Minor injuries are common and occasionally recruits die
Just ordinary “new job” stuff then. Like any other employer.
The legal action alleges the practice is an unnecessarily violent rite of passage that recruits have to endure to be accepted into the police “fraternity.” It notes that other recruits suffered injuries before Moses started his drills, including one person whose nose was broken.
The lawsuit also claims that training teaches recruits that excessive force is “officially tolerated, and indeed culturally expected.”
Moses’ lawyers, John Holland and Darold Killmer, say that mindset has nurtured a violent police force and led to lawsuits costing Denver millions of dollars.
“Fight Day both encourages Denver police to engage in brutality and to be indifferent to the injuries they inflict,” Holland said.
A culture of violence, bullying, and not caring when they hurt or kill people? Surely not. What an utterly absurd accusation to level against the police.
Minor injuries are common and occasionally recruits die
Even worse, this quote comes from an assistant professor of criminology and criminal justice at the University of South Carolina. Also, the start of the quote states:
The type of training described in the lawsuit is common in the United States and helps prepare recruits for scenarios they could face on patrol [emphasis added]
Maybe I’m being misreading, but I read this as the professor is condoning this type of training. This type of training seems to support the whole “Warrior Ethos” and I know when I left the Canadian Army almost a decade ago, they were trying to eliminate this type of training as higher ups recognized how toxic it is.
Khan, who oversaw the FTC’s ban on noncompete agreements, has drawn the ire of corporate groups … saying Khan was against “almost anything” business wants to do to grow efficiently.
Riiiight. “Business growing efficiently” sounds like a really bad meme, with NDA and layoff texts covering the whole panel and Trump screaming “YOU’RE FIRED!!”
Biden looked terrible, and he sounded terrible.
Trump lied about 99% of the time.
Biden told us what he did for ALL Americans and there is more to come.
Trump admitted he cut taxes for the wealthy and destroyed environmental regulations.
As a voter, you are voting for the candidate and their administration.
The choice in 2024 is, A. Things get better for our Democracy, or B. We install a dictator and voting ends forever.
They are not both the same, and NOT voting, or 3rd party voting, helps the weaker candidate win.
I'm voting for the candidate that has been making life for ALL citizens better, that's the job of the President.
Things won’t get better under Biden though. Strongest argument neoliberals might be able to make is that fascism will arrive slightly slower under their guy.
But seeing how Biden is fumbling it’s very likely he’s going to lose this. He needs to step down. If it’s about the party or the administration then he needs to realize that. If he stays in he is responsible for a Trump win.
Things have gotten better under his first term so I don't see why it would not. At least for things the president could effect. As far as facism it has not improved in terms of rectifying citizens united but not getting better is a whole lot better than getting way worse.
And look at what? The genocide he’s funding? The illegal border policy he tried to pass that was identical to the one Trump tried to pass under his term? Or am I suppose to be looking at the past 40 years where neoliberals like Biden have failed to to confront the slow encroachment of fascism and instead chose to spend all their energy and resources undermining progressives in their own party? Or how voting the “lesser of two evils” for all that time has produced zero results?
You’re acting exasperated as if neoliberal democrats aren’t complicit in where we are right now. I think it’s you who needs to open your eyes and understand that neolibs aren’t helping or even buying us more time. The loss of our rights has continued full speed under the Biden admin, and he’s risking it all to satisfy his own ego and fanatical zionism.
No. Biden is responsible for his unelectability and when he refuses to step aside he will be responsible for his loss.
Oh look, the same clown in the same circus. Just come out and say you want Trump to win. All this blabbing you do on every single Biden thread trying to come across as “for the good of the party”. Totally disingenuous.
Biden (and his ego) is responsible for the inevitable loss in November, but they will surely blame leftists for not voting hard enough. It’s utterly deranged they expect a candidate such as this to pass muster, but here we are. Biden admin couldn’t even pass voting rights act, after Jan 6 and attempted coups with fake electors plot happened. The incompetency at governing is truly astounding, and this is why I’ll also blame Biden for the slide into fascism.
Biden at least tries to save some face, as evident from the recent cease fire push. Trump doesn’t give two shits about optics and would instantly give Israel whatever they want and publicly back then up. It won’t get much worse, because it’s already so bad it’s hard to get much worse, but it will get worse under Trump.
Israel could always round up Palestinians into camps for thier safety preventing them from Leaving. Then provide them jobs… and then kill whomever in gas chambers.
Electing trump will surely show us just how awful life here can be. Watch documentaries about the DPRK and you will see what dear leader wants to become. Freedom will be a memory.
we could stop trying to aid palestinians. we could give israel more than a token amount of military aid. If you don't think what we do is token compare ukraine to israel. its about 10x (when ukraine stuff is not blocked by a certain party). direct us troops could be involved even if its just killing iranian generals with missiles.
Are you seriously so stupid you can’t imagine ways it gets worse? A) The humanitarian aid we give Palestinians would stop. That is worse. B) The military aid we give Israel could get much higher. C) The tacit approval we give to Netanyahu to commit war crimes could become overt approval, giving him freedom to commit worse atrocities. D) The US could put troops on the ground, which might almost be better since our troops are both better trained AND not so intent on committing genocide compared to the IDF, but in the end is probably worse since Trump would just order eradication of everything.
MEANWHILE Biden has been working hard on a 3-step peace plan that includes giving up remaining hostages for ceasefire and then continued ceasefire with more conditions resulting in the end of the goddamn war.
Biden’s throat was sore on debate night from gobbling Bibi’s knob, he’s easily one of the most Zionist presidents in American history. Biden wouldn’t even address Trump’s derogatory comments towards Palestinians during the debate. And most importantly - Biden is presently enabling the genocide. “Trump would be worse” is such a weak argument, even if true - where’s the accountability for the current administration?
MEANWHILE Biden has been working hard on a 3-step peace plan that includes giving up remaining hostages for ceasefire and then continued ceasefire with more conditions resulting in the end of the goddamn war.
Biden is working hard to help genocide the Palestinians. He could end this whenever he wants by not giving them more weapons. He said there was a red line! All lies.
How does Biden take away the guns they already have?
Furthermore, have you even thought about how not giving them more firepower will play out? Because, guess what, it still won’t stop what Israel is doing.
Then send in the UN and forcefully remove their nukes if they’re going to be gonicidal with them. So sick of this argument being trotted out to defend what Israel is doing. Might does not make right.
Now let me see your criticism of all the Republicans in Congress who fully support the situation in Gaza. Surprising all I hear are “GeNoCiDe JoE” comments from people like you.
This run down fits with what I saw but biden was better by the end if not great. Trump did a good job though of looking better in a beauty pageant aint nobody want to be a contestant in.
Isn’t that the main argument? “I have a gun because you have a gun… And they want guns because we have guns”. It’s rednecks version of “assured mutual destruction”.
The insidious part is a lot of people who don’t want guns end up getting them because those who want them have them.
As he should have. I live in this shit hole state and it’s a very small victory that he didn’t win.
I also read an article detailing a bit about his life and he’s an absolute piece of shit. He sued his sibling(s) to get the full inheritance when their parents died, and he cut off his other family from it once he got it.
Hello fellow Missourian! I’ve been planning to move away to be closer to friends, but I want to stick it out for the rest of this year so I can vote for abortion and hopefully tell the Republicans here to go fuck themselves in the process.
At the risk of more downvotes, all I was saying is that blanketing a whole group of people in a term such as “deplorables” is a slippery slope to not seeing them as human at all. Not saying they don’t deserve to be described that way.
I’m pretty sure if you put out a giant basket and labeled it DEPLORABLES, you’d soon find it filled to the rim with people wearing MAGA hats who climbed in there by themselves.
What an odd thing to say… For one, “slippery slope” is literally the name of the logical fallacy you’re doing here.
But also, think about what you’re saying for a moment. How does accurately describing a person’s behavior dehumanize them? Are we just supposed to never acknowledge shitty behavior in others?
It’s kind of the opposite… I’ve never heard an animal described as “deplorable”. I’m not sure they’re capable of it? So if anything, the term is humanizing.
I understand that its a term people use to describe others and that its been used in recent history for these exact people but that doesn’t make it not dehumanizing. My point is just that there should be “people” following “deplorable.” Maybe I was caught up in the semantics of the phrase but it was on my mind seeing garbage people changed to simply deplorables.
Ah. Bummer. I believe he can only vote in his home state of Florida, but it makes sense that the NY conviction doesn’t restrict his rights in another state. Thanks for the correction.
Under Florida law, those convicted of crimes in other states cannot vote if they are barred from voting in the state where they committed their offenses, according to the U.S. Vote Foundation. New York law bars felons from voting while they are incarcerated but not when they are on probation or parole, according to the foundation and Loyola Law School professor Justin Levitt. Trump has not been sentenced yet and could remain free while he appeals his convictions. That means Trump will probably be allowed to cast a ballot as long as he is not behind bars this fall.
If he’s convicted of aiding in the insurrection, it would be up to SCOTUS to determine eligibility for reelection based on the treason clause of the Constitution. I wouldn’t hold my breath with that bunch.
It’s kind of like the scene “there ain’t no rule a dog can’t play basketball” from Air Bud. The constitution has set minimum qualifications to be president, but didn’t bother with the disqualifications because it would be insane to try to conceive of every possible scenario that would disqualify an individual from seeking the presidency.
If felonies prevented people from holding government positions just imagine how many bogus charges would be leveled at the GOP’s enemies just to see if anything stuck. Just look at how Russia throws bogus charges at people to prevent them from running against Putin.
The Constitution does not say anything about a criminal record, so, that’s why. But, be real. If all the politicians had their skeletons out on display, literally none of them would be without a criminal record.
There are… but there are loopholes. Which is why the vehicles get bigger every year. They’re all using loopholes to continue not bothering to meet the standards the regulations set forth.
Even better would be if the US switched from “letter of the law” to “spirit of the law” because as it stands, there’s a lot of lawmakers just throwing their hands in the air and saying “well they’re not breaking the letter of the law, so there’s nothing we can do” while completely ignoring that it’s clear that the person in question is breaking the spirit of the law when it was written.
It allows for laws to be endlessly re-interpreted, and at this point even the Supreme Court has tossed out the idea of previous decisions actually mattering. They’ll just re-interpret every law to be beneficial to their purposes every time they need to re-interpret it.
At a certain point you have to stop and admit the loopholes are being left open on purpose.
If you think law has too much room for interpretation when we care about it says, what makes you think anything would improve if we instead cared only about what it meant to say?
The spirit of the law is important in American jurisprudence, but there’s a reason that no serious legal academic advocates for abandoning black-letter interpretation: a cornerstone of jurisprudence is predictability. In order to be justly bound by the law, a reasonable person must be able to understand its borders. This gives rise to principles in US law concerning vagueness (vague laws are void ab initio) and due process. We can’t always ascertain what the “spirit of the law” is, should be, or was intended to be, but we can always ascertain what the law is. Even in common law and case law, standards must be articulated, and the state must give effect to what is actually said, and not what it wishes had been said. Abandoning this principle in order to “close loopholes” is just inviting bad actors who currently exploit oversights to instead wield unbridled power against ordinary people who could never have even anticipated the danger.
That loopholes are left open deliberately is not a failure of legal interpretation. It’s a direct consequence of corruption and regulatory capture. Rewriting American jurisprudence won’t solve those problems. Hanging oil magnates and cheaply purchased bureaucrats will.
Following the spirit of the law would be extremely dangerous as one’s interpretation of the spirit of the law maybe comply differently from another. There’s also the issue of being punished for following what is written in the law only to be unjustly punished for something that’s not written anywhere in the law. How are you supposed to trust the law if you cannot rely upon that law to be accurate? The real issue is lawmakers not covering all of every edge case either that be out of ignorance or malice and allowing those loopholes to exist in the first place.
I mean, the “spirit of the law” itself is extremely vague and allows for even more interpretation than the letter of the law.
You can easily fix the letter of the law by just changing what it says. You can’t fix when the Supreme Court decides that the spirit of the law is contrary to the letter, which they have done repeatedly.
In other words, you’re arguing that we shouldn’t care what the law says, and instead should govern on what we feel the law means.
“loophole” implies that regulators are trying to restrict them, but manufacturers are finding ways to work around those restrictions. There is no “loophole” here: CAFE standards are specifically driving manufacturers to produce larger cars.
CAFE standards gradually tighten emissions standards. The problem is that they tighten the standards on smaller cars faster than on larger cars. CAFE are making it harder and harder to make small, compliant vehicles, and easier to produce larger compliant vehicles.
This isn’t a loophole. This is incompetent, counter-productive regulation.
It’s actually a few different cases, but they all hinge on whether the Executive branch has a legal standing to create Federal agencies that can create and execute regulation.
There’s a good chance we could soon be in a USA where experts don’t have a voice, and the courts suddenly are in charge of the regulatory state.
As Ghostalmedia pointed out, this case is specifically the one where the Supreme Court has been specifically asked to rule on whether the Chevron defense (the bedrock case that allows the US administrative state to functionally exist) should be overruled outright, or at least limited in scope.
Right now Congress gives regulatory agencies general guidelines, and the agencies work out the finer details. Soon it will likely be left to Congress and the courts to iron out those finer details. And both of those bodies are slow, and courts are fragmented across states.
There will still be a degree of deference, it just won’t be absolute like Chevron requires. Agencies will still be presumed valid, but that assumption will become rebuttable.
Everyone likes to point at the EPA with respect to Chevron deference. We need to look at the FCC under Ajit Pai. Chevron deference should not have protected the FCC when they decided to suspend Net Neutrality in 2017.
We should also be able to challenge NHTSA’s CAFE standards, which are driving manufacturers to make larger cars because it’s harder to make small cars compliant than larger. But, because of Chevron deference, we can’t: the agency knows best.
There needs to be a social cost of owning these abominations. If we make it more expensive or more regulated, they’ll still find the people who want to drive them. If we make them embarrassing, shameful, or otherwise costly in social standing, the market for them will soon collapse.
Other countries require a special license for vehicles that big.
It costs more, and requires frequent tests, written and driving. The large vehicles are also prohibited from driving down small side streets and using normal parking spaces.
Because at this size, they’re only needed as commercial vehicles.
If the only reason people have them is for social status, you’d have a point. But, that fails as soon as anyone actually uses one for their intended purpose.
Effective crumple zones, larger engine, higher engine increasing ground clearance necessary for longer vehicles. Driver and passenger safety: lower hoods throw deer, elk, and moose into the passenger compartment.
How often are pedestrians involved in collisions? How often are they seriously injured? How often are driver and passenger involved in collisions, and seriously injured? Because there is always at least one occupant present and there is rarely a pedestrian involved, occupant safety is a far more important consideration than pedestrian safety. We can justify removing sharp, penetrating contours from the front of the vehicle, but we can’t justify anything that increases risks to occupants.
I haul 6 customers, 3 crew members, and a 5000lb trailer with a Suburban on up to 9 trips a week. Ideally, I’d have a 4th crew member to help out, but I already have to throw one of the crewmembers in the back, in a jump seat behind the 3rd row, because a suburban only seats 8.
No amount of social stigma against SUVs is going to convince me to go with something smaller.
I live in Basel, Switzerland, lovely old city, very unfriendly to cars, which is fine due to the great public transit. There is this one dickhead who has a bright, shiny red Dodge Ram. It’s monstrous. And it doesn’t fuckin’ fit in the streets, I’d love to see how much in fines that idiot has had for blocking trams, traffic, and all the other nonsense I’ve seen it do, was actually stuck in traffic once because it got stuck on a corner, took 30 mins to get it backed up and out of the way.
I can see how there would be fact issues in these three claims.
I can’t see how the police think they will prove their case to a jury.
The unreasonable publicity claim the jury will be asked whether the police had an expectation of privacy. Obviously they could not, since they were inside someone else’s house and therefore could not have any idea whether there was hidden video or audio recording systems.
Truth is a defense to both defamation and false light. Is afroman’s portrayal of these officers substantially true? It sure looks pretty true, given that it uses footage of the officers own actions.
Also, the context matters. Afroman isn’t the New York Times. He didn’t present this information as true news, allegations meant to be taken literally and seriously. While they are serious allegations, Afroman is a comedic rapper. A reasonable observer would know that some of what Afroman raps about will be exaggerated or have fictional details added in order to make a more compelling song or even just to make a bar rhyme.
These are thin skinned cops that can’t handle being ridiculed by a black boy, and who want to send a message to others not to rap about cops and their embarrassing failures. That seems very obvious to me. The entire case should have been tossed under anti SLAPP laws because this is the literal definition of a SLAPP suit.
The unreasonable publicity claim the jury will be asked whether the police had an expectation of privacy. Obviously they could not, since they were inside someone else’s house and therefore could not have any idea whether there was hidden video or audio recording systems.
Oh they knew the cameras were there, they even tried to turn them off. Then a little one of them reached inside of his vest while counting Afroman’s cash, which mysteriously was a few hundred short of the gig payment it represented.
Regardless, if you’re in someone else’s home, you don’t have an expectation of privacy against them. And as an officer on duty, you don’t have an expectation of privacy against the public, either.
Also, the context matters. Afroman isn’t the New York Times. He didn’t present this information as true news, allegations meant to be taken literally and seriously. While they are serious allegations, Afroman is a comedic rapper. A reasonable observer would know that some of what Afroman raps about will be exaggerated or have fictional details added in order to make a more compelling song or even just to make a bar rhyme.
Not all of the claims are against his songs, some of the claims are about posts on Instagram or other social media. These are a little more shaky.
Personally, I don’t think the cops are really that thin skinned. I think they’re simply abusing the legal system to try and cause financial harm to Afroman. Unfortunately, that all too often works.
Don’t forget, this all started because Afroman slept with one of the cops’ ex-wife.
It wasn’t anything confirmed, and looking into it he’s married (although some articles mention his wife, while others talk about her as his ex-wife?) so maybe he didn’t sleep with her. However I definitely saw a few things suggesting he’d interacted with a cop’s ex-wife somehow, and that was supposedly what stirred things. It was probably from reddit or YouTube comments, though, so who knows if it’s actually true.
In any case, the report from their CI (the official reason) was full of holes, and it’s ludicrous that a judge granted a warrant over that. No wonder that another judge in the same area has allowed all of this to proceed to trial.
Edit: I found this comment that mentions him fucking a Sheriff’s wife. It might be mentioned in his album.
I was just thinking a few minutes ago that I need to read less news because it’s all just bad. Then I read this first part of the headline and thought for a second “hey it’s not all bad…”
That’s exactly why I got a vasectomy. If it really comes down to it adopting is the better choice since those kids are already stuck existing so might as well just try to make the world slight less miserable for them
Fertility rates are already below replacement. Africa will probably also get there within our lifetimes, so there will be nowhere to get new people from
We don’t need more people. Yes, we built a stupid economic system that expects constant growth, but we don’t need that system, either. When world population drops under a billion, let me know and I might change my mind.
Except the second article does mention ‘it avoids a fight during an election yeah with industry and republicans’ but then later looks like they are trying to say that’s not at all why and want to take time. I don’t know, sorta seems like the election played a part in the decision
Ground level ozone and the ozone hole are two different issues. The delayed EPA regulations would be limiting ozone produced. At ground level, ozone has various health hazards. The ozone hole is from ozone depleting substances reaching high altitude in the environment and destroying naturally occurring ozone. That high elevation ozone blocks UV light from the sun, and is protective for those of us who dislike skin cancer it what not.
Reading the second article I see what you mean. Still, no political momentum to correct course is annoying, though it does make a strange addition at the bottom of the article. They could have linked all manner of different protections that are being delayed if there are more.
Probably one of those times I need to lament the current state of journalism that that was included. I’d argue the ozone layer is one where there is global political momentum with an example of some recent mystery emissions such as this article. That said this article we were already discussing seems to bring up some other mechanisms for the hole enlarging beyond the usual ozone depleting substances.
My best friend has a young daughter with a genetic disability that will dramatically affect her for her entire life. She had a stroke a few months ago that scared the whole family, thinking there would be more complications to her condition. Furthermore, my friend works part-time and her husband works full-time so that she can be there for her daughter and help her grow up.
Texas Medicaid kicked her off during this round of purges, and my friend has spent countless hours trying to get her daughter reinstated (one person from TXMED finally said it was a data-entry error that caused the loss in coverage).
Fuck Republicans and everyone who voted for them. Society is about caring for the most vulnerable, and they’ve broken the social contact.
It’s not just that, it’s Boomers as a generation not saving.
Obviously some did, but most have lived their entire lives paycheck to paycheck and have zero security net. It’s why they’re not retiring like other generations, it’s not a choice, they just can’t ever stop working.
And they can’t recover from any speed bumps they hit. Losing a spouse for those people also means losing an income. And that can mean losing housing.
What is it that half the boomer threads complain that boomers are hoarding all the money in their 401Ks, and the other half say that boomers didn’t save anything?
I guess I’m in the middle. I got a good education paid for by my parents, but nothing after that. I’ve worked decent paying jobs and tried to help our kids. Not rich, but should be able to retire fine.
I agree, but man do they do it. Search Lemmy for this headline (just “Baby boomers are becoming homeless” because there are variations), then skim the comments and imagine they were written about any other demographic. It’s pretty frightening.
And teachers. Every adult millennials dealt with either was literally a Boomer or had enough of their politics to shove their bullshit down our throats our whole lives.
We are angry because it was all self serving lies.
Because only a few of the boomers became ceos, the rest are just “useful idiots” that vote against their own best interests.
A significant amount never planned to retire or else thought OASDI would be all they’d need. By the time they realized they were fucked, it was too late.
It looks to me like boomers’ retirement savings aren’t vastly different from other age ranges. I believe this is 2020 data, so boomers would be 56 to 74.
You, of course, could have taken the thirty seconds to do a search and see if the data I linked is out of bed with the myriad other sources on the subject, and even could have done a reverse image search to see where mine came from, but it’s more fun for you to be dismissive of anyone from an age group you think is less worthy of respect than all the others.
That data is from a TD Ameritrade/Harris poll. I pulled it from this article because I liked the way it’s graphed, but you can find others that say the same thing.
If you think the range of years my birthday falls into is all you need to know about me, we can talk about credentials if you’d like. Personally, I try to be respectful of everyone until they show me that they, as an individual, aren’t deserving respect.
You said boomers saved nothing and lived paycheck to paycheck, and when I pointed you to data showing they’ve saved in the ballpark of the same amount as other ages you say of course they have less because they’re living off of it.
You not only need the basic logic classes, you need to learn civil discourse. Not sure why you need to belittle the people you’re talking with.
By the way, you seem to have the notion that people put retirement savings into an account, like beans in a jar, then they pull those beans out to live off of when they retire. For most middle class folks and above, it doesn’t usually work that way. They invest their savings in stocks or other investments and try to get it up to a point where they can mostly live off of the returns on those investments (plus social security and whatever else). The goal being not to have to draw much from the investments themselves, so just because people have been retired a while it doesn’t mean they necessarily have less saved than when they first retired. Obviously not everyone can do that - it’s much harder when your paycheck barely covers your expenses - but it’s a pretty common strategy.
So personal attacks are the only mode of discussion and debate you know, I guess. Seems like a miserable way to go through life. What am I doing to annoy you? Responding to your comments?
I have a good relationship with my kids, thanks. Our youngest is 25, getting her PhD. The other two are late 30s and doing well.
I really don’t know what issue you have with me, or if it’s really just because my birthday falls into a range that you find abhorrent. Aside from the year I chose to be born, I’ve voted for progressive policies, I give to charity, we’ve helped our kids as much as we’re able including paying for education and letting them live at home as long as they wanted, I work a meaningful job, and I’ve saved a responsible amount so we shouldn’t be a burden when I retire in a year or two. I know tons of people my age who can say the same things. I’m sorry if your experiences with older folks have left you with so much animosity or if you just live off of stereotypes.
It’s something slightly different than hypocrisy. They’re not only criticizing people who choose to be vaccinated, which is hypocrisy, but the vaccine itself. It seems like a pretty fucked up political agenda to have, but what we’d expect from fox - be contrary, divide people just for the sake of profit and sowing discontent and confusion, and fuck the effects on the country. Or they actually want to harm the populace…
Not precisely. Saying the vaccine isn’t effective or is dangerous can’t be hypocritical because they’re not a vaccine. Saying vaccine users made a bad decision isn’t even necessarily hypocritical because maybe they think they themselves did. Saying vaccinated people are sheep or unintelligent would be hypocritical because they’re vaccinated.
It’s not hypocrisy it’s worse. It’s really careful pandering to like 100 different crackpot groups to effectively form the garbage pile that is known as the Republican Party
news
Top
This magazine is from a federated server and may be incomplete. Browse more on the original instance.