You might want to watch all those videos again.

Hitting a parked car at 60km/h and not rolling would be a clearly better outcome. The parked car is not a solid wall, it cannot bring you to a "dead stop".

Hitting a barrier and rolling is clearly worse than hitting the same barrier and sliding along it, "bouncing" off it, spinning etc even if you're clipped by another car. Again even with the sharp swerve into the barrier it would never have been a "dead stop"

Hitting the car in front which has suddenly braked would be far better than a high speed roll even if the car behind proceeds to rear end you. The closest to your "dead stop" scenario and still far better than a high speed roll.

I'm arguing with you because you often backup what you're saying with demonstrable facts, in this case you're not. You're ignoring variables, using differing experience to draw conclusions and dismissing the severity of something based on your controlled personal experience of it.

"Citation? Physics. acceleration = Δv/Δt. Larger injuries come from higher g forces."

Has nothing to do with studies in vehicular CSI. I asked for a citation relating to maximum force/time being a primary factor in vehicular CSI not a physics equation and a stunningly simplified opinion. Again this is the shit I'm arguing with you about.

For these to be called even less lethal, the entire system must be used, including MANDITORY safety gear including at a minimum Kevlar helmets, face shields, groin shields, and a neck protector. If the victim doesn't have each piece of the mandatory gear, these rounds can cause permanent injury and death.

Directly from the manufacturer of simunition.

In order to reduce the risk of injury during these highly dynamic scenarios, Simunition® has developed a full line of protective equipment for both men and women. This equipment is an integral part of the FX® training system.
The FX® line of protective equipment consists of three MANDATORY protective items: the helmet or the facemask for use with Kevlar helmets, the neck protector and the groin protector. The arm protectors, vest, gloves, pants and sleeves are optional. FX® protective equipment, which is Simunition® tested and approved, is comfortable, breathable and lightweight, allowing the user to move freely and naturally.

Another *doublepromote to keep it front and center, police in gangs fully armored with military backing are using live rounds (yes, they are) on unarmed unshielded citizens who are committing no crime peacefully stationary on their own porches. Might as well have been bullets, at that range with no protection these rounds can kill easily. Attempted murder charges for every cop there.
I can't wait until someone shoots a cop in the eye with one and it dies. Suddenly they won't be calling them non lethal ammunition that's safe.

i agree its tempting to stop this from happening... but you say this after the fact that floyd is dead.

in your scenario, the person being arrested ends up living. so he goes to jail, alive. you get arrested for assaulting an officer and obstructing justice and now have to prove the person would have died if you had not intervened. that's a steep uphill battle but i would be on your side.

Not only that, it's a worst case scenario based on no one doing a thing over the course of the outbreak if it lasts for years and the medical system is overwhelmed.

As you said, NO CREDIBLE PERSON said it WOULD or even COULD happen in "a few months", or ever in the real world, which was his claim. Only people like Trump intentionally misstating the conclusions to create paper tigers he could slay have said it.

https://reason.com/2020/03/31/2-2-million-american-deaths-from-covid-19/

Here


"The 2.2 million figure was a projection based on a scenario where not only do the government and private companies not engage in any "control measures," but individuals don't on their own change their behavior to avoid contracting or spreading the virus. The study refers to this possibility as "unlikely," but let's be blunt: it's entirely fanciful. "

That's the origin. So yes, we are doing better than if the entire country 's population of individuals did nothing, AND the government did nothing. That's technically true, but it's about as likely as people sitting at their desks when the office catches fire.

And I'm totally unaware of any scenario under which an aircraft smoke screen was ever used in exactly this way. By vague report, aircraft generated smoke screens might have been part of the landings at Iwo Jima (ineffective---and I'm not sure about this) and the Philippines in WW-II (can't find a reference for this). In terms of aid from a fleet's own aircraft, the closest I can think of is the distraction and cover attacks of Taffy 1, 2, and 3's disparate air craft at the Battle of Leyte Gulf---but they didn't drop a smoke screen---they just attacked Kurita's battleship task force while the destroyer escorts made their runs until Kurita's nerve broke and he turned.

Would have been laid by a fleet's float planes or limited basic carrier aircraft (like---very basic, pre WW II) to mask your own ships under scenarios such as 1) A turn away from an enemy fleet that had concentrated its salvoed big gun fire successfully against you, perhaps by crossing your "T" (1/2 your guns agains all of his--run away!) or 2) to mask the approach of your surface torpedo carriers, the destroyers and destroyer escorts, to close as fast as possible on the enemy's battle line before popping through the curtain and firing some of their torpedoes before popping back into cover and moving to another location and then firing more torpedoes (torpedoes were the ship killers of the small ships of the fleet and the only thing battleships had to fear from destroyers and destroyer escorts/torpedo boats)

You're also conveniently ignoring that he said 60,000 then said

"We're going to lose anywhere from 75, 80, to 100,000 people"

Now that it's approaching 100,000 he wants complete and utter idiots like you to think that it is somehow a good thing because it's not even close to a figure that if you bothered to check is the WORST CASE SCENARIO!

You're the type of Trump supporter that denies he said something fucking stupid or abhorrent immediately after watching him say it and being presented with the replay.

In California, PIT maneuver isn't attempted above around 35mph because of exactly this scenario. Not just the health of the drivers, but the collateral damage can be astronomical.

Yes, but my understanding is that the point isn't to starve the virus for hosts until it's dead, it's to slow the spread enough that hospitals aren't overrun. When they are, death rates explode, logically from 3-3.5% up to 15-20%. Of course, this plan relies on the hope that immunity is relatively full and permanent, something we don't know yet.

If people weren't morons, I would agree about parks and beaches....but they are. Even those smart enough to try and social distance in public often forget and hug goodbye, and most aren't being that smart.

The problem with sending people back is we don't have a single study on immunity. We don't know if you have full immunity after recovering from being infected, or if so how long it might last. Many other coronaviruses mutate enough that immunity is for one season at best. We need to study the virus in detail before making assumptions on life and death issues, and it's smart to err on one side of caution with stakes this high until we know. Opening up before we know is a pure gamble....the odds might be good, but the stakes are sky high.

In a near worst case scenario, it's possible that Covid19 is going to remain as dangerous as it is today for some time with reinfection possible, and that any future vaccines will need yearly changes and booster shots to be effective, like the flu shot but hopefully more effective. In that case, the best we can really do is be prepared for a constant flow of large numbers of patients and deaths. That's going to require a complete retooling and expansion of the medical system, but silver lining, it's hundreds of thousands of good paying jobs that robots can't do...yet.

This isn't about the economy, it's about Trump's re-election chances. Trump's only win during his entire presidency has been the stock market climbing and the jobs numbers (despite the fact he didn't actually have anything to do with either). Now that we're looking at the highest unemployment in American history and a stock market meltdown that makes '29 look like an afterthought, Trump knows the BEST case scenario is being voted out of office in a landslide and the WORST case is that he ended up in prison for high crimes against the American people.

While I agree about Stossel, this time I think he's right.
By the standards described, my parents would still be in prison for egregious lack of supervision.
If police think a park full of kids and parents isn't a safe place for a child, that's their failure to make the community safe, not some fault by the parents. Police overreaction based on their irrational fear of the worst possible, however unlikely, scenario should be disincentivised.

It's an increasing problem that police are more concerned with aggressively asserting authority and creating an us vs them scenario instead of serving and protecting the public.
I think that may have something to do with your concerns.

if done correctly this seems like a safety hazard in certain scenarios