Wasps are living things. They likely experience pain and distress; i could never wish those on anything capable of feeling them. Señor racismo, on the other hand… maybe we could compromise and seal him in with some coronavirus to study its mutations?
Now that junk AI content has polluted the public web, access to pre-LLM content has become far more valuable—that’s why Reddit shut down their public APIs too.
Jane reports that the man in Air Force uniform said he was “an active duty member of the U.S. Air Force and I will no longer be complicit in genocide.” He then set himself on fire and shouted “Free Palestine.”
One could almost be tricked into believing that the world is a little bit more complicated than what some simplistic tropes of good and evil would have us believe.
According to LinkedIn he was a member of the USAF for 3 years. During which the US hasn’t been that complicit in genocide compared to the last 3 months, and the years prior 2020.
Damn dude. This guy stood up and protested about something that meant something to him, and you’re busting his kneecaps because it wasn’t soon enough.
The fuck have you done lately?
No one is ever going to be perfect. The least you can do is be happy that some people are legitimately trying to take a stand against the IDF’s genocidal actions.
“Americans don’t care when they’re bombing brown people!”
This happens
“There must be something exceptional about these brown people, or else my broad assumptions about all Americans being racist warmongers might not be right!”
This didn’t happen overnight, if it’s this bad now then her judgement has been compromised for a long time.
We need term limits, because once these (completely normal) mental changes start happening, the person will almost always react with aggression and refuse to ever step down.
It should be easier to whistle blow if someone thinks a worker is losing capacity to do their job, but having an arbitrary age at which you’re no longer allowed to work in office doesn’t serve its purpose. Some people can have dementia starting in their 50s, and other people in their 70s are excellent in higher level positions due to how much experience they’ve amassed.
If anything, there should just be better peer performance reviews across the board.
The problem is that you’d need an objective, unbiased, incorruptible review process. I have zero faith that any government is capable of providing such a thing, particularly in a situation like this, where there’s so much room for interpretation.
Selecting an arbitrary age has its own problems, but at least it’s much simpler and harder to argue with.
So we shouldn’t give social security to people unless they have dementia?
We already have an arbitrary age set. We should stick to it.
I’m still game for removing someone earlier than that if they are unfit. But after 65? You’re not fit. Even if you “are.” You’re too far removed from the policies you’d be enacting. It’s just nonsense.
I think that’s a disservice to people who have intimate knowledge of how a service has developed over time, and common problems with change that younger people may not have experienced.
I’m not saying that people should all be forced or unduly enabled to carry on working well into their seniority, but we’d be missing the opportunity to utilise skills and experience by enforcing a hard limit - certainly as young as 65!
We arbitrarily set the age of adulthood at 18. Some people are already through puberty by that point, others have barely started. But we set a limit because there needs to be one.
That’s why. There are certain things that are significant enough that we don’t let just anyone do them, yet also important enough to self-determination that we don’t usually say a person will never be allowed to make that choice. That age when we’ve decided people are mentally, not physically, mature enough to make those decisions is 18. Most people have reached that threshold, some have been there for years, some never will be. Some will barely skim past that threshold, and we will hear stories about them for years. Those who are incapable of breaching that threshold have some or all of their rights as adults removed, and we call that guardianship, power of attorney, and similar things.
The difference between minors and incapable seniors is that some never become that much less capable, and those that do will do so over a truly significant span of years, like half a lifetime’s difference. So how do you pick a number and say, “This is when adults are too old to make good decisions,” without disregarding the capabilities of the vast majority of the people affected on the low side of the range or being far too late to matter on the high side? Perhaps dealing with something with such a great degree of variability should be dealt with on a case-by-case basis.
There is a mandatory retirement age for airline transport pilots. 65 years of age. There are also mandatory medical examinations for ALL commercial pilots.
Now, the general public has a uniquely great interest in an airline pilot’s cardiovascular health, aka “is the geezer in the cockpit going to have a heart attack between here and Newark?”
In a job like a judge or other government official whose job is largely paperwork, no heavy equipment is operated, I can see perhaps extending it to 70 years old or something, possibly with a part-time stipulation and possibly on condition of passing some cognition test, something.
But yes something has to be done about the age epidemic in our government offices, our country should not be run primarily by the People Who Should Be Dead By Now If God Had Any Mercy demographic.
I’m not sure why you’re so fixated on physical well-being for a job that has no negative consequences for poor physical health, and we have numerous examples of judges performing their jobs so poorly that an appeal is pretty much a slam dunk, regardless of age. Yet even when you acknowledge the merits of tests for mental competence in a field that literally references having sound judgement in its name, you still have to circle back to the age issue. There are better metrics than that, even ignoring the fact that we have good evidence that there are pretty shitty people in positions of power from just about every age demographic that can get elected or appointed.
I’m “so fixated on physical well-being” because there are folks in this discussion saying that no one should be working at all over 65. Let me reiterate my points, low attention span listicle style:
There is an industry with a mandatory retirement age. Airline pilot. 65 years old.
This limit is largely in place for cardiovascular health reasons aka we don’t like pilots having heart attacks and less about cognition.
Many retired airline pilots continue to fly smaller planes, often offering flight instruction, demonstrating mental wellness beyond the age of 65.
Since many governmental roles such as judge etc. aren’t as immediately safety critical as airline pilot, much of the reason for an age limit can be relaxed, but I still feel that senility (or just plain being out of touch) is a significant factor in such cases.
So there needs to be some practical limit to the age of government officials.
I will say this one last time. Equating the necessity for certain jobs to require physical fitness with the requirement for other jobs to have mental fitness makes no sense. This does not mean we shouldn’t remove people from their jobs because they are old, but because they are unfit. When there is a strong correlation between fitness and age, such as physical well-being, and a failure to perform your job puts lives on the line, age limits make sense. When there is a much weaker correlation between age and fitness, such as mental acuity, other tools will achieve better results.
All of this is tangential to setting a retirement age. If you as a nation are going to require people to stop working at a specific age, then you as a nation should be willing to guarantee the financial well-being of people over a certain age. If you don’t want to support them, then you shouldn’t mandate they stop being able to support themselves. Currently, about a quarter of the American workforce is over 65. I guarantee a significant number of them aren’t doing it out of preference rather than necessity.
I don’t believe our nation should guarantee the financial well-being of people over a certain age, I believe there are lots of old people who deserve to starve to death for the harm and destruction their unchecked greed has caused.
But they might not be who we’re talking about (though we’re on the subject of greed, they probably are.) If a fucking JUDGE can’t retire at 70 on a pension we might as well starve us ALL to death because I’d take that as mathematical proof that hope doesn’t exist.
I don’t think it will be the judge, or those with enough power to cause harm to society to the planet or society who would suffer under your grand plans. More like the old lady working at Wal-Mart who would love to be able to retire and still be able to afford food and shelter. This is why sweeping generalizations while focusing on only a tiny part of the outcome both lead to bad policies and makes you look like a ghoul.
I missed the context of government officials. I still think a simple age requirement is a poor choice, but certainly better than no retirement options at all within that context.
On the topic of "Should GOVERNMENT OFFICIALS have mandatory retirement ages, I don’t see what the little old gramma working at Walmart has to do with anything, other than trying to dishonestly build false sympathy for a group of people who has overwhelmingly voted Republican demonstrating a strong hatred of social safety nets, so as far as I’m concerned no social safety nets is what they should get. It’s called consequences.
I don’t think age needs to be the limiting factor. I’ve met plenty of 70+ year olds who are mentally capable of performing any job. My grandfather is in his 80’s and he’s a kick ass doctor.
I strongly feel that it needs to be test and check up based. Something impartial treated with an air of dignity so that people are raised respecting that it’s perfectly alright to not pass it. That should help avoid stigma while ensuring people like that judge are a non-issue if not nearly a non-issue.
But there is a HUGE difference between living a healthy, active, and fulfilling life and holding a public office deciding extremely sensitive and important things that will decide the outcome of someone’s life or the lives of hundreds of millions of people.
What if 50% of people above a certain age have a mental of physical disability(example), then would an age limit be justified? There are probably more 25-30 year olds than 70-80 year olds that are mentally and intellectually sound enough to hold office.
I’m fully in favor of having better representation in our elected offices but limiting it based solely on age feels bad a like solution when the problem is based on problems that may happen with age.
For example, let’s say you were a berry eater who loves wild berries. You go out and eat a berry and notices that later on it gave you indigestion, after several more times that berry has consistently done it but other berries do not, would you stop eating wild berries or identify the one giving you indigestion and stop eating those?
It’s a silly example, but it works. If someone is capable of performing the position without issues they should be able to. That’s why I’m advocating for a solution that’s based on identifying those solutions after they appear so that anyone who is capable and has the desire can work as they like.
For those capable people, a fulfilling life can be defined as working the position. Why stop them from it?
However, why shouldn’t there be a lower age limit on elected office? Plenty of capable people for it. If they are capable of performing the position without issues they should be able to.
It has to go both ways because the exact same arguments can be made for each end of the age spectrum.
I don’t want an 80 year old as a doctor. My luck he’d be hit with Mega Alzheimer’s right in the operating room and rearrange my insides to look like a Christmas tree because he thought he was 25 again and decorating one with his first born son again.
Given I just stated my grandfather is a doctor, who is not suffering from Alzheimer’s I can’t help but feel insulted by your comment.
I can understand being concerned by the Elderly however given that age does not ensure someone will develop Alzheimer’s, I find your comment rude and offensive. I hope you’ll consider using some tact in expressing your concerns in the future.
Teaching isn’t being a doctor. So long as he is still competent and had patient recovery rates similar to younger doctors, there is zero need for him to stop. We have a doctor shortage in lots of parts of the world, so let em keep doing it until they actually can’t.
Tests would be a pretty bad idea. It is easy to imagine the ways that someone could use that to attack their political opponents. Similar things were used to disenfranchise voters in the past. Also, it is too easy to corrupt the legitimacy of such a test. All a person would need to do is get a heads up of how the test works and practice for it. Or, have the test designed to be too easy to pass. It’s easy to say “make it impartial, scientific, and dignified”, but that doesn’t mean it will be. I seriously doubt any governmental body ever has or will be that trustworthy. An actual age limit would be objective and clear though, making it much more practical.
How would an opponent be able to attack you if the test is pass or fail? You either are able to have an opponent or you can’t run.
Using a strict age limit would only result in a segment of people who are paying taxes without having representation which is the exact situation we’re brainstorming ideas to avoid.
Instead, the group in question has had almost exclusive representation for half a century. There are lower age limits, so there should be upper limits.
I don’t believe in two wrongs making a right. I consider a lack of lower age representation a problem but I can not agree to flipping it around and making it a lack of upper age representation either. If that’s your idea of a just society when a presented method could solve this without that issue I have concerns.
All people and all generations are entitled to the right to self-determination. That’s something that we have seen is not possible without such limits.
Anyone who's dealt with someone with early dementia will recognize this behavior. I can empathize with those suffering from it, because my own mind slipping away would be incredibly frustrating. But if you're a danger to yourself and others someone needs to stop you, whether its to keep you from driving or to keep you from presiding over trials.
The writers that were paid $3000 in the story wrote 11/134 episodes or 8.2%
The episodes are 42 minutes each, round down 2 minutes for skipped credits, divide 3x10^9 by 40 we get:
75 million episodes streamed (approx)
If they wrote 8.2 % of those streamed, then they wrote 6.15 million individually streamed episodes.
So writers got 0.049c per episode streamed or 0.00012c per minute streamed.
The average American watches 160 minutes of TV Video a day, so round that up to 5000 minutes a month, and say $10 a month per sub on that, we get $10 of revenue for 5000 minutes streamed, or 0.2c per minute.
So streaming revenue (using the above math and assumptions) would be 0.2c per minute of which the writers of the content that was streamed got 0.00012c or 0.06%.
Netflix 2023Q2 revenue was 8.18B and expenses were 6.36B.
I had a friend who was in a musicians union back in the 40s and 50s. Funny thing, I had a dream about him last night and I would’ve forgotten completely had you not made this comment.
He told me a story once. The union got him a gig on television. He was so stoked about it.
He lost half of his thumb in WWII and was very self conscious about it. The host of the show noticed the black cap he used to cover his thumb and asked him about it. He kindly asked the host to avoid making a thing of it and ask that the cameraman avoid shooting it up close.
He stepped out on the stage and the host said, “ladies and gentlemen, here’s Buddy, the thumbless wonder.”
Years and years later that still bothered him. He’s been dead and gone a long time now. He was an awesome dude who ran a guitar shop. His wife left him because he kept giving instruments away and she wanted a better financial future. I used to go to his shop to get strings and half the time he’d say, “They’re on the house buddy. I’ll be dead before they’ll get what I owe ‘em.”
Thanks for sharing this story. That TV host sounds like an unbelievable asshole, no wonder it stuck with your friend for so long. I can’t fathom what would make a person act like that.
I have a cassette full of recordings he gave me somewhere, at least I hope I do. I really need to hunt it and digitize it.
Dude was awesome.
His old guitar shop is now a food pantry. He lived in the back room in that tiny, dusty old shop and constantly had people over playing music. He always loved to see me coming because in Appalachia everyone plays bluegrass and I don’t. He wasn’t a huge fan of “the grass” but he played along any way until he shook too bad to do it. He was practically blown in half in the war and the damage got him down when he was older.
I’d come in and he’d say, “take my strat and show me something.”
I got my first guitar from him (technically my third but it was the one I learned on). A blue Chinese strat copy called a Lotus. I still have it but I need to reassemble it. God, I should do that. I’d love to hear that nasty buzz again. It’s been nearly 20 years since I played that thing.
That reminds me: I have a cassette of parody songs from a local radio station (Fox 97’s Shower Stall Singers) somewhere that might end up lost to history if I don’t find it and upload it.
Considering how few of the episodes they wrote, this seems almost reasonable. It would be a better comparison of we could see how much they make compared to TV reruns or home media sales.
It’s 3k to a few of many writers for 11 total episodes. We don’t know the actual streaming numbers of those exact episodes either. Could they be paid better? Maybe, but no one has compared this to the traditional residuals they did get.
Not that I’m trying to still for the corpo here, but this is a per quarter payment. ~$270 per episode from this single quarter just based on viewers from 2 streaming services. We don’t know how much they’ve got paid in aggregate for this single episode.
Presumably they got something upfront/hourly initially and they’ve been paid residuals for many years, as they did the work in 2011 and episodes have been rerun alot on network tv.
Idk how much is reasonable for the work they did do but it’s certainly been alot more than this small payment.
they’re probably going to make 5k a year for 6 months a work for 30 years from 11 episodes of 1 show. they might be owed more, but there is a ton of missing context around this that passing judgment on what could be a simply outdated contract from before streaming was a major consideration. if this is just a fraction of what an equivalent contribution to a show would have made from TV reruns or home media sales, then there is a conversation to be had, but no one has brought that up.
But we’re not talking about salary here. We’re talking residuals, per quarter, paid on top of the salary they received for the original work.
For a show that is 13 years old. Collecting $6k per quarter for work you did 13 years ago and that you have to do absolutely nothing for anymore seems pretty good to me?
There’s a hell of a lot of working class people who would absolutely love to be getting paid like that. Trying to frame this as the working class vs the rich seems really dishonest. Do TV writers even understand what the working class is, or how much we make? I sure as hell don’t collect $6k per quarter for work I did 13 years ago. If I did, I’d be rich.
Fwiw, the title is intentionally skewed and wrong. I’m not saying writers shouldn’t be upset because they should, but it is making the situation look much worse than it is.
The six original writers were paid $3K each in streaming residuals last quarter for Season 1.
Suits was added to Netflix on June 17th where it streamed for three billion minutes in a single week, June 26 to July 2. Using Nielsen numbers, it streamed for about five billion minutes on Netflix during Q2. Previously it was on Peacock and we don’t have the streaming data for that, but we can assume that it wasn’t anywhere as much. Using the most recent data through July 16, it was seen for a total of 12.8 billion minutes.
Streaming services also doesn’t pay residuals based on minutes watched, but based on a complicated formula.
Suits episodes are 42 minutes long, meaning the base annual residual is $10,034. Netflix US has more than 150M subscribers, so the subscriber factor is 150%. Their initial streaming residual payment would be $15K per episode.
However, that is just the initial payment Netflix needs to make. Subsequent payments for the actual streaming rights per year are adjusted down. This is the first year on Netflix so the residual factor is 45%. This makes the base annual payment $7,448.
Now, the show was on Netflix for 14 days during the last quarter, making their Q2 residual $286. WGA also imposes a 1.5% union due plus $25 per quarter. This brings the payment per episode down to $256.
“Edith Heyck, 72, was thrilled to land an apartment in senior housing, where her rent is adjusted to match her income.” I fucking lost my shit, boomers get fucking everything. Rent that is matched to income? Are you fucking serious they protect their own I swear to god
That sounds glib, but I mean it. People forget the help they get is socialism.
My mom and sister live together. Mom gets social security, sister is a teacher. They are supported by government money.
They are deep red voters. I pointed out the home is a socialism home and it confused my mom until I explained. Still not sure she agrees. I was not being rude in pointing it out.
Tbf it’s possible to ‘help’ certain people even under a regime. In apartheid south Africa, white workers complained about a lack of jobs and blamed a few black professionals on it. So the apartheid regime initiated large construction works to provide jobs.
I have never seen a senior housing facility that wasn’t a bleak, horrific nightmare. They may look nice on the outside, but they are usually the last place you want to live in your old age. Out of all of the things boomers get, this one isn’t a great one.
I remember senior housing when my grandparents were alive and moving to them. They all looked and felt like waiting rooms for the dead. Except for the rich people ones.
True, but depending how far back you’re talking about, that could mean people that came of age before things like cable/satellite TV, internet, etc… Now I feel like as long as I’ve got the capacity to play video games, watch TV shows/movies, and access the web things can’t be too bad.
there are also humans at the top of the 'air force' that made this decision not to clean up. its two sets of irresponsible...no... negligent humans at play.
And playing with lives over to respond or not with unclear rules over the next 50 years is better? Folks will get sick either way. I’d prefer to force a decision sooner rather than later.
Well… Just poison the right watering holes that the people who have the power to act care about, and suddenly they’ll care about the EPA and water quality regulations.
You think the drinking water of Supreme Court justices is going to be contaminated as a result of this? They’re not being punished for making a mistake, a bunch of innocent powerless plebs will be.
I can’t tell if this is a genuine attempt to dodge cleanup or an attempt to test a Supreme Court ruling before companies can get out of hand during the next administration.
What are you talking about? Congress did pass a law to address this: it’s called the Clean Water Act. The issue is that an illegitimate SCOTUS packed by traitors basically invalidated it.
The article spells out what I’m talking about pretty clearly. I work with the CWA literally on a daily basis. Congress hasn’t made the CWA more clear or specific since the Water Quality Act of 1987. Congress could literally fix this dispute between federal agencies tomorrow, but we elected Republicans to control the House, which means it has a snowball’s chance in hell of ever happening.
The CWA as of 1987 is plenty clear under any reasonable standard. The relevant problem here is that SCOTUS has ordained an unreasonable standard. Yes, Democratic control of both houses of Congress could “fix” that issue, but the point is it shouldn’t need to because the EPA should be allowed to do its job (which, contrary to the illegitimate tyrannical stooges’ diseased opinions, does include interpreting the law!).
We had a patient in acute psychosis arrive on the unit with a gun in their bag. Like, so psychotic they were saying they were seeing demons and were interacting with those demons more than they were able to interact with us. The ED had metal detectors that should have caught it and had them down there for 8 hours with that bag in the room with them. They had all the American hospital bedside essentials, call bell, pitcher, gun, and TV remote! The ED was really lucky they didn’t get someone shot.
They were willing to take some Haldol and got pretty lucid pretty quickly, and when the cops showed up to collect the firearm they were able to at least give a statement regarding its lack of registration (I don’t remember exactly but I do remember thinking it sounded… less than completely factual). They got charged with the same thing though iirc. I think they probably knew more about the legality of their obtaining a gun than they were letting on, but that also doesn’t discount the role of psychosis in this; the paranoia alone could’ve caused them to feel even illicitly obtaining a gun was necessary.
None of these things would even remotely justify boiling someone alive.
On the front page earlier today was an account of somebody who carried a gun; in two separate instances, people from his neighborhood ambushed him and shot him (and in one instance it was verified on security footage that he defended himself with it after he’d been shot, and would have been killed without having the gun on him). In both cases he got charged with unlawful possession and imprisoned for the gun that saved his life.
Abbott just pardoned that convicted homicidal murderer.
Looked that up and wow thats crazy. Man texted all his racist friends about wanting to kill black people in the morning. Then he ran his car into a crowd of people. Someone walks up to him with a gun (i wonder why?) and he kills him.
In my local county (in Texas), there was a guy in jail for 5 years without trial (I think he’s going in 6 years without trial, but a go-fund-me paid his bail last year), and 2 years in jail without trial is not uncommon.
It actually might be justice, depending on their crimes… But I agree with treating prisoners well because countless prisoners don’t deserve anything remotely this bad. There are even a fair few innocent people in this broken system of ours.
That only works if the person being questioned has a consience. Drumpf would most likely answer “because I’m supposed to be the president, the election was rigged and they kicked me out, now I’m on trial to keep me from going back”
Honest question. How did we get here? How are we discussing the very real world situation where an elderly sex offender who probably won’t see a jail, (but absolutely would if he had been just some nobody) is running for president, again…
Against another elderly man, whom everybody seems to dislike but everybody is going to vote for again because the other guy is even worse.
Both candidates very well could die in the next 4 years, and the stress of the job dramatically increases those odds.
Biden is older at 81, while trump is 77 (according to google), but Biden is much more physically healthy, whereas if Weeble-Wobbles wanted to make a trump liscensed Weeble-Wobble they wouldn’t need to make a new body shape for them. Just use the existing shape.
How did we get here? How did we get to the point where everything sucks, everybody knows it sucks, but we’re just supposed to along with it…and we do!
So now we get to watch as a clearly mentally incomplete elderly man falls asleep, and farts in the court room. I’m unclear if its illegal to do that, but you have to imagine whomever the judge was had to be offended at the very least. With anyone else, I’d say it’s a bad idea to piss off the judge of your case. In this case though, I’m not sure it matters. He doesn’t face responsibility for anything. He doesn’t care. This is all a mockery to him.
Heavy oppression of the poor through underfunded education and social systems, coupled with propagandist media preying on their fear of the unfamiliar while blaming their oppression on the Democrats’ desire to help everyone but them. Like it or not, many of them are the victims, not the problem.
First past the post’s logical conclusion Also paying for sex is not a crime, neither is paying them to shut up about it. Why can’t they use his other real crimes instead of that monica lewinsky bullshit ?
The crime is falsifying business records, not paying for hush money. He also didn’t pay her for sex. She’s a porn actress and model, not a prostitute.
The documents case is postponed indefinitely by Judge Cannon. The same goes for the Federal election trial by Chutkan, pending SCOTUS’s ruling on presidential immunity. The Georgia election case is pending a state Senate investigation of the DA, Fani Willis.
Here’s a handy trial tracker by the Associated Press.
He didn’t pay her for sex. He pressured her into it. He paid her not to tell anyone until after the election, but hid the payments as compensation for his personal attorney while in office. He’s being charged with falsifying business records.
It’s true that sex wasn’t paid for. The role of pressure in this case is complicated.
If anyone is curious to read Daniels’ own words on this, check out the pdf court transcripts for May 7th and May 9th.
The transcripts are long, but interesting, and worth reading if you have a few hours. As a normie, I was only interested in the sex stuff. The facts surrounding documents seem pretty clear.
Getting a blowjob wasn’t the crime. Lying under oath was the crime.
Same with this. The sex and hush money isn’t a crime, it’s the false business records that are
Makes sense, feels like low hanging fruit with sex based humiliation on the part of the prosecution. I wish they’d go against his worst, actual crimes, especially the presidential crimes and neuter future presidents from doing those crimes as well.
If it makes you feel better the UKs only been in election season for a week and we’ve already seen 2 different attempts at election interferance by the current ruling party.
Doesn’t so much make me feel “better” as makes my sadness cover more ground. Like “Oh shit! This bullshit isn’t an Americzn thing? It’s just a human thing???”
I was joking to myself earlier that if Earth were a Lemmy instance, I’d register on a different instsnce.
That sounds like a clear first amendment violation to me. It’s not like a political affiliation either, gender and ethnic background are core to identity
The reason things can be censored in schools is because of the “bong hits 4 Jesus” case that went to the Supreme Court who said the school taking it down didn’t violate their freedom of speeech because “it could reasonably seen as promoting drug use at a school event”.
Fucking stupid case because if I recall it was at a parade for the Olympic torch coming through their town (doesn’t sound like a school event to me) and was not on school property.
Just a kid who happened to go to school being harassed, outside of school, by a principal at a public parade in their town, for holding a silly sign.
So what is there a caveat to 1A that says, “Congress can make no law […] unless that speech or expression may reasonably be seen as promoting drug use”?
What a bullshit country run by octogenarian Christians who just won’t leave people the fuck alone.
Two so far. No closet is deep enough to bury that many skeletons. The first few murders are to slow further whistleblowers, it’s just business to Boeing.
Ehh, not far from the standard defense strategy of blaming a rape victim. Personally, I’d like to see victim blaming thrown out of a courtroom/law and any attorney that tries it to be at the very least reprimanded for it and at most sanctioned like fined or disbarred. All attacking victims do is prevent people coming forward and it keep criminals free.
Sorry, but If my employer asked me to defend a p3do and blame a 9-yo instead, I might just have to take that golden parachute. There are plenty of other high-paying corporate law positions out there.
Yeah, I don’t think I’m gonna defend the guy who got shot here. According to the article he was a real piece of work, and it seems like he was a credible threat to the life of the officer he put in the headlock.
I don’t think the officers did anything wrong in this one. Broken clock twice a day and all that.
I mean, I’m not gonna get too worked up either, but just to be clear, California’s bar for use of deadly force is that it has to be to protect against expected severe bodily injury or death.
(c)(1) Notwithstanding subdivision (b), a peace officer is justified in using deadly force upon another person only when the officer reasonably believes, based on the totality of the circumstances, that such force is necessary for either of the following reasons:
(A) To defend against an imminent threat of death or serious bodily injury to the officer or to another person.
(B) To apprehend a fleeing person for any felony that threatened or resulted in death or serious bodily injury, if the officer reasonably believes that the person will cause death or serious bodily injury to another unless immediately apprehended. Where feasible, a peace officer shall, prior to the use of force, make reasonable efforts to identify themselves as a peace officer and to warn that deadly force may be used, unless the officer has objectively reasonable grounds to believe the person is aware of those facts.
(2) A peace officer shall not use deadly force against a person based on the danger that person poses to themselves, if an objectively reasonable officer would believe the person does not pose an imminent threat of death or serious bodily injury to the peace officer or to another person.
So that’s the bar that a court is gonna expect the male officer to need to meet. I imagine that it’s not impossible that a court could find that that didn’t meet the bar. The article doesn’t say that the guy who got shot actually attempted to pull the weapon.
That being said, the guy was hiding a weapon and was attempting to overpower an officer, and I imagine that a court is gonna be (not-unreasonably) inclined to give the benefit of the doubt in a situation like that.
When cops shot a hostage in California it took them 2 years to release it. I think that was their point, footage is released quickly when the cops are in the right, it suddenly becomes a problem if it makes them look bad.
Funny how it’s out the next day when it exonerates the cop of any wrongdoing. That’s why I assume the worst when they don’t release immediately. Oversight is good for everyone, including police.
Well yeah, they didn’t have to go to the writers room to come up with a narrative, or dig through his rap sheet to see if he ever looked at a marijuana.
I forget what video it was where the cop pulls the old “oh you’re recording? So am I.” routine and the guy instantly responds “yeah, but my recordings don’t magically disappear” 😂
Genuine question, how accurate are Tazers? If the partner was in a headlock, was there any risk of tazering the wrong person while the gum was more accurate?
The real problem here is that Americans just keep arming everyone, so then you have crazies with the guns.
You make it sound like I don’t put American cops in the same group as Americans.
The cops are armed because everyone else is armed. Demilitarisation of the police force can only come in when you can have a sensible conversation about your gun ownership.
It’s not like owning guns actually protects you from bad cops.
I prefer to assume any argument is made in good faith until proven otherwise, so please understand that the following criticisms are contextual and not, of course, personal.
The cops are armed because everyone else is armed
Bullshit. That implies that vast majority of interactions cops have with “everyone” else (ignoring the obvious hyperbole) while on the clock are with other armed people, which is not only patently false but dangerously presumptive in a grossly negligent way. In fact, the statement is so irrational that any statistic even comparing fatality rates between armed & unarmed individuals by cops would entirely debunk it; cops are not armed “because” others are, they’re armed first and foremost — and have been, since the very concept of a “police force” was first invented, FFS.
Demilitarisation of the police force can only come in…
Considering your failure to grasp the predicating concept, I’m hesitant to trust that you got the key in hand here.
…a sensible conversation about your gun ownership.
Again, this doesn’t seem to be in your wheelhouse at the moment.
It’s not like owning guns actually protects you from bad cops.
Logical fallacy and bait, not to mention an oversimplification of the actual issues at play.
So, do you want to have an adult conversation or just bark across the pond (where we’ll be touching on various police issues y’all have on your island yonder, to be sure), hmm?
Genuine question, how accurate are Tazers? If the partner was in a headlock, was there any risk of tazering the wrong person while the gum was more accurate?
Speaking independently of the story- Not very by comparison to firearms. Something like 50% less accurate. There’s also the issue that tasers will not always incapacitate someone. That’s a gamble if someone has a weapon and the range to use it.
Part of the rationale in using a firearm is the need to body someone before they can use a weapon where non lethal methods are just not as effective.
Of course, when you investigate yourself you will always find that you used your firearm in the appropriate situational context.
A gun isn’t that precise either I guess. So when you are under stress of getting shot you’d pick the gun option instead of a less lethal one because you feel threatened. Who wouldn’t. Guessing wildly here, and as usual everyone having guns isn’t like makeing the place more safe.
We know why we’re hated; it’s why those of us who strive to exemplify professionalism, ethics, and civility are so angry and depressed. It’s why I’ve been having a career crisis because I always wanted to go into law, but only to do good, and now it feels like there is so little legitimacy to the judicial branch.
Fuck the people who abuse the rule of law until there is none, fuck Trump and his cronies, and fuck SCOTUS for fucking us. Now excuse me, I have to go cry in a corner.
You can always bail. I did. That JD is wildly useful in other industries. Over a third of the people I’m still in contact with from my graduating class aren’t actively practicing anymore.
And that’s the end game for the shit bags that abuse the system. They don’t want a legitimate judicial system. It’s now about how can they gain the most money and power.
We (lawyers) are actually already ethically obligated to serve up bad lawyers for discipline. It’s Rule 8.3, colloquially known as the duty to rat out your colleagues.
How would that even work? Do murderers not get an attorney any longer? Who’s harm should we consider? I have to represent my clients’ interests, period.
The issue with the law is the delay. If I take a civil case to trial it has usually taken 3-5 years. And five years isn’t nearly the longest case I’ve had. Spend more money, have more judges, fewer delays, but that costs money and we’ve been cutting taxes for 40+ years now.
Don’t know if you know this but Hippocratic oath is a) voluntary and b) not enforceable for people who work in medicine. Also the Hippocratic oath came from medics treating enemy soldiers on battlefields. The idea being that a medical professional wouldn’t refuse to treat someone because the patient they’re treating clashes with their personal beliefs. Modern example being a Christian nurse or Dr refusing to treat a gay patient.
I’m fortunate enough to be practicing in a field that does help people (though not nearly as much as I’d like…someone give me Elon’s money and then I’ll be able to make a real difference). The problem is that lawyers/judges like the ones who are handling cases like Trump’s are destroying the rule of law, the efficacy of the courts, and doing whatever they can to dismantle the very system we use to determine whether we have rights or not (dismantle it and the answer is a very clear “not”). The US legal system is already a clusterfuck with not enough budget and inequitable treatment depending on who you are; if things like precedent no longer mean anything, as SCOTUS has recently started making clear, then the legal system becomes completely unnavigable.
I knew a guy who wanted to be a lawyer for the same reasons. Got his degree and passed the bar, then quit and went back to school for biomed. He said he loved law itself, but realized he hated pretty much every coworker and every client, and he knew if he stayed in it he’d become a person he hated as well.
Kaplan continued: “He came back in and he said, ‘Well, how’d you like the lunch?’ And I said, ‘Well, sir, I had a banana. You know, I can never really eat when I’m taking testimony.’ And he said, ‘Well, I told you,’ — it was kind of charming. He said, ‘I told you, I told them to make you really bad sandwiches, but they can’t help themselves here. We have the best sandwiches.’”
"I told them to make you really bad sandwiches." He literally sounds like a toddler
Yeah, that stuck out to me also. He had a flow in his mind for the conversation, and reacted to what she said inside his mind, while completely missing the totally different thing which she actually said. It was already clear that his brain works that way but it is an instructively candid example from his unscripted life.
‘Well, I told you,’ — it was kind of charming. He said, ‘I told you, I told them to make you really bad sandwiches, but they can’t help themselves here. We have the best sandwiches.’
Yeah, the closest Trump gets to genuine charm is when he accidentally starts to resemble a goofy Saturday morning cartoon show villain, “Ah, I would have gotten away with it too if it weren’t for my nincompoop henchmen! I tell you, it’s impossible for supervillains like me to find reliable evildoers these days, why is no one talking about this?”
Like, he’s not trying to be charming, he’s trying to threateningly project power, but he’s so bad at it it comes off like a joke.
I loved Veep, it’s hilarious to me watching it now that basically any scandal on that show would be completely innocuous compared to what we have been dealing with since it ended.
news
Top
This magazine is from a federated server and may be incomplete. Browse more on the original instance.