Any Violence in Your Neck of the Woods?

[Ahab]

25 minutes ago, Storm Rider said:

If I recall correctly, one officer immediately attempted to go to his aid and another officer held him back. I did not understand that action.

Looked to me like that officer was bending down to the man on the ground, to do what I don't know but he was a Police officer and not an authorized medic, so the other officer called it in to have the authorized medics sent out.

I also noticed that the Police officer who pushed the man down was very young and it looked to me like he felt bad after seeing that the old man had been hurt and was bleeding.  Probably didn't realize his actions would have those consequences.

Edited July 28, 2020 by Ahab

[Ahab]

3 minutes ago, The Nehor said:

If your taillight is out and the police shoot you would you consider that too much force or would you reason since they can use force it is up in the air whether stopping you and giving you a warning or citation is basically just coercive force and so is shooting you so what is the difference? Police willing to use any degree of force as long as it stops the undesired behavior is the hallmark of authoritarian regimes.

People with authority using force they are authorized to use isn't limited to authoritarian regimes.  We have people with authority in this country, as every country and kingdom should, and they determine how much force to use.

3 minutes ago, The Nehor said:

What was the stupid thing that George Floyd did exactly? Allegedly passing a counterfeit bill? All they had was that he resembled a description of someone passing a fake 20. Even if it was him it is not evidence that he is counterfeiter. He could have been given the fake by someone else. The idea that he resisted arrest was shot down by witness accounts and later by surveillance video footage. He was murdered. Where did George Floyd do something stupid that contributed to that event happening?

Sorry I wasn't clear enough for you.  I didn't say George Floyd did something stupid.  I was referring to the Police officer, who was either too stupid to know he shouldn't keep his knee on someone's neck for that long because that person could likely die, or he just didn't care if he died, which was another whole level of stupid for a different reason.

[pogi]

51 minutes ago, Ahab said:

Most of this does not show the full context of the situations. 

If the Police tell/command a rioting mob to disperse and members of the mob continue to just stand there while ignoring or insulting them, the Police may use force to try to get the rioting mob to disperse.

The rioting mobs should not be surprised by this, because when it comes down to a battle of wills, the Police will win.

I'm sorry, some of this is plain ol' police brutality.   You don't need any more context to see that much of this is excessive force.  Some of it appears justified to me, but a lot of it is excessive.  At around the 16 minute mark, a white male police officer was severely reprimanded by a black female police officer for forcefully knocking over a black female protester who was kneeling down with her hands in the air.  He walked away with his tail between his legs.  It was refreshing to see an officer standing up against another officer for once.   

[Ahab]

11 minutes ago, pogi said:

I'm sorry, some of this is plain ol' police brutality.   You don't need any more context to see that much of this is excessive force.  Some of it appears justified to me, but a lot of it is excessive.  At around the 16 minute mark, a white male police officer was severely reprimanded by a black female police officer for forcefully knocking over a black female protester who was kneeling down with her hands in the air.  He walked away with his tail between his legs.  It was refreshing to see an officer standing up against another officer for once.   

The use of Police force is sometimes brutal.  And sometimes it needs to be.  Thankfully I do not have to walk in their shoes while encountering some of the situations they routinely deal with, and I try to consider how there must needs be a learning curve.

[Garden Girl]

My heart is greatly troubled... Portland, OR... need I say more?

GG

[pogi]

7 minutes ago, Ahab said:

The use of Police force is sometimes brutal.  And sometimes it needs to be.  Thankfully I do not have to walk in their shoes while encountering some of the situations they routinely deal with, and I try to consider how there must needs be a learning curve.

"Sometimes" it needs to be, is right.   Calling out police brutality is not the same as calling out all police.  We should never give police brutality a pass because they have a difficult job or because there is a "learning curve".   I have a deep respect for the role of police officers in general, but I am concerned with attitudes like yours that seems to justify police brutality when it does happen. There is no justification for this!    Perhaps we can blow off any protester brutality as a "learning curve" too?  They are just under a lot of stress right, give them a break, right?

[pogi]

17 minutes ago, Garden Girl said:

My heart is greatly troubled... Portland, OR... need I say more?

GG

The funny thing is, you are likely going to get up-votes from opposing perspectives with that comment.

[The Nehor]

29 minutes ago, Ahab said:

People with authority using force they are authorized to use isn't limited to authoritarian regimes.  We have people with authority in this country, as every country and kingdom should, and they determine how much force to use.

In a liberal nation with an interest in human rights they definitely should not be solely determining how much force to use. That is ridiculous. Every law enforcement agency has rules on what kinds of force can be applied and when. These are often ignored and that is not a good sign.

34 minutes ago, Ahab said:

Sorry I wasn't clear enough for you.  I didn't say George Floyd did something stupid.  I was referring to the Police officer, who was either too stupid to know he shouldn't keep his knee on someone's neck for that long because that person could likely die, or he just didn't care if he died, which was another whole level of stupid for a different reason.

Although technically it was stupid it is more accurate to call it malevolent and/or murderous.

19 minutes ago, Ahab said:

The use of Police force is sometimes brutal.  And sometimes it needs to be.  Thankfully I do not have to walk in their shoes while encountering some of the situations they routinely deal with, and I try to consider how there must needs be a learning curve.

"Eddie, did you just kill that guy?"

"Yeah, did not realize that would happen."

"Welp, we will just chalk it up as a learning experience. I will write up a memo."

[The Nehor]

8 minutes ago, pogi said:

"Sometimes" it needs to be, is right.   Calling out police brutality is not the same as calling out all police.  We should never give police brutality a pass because they have a difficult job or because there is a "learning curve".   I have a deep respect for the role of police officers in general, but I am concerned with attitudes like yours that seems to justify police brutality when it does happen. There is no justification for this!    Perhaps we can blow off any protester brutality as a "learning curve" too?  They are just under a lot of stress right, give them a break, right?

There were four police on the scene. Two were in training in their first week on the job. Based on the initial police report on the incident and the first examination of the cause of death there was already a cover up in progress. It is not a learning curve issue. The newbies were already being brought into a mini-cult of deception to protect each other in their wrongdoing and the examiner was clearly in on it so that is at least five people. Probably more. It might have worked if there weren't any bystanders recording what actually happened. The scriptures have a term for that kind of planning. A bad guy trying to cover things up. Gadian-something? There was a bit about making pacts with other crooks to make sure no one has to suffer for their wrongdoing if I remember right? I am sure it will come to me any minute.

[Stargazer]

23 hours ago, Bob Crockett said:

There we go again.  Guns are the answer.  

Of course they are!  Not to every question, but to some of them.  Do you wonder why so many previously hoplophobic people have been out there buying guns during the current violence? If you wonder about it, I can tell you why: they can see very clearly that the police are there only to call the coroner after they couldn't get there in time to stop evil men from committing evil. And there are only so many police officers available -- and there will be fewer after the Left gets done defunding police departments.  "When seconds count, the police are only minutes away."

Quote

I hope the states come to their senses and repeal the Second Amendment so that gun manufacturers are on the same footing as the makers of knives, autos and chainsaws. 

Gun manufacturers are already on the same footing as makers of knives, autos, and chainsaws.  But you want gun manufacturers to be held at fault for unlawful use of guns, don't you? But when a murderer uses a knife, or a chainsaw to kill, or when the operator of a motor vehicle uses his car unlawfully and hurts someone, should Oneida, General Motors or Husqvarna be held responsible? But ownership of those things are not constitutional rights.  Firearms ownership is.  That's what the 2nd Amendment is for. Not to protect gun manufacturers from making faulty products.

This topic of course trends upon the political, but so does the Doctrine and Covenants.

In D&C 101:80 the Lord is recorded as having said:

And for this purpose have I established the Constitution of this land, by the hands of wise men whom I raised up unto this very purpose, and redeemed the land by the shedding of blood.

And whose blood was shed in redeeming the land?  Among others, the blood of patriots, and that of tyrants (or the minions of tyrants).  And whose firearms were first employed against those tyrants, if it weren't those in private hands?  

At the time this revelation was given, the Second Amendment had been in force for nearly as long as the Constitution itself.  And you know what I noticed? The same "wise men" whom the Lord raised up were those who also brought the Bill of Rights into force as well, as part of the Constitution, with the Second Amendment, second only to freedom of speech, assembly and religion .  And when the Lord gave this revelation, do you think it was simply oversight that the Lord forgot to exclude the Second Amendment from his endorsement?  He did not say, "But take the guns away."

You're a smart man, Bob Crockett, in the areas where your expertise abounds. But you are not universally wise. And in this area you seem to be operating from the Pollyanna point of view that the tool  is the problem.  I live in the UK, and when the criminals can't get ahold of guns they use coshes, knives, and acid.  In the 2017 London Bridge attack, which occurred in a spot my wife and I had been just a few weeks previously, nobody suggested that Renault, the manufacturer of the van used in the attack, or the manufacturer of the knives used to kill people after the van was unable to go further, be held accountable for the deaths and injuries. In the US, firearms manufacturers are licensed to make the weapons, and the law controls how they are sold, and to whom. Just like automobiles. 

It is human nature that needs controlling, not tools.

 

 

 

 

Edited July 28, 2020 by Stargazer

[JamesBYoung]

Oh, mon, mes globes oculaires saignant! I hope they let the dad stay.

Edited July 28, 2020 by JamesBYoung

[JamesBYoung]

1 hour ago, pogi said:

"Sometimes" it needs to be, is right.   Calling out police brutality is not the same as calling out all police.  We should never give police brutality a pass because they have a difficult job or because there is a "learning curve".   I have a deep respect for the role of police officers in general, but I am concerned with attitudes like yours that seems to justify police brutality when it does happen. There is no justification for this!    Perhaps we can blow off any protester brutality as a "learning curve" too?  They are just under a lot of stress right, give them a break, right?

I don't think the national officers would have dared gone on to some of campuses during the student protests back in the day, certainly not after the shootings by the NG at Kent State.  If it is in context, police brutality must be called out.  I am concerned that if the federal officers hurt bystanders in a powder keg like Minneapolis or Portland, the next night thousands and thousands of citizens will be chasing the feds all over of the city with antifa and BLM vidcamming it.

 

Edited July 28, 2020 by JamesBYoung

[pogi]

55 minutes ago, The Nehor said:

There were four police on the scene. Two were in training in their first week on the job. Based on the initial police report on the incident and the first examination of the cause of death there was already a cover up in progress. It is not a learning curve issue. The newbies were already being brought into a mini-cult of deception to protect each other in their wrongdoing and the examiner was clearly in on it so that is at least five people. Probably more. It might have worked if there weren't any bystanders recording what actually happened. The scriptures have a term for that kind of planning. A bad guy trying to cover things up. Gadian-something? There was a bit about making pacts with other crooks to make sure no one has to suffer for their wrongdoing if I remember right? I am sure it will come to me any minute.

I was responding to Ahab's comments regarding the video you posted of police brutality, not about the George Floyd case.  He was blowing off police brutality in general as a "learning curve", and I was refuting that.

I doubt the medical examiner was in on some conspiracy.   I disagree with the County examiner and believe asphyxiation was the cause of death, but I also disagree with the private examiner who denies that any other underlying conditions contributed to Floyd's death.  Ummm, he was on fentanyl with recent use of meth!  People stop breathing on fentanly alone without any neck compression whatsoever.  I have no doubt that fentanyl - one of the most potent and powerful opioids on earth which frequently causes death from respiratory depression - played a significant role in his oxygen deprivation and death.  If he already had drug induced respiratory depression, that is a contributing factor to pressure on his neck and back which further depressed his respiratory system.  I agree with both examiners that it was a homicide though. 

Edited July 28, 2020 by pogi

[Bob Crockett]

32 minutes ago, Stargazer said:

Of course they are!  Not to every question, but to some of them.  Do you wonder why so many previously hoplophobic people have been out there buying guns during the current violence? If you wonder about it, I can tell you why: they can see very clearly that the police are there only to call the coroner after they couldn't get there in time to stop evil men from committing evil. And there are only so many police officers available -- and there will be fewer after the Left gets done defunding police departments.  "When seconds count, the police are only minutes away."

Gun manufacturers are already on the same footing as makers of knives, autos, and chainsaws.  But you want gun manufacturers to be held at fault for unlawful use of guns, don't you? But when a murderer uses a knife, or a chainsaw to kill, or when the operator of a motor vehicle uses his car unlawfully and hurts someone, should Oneida, General Motors or Husqvarna be held responsible? But ownership of those things are not constitutional rights.  Firearms ownership is.  That's what the 2nd Amendment is for. Not to protect gun manufacturers from making faulty products.

This topic of course trends upon the political, but so does the Doctrine and Covenants.

In D&C 101:80 the Lord is recorded as having said:

And for this purpose have I established the Constitution of this land, by the hands of wise men whom I raised up unto this very purpose, and redeemed the land by the shedding of blood.

And whose blood was shed in redeeming the land?  Among others, the blood of patriots, and that of tyrants (or the minions of tyrants).  And whose firearms were first employed against those tyrants, if it weren't those in private hands?  

At the time this revelation was given, the Second Amendment had been in force for nearly as long as the Constitution itself.  And you know what I noticed? The same "wise men" whom the Lord raised up were those who also brought the Bill of Rights into force as well, as part of the Constitution, with the Second Amendment, second only to freedom of speech, assembly and religion .  And when the Lord gave this revelation, do you think it was simply oversight that the Lord forgot to exclude the Second Amendment from his endorsement?  He did not say, "But take the guns away."

You're a smart man, Bob Crockett, in the areas where your expertise abounds. But you are not universally wise. And in this area you seem to be operating from the Pollyanna point of view that the tool  is the problem.  I live in the UK, and when the criminals can't get ahold of guns they use coshes, knives, and acid.  In the 2017 London Bridge attack, which occurred in a spot my wife and I had been just a few weeks previously, nobody suggested that Renault, the manufacturer of the van used in the attack, or the manufacturer of the knives used to kill people after the van was unable to go further, be held accountable for the deaths and injuries. In the US, firearms manufacturers are licensed to make the weapons, and the law controls how they are sold, and to whom. Just like automobiles. 

It is human nature that needs controlling, not tools.

I am not a smart man, but I am a constitutional lawyer and have appeared multiple times before the Supreme Court.  My knowledge of the Second Amendment, however, is as good as any educated lay person's.  I don't litigate Second Amendment cases. The founding fathers, with their mistresses, slaves, plantations, didn't really focus upon guns.

The Second Amendment was not part of the constitution, by definition, so D&C 101 does not apply to it.  One could also say that because the Constitution does not include the Second Amendment, God did not endorse the Second Amendment any more than He endorsed the repeal of prohibition.

Tort law protects gun makers but does not protect companies which make toy gun replicas.  See here.

[JamesBYoung]

22 hours ago, Bill “Papa” Lee said:

Maybe I am misunderstanding your post, “repeal the Second Amendment”, would outlaw gun ownership, would it not? Is this what you are hoping for? 

It would forbid the keeping arms in private and brandishing arms in public.

[JamesBYoung]

Nothing I know of in Restoration literature categorically proves that our Lord is a second amendment supporter.

Edited July 28, 2020 by JamesBYoung

[The Nehor]

18 minutes ago, JamesBYoung said:

Nothing I know of in Restoration literature categorically proves that our Lord is a second amendment supporter.

By comparison there is more evidence that he considers his children who are slaves as 3/5ths of a person. Even support for that is weak. God endorsed constitutional law generally but not specifically. It would not be heresy to propose a constitutional amendment or to think something is imperfect. I am looking at YOU electoral college.

Edited July 28, 2020 by The Nehor

[Stargazer]

2 minutes ago, Bob Crockett said:

I am not a smart man, but I am a constitutional lawyer and have appeared multiple times before the Supreme Court.  My knowledge of the Second Amendment, however, is as good as any educated lay person's.  I don't litigate Second Amendment cases. The founding fathers, with their mistresses, slaves, plantations, didn't really focus upon guns.

Wow, non sequitur much? What does mistresses, slaves, and plantations have to do with it?  Or do you use normally use well-poisoning in your litigations in court? Informal fallacies are such fun, are they not?

There were a lot of important topics in connection with the Constitutions -- of course they didn't focus solely on guns.  Nor free speech. Nor the right to trial by jury. There's an entire structure there, and no single component is of paramount importance. But take away a component, and just like a block pulled from a jenga tower, the entire edifice is threatened.

2 minutes ago, Bob Crockett said:

The Second Amendment was not part of the constitution, by definition, so D&C 101 does not apply to it.  One could also say that because the Constitution does not include the Second Amendment, God did not endorse the Second Amendment any more than He endorsed the repeal of prohibition.

An amendment becomes part of any law.  I challenge you to appear in court arguing that an amendment to any law should be disregarded because it wasn't part of the originally enacted bill. I doubt the judge would take you seriously.  Might even laugh at you. But that's a nonsensical argument. At the time of D&C 101 the 2nd Amendment was part of the Constitution. Or, do you believe that because the 1st amendment was not part of the original verbiage of the Constitution that the Lord didn't endorse freedom of the press, speech, or religion? That's a very weak argument, something I don't think a constitutional lawyer would want to use in court. And perhaps you are wise not to litigate Second Amendment cases -- if these arguments are a sample of how you would litigate them. 

But even assuming you're correct that it isn't part of the Constitution, there were those at the time the Bill of Rights was ratified who feared that specifying certain rights might cause later generations to limit rights to just those ones, that the rights of the people should not be enumerated, lest later generations attempt to take them away. Time has proven these arguments to be false -- because the sappers and miners of the Constitution have been at work for generations trying to remove rights, one piece at a time. 

 

2 minutes ago, Bob Crockett said:

Tort law protects gun makers but does not protect companies which make toy gun replicas.  See here.

Tort law has been in desperate need of reform for decades.  

[pogi]

35 minutes ago, JamesBYoung said:

Nothing I know of in Restoration literature categorically proves that our Lord is a second amendment supporter.

No proof, but there is some good restoration literature on guns:

Quote

“Here is one principle which is eternal; it is the duty of all men to protect their lives and the lives of the household, whenever necessity requires, and no power has a right to forbid it, should the last extreme arrive.” (Joseph Smith, HC 6:605.)

While he didn't specify protection with guns, that is how he demonstrated it:

Quote

Heber C. Kimball taught, “It is also for your salvation to equip yourselves. … Now, I will tell you, I have about a hundred shots on hand all the time,—three or four fifteen-shooters, and. three or four revolvers, right in the room where I sleep; and the Devil does not like to sleep there, for he is afraid they will go off half-cocked. If you will lay a bowie knife or a loaded revolver under your pillow every night, you will not have many unpleasant dreams, nor be troubled with the nightmare; for there is nothing that the Devil is so much afraid of as a weapon of death. … Let us be ready, guns cocked; none of your half-cocked.” -JD 5:164-165

Quote

“By what means did [God] keep the mob from destroying us? It was by means of being well armed with the weapons of death to send them to hell cross lots. Just so you have got to do. As for this people fostering to themselves that the day has come for them to sell their guns and ammunition to their enemies, and sit down to sleep in peace, they will find themselves deceived, and before they know, they will sleep until they are slain… We must be so prepared that they dare not come to us in a hostile manner without being assured they will meet a vigorous resistance, and ten to one they will meet their grave. … Let this people here lie down to sleep, and be entirely off their watch, and the first thing they know, they are in the greatest danger. You must not desert the watch tower, but do as I do—keep some person awake in your house all night long, and be ready, at the least tap of the foot, to offer a stout resistance, if it is required. Be rely at any moment to kill twenty of your enemies at least. Let every house be a fort. … I am my own policeman, and have slept, scores of nights, with my gun and sword by my side, that is, if I slept at all. I am still a policeman. Now is the day to watch. It is as important for me to watch now, as well as pray, as it ever has been since I came into this kingdom. It requires watching, as well as praying men; take turns at it, let some watch while others pray, and then change round, but never let any time pass without a watcher, lest you be overtaken in an hour when you think not; it will come as a thief in the night. Look out for your enemies, for we know not how they will come, and what enemy it will be. Take care of yourselves. … Take care of your grain, and take care of yourselves, that no enemy come to slay you. Be always on hand to meet them with death, and send them to hell, if they come to you. May God bless you all. Amen.” -JD 1:171-172

Quote

“We all believe that the Lord will fight our battles; but how? Will He do it while we are unconcerned and make no effort whatever for our own safety when an enemy is upon us? If we make no efforts to guard our towns, our houses, our cities, our wives and children, will the Lord guard them for us? He will not; but if we pursue the opposite course and arrive to help Him to accomplish His designs, then will He fight our battles. We are baptized for the remission of sins; but it would be quite as reasonable to expect remission of sins without baptism, as to expect the Lord to fight our battles without our taking every precaution to be prepared to defend ourselves. The Lord requires us to be quite as willing to fight our own battles as to have Him fight them for us. If we are not ready for an enemy when he comes upon us, we have not lived up to the requirements of Him who guides the ship of Zion, or who dictates the affairs of his kingdom.” (Brigham Young, JD 11:131.)

 

 

Edited July 28, 2020 by pogi

[Stargazer]

21 minutes ago, JamesBYoung said:

Nothing I know of in Restoration literature categorically proves that our Lord is a second amendment supporter.

Nothing I know of in anything categorically proves that our Lord created the law of gravity, either. The scriptures are silent on the subject. Does this mean that the Lord didn't create it?

The Lord endorsed the Constitution, indeed claimed to have used his own instruments to create it. And did so well after the Second Amendment was a part of the Constitution. Do you claim that there's no proof the Lord supports the First Amendment?  Which one of the individual articles in the Bill of Rights does the Lord not support?  Any of them? None of them?  It's OK with the Lord if the government puts people in prison without due process?  Does the Lord feel that it is perfectly OK for the police to enter your house and confiscate everything you own, because there's no proof He supports the 4th Amendment?

The scripture says that the Lord redeemed the land by the shedding of blood, speaking of the American Revolution. That blood was shed by firearms, mostly, and at the beginning virtually all of those firearms were privately owned by the revolutionaries/patriots. The Lord doesn't seem to have a problem with the Second Amendment.  It's part of the Constitution, as it existed at the time the Lord claimed it as his.

 

[pogi]

50 minutes ago, Bob Crockett said:

The Second Amendment was not part of the constitution, by definition, so D&C 101 does not apply to it. 

"Was not" - correct. 

"Is not" - incorrect. 

The Second Amendment became part of the constitution when it was ratified in 1791, by definition - long before D&C 101 was written, so yes it does apply.

The actual wording of Article V is:

Quote

The Congress, whenever two thirds of both Houses shall deem it necessary, shall propose Amendments to this Constitution, or, on the Application of the Legislatures of two thirds of the several States, shall call a Convention for proposing Amendments, which, in either Case, shall be valid to all Intents and Purposes, as part of this Constitution, when ratified by the Legislatures of three fourths of the several States, or by Conventions in three fourths thereof, as the one or the other Mode of Ratification may be proposed by the Congress;...

 

Edited July 28, 2020 by pogi

[Ahab]

29 minutes ago, pogi said:

I was responding to Ahab's comments regarding the video you posted of police brutality, not about the George Floyd case.  He was blowing off police brutality in general as a "learning curve", and I was refuting that.

No I wasn't.  Stop misrepresenting me with your false representations of me.  Something about bearing false witness comes to my mind now.  Probably from something I read somewhere,

What I meant is that there must needs be a learning curve, even for Police officers intent on stopping unrighteous behavior they see routinely while doing their jobs.  They often get in some highly emotional situations and even if they are trying to be as perfect as others have taught them they should be they are still going to make some mistakes, sometimes, and others will let them know that when they see them make those mistakes.  And speaking about people finding fault with others, there probably aren't very many more situations when the stakes are as high as when legal peace officers come into conflict with rioting mobs or just your every day average violent criminal.  It ain't easy, I'm sure, and there will always be people who will want to gripe and complain when they see or hear about someone trying to stop others from doing what they think those others have the freedom to do, but even though those legal peace officers will sometimes make some mistakes I am someone who will always be thankful that they, collectively, are trying to do their jobs as well as they can.  From the foot patrolmen to the detectives all the way up to internal affairs and the police commissioners.

[The Nehor]

2 hours ago, Storm Rider said:

When I saw this happen, my first thought was not violence by the police, but a misjudgment on how feeble an old man is. I was recently very ill, lost about 80 lbs. and was a bag of bones walking about...when I could walk. To lose my balance was too easy. If someone just barely bumped me I could go flying and was incapable of regaining my balance. 

The fellow in the picture was certainly not aggressively pushed, but he fell like a bag of old bones. There was error on behalf of the police in not immediately responding to his condition, but it was not violence on their part. 

I recommend getting the other angles that saw that. It was a forceful push. Also, it is difficult to non-aggressively push someone in that situation. I am not even sure how that would work. An accidental shove with a shoulder might qualify but that was very deliberate. It was not a "move along" push either as that rarely works when you shove someone from the front.

Compounding the situation there was no willingness to take responsibility as is evident in the initial report where the report said the victim "tripped and fell" which is obviously garbage and an obvious lie. I am recording all official encounters I have with police going forward and factoring this systematic fictionalization of reports if I end up on a jury. When the officer responsible was suspended police solidified behind the aggressor/liar and about 50 resigned from a special position they are shared (but not from the police force) as a show of solidarity at the "unfairness". Nope, no systematic problems here. HEY! STOP RECORDING RIGHT NOW!!!!

Fortunately it looks like he will be okay. He has been protesting on various issues for years, mostly on climate issues and police misconduct. He had a fractured skull from the fall and a brain injury and it was several weeks before he could walk with assistance. He sent a tweet right after being released from the hospital: "No comment other than Black lives matter. Just out of the ICU. Should recover eventually. Thx.”

[The Nehor]

2 hours ago, Storm Rider said:

If I recall correctly, one officer immediately attempted to go to his aid and another officer held him back. I did not understand that action.

I actually have a little empathy for the rookie cops that went through this on their first week on the job, probably confused as to what was going on and why this much force was required. I would have more if they had resigned in disgust and even with that empathy I think they are guilty of a crime. They also violated procedure requiring cops to intervene if another officer is using excessive or unreasonable force if it is safe and reasonable to do so which it was.

[Bob Crockett]

20 minutes ago, Stargazer said:

Wow, non sequitur much? What does mistresses, slaves, and plantations have to do with it?  Or do you use normally use well-poisoning in your litigations in court? Informal fallacies are such fun, are they not?

There were a lot of important topics in connection with the Constitutions -- of course they didn't focus solely on guns.  Nor free speech. Nor the right to trial by jury. There's an entire structure there, and no single component is of paramount importance. But take away a component, and just like a block pulled from a jenga tower, the entire edifice is threatened.

An amendment becomes part of any law.  I challenge you to appear in court arguing that an amendment to any law should be disregarded because it wasn't part of the originally enacted bill. I doubt the judge would take you seriously.  Might even laugh at you. But that's a nonsensical argument. At the time of D&C 101 the 2nd Amendment was part of the Constitution. Or, do you believe that because the 1st amendment was not part of the original verbiage of the Constitution that the Lord didn't endorse freedom of the press, speech, or religion? That's a very weak argument, something I don't think a constitutional lawyer would want to use in court. And perhaps you are wise not to litigate Second Amendment cases -- if these arguments are a sample of how you would litigate them. 

But even assuming you're correct that it isn't part of the Constitution, there were those at the time the Bill of Rights was ratified who feared that specifying certain rights might cause later generations to limit rights to just those ones, that the rights of the people should not be enumerated, lest later generations attempt to take them away. Time has proven these arguments to be false -- because the sappers and miners of the Constitution have been at work for generations trying to remove rights, one piece at a time. 

Tort law has been in desperate need of reform for decades.  

From a scriptural perspective, yes, I don't think Joseph Smith was referring to amendments, nor did the founding fathers discuss guns during ratification.  And, yes, I know that an amendment becomes the constitution.

No, I do not believe the constitution was inspired.  I think it was advanced to protect the interest of slave holders.  

Guns aren't the answer here, or there.