not.

I agree with the author that this is full of shit. However, if I may nitpick, he overstates his case when he says, without qualification or clarification, "All told, Pennsylvania is "the only state besides Utah to control retail and wholesale liquor operations, residents must purchase wine and spirits from state stores or in-state wineries." ". In fact, depending on the criteria, the actual number is between 13 and 18 states: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Alcoholic_beverage_control_state http://www.nabca.org/States/States.aspx

Not solely; there are also turkey basters, swimming pools and black patent leather shoes on Catholic girls. Those are myths. So is the premise of the OP. So I guess we've come full circle.

I can think of at least 400 reasons to urge you to reconsider that.

Not very likely.

They do love their sports & recreation.

Not solely; there are also turkey basters, swimming pools and black patent leather shoes on Catholic girls.

Not by any reasonable interpretation. I know reason has nothing to do with this discussion, but can anyone honestly defend the pretense that something grown and sold strictly within one state is interstate commerce? It really doesn't take a SC Justice or even a lawyer to read the Constitution and see that this is not legitimately a Federal issue. I was speaking hypothetically to illustrate the point.

Or turtles with their heads in their shells.

Would that include the lives of innocent people shot dead by cops? Yes, as well a innocent people injured and killed by criminals . . . which one happens more? ETA: . . . and which would happen even more if there were no peace officers? Both are unacceptable. In a civil society, especially one governed the willing consent of the governed, the number of innocent civilians killed by police should be on an order approaching zero.

You can start as many threads on the same subject as they let you, but the premise of each of your OPs is bullshit. Here's a premise for you: If police don't want the public to dislike them, they shouldn't treat civilians like the enemy and push them around for no other reason than because they can. And I don't mean just the oft-profiled darkish folks that you and your fellow travelers are dysfunctionally obsessed with. I mean like the recent time I, a clean-cut, middle-aged white guy, was driving in Boca my with blue-haired elderly mom in a newer family sedan - hoo boy, did we look dangerous! - and a cop rolled up on us and screamed - screamed! - at us for the dire offense of standing the car at the curb in front of a store in a strip shopping center (we were reading the "open hours" sign) rather than immediately parking in the lined spaces in the lot. It was about 8:00 pm (summer, still daylight), and there were almost no other cars in the lot, so we weren't in anyone's way. No, I didn't give him an attitude or anything, he just did it... because he could. I was raised to respect police officers, and I raised my kids to do the same. But when police push around ordinary citizens living ordinary lives, they start to lose the last bastion of their popular support, and not just that of the smart-asses. So here's another premise for you: In a civil society, peace generally requires justice. No justice, no peace. You want to say those murdered cops' blood is on the hands of protesters and their supporters? Or on the mayor of NYC (as the police union is saying)? I say it's on the hands of a police culture that treats civilians like the enemy. And their supporters.

You're correct. I voted for convicted & executed under Texas state law. In 1963 the only angle under which Oswald might even remotely have been executed under federal law is if they had evidence that he was in the process of committing espionage. Basically the stuff of novelists.

Clearly it was the actions of police that emboldened and encouraged this guy to act this way. The blood of these women is on the hands of police. All police, everywhere.

I do, too. As the prof says, the Feds cannot use preemption to force a state to pass or repeal any kind of state legislation. Nor are states required to assist in the policing or prosecution of federal laws. If the feds want to enforce federal marijuana laws in Colorado, the feds can send US Marshalls in to do the policing, and then the district US Attorney's office will prosecute. (Or note a more extreme historical example, in the early 1960s when the President federalized certain states' National Guards to enforce federal civil rights.) So if anything, OK's & NE's action should (or at least could) be a "mandamus" lawsuit to compel the federal government to enforce federal law. But Colorado is not the proper party-defendant under these facts. (What Colorado could not lawfully do is actively interfere with the Fed govt's enforcement of federal mj laws in Colorado. But I don't think anything Colorado is actually doing fits that category.) As an aside, the feds do have the ability to intimidate states into following federal policy. That already happens. For example, when the feds threaten to cut off federal highways funds if the state doesn't follow federal guidelines re: speed limits, etc. So I suppose if the feds really wanted to, they could try that approach against states re: mj laws.