Iuz the Evil

Yeah, I do consider things like a 'minimum standard of rights' to kind of go beyond local government though.  ie- the primary benefits of having a 'Constitution' are to set a minimum standard (a public benefit for those living there) and a set of rules and agreements so we don't 'Sengoku Jidai' every time a leader dies off (a reason why the constitution/country doesn't get destroyed every decade or two, aka stability).  So public benefit + stability are a pretty decent motivation to follow a constitution, which sets a third benefit (ie a reason to fight or defend a country other than to protect another politician's career/riches)
 
So I guess what I'm suggesting is that while we can debate what some quantifications of a 'minimum standard' are, my interpretation is that those rights aren't just a set of rules but the entire reason people/public abide by them to begin with.  Interpreting it as a 'minimum standard' is kind of the point.

Sometimes you guys almost sound like the European Union. Try telling that to a Trumpist.

One of the oddities of the US. 
 
Whether it’s guns, reproductive rights, LGBTQ+, or any one of a host of other things - how the law can impact you varies from state to state. 
 
People literally do plan trips around how the laws of various states affect how they want to live their lives. 

How the dog got the pistol aside, if it lives in an appropriate county and the sheriff issued a permit open carry like that would be fine, wouldn't it?   

Probably not…. (With caveats….)
 
That looks like a Glock mag, so if we assume it’s a Glock it’s only legal if it’s Gen 3 or earlier. However it’s got an RDS, so unless it was milled after-market it’s probably Gen 4 or 5 which makes it a no-go. Barrel threading would also have to be after-market for a Glock as well unless I’m seriously mistaken.

As the dog in question is carrying a handgun without a FSC, and doesn’t have a reduced capacity magazine, that’s two law violations in CA. Now if the dog is not the legal owner of the firearm (likely some dogs do not have recognized property rights), the firearm owner might face charges around the safe storage of the firearm depending on whether there are children around.
 
 Later this year, the presence of the firearm is likely illegal if this is a public space (due to the impending “sensitive spaces” bill).
 
 So while California doesn’t have a required carry permit, fear not. We have plenty, PLENTY, of regulation in this area to cover it.

Okay. Biden went to Ukraine before stopping at Poland.
Honestly, he wasn't my preferred choice for President out of the Dems,  and there are policies I disagree on, but damn... respect to him. He's done this before the anniversary of the Invasion when Putin is feared to launch a missile Barrage (And still might). It would be crazy of Russia to attack Kyiv while an American President was there so Biden was PROBABLY safe but he still took a risk to show up and show support because 'sanity' isn't as reliable as it used to be.
 
Does it stop Russia's aggression? No, but I suspect it does wonders for Ukrainian Morale

A good and faithful servant if ever there was one

I am in government, and that would be hilarious.

All Things Considered reports the latest on the shoot-downs of the latest three "objects". All three reporters express disappointment at the government statement that there was nothing extraterrestrial about the objects. Mostly it's just that people loft a lot of stuff into the stratosphere, and now NORAD is looking for it.
http://m1.npr.org/2023/02/13/1156610134/the-latest-on-u-s-fighter-jets-shooting-objects-out-of-the-sky
 
Related:
http://m1.npr.org/2023/02/13/1156614099/former-norad-leader-on-the-challenges-of-detecting-small-uncrewed-flying-objects
 
Personally, I would be *so* tempted to troll the conspiranoids: "There is no evidence the objects were in any way extraterrestrial. They were unpowered and drifting. No energy discharges were detected, either directed or broadcast, on any frequencies, including those of human brain-waves. Remember that it is not possible, through electro-radionic technology, to change a person's sexual orientation or gender identity, or otherwise subvert the human will. There is no cause for alarm, no matter what you may see in the skies. Your government remains vigilant, trustworthy, and in Earthling -- I mean, human -- American-- hands."
 
It's probably a good thing I'm not in government.
 
Dean Shomshak

Damn, she brought the heat. I think I like this one.
 
Rep. Nancy Mace (R-SC) scorches Washington in brutal roast: 'I love exercising 1st Amendment rights'
 
Some of her best lines, largely at the expense of her fellow Republicans:
“I know everyone thinks Republicans aren’t funny. But if you get a bunch of us together, we can be a real riot.” Re: George Santos: “Really, who lies about playing college volleyball? Who does that? If you’re gonna lie, at least make it about something big, like you actually won the 2020 presidential election.” “There’s one reason I was chosen to be the Republican speaker tonight, and it's because Kevin McCarthy couldn't get the votes ... I haven't seen someone assume that many positions to appease crazy Republicans since Stormy Daniels”. “[W]e all knew that Matt Gaetz would never let the vote get to 18”. “C'mon, George, you give Republicans a bad name. And that's Lauren Boebert's job.” [beat] “Just kidding, Lauren, don’t shoot.”

Remember that high altitude Chinese balloon?
 
 
 
That's all it is now...

While it could well have been because he's white, it could also be due to the nature of use of force investigations.  There are a lot of factors that come into play from policy, to training, to legal, to the officer's knowledge and perception of the situation, as well as whether there was malice on the part of the officer. Suspension rather than immediate termination was probably the correct call based on what that article states. Further investigation will surely be done, and may lead to termination or criminal charges.
 
According to the article, he pulled the subject (victim) out of the car, and TASED him, as well as contact stunned him. Is pulling someone you intend to arrest out of the vehicle excessive force? The answer is it depends. The act itself is within reason if a) you have cause to arrest or detain the person and b) you give them ample opportunity to get out of the vehicle before yanking them out. Note that the article doesn't ask these questions. That's because the author and editor are more concerned with a catchy headline and getting their article published ASAP to try to keep up with the breakneck speed of online "reporting." And those are just two of the questions that need to be asked on the matter of getting the guy out of the car. The TASER use begs MANY questions, again, beyond the scope of the reporter's expertise. They'd have had to do a deeper dive and get an expert to consult with. But that's slow, and provocative headlines being put out quickly is what the media thrives on.
 
I watched the body cam videos. My take on this guy is that the force he personally applied very likely did not contribute to the subject's(victim's) death. Pulling people out of cars generally doesn't kill them. The TASER use also generally isn't fatal. It's unclear to me if the white officer used any language indicating malice in his intent. There was a lot of inappropriate language, but it's impossible for me to identify the speakers. He also didn't look like the person driving the situation. IMO, the action (benching vs firing) was appropriate based on what very, very little the public knows about the incident, as given on that body cam footage. I'm going to go out on a limb and say that the blunt force trauma inflicted by the officers who were fired was the likely cause of the death.

It looks like the black officers were the ones who got fired, because they were the ones who most obviously contributed to the death and who were most egregiously outside the law, policy and their training.

I'm not saying you were any more or less hyperbolic than average. From time to time, I like to point out when we start to veer in the direction of early assumptions. Not always -- I don't try to run around policing the thread, as that'd be obnoxious. It's not personal, and no offense was intended. I just tend to think like an investigator, both by nature and profession at some points, including recently, so it's a kind of pet peeve. Jumping to ascribing a motive to political, racial, or other reasons that are hot buttons can sometimes obscure the truth, even if they're depressingly accurate assumptions much of the time.

This certainly looks premeditated, and political motives are definitely high up on the list of possibilities.
 
Anyway, sorry if I offended you. I do believe you to be a reasonable sort of person and respect your opinions.

This “oathbreaker” fellow is an excellent example of why I have been saying in this thread politically motivated violence is not acceptable. Whatever your ostensible motivations, when you riot, assault or murder in the name of your beliefs those who disagree with you society must bring the full force of the law to bear. Someone can always justify their actions by saying “What choice did I have?”
 
 You had lots of other options. He is self admittedly guilty of violent insurrection and public mayhem. 68 months is a very reasonable amount of time, more would have been arguable as well.

https://abcnews.go.com/amp/US/new-jersey-councilwoman-shot-killed-targeted-attack-home/story?id=96844342
 
This is very ugly. We are really struggling as a nation when this sort of thing happens to our elected leadership. She was ambushed and murdered, motive pending…

Tangentially referring back to Hermit’s “oathbreaker” comment, and the rioter’s (likely?) belief he was following the orders of ‘his’ POTUS, he may have believed he was following his oath.  
 
It has been my personal observation that at least some people who claim to closely adhere to a particular text can be very selective in their reading and interpretation. 

https://abcnews.go.com/amp/US/new-jersey-councilwoman-shot-killed-targeted-attack-home/story?id=96844342
 
This is very ugly. We are really struggling as a nation when this sort of thing happens to our elected leadership. She was ambushed and murdered, motive pending…

If there’s one thing that DC fans have been clamoring for, it’s a Wonder Woman movie without Wonder Woman in it…
 

I thought this was fascinating…
 
 

I actually sort of understand the administrators' point of view--the odds of a first grader even having a gun, let alone using it, surely seem minuscule, whereas the odds of a sh*tshow resulting from a search and patdown of a 6-year-old probably exceed 100%.  Unfortunately the risk analysis seems not to have properly weighted the potential outcomes.

Including Russian rhetoric. As usual, the Kremlin is screaming wild threats; the latest, that Germany is now a target for retribution. Yesterday on the BBC, the German defense minister drily said that his government was not cowed by harsh language.
 
Dean Shomshak

When your country's actions are egregious enough to provoke Switzerland to choose a side, you should realize you've gone too far.

The priority of a peace officer isn't supposed to be keeping yourself safe, it's to keep innocent civilians safe. If that means putting yourself between civilians and danger, that's the job. We don't expect soldiers to avoid the front lines, or firefighters to never enter a burning building to rescue people.
 
If you're unwilling to do the job, find another job.