The reason for the attempted arrest of the gentleman in Atlanta was that he was drunk. Big difference to be a doctor sleeping in his car at the side of the road after an overnight shift: doctor wasn’t drunk.
1 Like
Pesky details…
Just ignore how it’s also a pretty widespread public service safety message, that if you’re tired while driving, pull over and rest. It’s safe driving.
Had the guy at Wendy’s actually been parked in the parking lot, rather than blocking the drive thru lane, there’s a really good chance the cops never would’ve been called to begin with. And even if they still were called, then…well, we’ll never know what they would’ve done about a random guy sleeping in his car quietly out of the way in a parking lot. Because the guy never gave them the opportunity.
4 Likes
AFAIK they talked it over for a long time in this case too. Don’t think there’s audio or video released though. Bad decisions/actions by the drunk guy aren’t really in dispute.
The guy may have made several bad decisions and still had an avoidable and unnecessary death. Similarly, the officer could have made many good decisions leading up and just one bad one at the end to kill the guy.
To me, this whole so-called “Defund the police” thing is about this: Have the cops try everything they reasonably can to de-escalate.
If you take a guy like the recent one and things get out of control like they did, he’s likely to do bad things again.
Now here’s the REALLY hard part: Instead, see if you can handle the situation at hand in a de-escalating manner… get the car moved, the guy someplace safe and everybody cools off. THEN… get the guy the help he needs. “Normal” is not drunk in a Wendy’s drive through. So, there must be something abnormal going on – maybe the guy needs psych help.
Before my audience goes wonky, think about your son or daughter. I do, because my son or daughter is almost in this world…
If your son or daughter was found in this situation, would you want cuffs, tazers, running and yelling… OR… would you want “the system” to try and find help for the underlying cause?
If the guy ends up in jail, we all know that things will likely get worse. Why? Well, for one, if he’s got a record, it is much more difficult to get a job. No job, more likely to commit a crime.
Instead, give him the tools to deal with whatever demons he’s wrestling with and we have a chance that he won’t be a repeat offender.
Agreed, we don’t know what happened off-camera. So maybe the cops tried to help this guy out in a de-escalating sort of way. If so, way to go. If not, maybe they kinda sparked the guy into doing things he wouldn’t normally do. I dunno about you, but when I’ve had too much to drink, it wasn’t difficult for other people to convince me to do stupid things…
I cant disagree with the concept. In fact, I’d agree that this is how it should be. But I also think it’s awful idealistic, and not particularly realistic in most situations. That help needs to be provided after the scene is secure, not before. I cant imagine any cop would object to having such resources available in real time, as opposed to only being able to file a report that may or may not be followed up on days or weeks later. But that requires resources in addition to the police involvement, not instead of the police involvement.
1 Like
I can understand much of your positions. I’m glad you qualified “competitive capitalism”, because we’ve all seen plenty of evidence that unbridled capitalism is bad for everyone. But there’s one issue on which your belief is plainly unfair:
The phrase is not in the Constitution, but it is a legal principle arising from the intent of the First Amendment to the Constitution, as documented by the original author himself (Jefferson) and supported by a whole lot of work since then. Not everything that is intended is explicitly enumerated in law, this is why we have courts, including SCOTUS – to interpret the meaning and intent of what was written. As you yourself stated.
Acknowledging ONE god is no different than promoting that ONE god. So either acknowledge all the gods equally (including prominent atheists, humanists, and anti-theists who find all religion deeply offensive), which will forever be controversial, or don’t acknowledge any, as Jefferson intended and the courts have agreed.
I want the freedom to pursue my goals without the government putting your “god” in my pledge (added in 1954), on my bills and coins (first appearing on coins in 1864, then blowing up on paper in 1950’s), or in any government buildings to stare at me while I vote or pay my taxes. I want statues and mentions of the Flying Spaghetti Monster, praise his tentacles, everywhere. If I can’t have that, then you shouldn’t have what you want.
Yeah, the Bible is not in the Constitution either. And last I checked, the Bible doesn’t say that life begins at penetration. Life is sacred, but killing the mother to save the child should not be decided by a vote (an extreme example, I know, but that’s what many fundamental fanatics would impose on everyone if they could). Imposing this belief on everyone and having the government enforce it goes against the freedom you so highly value.
We agree on this. The abortion issue is virtually impossible to reconcile . . . at least I’m unable to do so within my own beliefs. I come out with a view which is offensive to both sides of the debate:
I believe no woman should be forced against her will to carry a pregnancy to term. That sounds like I favor abortion, which I most assuredly do NOT! But for “choice” advocates that statement might sound OK. Until, that is, I add the following:
Out of respect for the rights of the child, women of child bearing age engaged in sexual relations should be required, either on their own or in consultation with a trusted relative, friend, or advisor, to decide in advance whether or not they would want to bear a child. This would impose on such women an extra responsibility which would immediately draw fire from the “choice” community.
Additionally, such women should be required at all times to know their status vis a vis pregnancy. Pregnancy discovery weeks in, or even months in, is completely unacceptable for those women who do not wish to carry the child to term. Again, this requirement would be rejected out of hand by “choice” fanatics who believe only the rights of the woman should be taken into account, and to hell with the baby who has no right to life in their view.
Finally, women who wish not to bear a child should be required to abort the baby at the earliest possible opportunity. You know you’re preggers and you know you do not want a baby because you have given it thought in advance, get that child aborted pronto. I am, as you might guess from this, a big fan of the morning after pill.
So while I believe no woman should be forced against her will to bear a child, I do not believe she should be permitted to take her sweet time making up her mind after she becomes pregnant. That is a human being in there, with rights. Abortion is the taking of a life and it is a big deal. Women should recognize that and understand there is a need for haste if they prefer not to bring their child to term.
Late term abortions, “partial birth” abortions, and “post birth” abortions, aka infanticide, are all abhorrent. Women who wish to kill their child need to “git er done” extremely early, and one can only hope and pray before the child is ensouled.
1 Like
That’s history (quitting you refer to), not some theoretical “what if”. They’ve already done so collectively in an organized manner, that’s how the players have obtained shared control. The players jointly run the league(s) along with the franchisees (“owners”). They get input on the rules. The franchisees aren’t dumb enough to pick a fight that they’d lose over this.
That’s not true, expressing personal agendas is not part of any CBA. The owners indulge it to some extent because of the risk the players will in fact quit, they’re essentially bullied into it. But they solely decide where they draw this line, and how much that outside pressure affects their decision.
This issue is going to boil down to one side calling the other side’s bluff. And it’ll either succeed, or turn out there was no bluff.
That’s called “negotiation” 
As you said, it’s not in the CBA. As I said, the franchisees aren’t dumb enough to try to pick a fight over this (that they’d lose), and there’s far from a consensus against it among the team owners.
It’s not a fight that makes economic sense either. There’s a lot of expensive season ticket packages, those are likely mostly held by educated people that will break overwhelmingly in favor of the players (separate discussion if they “should” or not, I’m not trying to start that discussion. But facts are there’s a demographic split with educated and higher income whites moving to Democrat, along with support of civil rights, and mainly uneducated and low income whites remaining and consolidating in the ‘new’ Trumplican party. And Trump has made this issue more political by his ranting and raving at rallies.). The owners that are against the players’ expression can just remain largely silent and point to the players’ associations’ influence as an excuse. That way they don’t alienate the larger base of poor uneducated white fans, the higher income and educated white fans, or any of the other fans. It just makes business sense to avoid completely alienating any of the fans. That’s how I see it, anyways. I’d be highly surprised if the owners came out against allowing the players to take a knee.
Discussion about the polling challenges
There was a half page article in the sports section of my local newspaper.
"Will NBA allow players to kneel during the national anthem? It went on & on starting 1981, The NBA rulebook states that “players, coaches & trainers must stand & line up in a dignified posture along the foul lines”, during the national anthem. The article goes on & on… through the years up to now.
For the past 4 years, NBA players have criticized President Trump for his racially divisive rhetoric & for criticizing NFL players who knelled during the national anthem.
Only time will tell this year… I say “follow the money”…
Times change. Circumstances change. People die. It’s a scary part of life. Not unusual to be kicking and screaming about the changes. For me, at least. And I’m not even old yet.
1 Like
Kneeling was decided on after consulting a US Green Beret about a way to remain respectful.
2 Likes
But it all goes against your initial claim that the players have shared control, jointly run the league, and have a say in the rules. They only have as much of a say as the owners choose to allow them.
“Partial birth abortion” is a late term abortion performed in a specific way where a live fetus is extracted. It is already illegal, and I think most people agree with this.
“Late” is not defined in law, but I believe it usually means 3rd trimester. The problem with banning it outright is that it may be necessary to save the life of the mother or end the life-long suffering of the baby, because AFAIK certain diseases and conditions that lead to a short life or life-long suffering of the child cannot be detected early in the pregnancy.
And “post birth abortion” is a lie spread by the opponents of abortion. Anything that happens after birth would not be an abortion, it’s murder, which is obviously illegal. Nobody ever advocated or supported this idea, but it was discussed in fake right-wing news circles after someone discovered some Australian ethics paper on the subject. It’s dumb to even mention this term.
I see a few problems with this. First is you’re advocating government control over women of childbearing age, essentially chipping away at the same freedom you love so much. Second, the morning after pills are only effective in what, the first 3 days? i.e. way before a pregnancy can be detected. Women do not always know that they’re pregnant, some may not know for 6 or 8 weeks (I’ve heard of cases where they don’t know until 5 months in, though I myself don’t believe it and am not aware of any underlying conditions that would make a reasonable person not realize what’s going on for that long).
In summary, I think your position is more reasonable (liberal) than what the pro-life movement advocates, but it is a bit short of an acceptable compromise.
1 Like
Actually what I have in mind is education of women, from an early age, that their special capability to bear children confers special responsibility.
Today’s “choice” advocates give no attention whatsoever to the rights of the child . . after all a separate human being. I disagree with this approach. While the mom always must come first, the child matters too, a whole lot. This thinking is wholly unsatisfactory to the crazy “choice” crowd, perhaps the most selfish and self-centered bunch on planet earth, people for whom the death of another human being is of little consequence and not worthy of their concern.
Of course the pure “pro life” position is equally unyielding. So we end up with the loss of millions of babies each year, far too many of then in an unconscionable and unacceptable stage of development, because neither side will give an inch.
It’s a pity. But it is so typical of things today.
Ultimately you’re advocating for government control, you’re just describing it in a positive light.
This is patently false. The position of most “choice” advocates (at least politicians) is that abortions should be legal, but extremely rare.
Nothing is more selfish or self-centered than thinking that you can tell women what to do or how to behave.
Another lie from the pro-life christian fundamentalists.
1 Like
I dunno, scripta. From what you wrote I would conclude you are pretty far out there on the left. You believe the situation does not need to be compromised because the “choice” crazies are 100% right.
Well, they’re not. But neither should women be forced to bring an unwanted baby into the world. Since mine appears to bother you, I wonder what sort of compromise you would advance, something which takes into account that TWO human beings are involved! Or do you buy into the incoherent notion that a baby in utero is not a human being with rights?