Posts by Captain Hilts

    Is it irrelevant when the "science" behind the policy is non-existent? Because the science behind this is non-existent the fact that they were "following policy" (even though they really weren't) shouldn't save them.


    I think it's entirely relevant because ONLY the police (and their associates) recognize excited delirium as a medical condition. It's entirely made up bullshit by cops to protect themselves.

    It's not relevant to this case. Law enforcement officers don't hold medical degrees. They're given policy, and expected to execute it. And punished if they don't. It's worse to break policy and have something go wrong. If you follow policy and things go bad, you're normally covered. In this case, they need a scapegoat. What happened was bad, and wrong, but it was caused by policy.


    Is it relevant to whether or not the policy should be changed? Sure. The policy sucks. THe restraint methods should be changed. It actually doesn't even matter what the reaction to being arrested is called. It exists. The method of dealing with it needs to be changed.

    Multiple police officers have said the technique to restrain does not allow the officer to place pressure to the neck the way he did. And, once the cuffs are in place, you get off of the suspect.


    The entire world will be watching the trial.

    I never said that it was correct. I said that it was policy. I never said that I agreed with the policy. See also my reply above regarding their policies.

    Excited delirium is not recognized by professional medical associations. No reputable medical organization — not the American Medical Association nor the American Psychological Association — recognize excited delirium as a medical or mental-health condition

    That is utterly irrelevant. All that matters in this particular case is whether or not it is part of agency policy, and that policy is signed off on by the government, And not only is that policy approved all the way to the AG and the governor, so are choke holds, and blocking the carotids.

    And this is exactly why I have zero problems or reservations with killing them, and all who associate with them. They're evil vermin suitable only for extermination. The instinctive tendency toward extreme violence, and complete disregard for human life renders them unworthy of any consideration or mercy. All of the ones who act like that, and all who support and/or excuse it.

    No different than Watergate.

    Far different.


    Nixon didn't order the break in. He merely tried to cover it up. Nixon also did not spend all of his time in office literallyweaponizing the entire government against his political opponents and the nation's citizens whose ideology he disagreed with.


    Obama ordered almost all government agencies to commit crimes in order to actively oppress all dissent. Either directly or indirectly.

    Not what I said. It would not be us begging it would be the dozens of business with help wanted signs and............the kids who would be ashamed of their parents (moms) The way you kick the able off welfare is to have low or no unemployment not give them some make work government job.


    lazs

    The way to get the able off of welfare is to stop paying them. Period.


    The way you deal with the children is for a period of time you spend the money wasted on welfare on the childcare system. Able women who are "baby mamas"? Take their children. Cut off their money. Either starve or work. And you also pay toward the care of your offspring. If you fail to provide the identity of the father, you pay double. Don't work or don't pay, or both? Go to prison.


    And while we're at it, end the "three hots and a cot" incarceration. Work them 6-7 days a week, 12-14 hours a day. Either pay for your incarceration with labor, or spend double the time in a dark cell in solitary 23.75 hours a day, on bread and water. If you die, you die, if you go insane, too bad. Turning prisons into profit centers will not be a concern if you make prison hard enough they do not want to go back, as eventually, the prisons will be relatively small, and often under half full.

    You don't accept the kneeling you ridicule it.


    lazs

    Exactly. That's my point. It is not an idea or position that can be tolerated. A lie kills the society that accepts it.


    The NFL accepts kneeling during the Anthem for a lie. They refused to accept Tebow kneeling in prayer at another time. They refused to allow a player to wear a small item to support a fight against cancer. They refused to allow a player or players to honor law enforcement officers murdered in the line of duty. They refused to allow a player to wear a small item in support of the fight against domestic violence.


    To accommodate a lie, and express disdain for the truth is fatal to society. We're seeing that.


    My response is to vote with my wallet, fuck the National Felon League. Same with the NBA, and the MLB. And now for that reason, NASCRAP.

    Needs to be a combo. If everyone is working or near everyone and those on welfare are being begged to go to a good paying job.... the cycle will end........maybe not for the older generation but for the next. If school choice allows parents to actually get a good education for their kids? the cycle will end. Getting people off welfare and food stamps and giving their kids a good education free of indoctrination is the answer.


    The carrot will work better than the stick. You still need the stick but just the stick will never work. Trump is exactly right in his path.


    lazs

    The able on welfare have to be kicked off of it. "I am all for doing good to the poor. But by doing good for the poor, I mean leading or pushing them out of it, not making them more comfortable in it."


    Welfare for the able bodied simply cannot exist. It steals from everyone else.


    "Begging" any able bodied person on welfare to get off is a fool's errand.

    They claim they are trying but have no idea how to do it. I honestly believe em. in their little east coast bubble they have no idea how to reach at least 25% of the population.


    lazs

    You cannot destroy your credibility and expect people to have any regard for you. And you cannot repeatedly insult people and expect them to work with you. They've created their problem with their dishonesty, and their baseless disdain. It's probably not reversible.

    Ya know what, what illustrates your point the most is a simple act like standing for the National Anthem. I mean, I can respect other peoples' decisions to take a knee and OK, you're all good but that acceptance doesn't reciprocate- the female soccer team decided to take a knee for the National Anthem and when one athlete stood for the anthem she was derided and ridiculed for her choice.


    Think about that man- we respect your right to self expression but you can't honor the expression of ours. I stand in respect for those who have sacrificed all that I may stand free and that, to me, is honoring my grandfather, my uncles, and everyone that sacrificed all to give me the choice to kneel on one knee or stand proudly... I will stand in honor of my Nation but if you take a knee then I will put my hand on your shoulder in solidarity with your choice... not because I agree with you, but because I respect your choice and your right to choose it.

    By accepting the lie behind the kneeling, you give it your support. That's another fatal flaw. Quite literally, society not smashing that lie, and it is a proven lie, we have gotten exactly where we are right now. Some half a trillion dollars of damage was done by people promoting that lie. The nation cannot afford it, and society cannot survive it.


    You cannot support or even tolerate a lie that destroys the very fabric of society and still expect society and liberty to survive.

    Not sure there is any way to get around that. Americans are a fair and generous people. We have a large segment that considers themselves victims and because of that.... actually turn into victims. Hard to turn back the clock at this point.


    Trump is on the right trac.... Get wages up.... get unemployment down. tax breaks... He got millions off food stamps. Give people a sense of worth.


    lazs

    Oh, there absolutely IS a way around it, just as the Founding Fathers, and society in general dealt with it.


    Keep creating children out of wedlock and not supporting them? You were dealt with. And harshly. There was NEVER anything in the Constitution that authorized the government to act as a charity, in any capacity.


    Liberty literally demands personal responsibility. Again, it falls back to Madison. He was absolutely correct. You cannot have a system of government that fosters, nurtures, and protects liberty, and also have people that refuse personal responsibility and self determination. The two are mutually exclusive. To enable those who refuse personal responsibility, you must punish those who embrace it. You get more of what you enable, and less of what you punish. To allow it at all is unsustainable, and the history of this nation proves that conclusively. Those who refuse personal responsibility and profess victimhood are an unbearable burden for the rest. And their numbers only grow exponentially.

    While I get that... I tend to take the libertarian outlook on it. So long as you are not actually harming someone then it is fine. The left is saying that just your thinking harms them.... this... is something that the religious far right has often said too. While my sentiments may be more in line with the far right? both positions are wrong.


    lazs

    Again, as I said, screw who you want, so long as it is a consenting adult, you harm no one, and you pay ALL resulting costs from YOUR pocket. And do all the drugs you want, so long as you feed, clothe, and house yourself, and buy your drugs on your nickel. And you don't involve or harm anyone else. That's as libertarian as it gets. Do not harm others, do not expect or demand others accommodate or pay anything for your habits. Absolutely libertarian. And in keeping with Jefferson's "the government should prevent men from harming one another, and leave them otherwise to their own. If the government can avoid wasting the people's money under the pretense of taking care of them, they cannot help but become happy."


    Of course, the problem is, all the "baby mamas" can't support themselves or their babies. And be "baby daddies" are too busy selling/doing drugs, stealing, and killing each other to support their "progeny". Of course, crack and meth addicts can't remain gainfully employed. As a result, just the war on poverty accounts for the entire national debt in funds wasted since 1968. And never mind the incarceration for manufacture, use, smuggling, distribution, or possession, we spend hundreds of millions, if not billions, on incarceration for crimes committed to support drug habits and the rest of their needs.


    Sure, legalize drugs. Fine. You still cannot profess to be a libertarian, and then force employers to keep addicts on their payrolls, although to some extent, the unConstitutional portions of the ADA do just that. It is absolutely unfair, unreasonable, and unConstitutional to force an employer to absorb the costs of an addiction that they did not create. But it is commonly done.

    Interesting thing the other day. Two of them were trainees, literally in their first days on the job. And they questioned what was happening, so their lawyers are trying to get the charges reduced or dismissed. One of the statements literally has the guy with the knee on his neck quoting department policy on keeping a suspect in "excited delirium" restrained heavily, face down. Part of the defense is obviously that a training officer was following and demonstrating department policy. Now, department policy is bad, and wrong. But it is still department policy. That's going to make getting a conviction on the exaggerated charges more difficult. Which, by the way, is exactly what the antifa/BLM/muslim democrat state AG, Keith Ellison wants. Mark my word, they WANT a dismissal, or a minor conviction on reduced charges, to create more unrest.

    Sadly "equality" is now definable Jack... case in point? A USA female soccer player refused to take a knee for the Anthem and now she's being called to task for her show of respect. If you believe in equality then you have to respect the right to self expression without fear of being ostracized... now it seems like if you stand for the anthem you're a racist, and- OK, not to be a dick here- But why weren't any of these people kneeling when it might cost you your job?

    I will continue to stand for the Anthem and show respect for my Nation, all the while accepting those who refuse to stand. America is inclusive- we're all a part of it and we need to respect others

    That last part has been for all intents and purposes, a suicide clause. Not all ideas, positions, or ideals are deserving of tolerance, respect, and inclusion. When you think about it, liberty diametrically opposes that position. Liberty itself requires at least deep morality, if not religious piety. That which is amoral or immoral can't be tolerated and included. Too many things have gone from tolerated to accepted, from accepted to legalized, and from legalized to normalized. There are people openly now trying to make pedophilia an accepted sexual orientation. We got to this point incrementally, by doing the same with other things and acts.


    Now, spare me the crap about drugs and various sexual preferences. That's not what I'm talking about. And honestly, were it not for the burden created on the taxpayers, I wouldn't give a shit if people screwed themselves to death or drugged themselves to death. Do what you want, without harming others, among consenting adults, as long as you don't create a burden on society and tax payers. If your habits become a burden on my liberty, that's a problem.

    They're taught from kindergarten that THEIR side is the only acceptable opinion, and any other is the devil, which is the only explanation I can come up with for their reactions to opposing ideas

    When your position is untenable, and unsupported by facts, the only argument you have is that the opposing position is based on evil. The problem is, of course, that their position is itself fundamentally evil. It's based upon stealing the fruits of labor, subjugation, enslavement and even murder, when you consider what they do to the elderly, the disabled, the infirm, and even children. It literally requires you to be Godless.