Jump to content

Political Discussion Thread (With Rules)


Simon

Recommended Posts

1 hour ago, Pattern Ghost said:

 

"or so"

 

I'm getting to the age that decades start blurring together.

 

If you somehow reach Old Man's age, it's centuries....

 

Fox chooses to SETTLE in the Dominion case.  

 

For a LOT.  Almost $800 MILLION.

 

My, my, my, my, my....

Link to comment
Share on other sites

5 minutes ago, TrickstaPriest said:

Hm.  Does that mean Fox will continue doing exactly the same thing as it's been doing, though?  I'm not sure how much the settlement amount would keep them from just... continuing on.  But we'll have to see...

 

Fox Corp. reported $3B in revenue for the 3rd quarter of 2022, but that's the entire corporation.  The breakdown shows about $1.4B from cable network programming.  

https://www.prnewswire.com/news-releases/fox-reports-first-quarter-fiscal-2023-revenues-of-3-19-billion-301664540.html

 

We're only estimating, so, let's assume annual is 4x that.  About 5.7B.  That means the settlement is 15% of gross revenue for the year.

 

They won't ignore that.  

 

Oh, and this does not cover the Smartmatic suit.  They're asking for $2.7B.  

Link to comment
Share on other sites

OTOH:  we have to recognoze that they were vulnerable because they made specific statements relating to entities.  (And entities with the resources to pursue the litigation, and to assert sufficient harm to ask for HUGE damages.)  Contrast that with, say, their COVID statements.  There were no entities being harmed.  Same with any climate denials.  Mostly the same with Jan. 6th...they might be liable for emotional damages there, a la Alex Jones and the Sandy Hook families, but that would be harder to prove against them, and wouldn't rise to anything like the Jones case.

 

Basically, they were burned because they were *massively* stupid and careless.  They don't need to change much at all, to avoid a repeat.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

6 hours ago, Lord Liaden said:

I would urge you to stay for the point at the end.

 

I agree with the point, but it's hardly a revelation. The same thing has been said repeatedly in this thread.

 

Also, in that final case of the police shooting, I looked up the video. Generally, it's not a good idea to be anywhere near a gun in the presence of police, but this wasn't jumpy police. The guy didn't just answer the door with a gun in hand. He opened it and pointed it directly at the police. No ambiguity on that one.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Dammit. Fox can afford to settle. They "chose" to settle because a trial would bring all their dirty laundry out in public. The judge in the case had ruled that the plaintiff could call the Fox News talking heads, potentially even Rupert Murdoch himself, to testify under oath. They couldn't have kept word from getting out about something so explosive, even from their own viewers. That would have seriously undercut their credibility and maybe even driven viewers away. It was a chance to actually counter the influence of Fox over the American public consciousness.

 

If Smartmatic also settles, Fox will keep right on doing what it's always done.

Edited by Lord Liaden
Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 minutes ago, Pattern Ghost said:

 

I agree with the point, but it's hardly a revelation. The same thing has been said repeatedly in this thread.

 

Also, in that final case of the police shooting, I looked up the video. Generally, it's not a good idea to be anywhere near a gun in the presence of police, but this wasn't jumpy police. The guy didn't just answer the door with a gun in hand. He opened it and pointed it directly at the police. No ambiguity on that one.

 

Beau's point has been alluded to on this thread, but never illustrated with such graphic examples. And Beau asserted that based on initial evidence, the police shooting looked to be justified. Ambiguity about the police's action has nothing to do with the point he was making.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

47 minutes ago, Lord Liaden said:

Ambiguity about the police's action has nothing to do with the point he was making

 

I never said it did, though I see where you may have read it that way. I was merely providing a little information about something I was curious about, so as to save anyone else who was also curious about that same thing the trouble of watching a man get killed.

 

47 minutes ago, Lord Liaden said:

Beau's point has been alluded to on this thread, but never illustrated with such graphic examples.

 

Also, the point about fear mongering being a bad thing and creating bad outcomes has been directly linked to shootings in this thread, by me. (And other posters. I can certainly recall many examples of times when I've said the same thing without having to dig through the thread, though.) And in other threads in the past where I commented on fear being the driving factor behind a lot of bad police shootings. While I don't expect any pats on the back for that, it does support my assertion that Beau -- at least in this case -- hasn't said anything that hasn't been said before, in many ways and in many contexts. Right here. In this thread.

Edited by Pattern Ghost
Link to comment
Share on other sites

 

ETA: Also, LL, if my initial statement about Beau stating the obvious was offensive to you, I want you to know that I wasn't calling you out or making a personal attack there. It was an offhand statement, and more driven by the fact that I sometimes find Beau annoying. I always considered you, if not a friend, at least a congenial acquaintance on the forum.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

PG:  LL's point is, you're jumping to the defense of the police, when that was never the issue.  Beau gave a good rundown and even said, it was likely a justified shooting, from the police perspective.

 

And I agree with LL:  I don't really think we've discussed the impact of broad fearmongering.  Of *hate* mongering, unfortunately, yes.  But these aren't hate incidents, at least on the surface.

 

Now...if you want to take umbrage with the tone of CNN's coverage...THAT, I understand completely.  The first 30 seconds are enough.  

https://www.cnn.com/videos/us/2023/04/15/new-mexico-police-shooting-wrong-address-contd-nr-vpx.cnn

 

She's quite clearly emphasizing "innocent" and "wrong address."  She's imputing bad police actions.  If that's driving your reaction here...I understand that completely.  There's a reason why I dislike CNN.  Not as much as Fox, but that's boundless.  One can be skeptical in general about police statements;  there've been FAR too many that have been flat-out lies and cover-ups.  But the analyst flat out states that, if you look at the video slowed down, she can see a gun.  She largely corroborates the chief's story.  But they STILL take that tone.  That's grossly irresponsible, IMO.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

45 minutes ago, unclevlad said:

PG:  LL's point is, you're jumping to the defense of the police, when that was never the issue. 

 

I'm not "jumping" to anything. I was merely curious if this was one of those cases where the guy opens the door in the middle of the night holding a gun at his side, and get shot for it. Which would be a very questionable shoot. OR, if this was  case where the guy pointed a gun at a cop on his porch, which is a very clear cut stupid thing to do, and a good shoot. Beau did NOT mention this salient point in his rundown. (exact quote: "the homeowner opens the door and is holding a gun") I clearly stated this in my response to LL, when I said:

 

1 hour ago, Pattern Ghost said:

I was merely providing a little information about something I was curious about

 

Maybe you missed that part?

 

I don't give two figs about defending anybody. I look. I evaluate. I give my professional opinion. That's it.

 

45 minutes ago, unclevlad said:

I don't really think we've discussed the impact of broad fearmongering.

 

I've personally brought it up in the context of police training drilling "your job is to go home alive" into officers, for one thing. That's not exactly the same context as people just shooting people on their porch (or getting shot attempting to do so), but that's a narrow concept. We did discuss at some length the foreign exchange student shot in Texas a while back, but I don't remember if that was before  you joined or not. (And you know what's messed up? I can't get a good date on that incident, due to finding a LOT of articles about foreign exchange students being shot on porches.)

 

Beau's overall point isn't some great insight. It's obvious. Sorry if that offends fans of Beau. I don't have anything against him in particular, but I don't find him particularly insightful.

 

45 minutes ago, unclevlad said:

If that's driving your reaction here

 

My reactions aren't "driven" by squat, least of all media coverage. Who do you think I am? I will tell you my reaction: Go find a clean video without any media input. Watch it with the sound off. Look to see if the guy has a gun pointed at the police or not. Jesus. People act like thinking for oneself is something difficult. What's with these assumptions about my motives today? Especially directly after I very clearly stated why I said what I did?

 

45 minutes ago, unclevlad said:

But they STILL take that tone.  That's grossly irresponsible, IMO.

 

Well, that sort of thing is why I don't look at amateur opinions about these things from the media. Agree with you on that, too.

Edited by Pattern Ghost
Link to comment
Share on other sites

5 hours ago, Pattern Ghost said:

Also, in that final case of the police shooting, I looked up the video. Generally, it's not a good idea to be anywhere near a gun in the presence of police, but this wasn't jumpy police. The guy didn't just answer the door with a gun in hand. He opened it and pointed it directly at the police. No ambiguity on that one.

 

Okay, but here is the thing.  The man and his wife did not know that they were cops.  Indeed, while the wife was in a shoot out with the police, she took a moment out to call 911 and tell them that intruders had just killed her husband.

 

The police department has come out and said that given the circumstances - late at night, people pounding at his door - that the husband was perfectly within his rights to open the door with his gun drawn and ready.  According to police department, the man who was killed didn't do anything wrong, and the only thing wrong that the police did was go to the wrong house.  Yep, nobody made any big mistakes, despite the fact a man died and there was firefight between the police and the wife that could have resulted in more deaths.  Alright, I am over simplifying, there is to be an investigation of the incident and the investigation may lead to more findings a suggestions.  However, those would suggestions for future police raids.

 

So, I have some of those amateur opinions that you dislike so much.   The husband and wife in the house did not know that it was law enforcement; this represents huge failure on the part of both the officers involved and the police department's policies and procedures.  It brings to mind the poor women in Sacramento who got shot when the man skulking outside her window that she drew a gun on turned out to be a cop.  When law enforcement shows up they should announce themselves in no uncertain terms. Leave the cherry lights on the patrol car going and announce that you are the police repeatedly when showing up to make an arrest.  

 

Also, when you are a gun owning home owner or renter,  if you don't feel safe opening your door without your weapon drawn, don't open your door at all.  Talk through the door until you know what is going on.  All three of these tragedies could by a short conversation through a locked door.

 

Here in America we feel that we both have a right to own guns and to be morons.  One of those rights needs to go.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, Ranxerox said:

Okay, but here is the thing.  The man and his wife did not know that they were cops.

 

This isn't relevant. The fact is that the guy aimed his gun at the officer. That's it. At that point, shooting him to prevent getting shot by him was on the table. The police were not illegally on the property. They mistakenly approached the wrong house to respond to a call. They identified themselves as police. While it's quite possible the homeowner didn't hear that or process it as he came down to the door, the fact is that instead of identifying whether they were a threat or not, he chose to engage them by threatening their lives by pointing a gun at them.

 

2 hours ago, Ranxerox said:

The police department has come out and said that given the circumstances - late at night, people pounding at his door - that the husband was perfectly within his rights to open the door with his gun drawn and ready. 

 

He was within his rights to arm himself. Body cam footage clearly shows him pointing it at the officers. That's a lethal force threat that puts the police within their rights to shoot defensively. He made a mistake, and probably shouldn't have died for it, but the fact is he should not have opened the door without identifying who was on the other side. That's a bad tactic regardless of who was outside. If someone is outside pounding on your door, at any time of the day or night, the proper response is NOT to yank the door open and point a gun at whoever is out there. That was a bad response to the situation.

 

2 hours ago, Ranxerox said:

According to police department, the man who was killed didn't do anything wrong, and the only thing wrong that the police did was go to the wrong house. 

 

I honestly don't care about the statement made by the police, either. They often dumb things down for the press or -- as I suspect in this case -- try not to point the victim of a tragic mistake in a bad light. Just because they're soft selling it doesn't mean that the man did not foolishly open his door in the middle of the night and point it at the person on the other side. The reason I reviewed that video was to see if the gun was actually pointed at the cops or if they shot someone standing there holding a gun at his side. Which he did. Which provoked a legal and ethical response from the responding officers.

 

2 hours ago, Ranxerox said:

However, those would suggestions for future police raids.

 

Was this a raid? It certainly wasn't a no-knock warrant. The responding officers knocked loudly and announced themselves as police and were in uniform.

 

2 hours ago, Ranxerox said:

So, I have some of those amateur opinions that you dislike so much. 

 

No argument here.

 

2 hours ago, Ranxerox said:

The husband and wife in the house did not know that it was law enforcement; this represents huge failure on the part of both the officers involved and the police department's policies and procedures.


They very loudly shouted "this is the police." The failure was on the part of the homeowner, when he yanked open his door and pointed his gun at an unidentified target. Had he exercised the least level of common sense and responsibility that should come with owning a firearm for home defense, he would have had his wife call 911 to report someone pounding on his door, not opened the door, not stood on the other side of the door at all, defended in place, and attempted to identify a threat before pointing a gun at someone. Period. Full stop. The homeowner bears all of the responsibility here. He could have the very least asked who was there before opening the door. The only reason he got shot was for pointing the gun at the police. Jesus, I've had the police knock on my door several times in the middle of the night. I've managed not to get shot any of those times because I identified who was on the other side of the door. (Twice looking for burglary witnesses, once looking for witnesses to a shootout in our apartment parking lot.)

 

2 hours ago, Ranxerox said:

When law enforcement shows up they should announce themselves in no uncertain terms.

 

They did.  Before you point a gun at someone, you need to identify who it is. If the threat is on the outside, you should remain on the inside, regardless of whether you have a right to go outside and look for trouble. These are important things.

 

2 hours ago, Ranxerox said:

Also, when you are a gun owning home owner or renter,  if you don't feel safe opening your door without your weapon drawn, don't open your door at all.  Talk through the door until you know what is going on.  All three of these tragedies could by a short conversation through a locked door.

 

OK. So you agree the fault is with the homeowner?

Edited by Pattern Ghost
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Louisiana Republican Party wants to ban college study of diversity, equity, inclusion

Quote

Louisiana Republican Party officials want state lawmakers to forbid the study of racism at colleges and universities, arguing in a resolution approved Saturday that classes examining "inglorious aspects" of United States history are too divisive.

The resolution, passed by voice vote with no discernible dissent at the state party's quarterly meeting in Baton Rouge, asks the Legislature to pass laws removing diversity, equity and inclusion departments and agencies "within any institution of higher learning within the state." Without citing evidence, the resolution asserts that these programs have bloated budgets and inflamed political tensions on campuses.

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

8 hours ago, Pattern Ghost said:

 

OK. So you agree the fault is with the homeowner?

 

No.  I agree that the homeowner bears some fault, but I am not willing to let the police off the hook for their role in this.  Neither resident of the house realized that the people pounding at were police officers.  I consider this prima facie evidence that the officers did not do a good enough job identifying themselves.  Yelling "this is the police" once at people who may be asleep or in a distant part of the house behind closed doors is not sufficient identification.  I work in health care, and we don't fool around with identification.  We don't say are "are you so-and-so", and when they dumbly nod yes, proceed to give them potentially dangerous medications.  No, we ask them to identify themselves with name and birthdate, then we check these against both their patient ID bands and our own records.  Going the other way with identification, we get the patient's attention, make eye contact, tell them our name and job title and what we plan to do with them, and then we give them a chance to respond.  So, these cops failed.  They didn't even make sure that they were at the right address before proceeding, and they identified themselves only once to people that for all they knew were asleep or out of the range of full hearing.  That is a procedural failure, in that either they failed to follow the department's procedure or the procedure itself was inadequate.

 

Yelling "this is the police" before pounding on the door is good, but they needed to repeat the yell several more times in case they were not heard or understood the first time.  Also, having the the flashing lights from their patrol car streaming through the windows would have really brought home that this was actually the police at the door and would convey the information to people who don't hear well.

 

Quote

I honestly don't care about the statement made by the police, either. They often dumb things down for the press or -- as I suspect in this case -- try not to point the victim of a tragic mistake in a bad light. Just because they're soft selling it doesn't mean that the man did not foolishly open his door in the middle of the night and point it at the person on the other side.

 

Yes, I understand that.  However, a huge part of our problem is that we have dumbed things down way too much.  See my earlier post statement about right to bear arms and the right to be a moron.  Barring extenuating circumstances, pointing a gun at someone is assault with a deadly weapon (yes, the misdemeanor form of this charge, but still).  People should be taught that it is not alright even when they are on their own property and it is night time.  This is important information for the public to understand and if we don't talk about after a tragedy like this, when will we talk about it?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Thanks,Ranxerox. I see where our opinions diverge. I don't believe that anyone knocking on someone's door should have a gun directly pointed at them without first identifying them as an imminent threat to life or limb. The law agrees with me on that point. So, the police identifying themselves properly is a moot point. That said, let's agree to disagree on that detail.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

It's been the experience of my lifetime that Canadians in general are far more familiar with what happens in the United States, than the reverse. Of course we don't have a lot of choice in the matter. As our current Prime Minister's late father, and former PM, famously said, "Living next to you is in some ways like sleeping with an elephant. No matter how friendly and even-tempered is the beast, if I can call it that, one is affected by every twitch and grunt."

Edited by Lord Liaden
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.

Guest
Unfortunately, your content contains terms that we do not allow. Please edit your content to remove the highlighted words below.
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Loading...
  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.
×
×
  • Create New...