Massachusetts VS Grendle's Den - 459 US 116- 1982
A case in Massachusetts where the state deferred to the church in issuing liquor licenses, allowing them to veto any licenses they wished for their own reasons.
The supreme court voted 8-1 in favor of Grendle, stating clearly that it's extremely unconstitutional to allow a non governing body to apply the law based on their personal beliefs...and a blatant violation of the separation between church and state. This case is from 1982.
This means precedent is set, and the Texas law will be tossed....unless the new court ignores precedent and the constitution, which thanks to Trumpists is a possibility.

“This family”?
This isn’t one case, Bob. It’s department policy and has been for a long time.

Agreed, it SHOULD be a big payday for these families… unfortunately that’s at taxpayer, not the police’s pension fund’s, expense….but so far in the years of this practice if the victims got anything it doesn’t seem to have payed enough to get the local government to stop it, or enough to excuse blatant and rampant abusive harassment of law abiding citizens as standard policy, even a revenue generator.

How much is the daily harassment of your children, wife, co workers, family, friends, and business contacts at their work and in their homes late at night for years by dozens of aggressive armed men trespassing and peeping in windows and threatening arrest and continued harassment if they can’t come inside to “talk” at 3 am, all because they know you….without you ever being convicted of a crime….worth?….guaranteed none of the victims of this policy have been paid that much.

It is nice to know you at least say you don’t support DeSantis style policing…so I guess you don’t support his candidacy?

Also interesting you love to dismiss constant violent civil rights violations like this by just claiming the victims will get a huge settlement and that makes it ok (most don’t, police have immunity from all but the absolute worst illegal violations, they don’t even pay to repair the doors they destroy breaking in homes with no warrant or the pets they kill while trespassing and spying on citizens….not even for the innocent people they murder when breaking into their homes at 3 am, and when they are brought to account, they often fight cases for decades first, forcing the victims to sue them over and over and over and over....expensive lawsuits against city hall that most victims can't afford to start)….but when it’s a public health issue where they’re considering forcing you to not become a biological viral lab, stopping you from mutating new viruses to release in America, suddenly your rights to be dangerously idiotic and anti science are sacrosanct, no amount of money could make up for a little ouchie, fuck those other people you kill and disable.
Anti vaxers should not only be denied insurance, but also be forced to pay for treatment of their victims.

warrenall02 has been nominated for banination by newtboy. This may be due to abuse or violations of the posting guidelines. If this nomination is seconded, the account will be permanently disabled.

lesbaum01 has been nominated for banination by newtboy. This may be due to abuse or violations of the posting guidelines. If this nomination is seconded, the account will be permanently disabled.

Big assumption. Many Hitler youth made the choice to fight for Germany, and joined on their own before children were being drafted.

As for those that were conscripted, is it your position that draftees are somehow immune from responsibility for murdering their neighbors, women, children, rapes, burning towns, or planting millions of landmines on foreign soil, etc? How convenient for them. I don't believe that's a popular or legal position.

I take responsibility for my actions. If their fate was mine, I would be eternally grateful I was treated so much better than I would have treated them if the tables were turned. I would be part of an invading Nazi army, trying to undo just a tiny bit of the damage we had caused, doing so at the direction of my superiors just like when I caused the situation. I would deserve execution, not release. This assumes I wouldn't have the spine to refuse to be a Nazi and be imprisoned or executed.

If the majority of Germans weren't complicit, the Nazis would have never come to power. You give them far too much credit. From the holocaust encyclopedia- "Opposition to the Nazi regime also arose among a very small number of German youth, some of whom resented mandatory membership in the Hitler Youth." Same with adults, the opposition was a minority by far, not the majority of Germans. Who told you that?

"Survived the fighting"? "Here"? "They"? Please finish your thoughts so they have meaning. You seem to be equating Nazi soldiers with the Jews they tried to eradicate. What?!?

The Geneva convention we know today was ratified in 1949. The accords of 1929 were found to be totally insufficient to protect POWs, civilians, infrastructure, etc. Yes, Germany did appear violate it's vague provisions....so did the allies. That's why it was strengthened in 49.

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Geneva_Conventions

What provision of the 1929 version do you claim this violates?

Articles 20, 21, 22, and 23 states that officers and persons of equivalent status who are prisoners of war shall be treated with the regard due their rank and age and provide more details on what that treatment should be.
Or
Articles 27 to 34 covers labour by prisoners of war. Work must fit the rank and health of the prisoners. The work must not be war-related and must be safe work. ("Safe" and "war related" being intentionally vague and unenforceable).
Please explain the specific violation that makes mine removal a "war crime". It's not war related, the war was over, and it's "safe" if done properly.
Since this was done at the direction of German officers, the convention as written then doesn't apply.

Death camp!!! LOL. Now I know you aren't serious.
"The removal was part of a controversial agreement between the German Commander General Georg Lindemann, the Danish Government and the British Armed Forces, under which German soldiers with experience in defusing mines would be in charge of clearing the mine fields.
This makes it a case of German soldiers under German officers and NCOs clearing mines under the agreement of the German commander in Denmark who remained at his post for a month after the surrender - this means Germany accepted that they had responsibility to remove the mines - they just had far too few experienced mine clearance experts and far too many “drafted” mine clearers with no real experience in doing so." So, if it's a war crime, it's one the Germans committed against themselves.

I'm happy to say that anything done to a Nazi soldier is ethical, age notwithstanding. Many Nazi youth were more zealous and violent than their adult counterparts. Removing their DNA from the gene pool would have been ethical, but illegal. Taking their country to create Israel would have been ethical, but didn't happen.

At the time, there were few mechanical means of mine removal, they didn't work on wet ground, they required a tank and that the area be pre-cleared of anti tank mines, they often get stuck on beaches, and had just over a 50% clearance rate, cost $300-$1000 per mine removed, and they were in extremely short supply after the war. The Germans volunteered in this instance. Now, the Mine Ban Treaty gives each state the primary responsibility to clear its own mines, just like this agreement did.

So you know, the film is fiction, not history. Maybe read up on the real history before attacking countries over a fictional story. History isn't nearly as cut and dry as it's presented, neither are war crimes.

You have to make a Hell of a lot of assumptions to come to that conclusion. 1) that he has no camera. 2) that the victim/witness wouldn't be believed. 3) that physical evidence wouldn't prove it was a good shooting. 4) that there weren't other cameras.
It's possible, but not the most likely outcome. Abandoning a black woman leaving her to be murdered on camera is FAR more likely to spark riots and accusations that he would have stayed and protected a white woman.

Edit:police scanner traffic does provide some information. A dispatcher indicates that a man “pointed the gun at (a) mother and (a) father multiple times” and was in the stairwell when police were called.
It should not have been a surprise when the responding officer encountered a man with a gun.

3 people are killed by police every single day. There aren't riots every single day over it. It's not an honest position to claim every time a black man is shot by police it's cause for a riot. That's total nonsense intended to delegitimize a legitimate movement against inappropriate police violence...that's not ALL police violence. Sometimes police violence is necessary...just not >half the times it's used, and usually not to the extent (like shooting someone 142 times).

There's a middle ground between swat teams going in shooting over a nonviolent mental health call and a cop abandoning a victim to run like a coward from an armed attacker.

Maybe if he shot, but not to kill, outcomes could be better....or tried non lethal methods first. Maybe if he followed policy and didn't go to a domestic violence call alone. The one thing certain to not work is turning his back (probably making his vest useless) and running away from the victim and armed attacker. That put him at the most danger of being shot in the back and her being murdered, and it violated his oath, and it indicates black victims won't be protected.

I think the public has unreasonable expectations. In order for him to do his job he needs to protect himself. He is not there to protect you.

“Neither the Constitution, nor state law, impose a general duty upon police officers or other governmental officials to protect individual persons from harm — even when they know the harm will occur,” said Darren L. Hutchinson, a professor and associate dean at the University of Florida School of Law. “Police can watch someone attack you, refuse to intervene and not violate the Constitution.”
https://ehlinelaw.com/blog/do-police-have-a-duty-to-protect-me

Also: RadioLab No Special Duty - https://www.wnycstudios.org/podcasts/radiolab/articles/no-special-duty

No sign should be needed, just a reading of the constitution that makes discrimination based on sex or sexuality a crime, a violation of civil rights. Parents can move on to another country that allows discrimination if that bothers them, I hear Russia fits that bill.

What seems reasonable if they choose to accommodate puritans might be a policy where no one is allowed to be naked in public areas including locker rooms, and add individual dressing rooms....but that's a big expense and should be up to the business, not one patron IMO.

Surprise! Cosby was released from prison today after the state supreme court overturned his conviction.
They said the agreement from 2005 to not prosecute him in exchange for his testimony in civil trials was valid, and when the DA's successor charged him it violated his civil rights. He served 3 years of his 3-10 year sentence.

You continue to use the common definition of "snuff".
Here's what the terms and conditions say.

The presence of human fatality is acceptable and not considered "snuff" if presented as a limited, incidental portion of a lengthy educational, informative news report or documentary that encompasses a much broader narrative. Our definition of "snuff" does include but is not exclusive to any short clip in which a human fatality occurs whether or not any victims are actually visible on camera.

There was no lengthy educational or informative news report or documentary here, just a short clip in which 5 fatalities occur, although not visible on camera.

I'm not trying to have it removed, just pointing out that you are actually violating the snuff rule by the sift's definition....a definition that maybe should be reexamined.

In many cases last summer, there was no rioting, but still orders to disperse quickly followed with violence before any opportunity for the command to be heard by most, much less followed.

Portland excluded, most BLM marches, 97%?, had no violence at all, and half the 3% was violence against them...reportedly 1/2 of the remaining 1.5% was by opportunists not involved with the March but using it as cover for crimes. BLM isn't blameless, but they are targets more often than perpetrators. It's hardly fair to charge them with the violence perpetrated against them.

The reporters I watched be beaten were 1) asking police where they wanted him to go when beaten mercilessly and 2) sitting on the sidelines well back from any order to disperse given to a peaceful crowd and trying their hardest to comply as soon as they heard an order, punched in the face and bloodied and shoved hard repeatedly breaking their camera while offering zero obstruction and attempting compliance. I didn't see any intentionally refusing to follow orders.

I'm going by what their representative said. It wasn't over one person, it was over fear of accountability, because they cannot do that job without violating people's rights, they don't have the patience or restraint.

Portland isn't a BLM issue, it's what happens when outsiders take over a popular nonviolent protest.

Those are decent points, but have absolutely zero to do with the mass abandoning of their positions. It was 100% due to one of their own being charged after beating nonviolent protesters. They originally admitted exactly that, and now that they aren't being supported in their walkout, they are coming up with excuses that didn't matter to them the day before the officer was charged.

I think they should have to pay for the training and equipment they now refuse to use.

What are you talking about? You think budget cuts caused time off to be cancelled?! It costs double to not rotate in other officers, because you pay those on duty overtime, it doesn't make it cheaper. Budget cuts were not the issue when these cops were doing crowd control, only now that they're suddenly called to account for their own actions. No time off temporarily, because of extreme circumstances, was not an issue until one of their own was charged. It's certainly not abnormal, and absolutely not because of budget cuts, it costs more.

No prosecutions is the norm, if I recall, over 98% of charges levied at protesters have been dismissed nation wide, mostly because police had no evidence to back the charges they brought. You might note, as described in the article, "Mr. Schmidt immediately announced that he would focus on prosecuting cases of violence or vandalism; protesters who simply resisted arrest or refused to disperse after a police order would not necessarily be charged." They are taking a stand against anarchic violent protesters, but not the peaceful protesters with a legitimate gripe about violent, racist, deadly police acting as an anarchist gang that believes rules only apply to you, not them.

There are few prosecutions in large part because police declare riots when all participants are peaceful and not causing damage, and police are almost always the one's giving the orders to remove the people they declared "rioters", and in most cases they have zero evidence to back up their declarations, and are as violent as possible, beating peaceful videographers and reporters who were trapped and could not disperse, then charging them with refusal to disperse and resisting arrest, even violence against police for attacking police batons with their faces.
(Edit: remember the freeway shutdown when they marched on the freeway, and police blocked them from exiting or continuing while a second group of police came from behind, forcing them into a small fenced in area with no exit, then charged them all with refusal to disperse and the few that tried to disperse were charged with attacking police officers who blocked every escape route, violently attacking anyone trying to leave...all on live tv?)
Many peaceful protests became riots only after police moved in to violently disperse protests, fully 1/2 were riots because counter protesters and bad right wing actors like proud and boogaloo boys were planting bombs, shooting crowds, starting fires, driving through crowds, and murdering police in an effort to paint protesters as violent anarchists. That is verified fact directly from the DOJ investigation.

It's not a Portland only thing, police abandoning their communities because, as they indicated to the DA, "“It was like, ‘There’s our team and there’s their team, and you are on their team and you’re not on our team. And we’ve never had a D.A. not be on our team before,’” Police assume they are on a team against citizens, and won't do their jobs if, by doing them wrong with bias and malice, they might be prosecuted. They are used to immunity, and don't know how to do their jobs without it because they are abusers of power.

One day after charges were levied they quit in solidarity with the criminal abusive cop, and came up with fake excuses later.

You seem to have missed "the Justice Department said that the city’s Police Bureau was violating its own use-of-force policies during crowd-control operations, and that supervisors were not properly investigating complaints." part.

brianconce031 has been nominated for banination by eric3579. This may be due to abuse or violations of the posting guidelines. If this nomination is seconded, the account will be permanently disabled.

ronaldgildea02 has been nominated for banination by eric3579. This may be due to abuse or violations of the posting guidelines. If this nomination is seconded, the account will be permanently disabled.

If a hacker breaks into a company and is CAUGHT, then claims they were just testing security....the hacker gets prosecuted. It's not the hackers job to expose the problem unless the company hired them to do that. Otherwise any hacking efforts ever could just be excused as "security checks" and not prosecutable, even when they're successful at stealing money, data, and IP. Even if they do no harm and report themselves, it's still an illegal attack, just like if you catch me leaving your house after breaking in but I say I was just exposing your poor locks by picking them and searching your house....you've still been illegally violated.

If I break into a bank, break into all the safe deposit boxes, and when caught in the vault say" I was just testing security, what's your problem, I'm the good guy here", I'm going to prison, just like she should.

The daughter would be in trouble because she helped an adult sneak into the school, not because of the schools reaction but because of her clearly inappropriate and likely illegal actions.

She's a real nut or she never would have thought this was a good idea. Do you think any concerned citizen should do as she did? How do you distinguish security checks from kidnappers, pedophiles, thieves, .... People who take the law into their own hands at the expense of other people's security are not heroes, they're self centered, self aggrandizing, nutjob criminals.