Several decades of socializing people to avoid topics such as politics or religion, in polite company, at work, with in laws, etc, etc.
Maybe we wouldn’t be where we are if instead, we’d learned to openly and respectfully discuss difficult topics.
I see. Is it your belief, then, that when somebody is killed by law enforcement, the law the LE was enforcing is to blame?
So:
- Family members think that this dude presents an extreme risk and ask the police to temporarily remove his guns.
- When police show up, he answers the door holding a gun. He sets it down.
- When he finds out that they’re trying to take his guns, he gets super pissed and picks the gun back up.
- The gun discharges when the police try to take it from him.
- The police shoot him.
- ???
- His death is the fault of the law that says police can take guns away from someone temporarily if they look like they’re out of control.
Okay there.
I agree. I just can’t believe that “Taking guns away from mentally unstable people results in a mentally unstable person getting killed when they legally try to take his gun away” is somehow the laws fault.
With ICE deporting all sorts of people (e.g., military veterans, people purportedly protected under the DACA umbrella, etc.), Trump and his buddies know, even if you will deny it, that a great number of aliens will avoid responding to the census for fear that even if they are here legally, they may be deported. Trump and company rely on that to get an undercount on the census. The question was removed from the short form after 1950 because statisticians determined that it was not necessary under current methodology.
Trump’s people tried to add it back in for the purpose of getting an ndercount.
(That is probably why they violated the law determining how questions are added to the census, then lied to claim that it has been requested by a different department that had nothing to do with it. The party of Law and Order, of course/)
I’m not sure what current event to link, but the middle one’s the confederate flag
AIUI, that bill means that physicians aren’t required to do LGBT-related elective procedures (such as sex-change surgeries,) but they can’t refuse to treat an LGBT patient for something that a non-LGBT patient would have needed. In other words, if an LGBT patient comes into the ER with a broken leg, they have to treat it since a broken leg is something everyone and anyone can get.
“Ms. Smith, I am aware that the state of North Carolina recognizes you as the legal wife of Ms. Jones. However, God does not recognize that marriage, and I cannot extend you the visitation rights extended to immediate family members.”
Exactly. It’s silly to pretend that people who voted for Trump after he said that hold religious freedom in high regard. They’re totally cool with persecuting people because of their religion.
It would.
Which is why there’s a “but” and more to the sentence that you excluded from the quote.
I think it’s more likely to not be a violation of the law, but we should get the final word from SCOTUS here soon.
Without Maryland’s ERPO law, Mr. Willis would most likely still be alive today. As I noted in my post comparing his death to Eric Garner’s death, “Certainly there is some amount of blame that can be laid at the dead men’s feet in both cases”, but Mr. Willis would not have been surprised by law enforcement at his door trying to enforce an order he knew nothing about at 5:00 am if it were not for Maryland’s ERPO law. In that sense, the law was a contributing factor in his death, just like the NY’s “loosie” ban was a contributing factor in Garner’s death, but his own decisions also contributed to his demise. If you aren’t capable of grasping that, I don’t know how else to explain it to you.
Understand the psychology behind Trump: dominance.
The people who voted for Donald Trump did so because they want to be part of the dominant group. They want to be part of the majority, the group that makes the rules, that establishes the norms, that imposes their value system on others. That’s what conservatism is in America.
Progressives want to be part of the majority, but not for the sake of owning the conservatives, and not for the sake of forcing conservatives to accept the idea that college must be free. Progressives and left-leaning centrists can accept that not everyone adheres to their world view, and they’re okay with it, as long as there’s an honest competition of ideas, and the contest for which of these ideas is the ballot box, and they can accept these results provided that there’s been a debate in good faith about ideas, and not just about subjects.
After a conservative murdered Heather Heyer by running her down with his vehicle, lawmakers in North Dakota, North Carolina, Florida, Tennessee and Texas proposed bills that would make it legal for drivers to kill protesters if they offered the defense “I didn’t mean to.”
How are we supposed to feel about people who want vehicular homicide legalized for their political opponents? Mere hatred seems a bit mild.
Funny you ask, since I just listened to this story on NPR this afternoon: ‘Patients Will Die’: One County’s Challenge To Trump’s ‘Conscience Rights’ Rule
It’s a story about Santa Clara County, California, joining a lawsuit against a new rule protecting health care workers who refuse patient care out of religious or moral objections. The Santa Clara County executive, who is a physician and attorney, was pretty blunt:
Now, granted, that is just a prediction. But given examples of the type Pantastic cited in Post #112, it’s not a far-fetched one.
Selling loosies, and furiously snatching up a gun when law enforcement tells you that you must relinquish your weapons, are equal levels of contributory action, right? And shooting the guy whose gun just went off while he wrestled you for it is pretty analogous to choking a guy who was unarmed, right?
This is the sort of analogy that makes it difficult to take your tu quoques seriously.
SCOTUS may give them a pass and let them implement their desires, but the law requires that the bureau submit a notification of the proposed changes to Congress three years (topic changes) or two years (specific questions) prior to Census day. The citizenship question was not submitted to Congress in that time frame. They have already broken the law, regardless what SCOTUS decides they can do. (Congress does not have to confirm the changes, but the request must be made.) The claim that they want to make the change because of a Department of Justice request is a lie. The memo from the Justice Department was drafted at the request of a Trump official after the proposal had been made. Typical lying Trump games. DoJ had no part of the proposal, although the retroactive request was placed on DoJ stationery.
The incident where EMTs left the room of a transgender woman, then forced her to walk down the stairs without helping her while she was hemorrhaging blood from a leg wound happened in Michigan. The incident where a woman was seriously injured in a car accident happened in Washington DC and EMTs on the scene withdrew care and not only refused to treat her but mocked her while she was dying. The incident where a Trans man went to more than a dozen Doctors to try to get treatment for ovarian cancer and by the time any could be found who were willing to treat him instead of mock him happened in Georgia.
https://twitter.com/samdylanfinch/status/1131998009573531648 is the cite I gave earlier. The two cases that have names attached on that page are Tyra Hunter, and other sources are available on the wikipedia page for her here: Death of Tyra Hunter - Wikipedia The trans man who was mocked while dying of cancer has a wikipedia page, again with other sources here: Robert Eads - Wikipedia and was, in fact, the subject of an award-winning documentary called Southern Comfort. You can claim that all of these are imaginary, but putting your head in the sand doesn’t change reality.
So, I put the question to you again, as you failed to answer it in your previous post in favor of pretending that it could never happen: Would you be willing to agree to disagree yet still be friendly with someone who felt that you personally should be subject to that treatment, and who proposed shielding people who inflict such treatment from lawsuits? In general, would you consider someone who passed laws to protect medical professionals who stand by mocking you while you were dying to be acting in a friendly manner without vitriol, or would you consider that to actually be vitriolic?
In fairness to Ditka, cops are kind of fucking terrible at dealing with people undergoing mental health crises. A law that allows cops to intervene earlier with citizens suffering mental distress is going to lead to more dead citizens. Which isn’t to say that this is necessarily a bad law - or, for that matter, that the cops in this specific situation necessarily did anything wrong. If the cops hadn’t intervened, it sounds like there’s a good chance this guy would have killed someone else. And, given the circumstances, they may really have had no other option but to shoot him once he started resisting them.
That being said, if the law allowing cops to confiscate guns can be blamed for this guy dying, it seems to me that the law that allowed him to own a gun in the first place would be even more to blame.