carpandean

Ask any cop, 90% of people in handcuffs say that they can't breath. I definitely question why they did not start CPR, though. It probably should have gone to trial, but if he were found not-guilty there, would the response be any different? Here, perhaps, but not on the streets.

I don't disagree that the situation did not need to be escalated like that. They tried several times to grab a wrist to handcuff him and each time he pushed them away. I would assume that their procedures, at that point, say to forcibly apprehend him for resisting arrest. If they have the discretion to step back and say, "listen, we are arresting you either way; we can do it forcibly and you'll add on another charge that is much worse, or you can comply and then argue your case," then they probably should have. However, my point was about whether he could legally have been charged. If he followed procedure and the suspect died, then I would say that he can't be. You can address the procedures themselves, but I would think that he could not be charged/convicted.

I'm not sure that "homicide" has the same meaning in a coroner's report as you might think. The officer could have used allowable techniques, which contributed to his death, and it would be ruled a homicide. The coroner ruled that it (pressure to the neck) was one of many contributing factors, including also his position, his obesity, his asthma, etc. However, a legal head lock can cause pressure to the neck, which would not "choke out" a suspect, but which could contribute to has death by partially limiting airflow. The legal question is what are the prohibited techniques and did he use one. He and the PBA have said that he used a take down technique that he learned in the academy. Someone who knows the difference could better judge if he crossed the line, but it certainly was not ruled by the coroner that he killed Garner with an illegal choke hold. I do believe that they escalated the situation more than it needed to be. However, while he was being placed under arrested for selling untaxed cigarettes, he was physically subdued for another crime: resisting arrest.

One thing that was stated, which I admittedly have not had a chance to verify, is that while choke holds are against NYPD policy, head locks (control the body, but do not cut off blood or air flow) are not. It was suggested that the officer had him in a head lock and not a choke hold. Again, take it with a grain of salt, but it could be a possible explanation, since the grand jury would have been told this.

Sorry 11, not ready to bust out the playoff chart quite yet. But, that tank chart is getting awfully crowded. If Philly ends up with McDavid, I will go nuts.

Yup. The Tank Chart went from "as planned" to depressing very quickly.

Back by d4rk request. Sabres Historical: Atlantic Division: Eastern Conference: Playoffs: Tank: Tank2: New! Countdown: All charts are net of 93-point pace, except Playoffs, which is net of 8th place, and Tank, which is net of 65-point pace. Tank 2 is net of dead f**king last. Updated: 4/11

I've been entering the games, but haven't had a chance to post up the charts. I'll see if I can get them up today.

Are you saying that he took it a little fuhrer than the rest?

Yup, yup and yup. It's funny, but if you take out Jar Jar (and maybe half of the pod racing)*, Episode 1 would easily have been the best of the prequel trilogy. The Qui-Gon Jinn/young Obi Wan Kenobi relationship was much better than the Obi Wan/Anakin relationship. Plus, Darth Maul, despite the silly name, made for some great fight scenes ("actor" was really just a martial artist, if I remember correctly.) * There was an attempt at this called the "Phantom Edit" that was better, but obviously a post edit.

Seen that article before. Too bad that the "conclusions" aren't supported by the chart provided. Top 20%: 20% of PCG, 14% of RCD Top 40%: 41% of PCG, 19% of RCD Top 60%: 67% of PCG, 47% of RCD The only match is the bottom 20%, where 16% of each group fall. Over half (51%) of RCD fall in the bottom 40%, as compared to just a third of PCG. Plus, nobody (even HF) ever said that you if start at the bottom and work hard, you will definitely end at the top. Used to be that people worked three jobs just to give their kids a chance at a better life.

Save the Warthog!!

I made a jersey concept based on that flag a few years ago. I'll see if I can dig it up.

My parents both drove/drive manuals only, so that's what I learned on. Driving an automatic feels like I'm missing some level of control. I've had manual Jeeps, Subarus, etc. Really wish that the European-spec Forester with the six-speed manual and boxer diesel would be offered here in the US. I will say that, if I were to ever have a long stop-and-go commute, I would probably purchase an automatic. I'd hate it the rest of the time, though.

Are you sure it isn't on MSG? Last night, the guide showed the game on NHL Network and something different on MSG, but the game was actually on MSG, not NHL Network.

Noooo ... it can't be ... but, yet ... maybe ... wow, if you're right ... that would be nuts!

Ah, yes, I forgot about ... (only click if you want a potential big spoiler) ...

I was thinking of illegals working under the table for under minimum wage, not legal immigrants working tough jobs for above minimum wage. That is a different problem (well, the fact that natural-born US citizens won't do it is.) One which includes ...

I'm not sure that I buy that a family of six living off of the income of two low-skilled jobs generate much demand. We don't know if we do because we choose not to allow any citizen to legally take a job at such a wage. Not that I'm advocating such an extreme, but if we allowed the market to set salaries, rather than artificially inflating them (again, I'm not saying this is entirely bad), then we might actually have a large supply of "low-skilled labor in the USA for low wages." We say that it's not good enough for our citizens, but we look the other way when somebody comes in illegally and does it. If our citizens didn't also qualify for public assistance, we might well see them do the same jobs illegally.

I don't know. There's already a supply of labor in this country that there isn't demand for, especially low skilled labor. Things were a little different when an increase in demand for product meant a corresponding increase in demand for domestic labor. That's not really how it works anymore.

You don't need a car to fight against oppression!! :ph34r: Personally, I don't mind background checks or required classes, as long as they meet three requirements: 1) The process is fast and simple. Unnecessarily long and difficult processes become de facto restrictions. 2) The cost is low. The founders were against restrictions that gave the rich unfair access to power (slave-issue aside, of course.)) 3) There is not a lasting record after the check. If government oppression is, at least in part, one of the driving forces, then they cannot have a list who is armed and (by elimination) who is not. But the reality would not be that black and white. It would not be the military or "the government", en masse, coming to take over the country. People forget that the military is made up of citizens, too, many of whom are as (if not more) staunch supporters of then Constitution and, in particular, the 2nd Amendment. Can you imagine what the Texas National Guard (for example) would do if the full military were ordered to occupy. The same is true for police. Go on YouTube and watch some of the videos of Sheriffs (not deputies, but the actual Sheriffs) from around the country speaking out against gun control. My favorite quote is something like "I will take off my badge and stand at the front in opposition, if I am ever ordered by the Federal government to confiscate weapons." None of the police officers that I know support NY's Safe Act. You would end up with a split military; part pro-government and part pro-citizen. The latter would be supported by the armed civilians (including many police officers), making an opposition force that no government would choose to fight against.

BUT WHY IS THE RUM GONE?!

Perhaps, but had there never been China (or any other cheap labor source), there wouldn't be the same number of manufacturing jobs in the US now instead. In other words, it wouldn't be a one-to-one shift. Far from it, in fact. The difference in what we allow/expect for compensation, even after factoring in shipping and other logistic associated with overseas production, would lead manufacturers to produce less of fewer products than what we see now and sell them at higher prices. There would be some more US jobs, no doubt, but mostly we'd just all have less cheap s**t.

Don't forget productivity increases due to process improvements and automation. Had they never sent a job overseas, there still would have been a substantial decrease in the demand for (low/unskilled) labor in manufacturing.