wolfriverjoe

That's one factor. I've told prospective students (on here & in person) that a good place to 'put your feet' is to plan on spending about $10k (USD) to get from first jump to licensed & fully equipped. Another factor is being the 'new guy' and finding people to jump with (different rules about that in the US vs UK).

Gun auctions are fairly popular. Truly collectible firearms can be worth a LOT of money. Not "Van Gogh" money, but six figures isn't uncommon. However, any collectible is a really bad investment from a purely financial standpoint. Art, guns, cars, Beanie Babies, sports cards. The handful of truly valuable items vs the zillions of ordinary ones make it a very tough area to reliably make money in.

That sounds good, but would take a lot of time & effort. However, if the citizenry knows that everything is recorded, and as long as those recordings are reasonably available (the difficulty in getting the MacDonald shooting video released is a good example of not reasonably available), then I don't think it would be a big issue. If every cop (and every arrestee) knew that they were on camera, and that whatever they did would be 'used in court against them', then the problem would be reduced by a decent amount. Cities that put body cams on their officers have already found this out.

One good start (not a solution) would be to acknowledge that racism is real and pretty widespread. You asked in a different thread if anyone had heard 'n' word jokes recently. Do you remember when one of the Obama girls got accepted to Harvard(?)? The outpouring of racism was both disgusting and revealing. That sort of behavior has become much more open since Trump gained popularity. To pretend that he isn't a factor in it is disingenious. So is that problem the 'problem' or the 'result of the problem'? Are cops treated like shit because they're cops? Or because the people are tired of being treated like shit BY THE COPS? Are you serious? Have the police leave the citizens to the thugs & gangsters? After the Freddy Grey killing in Baltimore, there was a very revealing piece on NPR. A citizen told the reporter something along the lines of (paraphrased) 'you have to think really hard before calling the cops. Because around here, the cops often make it worse, not better.' How about training the cops properly, holding them accountable for their actions and weeding out the 'bad apples'? Far easier said than done, but when the entire department (at least everyone that was directly involved) helps cover up a cop cold-bloodedly murdering a citizen, you can't simply say ''some cops have an attitude" This is what happened with the MacDonald shooting in Chicago. All the cops who were there lied. Witness statements were altered. Video evidence from a local business was destroyed. Yet only the cop who did the shooting went to prison. Many were allowed to retire with full pensions.

Well, Trump has done a lot to try to stop people from exercising those rights. Apparently, the ACLU filed a lawsuit about the photo-op and how the protesters were treated. https://www.cnn.com/2020/06/04/politics/lawsuit-white-house-protesters-trump-church-aclu/index.html The funny part about it is that they are going to use Trump's own words against him. But you're absolutely right about 'only when it's in their interest'. Trump himself encouraged the 'open up' protests. Praised the protesters. When armed protesters stormed the Michigan capitol building, Trump tweeted that the MI governor should sit down with them and 'make a deal'. So why didn't he follow his own advice? Because they were unarmed?

Yes and no. If it's the person who is offensive, that's one thing. If it's the information (presuming the info is accurate), that's different. For example, I find Rush Limbaugh highly offensive. His biases & prejudices are obvious to anyone who really looks. His information is often seriously lacking in accuracy. I don't think that ignoring him would constitute the 'echo chamber'. ^This. I often disagree with Airdvr, Professor Kallend, even you (Gowlerk). But we can usually have conversations that actually exchange information. OTOH, there are a few on here that simply blast bullshit at full volume. They ignore any questions, refuse to engage in any way, and believe the most ridiculous 'facts', regardless of evidence to the contrary. One good example was Rhys. He was completely convinced that the US government was behind the Sept 2001 attacks. No amount of evidence could get through to him. He simply ignored it. He would attack anyone who disagreed with him. He's been perma-banned for a while. I wonder if he knows that all the perma-bans were lifted with the new format. I wonder if he's changed his views at all.

I saw a meme on FB that turning off a body cam should be chargable as destroying evidence. "Failing to gather" isn't quite the same thing, and it goes against the basic 'presumed innocent until proven guilty' principle. However, todays tech gives the ability to record an entire shift. It should NEVER BE OFF!!!

Did you actually read what I posted? No, it did not specifically use the 'n' word. But it was just as racist as if it had.

If someone had gone around the "Open Up" protests, and stuck Bernie Sanders stickers on cars, expecting that the Alt Right idiots would vandalize those cars, would you find it equally 'brilliant'?

Did you actually read it? One money manager complaining about taxes, oil prices and regulation. Who has a bunch of money invested in energy and is worried about losing. it. '“Today we are in danger of becoming unfortunately a little bit like a banana republic on the energy side.” Sankappanavar, who says her firm has raised and deployed $1 billion (US$760 million) in the Alberta oilpatch, blamed carbon taxes, falling oil prices and increased regulatory scrutiny under new federal government rules for contributing to what she calls an “awful” malaise in the sector.' Comparing that to a 'Justice' department that refuses to prosecute people the President likes while, at the very same time, opens investigations into people he doesn't like that are completely unfounded. A President who repeatedly lies about anything and everything. Who is trying to take actions he clearly cannot do legally. Who is blatantly disregarding the Constitution he swore to uphold. Yeah. EXACTLY the same thing.

There was one posted on here in the 'not too distant past. I'm going to guess 5 years or so, but it could be several off in either direction. Of course, it didn't use the 'n' word, and the poster tried to pass it off as 'just a joke', but it was clearly racist and it was posted. IIRC, it stayed.

Well, based on the 'do the exact opposite of what Trump says' principle...

Ya know? That's a hell of a good question. Will it show in 2 weeks? That's the big question (how long). Here in Wisconsin, we had a hell of a spike early last week. 3 days in a row that set records for new cases. The test numbers also set records, so it isn't as clear as it might be, but the percentage of positive tests was up some. But over the weekend, the numbers dropped rather dramatically. I was discussing this with a friend. The time from infection to positive test result may be upwards of THREE weeks. Think about it. Incubation runs from 5 to 14 days. Call it ten. FIgure that the sick person is going to have symptoms for at least a couple of days before they finally accept that they really are sick and seek testing. Call it three. The tests take 2 to 7 days to process and get results back. call it 4. That's 17 days. Up to a max of 24. Min of 7. So was the spike we saw here from the 'open the state' protest rallies at the end of April? Maybe. The state SC tossed the quarantine order on the 13th of May. 17 days would be the 30th. 24 would be the 6th. 3 days from now. OTOH, there have been a number of bartenders and servers that have come up sick and tested positive. One local to me, something like 7 down near Milwaukee, where the numbers are the worst. The bars were packed when they opened up immediately after the order was tossed. We shall see what happenes.

I'm not Jerry, but I believe he's said that his son is an attorrney. So what? There are attorneys with a great deal of integrity. There are others that are absolute slimeballs. Kinda like politicians (many of whom are attorneys or have law degrees).

Well, there's a bit more than that. The cop looked pissed. At what? No clue. He flashed the 'OK' sign. Does he know it's a white power sign? He should. Really. Cops make a point of knowing as much as they can about 'secret signs'. Would making a sign that's commonly associated with white power at a BLM march be a bad idea? Yes. Should he have known that it would be misinterpreted? Yes. So either he did something really dumb, or something intentionally racist. I can see it going either way.

The rule of law will be applied. Maybe or maybe not to those who are threatening your property, but if you shoot them, it will almost certainly be applied to you. If you are legitimately in fear for your life (or great bodily harm), then use of deadly force may be legal. But if you think it will be simple, or cheap, think again. AggieDave once posted that a 'no bill' (Grand Jury declines to indict) self defense killing, the defendant averages $20k in legal expenses. That's in line with everything I was taught. Keep in mind that I'm pretty strongly in favor of gun rights and self defense. I'm just a realist about the consequences of using deadly force to defend one's self. Glib comments about shooting looters rarely take into account the intricacies and complexites of the laws. Nor do they even begin to consider the aftermath & consequences. Laws vary from state to state. Florida has shown itself to be well off the norm for use of deadly force for civilian self defense. In any other state, George Zimmerman would almost certainly have been convicted of voluntary manslaughter. I didn't know what the difference between looting and burglary was. So I looked it up. A quick search found this: https://santaclaritafree.com/gazette/police-blotter/the-difference-between-burglary-and-looting Both burglary & looting can be either a felony or misdemeanor. Depends on a bunch of things.

I guess I shouldn't be all that surprised that you believe this idiocy. Are you not aware that the "Antifa" movement is very loosely organized? The idea that they are an army 'moving north' is just silly. Are you not aware that they generally aren't shy about what they do? When the do things, they make it known. Where are the announcements? The proclomations? The Instagram pics & FB videos? The one thing you have right is that the authorities know who they are. While the authorities in Minneapolis have walked back the number of people who were from out of state that got arrested (started at 'all of them', then '80%'), they aren't backing down on the claim that many are white supremacists. https://www.courthousenews.com/minnesota-officials-link-arrested-looters-to-white-supremacist-groups/ The whole "White Power" movement has waited for this. They are calling it 'boogaloo', where they go out and infiltrate the protests, start violence and looting, and then (in theory) sit back and watch the 'race war' start. Just as stupid as Manson's vision of 'helter skelter', but no less violent. Have security. There have been a few attacks on religious buildings that were simply stopped by an armed guard. However, the vast majority of the attacks are against minorities. Blacks, Sikhs, Jews. I highly doubt you have anything to worry about. The White Supremacists aren't likely to attack you.

I strongly suggest you read up on the use of deadly force. There are some pretty strict rules on it. One of them is that you can't use it to protect property. If you start shooting at people who are simply threatening to damage or destroy your property... I hope you have a good lawyer and a lot of money. You'll need i.hem both. Not really. The cops have rules on the use of deadly force. They have a lot more latitude, and generally are viewed in a much more postive light than civilians after a 'use of deadly force' incident. But the force used in Minneapolis against a non-resisting suspect was waaaaay beyond 'legal'. Lots of cops have weighed in on that. Even if Floyd hadn't died, those cops would likely have been in 'more than a little' bit of trouble for what they did (the video is pretty clear on what they were doing).

Chief of Police in Green Bay was invited to address the protesters. And to march with them. He did. Both. The text of his address is in the link. Worth a read. https://www.wbay.com/content/news/Protesters-return-to-downtown-Green-Bay-570907211.html

Yup. One of the bigger reasons that I will never vote "R" again in my life, despite nearly 30 years of doing so.

What I was meaning was more along the lines that local voter fraud seems to happen more by Rs than Ds. Not that there is large scale, organized fraud. The 'large scale' stuff is disenfranchisement via Voter ID laws and voter roll purges. Also, gerrymandering to tilt the odds in their favor (PA is a good example of this).

So would the military. While he has intalled his toadies at some of the top leadership postions, and 'purged' a bunch (mostly through 'suggested' retirement), the majority of the leadership still takes their oath to protect the country from all enemies, foreign and domestic quite seriously.

None of the black protesters have rifles.

I don't see anywhere that you acknowleged the claim that Trump's change of residence to Florida was likely in violation of several laws. You simply mentioned that he's likely the first president to do so mid-term (which may be true). It's always been pretty clear that the president maintains a residence other than the White House. Trump seems to be the first one to try tax fraud while in office based on moving it. And as far as 'poop on both sides', you are aware that the Rs are committing voter fraud and disenfranchisement at a much higher level than the Ds, right? North Carolina, Voter ID in lots of places, Georgia voter roll purges, and more.

There's a claim out there that the first guy to throw rocks is an off duty cop. He was wearing a gas mask, so it's hard to tell, but his eyes & eyebrows are both very similar and somewhat unusual. The claim was made privately by his ex-wife (which may or may not give it credence), who also claimed that she recognized the gas mask, boots and other clothes as ones he owned. And his voice and 'walk'. This private claim was made public by someone else. The cops say it wasn't him, that he was with other officers at the time. But they have yet to provide proof. https://www.crimeonline.com/2020/05/29/we-know-with-precision-where-that-officer-was-st-paul-police-refute-persistent-claims-that-undercover-officer-smashed-windows-sprayed-graffiti-to-provoke-rioting-in-minneapolis/