search results matching tag: suspended

» channel: learn

go advanced with your query
Search took 0.000 seconds

    Videos (191)     Sift Talk (18)     Blogs (11)     Comments (823)   

School resource officer threatens to shoot student leaving

newtboy says...

They threatened to shoot him if he tried to leave school. He has every right to defend himself, and zero obligation to remain after such threats to his safety. They're lucky he didn't just duck behind the dash and hit the gas, using the excuse he feared for his safety after an armed man blocked his exit and threatened to shoot him if he drove away.
Standing in traffic, blocking his vehicle to detain him as they did is illegal too. Any decent lawyer would have both their jobs. School administrators aren't police, school resource officers aren't police. Detaining someone by physically blocking their exit with a threat of deadly violence is called kidnapping.
The proper action would be to simply suspend him, but allow him to leave, not go on a power trip and commit crimes. I feel like these administrators are going to have a problem in the near future.

The Amazon isn't "Burning" - It's Being Burned

diego says...

good video but a rather important thing he missed is, that many governments DO pay brasil to maintain the rainforest-

"Norway has followed Germany in suspending donations to the Brazilian government’s Amazon Fund after a surge in deforestation in the South American rainforest. The move has triggered a caustic attack from the country’s rightwing president.


Bolsonaro rejects 'Captain Chainsaw' label as data shows deforestation 'exploded'
Read more
Jair Bolsonaro, whose move to meddle in the environmental organisation’s governance led to Norway’s decision, reacted by suggesting that Europe was not in a position to lecture his administration.

“Isn’t Norway that country that kills whales up there in the north pole?”, the Brazilian president said. “Take that money and help Angela Merkel reforest Germany.”

After weeks of tense negotiations with Norway and Germany, the Bolsonaro government unilaterally closed the Amazon Fund’s steering committee on Thursday. The fund has been central to international efforts to curb deforestation although its impact is contested.

Brazil’s environment minister, Ricardo Salles, said the Amazon Fund had been suspended while its rules were under discussion.

In response, Ola Elvestuen, his Norwegian counterpart, said an expected payment of about $33.27m (£27.36m) would not take place as Brazil had, in effect, broken the terms of its deal. Norway has been the fund’s biggest donor, and has given about $1.2bn (£985m) over the past decade.

“He cannot do that without Norway and Germany’s agreement,” Elvestuen said. “What Brazil has shown is that it no longer wants to stop deforestation.”

This week Berlin had said it would withhold an expected payment of about $39m. Norway and Germany questioned an initial proposal from the Brazilian government for the fund’s steering committee to be reduced in size, and had warned against any weakening of the structures of the fund.

Grave concerns about the rate of deforestation since Bolsonaro took power have been repeatedly voiced by the Norwegian government and others.

According to Brazil’s National Institute for Space Research, the government agency that monitors deforestation, the rate increased by 278% in the year to July, resulting in the destruction of about 870 square miles."

https://www.theguardian.com/world/2019/aug/16/norway-halts-amazon-fund-donation-dispute-brazil-deforestation-jair-bolsonaro


while I do agree that for 3rd world ex colonies it is extremely tiresome to hear lectures about ecology from the US and Europe, who tore up the planet to achieve their status and continue to consume far more than 3rd world people do, Bolsonaro is dead wrong here and sadly it has to be said this is what the democracy and capitalism produce: shortsighted win-now, defer the costs decisions.

shinyblurry (Member Profile)

shinyblurry says...

No, it wasn't Noahs failing. The scripture says he preached righteousness, so the message was endorsed by God. The reason no one was converted was not due to a failure on Noahs part, or Gods. The message wasn't misunderstood, it was rejected by a wicked generation, which was their free will choice to do so. Because they rejected Gods message they weren't prepared when the flood came. The choice to reject God doesn't eliminate the consequences of rejecting God, in this case being unprepared for the impending global flood which you were warned about for 100 years. In the same sense you are unprepared for the impending second coming of the Lord Jesus Christ, which you have been warned about your entire life.

When God withholds or suspends judgment out of mercy, ironically it has the opposite effect on the callous hearts of men:

Ecclesiastes 8:11

Because sentence against an evil work is not executed speedily, therefore the heart of the sons of men is fully set in them to do evil

Because you don't see God out and out punishing people when they do evil, you feel free to live how you want regardless. That is how the pre-flood world felt, and that is why they were swept away. In your ongoing effort to put the worst possible spin on everything in scripture, you neglect to understand the fundamental narrative of the story. The reason for that is your stubborn refusal to say God did something good even when it is integral to the narrative which you use to unfairly discredit Him.

newtboy said:

So, because one guy, Noah

A Scary Time

bcglorf says...

"Second, as I've pointed out before, the idea that we're seeing an epidemic of false accusations is not supported by evidence."

I am seeing a strong movement to demand that accusations be enough to get people suspended, expelled and fired though. The Canadian Federation of Students has been pushing a campaign to improve campus sexual assault policies. Their plan specifically includes things they don't want any policy to have, including any " SANCTIONS FOR VEXATIOUS, MALICIOUS OR FALSE COMPLAINTS". They sigh an example section from Dalhousie University's sexual assault policy that they believe is wrong and should be removed:
"A complaint made in bad faith shall constitute grounds for disciplinary action against the complainant, which shall be commenced in accordance with applicable disciplinary processes. A bad faith complaint is a complaint that is made with a conscious design to mislead or deceive, or with a malicious or fraudulent intent. "

More insidiously, strong movements across Canada are training the workplace on what sexual violence is. The first 3 levels of sexual violence ALL involve no physical contact and are entirely verbal. When people are manipulating language to make actions seem worse than they are, you are acting in bad faith and I think it should be called out.

" If a woman (or a man) comes forward with a claim of sexual assault, they are entitled to be taken seriously."

Agreed, but lots of people are very much arguing that lives should be destroyed then and there, just to be safe and/or to balance things out finally so men can be victimized too so they know how it feels. We'll even right songs to laugh at them when they complain.

IMO, the real issue here is one of deflection. Trump and his cronies
No disagreement there. I both vehemently disagree with virtually everything Trump says or does. At the same time, still don't like how far the condemn the accused pushes are looking to go.

ChaosEngine said:

You can totally be against both. Most reasonable people are.

What you shouldn't do is assume that they are both equally bad and equally prevalent (important note: I'm not saying @bcglorf is doing this.... but other people are definitely doing this).

Obviously, a false accusation of rape is a terrible thing. In the most extreme circumstances, it can lead to having years of your life taken away in prison. But sexual assault is a life sentence, you will carry that to your grave.

Second, as I've pointed out before, the idea that we're seeing an epidemic of false accusations is not supported by evidence. The numbers are hard to come by, but it's not even 1% of actual rapes (nevermind lesser sexual assault like groping, etc).

Finally, where is the abandoning of proof and evidence? Show me someone who has been convicted of sexual assault without any evidence. There's a big difference between accepting an allegation is worth looking into and convicting that person.

If a woman (or a man) comes forward with a claim of sexual assault, they are entitled to be taken seriously. That doesn't mean their alleged assailant is guilty though.

IMO, the real issue here is one of deflection. Trump and his cronies are basically inventing this narrative of victimhood where women are on the lookout for men to falsely accuse of rape, which is patently bullshit.

State Police Use Helicopter To Disperse Tailgaters

Ashenkase says...

Reckless for everyone involved. If some of the stuff blown up got sucked into the blades or an air intake there would have been dozens dead. I hope this guy gets his license suspended barring an investigation.

College student falsely accused of rape speaks out

MilkmanDan says...

Hmm. I wonder if he could threaten to sue the university, but offer to drop the suit if they let him back in on a 100% all-expenses-paid scholarship. Any degree he wants to get, for as long as it takes for him to complete.

Punishing her harshly (although she deserves it) does nothing to help him get his life back on track. The uni issuing a mea cupla and saying that they will let him back in on their dime AND allow people to speak in their defense before suspending students over hearsay would at least be a step in the right direction towards actually doing something positive for the real victim here.

Man Arrested By CHP After Reckless Bay Bridge Sideshow

Finally There Is Bipartisan Agreement: Trump Blew It

newtboy says...

Really? WE sponsored a VIOLENT coup? So you take the purely Russian viewpoint.
Wiki-
After the breakup of the Soviet Union, Ukraine endured years of corruption, mismanagement, lack of economic growth, currency devaluation, and problems in securing funding from public markets.[38][39] Successive Ukrainian governments in the 2000s sought a closer relationship with the European Union (EU).[40][41] One of the measures meant to achieve this was an association agreement with the European Union, which would have provided Ukraine with funds in return for liberalising reforms. President Yanukovych announced his intention to sign the agreement, but ultimately refused to do so at the last minute. This sparked a wave of protests called the "Euromaidan" movement. During these protests Yanukovych signed a treaty and multibillion-dollar loan with Russia. The Ukrainian security forces cracked down on the protesters, further inflaming the situation and resulting in a series of violent clashes in the streets of Kiev. As tensions rose, Yanukovych fled to Russia and did not return.[44]

Russia refused to recognize the new interim government, calling the overthrow of Yanukovych a coup d'état, and began a military intervention in Ukraine. The newly appointed interim government of Ukraine signed the EU association agreement and agreed to reform the country's judiciary and political systems, as well as its financial and economic policies. The International Monetary Fund pledged more than $18 billion in loans contingent on Ukraine's adopting those reforms. The revolution was followed by pro-Russian unrest in some south-eastern regions, a standoff with Russia regarding the annexation of Crimea and Sevastopol, and a war between the Ukrainian government and Russia-backed separatists in the Donbass.



The thing to remember about Crimea is it WASN'T PART OF RUSSIA, so no it didn't hold Russia's only black sea port not ice blocked in winter, it held a Ukrainian port Russia LEASED for use by it's black sea fleet from the Ukraine.
It's utter bullshit that Russia found a democratic way to invade and annex Crimea, they militarily invaded, seized and dissolved the democratically elected government by force, created and installed a new pro Russian sham government, then IT signed fake illegal treaties with Russia in violation of international laws and multiple binding treaties.
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Annexation_of_Crimea_by_the_Russian_Federation

Russian masked troops invade and occupy key Crimean locations, including airports and military bases, following Putin's orders.[2][3]
The head of Ukrainian Navy, Admiral Berezovsky, defects, followed later by half of the Ukrainian military stationed in the region.[4][5][6]
Russian forces seize the Supreme Council (Crimean parliament). The Council of Ministers of Crimea is dissolved and a new pro-Russian Prime Minister installed.[7][8]
The new Supreme Council declares the Republic of Crimea to be an independent, self-governing entity, then holds a referendum on the status of Crimea on 16 March, which results in a majority vote to join the Russian Federation.[9]
Treaty signed between the Republic of Crimea and the Russian Federation at the Kremlin on 18 March to formally initiate Crimea's accession to the Russian Federation.[10]
The Ukrainian Armed Forces are evicted from their bases on 19 March by Crimean protesters and Russian troops. Ukraine subsequently announces the withdrawal of its forces from Crimea.[11]
Russia suspended from G8.[12]
International sanctions introduced on Russia.

You sound distinctly Soviet or ridiculously ignorant in your misrepresentation of the situation. They militarily attacked, invaded, and seized their neighbor, so not a bit restrained, they were not invited in by the government and welcomed....or would you insist they are also exceptionally restrained for not attacking and retaking Anchorage Alaska, their only non winter ice bound port in North America, a port clearly more strategically important than Sebastopol and just as Russian?

Spacedog79 said:

Lest we forget that Crimea started when we sponsored a violent coup in Ukraine, right on Russia's doorstep. How provocative is that?

The thing to remember about Crimea is that it holds Sevastopol which is a strategically vital port for Russia, it is their only port that isn't ice locked during winter. We knew full well they would have to keep hold of it one way or another, and thankfully Russia found a democratic way of doing it instead of violent.

Under the circumstances I think Russia deserves credit for being so restrained.

Mic'd up ump dealing with a pissed off manager

eric3579 says...

It was thrown at him or behind him in retaliation. I'm sure it was no surprise to anyone involved this might be coming.

"The background for the explosive moment was an incident in the 2015 playoffs, when the Dodgers’ Chase Utley broke the leg of the Mets’ Ruben Tejada on a slide into second base that many observers, and not just in the New York dugout, thought was dirty. Utley was initially suspended two games, but he appealed and was able to stay active for the rest of the series, won in five games by a Mets team that chose to save retribution for a less meaningful time." -Washington Post

In context, makes more sense how pissed off the manager was and how understanding the umpire was to what the manager was saying and angry about.

Here is the Utley slide.
https://www.mlb.com/video/must-c-tejada-injured-on-slide/c-521658783Also
As a side note due to this play MLB changed the rules of what is an acceptable slide.

RFlagg said:

Okay, so many questions as I don't do baseball much.

First, why would he throw the ball so far behind the batter? Just to walk him? Whenever I've seen them walk a batter, the catcher just stands and they just throw high and over to the side. Why would he be ejected for walking a batter? Batters are walked all the time. What is the situation where you can't walk a batter? Is it the way he's walking the batter being far off normal?

Police Choke & Body Slam Man After Prom

ChaosEngine says...

Choking is a perfectly valid submission technique for someone posing a threat to the cop or other people.

I'm not saying that happened here, because there's no context in the video.

Clearly, the guy is resisting arrest, but we have no idea whether a) the arrest was warranted in the first place or b) whether this was a proportionate response.

Neither can you deny that there's a strong possibility this wouldn't have happened if the guy was white.

As for the cop, he should be suspended with pay while the investigation is carried out. We apply the same "innocent until proven guilty" standard to police that we do to everyone else. On the flipside of that, if he's found guilty of misconduct, he shouldn't just be fired, he should face jail time for assault and abuse of power.

Finally, suggesting that crowds should "turn on police" is a recipe for disaster. There are zero good outcomes from that. At best, you have police unable to do their jobs in case of crowd violence, and at worst, you end up with people being killed.

No matter how unjustified you feel your treatment is, it's important to remember that resisting arrest is very much at your own risk. The law varies from jurisdiction to jurisdiction, but even where it IS allowed, if the arrest later turns out to be lawful, you will be charged with an additional crime.

wtfcaniuse said:

Since when is choking an appropriate submission technique? Should be fired, and none of this suspended with pay bullshit. That's just a holiday.

Police Choke & Body Slam Man After Prom

fox news slam President Obama an praise trump over the thing

newtboy says...

Good point, but remember, we have no way of knowing if they're actually suspending it (actual missile and bomb tests excluded), and they're notorious for not keeping their word. Time will tell.

That said, the praise Trump heaps on other dictators for power grabs (Xi), and his lack of actions against them for direct attacks on us and allies (Putin) indicates that the temporary suspension of nuclear tests might not be the main factor in the decision.

lucky760 said:

I think it would be fair to point out that the context of the two situations is very different, the most important difference being that Kim Jong-Un announced he is willing to stop his nuclear weapons program and meet with the US president.

That in mind, their hypocrisy is not as flagrant as it seems on the surface because they aren't actually praising Trump for exactly what Obama did because he's doing it with the preconditions they criticized Obama for lacking.

This video's side-by-side would have real significance for me if Trump had ever agreed to meet with Kim prior to him declaring he'd give up nuclear weapons (which to my knowledge Trump never did).

I'm no Trump fan by any stretch (except when it comes to income taxes, full disclosure), just calling it as I see it. Am I being a voice of reason here or am I totally out of line?

Best fake soccer dive (fall) to draw a winning penalty shot

Sagemind says...

I can't even say how disgusted I am at the sportsmanship of players like this. Any league that allows this isn't worth my time. Players should suspended when footage like this comes to light.

simonm (Member Profile)

How An 80s Arnold Schwarzenegger Film Predicted Our Future

harlequinn says...

"How easy it was for the government to totally suspend civil rights".

Should be: "How easy it was for the Democratically controlled state government to totally suspend civil rights".

There is no useful parallel between the movie's show host and the president of the United States and the fact he hosted a TV show. Entertainers have made it to the position of president or governor well before this point in time. It's just a useless coincidence that has no bearing on anything.

The Running Man basically got nothing right about 2017.



Send this Article to a Friend



Separate multiple emails with a comma (,); limit 5 recipients






Your email has been sent successfully!

Manage this Video in Your Playlists

Beggar's Canyon