seraph

Under certain circumstances the law allows for use of deadly force on unarmed subjects. It isn’t hard to imagine such a circumstance. Removing this power of law enforcement is asking for trouble. And I can guarantee it won’t happen anytime soon in the first place.

Additionally, taking guns away from law enforcement in the United States is asking for even more trouble. You can’t address an alleged training issue by placing police in grave danger. The United States is not Japan or Switzerland.

Posted by justagirl

Posted by Superman77

Posted by seraph
Reasonable Standard of Care (or a legal standard thereabouts) in securing your firearm. If it’s somehow used unbeknownst to you in the commission of a crime the burden of proof is yours in determining whether your actions met that standard.

The implementation needs to be fleshed out, obviously, but back-of-the-napkin it makes sense.

But really, in the wider view this is just another one of those post-mortem measures. It might make a bit of difference, but the issue is a deeply cultural one, involving attitudes, concepts of self vs. other, and so on. It’s the reason, for instance, gun violence is so rare in certain countries compared to others, with population having little to do with it.

And you just know that were such a law to undergo formal proposal, one side would shoot it down, probably using a “slippery slope” argument, while the other side would insist that it’s a critical step in a number of other steps that need to be taken in order to achieve meaningful change. Gun interests in the US are well-represented and very, very well funded. It’d be battle to get anything of this kind passed, as usual.

You think it’s unreasonable?

People protect their cell phones more than their guns these days click to expand

No,

What he is saying is money, money, money. It funds the politicians, butter won't change because they want the money. click to expand

click to expand

Yep.

Posted by Superman77

Posted by seraph
Reasonable Standard of Care (or a legal standard thereabouts) in securing your firearm. If it’s somehow used unbeknownst to you in the commission of a crime the burden of proof is yours in determining whether your actions met that standard.

The implementation needs to be fleshed out, obviously, but back-of-the-napkin it makes sense.

But really, in the wider view this is just another one of those post-mortem measures. It might make a bit of difference, but the issue is a deeply cultural one, involving attitudes, concepts of self vs. other, and so on. It’s the reason, for instance, gun violence is so rare in certain countries compared to others, with population having little to do with it.

And you just know that were such a law to undergo formal proposal, one side would shoot it down, probably using a “slippery slope” argument, while the other side would insist that it’s a critical step in a number of other steps that need to be taken in order to achieve meaningful change. Gun interests in the US are well-represented and very, very well funded. It’d be battle to get anything of this kind passed, as usual.

You think it’s unreasonable?

People protect their cell phones more than their guns these days click to expand

click to expand

Nah I’m mostly agreeing with you. All good.

Reasonable Standard of Care (or a legal standard thereabouts) in securing your firearm. If it’s somehow used unbeknownst to you in the commission of a crime the burden of proof is yours in determining whether your actions met that standard.

The implementation needs to be fleshed out, obviously, but back-of-the-napkin it makes sense.

But really, in the wider view this is just another one of those post-mortem measures. It might make a bit of difference, but the issue is a deeply cultural one, involving attitudes, concepts of self vs. other, and so on. It’s the reason, for instance, gun violence is so rare in certain countries compared to others, with population having little to do with it.

And you just know that were such a law to undergo formal proposal, one side would shoot it down, probably using a “slippery slope” argument, while the other side would insist that it’s a critical step in a number of other steps that need to be taken in order to achieve meaningful change. Gun interests in the US are well-represented and very, very well funded. It’d be battle to get anything of this kind passed, as usual.

Posted by Superman77
Do you think police should carry guns? What about tazers?

In this day and age, I think they shouldn’t be armed.

Yes to both.

The last one might make sense if the US were, say, Japan. But no dice.

Posted by xoxflute

Posted by Superman77

Posted by xoxflute

Posted by Superman77
There’s no pleasing you. No answer is right. Hell, you haven’t even provided a possible solution. All you do is talk, like most others that like to run that mouth and call others racist.

What is your solution dazed? click to expand

Posted by Arkansassy
How about training officers to deescalate situations? Psychiatric evals? Not using traffic citations as a means of revenue? click to expandclick to expand

click to expand

As I’ve pointed out to dazed.......you can’t replace a persons instincts. All people have different levels of fear. click to expand

Why not train them to disarm rather than kill? As far as I understand, in some of these cases, the action taken by the police was very much not necessary. click to expand

click to expand

https://abcnews.go.com/US/police-trained-shoot-wound-experts/story?id=40402933

Take that for what you will, but some of it makes sense.

Most common race worldwide, “Asians”, specifically Han Chinese.

It’s not called “The Middle Kingdom” for nothing.

Posted by Arkansassy

Posted by seraph
As long as there’s no Constitutional infringement taking place, NFL’s rules are the NFL’s rules. So be it, they’ll live and die by them.

Plus it’s an anthem. Just stand anyway. Keep it simple.

Well not technically.. NFL rules have to agree with the CBA from the NFLPA. click to expand

click to expand

Sure, if the rules contravene a higher, potentially overruling regulation or mandate, then they’ll need to get that sorted. I haven’t looked into it so I’ll yield to whatever questions your research has brought up.

As long as there’s no Constitutional infringement taking place, NFL’s rules are the NFL’s rules. So be it, they’ll live and die by them.

Plus it’s an anthem. Just stand anyway. Keep it simple.

Posted by Arkansassy

Posted by seraph

Posted by Arkansassy
Where do you stand on this?

"In Roper v. Simmons, the justices ruled in a 5-4 decision that sentencing a person under 18 years of age to death violated the Constitution's Eighth Amendment against inflicting "cruel and unusual punishments.'"

"The opinion, written by Justice Anthony Kennedy, held that people under 18 cannot truly be "classified among the worst offenders," because research has shown that their maturity, decision-making skills, and characters are all underdeveloped and leave them prone to "reckless behavior" and "impetuous and ill-considered actions and decisions.""

No.

And not because of the opinion in Roper v. Simmons. click to expand

Care to explain a reason?

click to expand

click to expand

I’m against the death penalty in general.

Posted by Arkansassy
Where do you stand on this?

"In Roper v. Simmons, the justices ruled in a 5-4 decision that sentencing a person under 18 years of age to death violated the Constitution's Eighth Amendment against inflicting "cruel and unusual punishments.'"

"The opinion, written by Justice Anthony Kennedy, held that people under 18 cannot truly be "classified among the worst offenders," because research has shown that their maturity, decision-making skills, and characters are all underdeveloped and leave them prone to "reckless behavior" and "impetuous and ill-considered actions and decisions.""

No.

And not because of the opinion in Roper v. Simmons.

If even a simple crow can figure out how to use objects to displace water in a container in order to get its food to rise high enough to reach, then humans would have had no trouble figuring out how to measure twice and cut once, even thousands of years ago.

Don’t forget that today’s neuroscience and quantum theory, for example, are an elaboration - if not just a circuitous commentary - on what was written in the Upanishads 1000 years before Christ (or as far back as 5000 BC, depending on which dating argument one prefers).

Humans are as clever and inquisitive as they are imperfect.

Posted by AneemA04

Posted by Aju

Posted by AneemA04
My virgo bestfriend is having this issue.
The stalker is her ex. Hardcore stalker.
Followed her around. Stopped her in the middle of the road. Punched a rider who just delivered her to home. Cut her cable tv cords. Showed up peering at her in her property.
Stood by at security posts to catch her in person. Blasting her phone.

She consulted with the police. Unfortunately we don't have any restraining order conducts.

She cannot move to another place due to financial issues.

What can she do under this circumstances?
She mentioned moving out of town to another different place once she has the money, I whined and told her not to go. I just wish this guy just die, really.

Told her to keep a pepper spray everywhere she goes just in case she was caught in person and being forced in anyway violently (which is very possible) but that suggestion isn't the best.

So how do you elimininate a stalker like this?

Give me serious advice.

Btw, I'm thinking to get her some magick spells to keep him out but really dunno where and how to get them.

Depends how bad it is. I know I would peform bind or banishing spell (dealing with fire) first
and then maybe / Water or Earth after as those elements are strong but slower..

hire friend/family to keep eyes on target with out his awareness.
Someone good I can trust who is silent. Have extra eyes.

Carry something with me everywhere. awl tool used for my book binding.
Have something in the car as well.

prep my house. every room. use recording tools to record every conversation we have
if I may need to use against him in court. Record him.

I would also use opportunity to jump into self defense class
or do as much learning as I can to have the upper hand..

tell her not to be afraid. learn and, study more about him, how he thinks, take advantage
and not bring attention to herself and wouldn't tell him any of this in hope
of scaring him. Also, energy cutting (his) and other tools.

click to expand

How do you this banishing spell? click to expand

click to expand

Right. Direct your questions here. This will totally work.

If someone wants to shoot up a school, one way or the other they will. It’s not a gun issue, it’s a cultural issue (which is then reflected in legislation). Beliefs, wants, preferences of a society usually show up in their sociopolitical values, which are eventually codified.

This kind of crime is a logical outgrowth of this process, no matter how terrible it is.

Folks in the US keep saying they want tighter gun control (whom and how many, exactly?), but it never really happens meaningfully. The answer isn’t the government or politicians or even rogue elements with disproportionate power. The answer is in the mirror. Might not be in your particular mirror, but there are at least tens of millions of other mirrors out there that reflect the prevailing reality.

You’ve got what you want, collectively, because that’s what you want.

Actually more worried for the guy you’ll potentially subject to this than whether you’ll get what you want.

Whoever saves Morpheus.

Apart from that, you can’t. It either happens or it doesn’t. In reality it makes no difference. You can have many good relationships; some will last for a few months, and some will last for many years. Maybe one will last for much longer. All of them are still shot through with impermanence and change, however. And this is just fine as it is, because it is exactly how life works. It’s only your full acceptance of this fact that makes it beautiful, because by accepting it you stop fighting it. And your desire - the one that seems to be dominating your consciousness now - might just fall away accordingly. And you’ll be just fine with seeing it go. It’s then - really then, that you’ll be open to everything.

The harder you search and the greater your desire in this matter, the more time you’ll take away from the fullness and completeness of your own self exactly as you are.

So let go of the idea and have a cookie. You’ll be right as rain in no time.

OP must have gotten cut off:

“When things go wrong in a relationship and problems arise, what sign is the first to call it quits and why, and include a knee-jerk value judgment in your reply.”

Burgundy/Bordeaux Metallic.👌

Given only the information you posted, and without any orbs, pay special attention to Conjunctions. They’re a particularly powerful, unified energy divided only by one.