This is all Benjamin Franklin's Fault

[highfigh]

That's odd given you just said....

If he could yell "I can't breathe!", he was clearly breathing.

I'm pretty sure that was Floyd saying that due to Chauvin's knee being on his neck. It's also odd you say "they all wanted video of the scene." I believe the police told the people to stand back. Yet in the end you're this vocal critic of Chauvin.

Time passed between his shouting and ending- as I wrote, it could have just been the constant pressure and him weakening.

They got video, whether they were told to stand back, or not. That wasn't just a few people standing by.

 

[Hobbit]

One problem with the Constitution is that it isn’t treated as a living document. Although countless court cases have interpreted the meaning of each amendment, the original framework has barely changed—aside from the addition of 15 amendments.

The same pattern appears with new laws. As soon as they’re passed, lawyers search for loopholes, and courts uphold those loopholes because they align with the text of the law, regardless of legislative intent.

In industry, even relatively simple procedures can’t be written perfectly the first time. The difference is that industry accepts learning from experience and refining specifications over time.

 

[highfigh]

One problem with the Constitution is that it isn’t treated as a living document. Although countless court cases have interpreted the meaning of each amendment, the original framework has barely changed—aside from the addition of 15 amendments.

The same pattern appears with new laws. As soon as they’re passed, lawyers search for loopholes, and courts uphold those loopholes because they align with the text of the law, regardless of legislative intent.

In industry, even relatively simple procedures can’t be written perfectly the first time. The difference is that industry accepts learning from experience and refining specifications over time.

OK, so what rights should be removed? Think carefully- they were all included in order to prevent real tyranny. I would consider ADDING a couple that prevent members of Congress doing the crap they have been for more than 50 years. We already have a balanced budget amendment, but they obviously don't give a rat's patoot about that. The US deficit is leading us to major problems and it needs to be settled.

 

[Hobbit]

OK, so what rights should be removed? Think carefully- they were all included in order to prevent real tyranny. I would consider ADDING a couple that prevent members of Congress doing the crap they have been for more than 50 years. We already have a balanced budget amendment, but they obviously don't give a rat's patoot about that. The US deficit is leading us to major problems and it needs to be settled.

Did you mean to reply to someone else’s post? I never mentioned adding or removing amendments or specific issues. I said the Constitution and laws should be viewed as living documents, not as immutable commandments cast in stone.

In many industries, procedures—such as specifications, operating procedures, and military performance standards—are treated similarly to laws with one big exception; they evolve as conditions, knowledge, and requirements change:

A living document is one that is flexible and updated as new information or circumstances arise.

In this sense, every court case interpreting a constitutional amendment arguably reshapes the meaning of that amendment.

Likewise, with any bill or law Congress passes, some lawyer will find language open to interpretation. Yet we lack a simple, efficient way to update laws as these issues arise.

 

[GO-NAD!]

Riot- destruction of property with violence- why is that hard to compare with a 'peaceful protest'?

What gives you, me or anyone else the right to decide if rioting is acceptable? I think the regime needed to stop too and in a case like that or other dictatorship, which we DON'T have, it's the only way to get rid of the oppressors.

I replied to Dude- WRT Chauvin, I think someone should have forced him off and I don't remember seeing that his gun was out of the holster, so if he had fired his weapon after being shoved, it obviously would have become a mass beating with more casualties. I'm surprised that someone didn't grab an object and knock Chauvin out. THAT would have been justified.

How is it hard to compare rioting with peaceful protests? In shouldn't be, but in the Floyd case, 90%+ of the protests were judged to be peaceful. Yet, many on the right claimed that violence was a common feature.

And, after the Good shooting, members of the administration - from Trump on down the line - have called her a terrorist and claimed she tried to run the ICE member down, while she was only trying to drive away. So, if or how violent a person is can be in the eye of the beholder. Of course, they may be well aware that they are making BS statements, but have an agenda to push.

To be clear, in the North American context, at least, I don't think violent protests, rioting and looting can be justified and are unhelpful. For now, anyway.* Sometimes, a protest can be mainly peaceful, except for isolated instances of violence. Does that mean the entire protest should be condemned as being violent?

Iranian protesters have been rioting and burning cars in the streets. Are they in the wrong or is it justifiable?

*If authoritarian repression ramps up, that could change.

 

[3db]

Look what that pos Vance said about Renee Good even before the investigation got underway. We can be sure that the result of the FBI investigation will be tainted and filled with errors and outright lies to support Trump and Vance. Its pathetic.

 

[lovinthehd]

Look what that pos Vance said about Renee Good even before the investigation got underway. We can be sure that the result of the FBI investigation will be tainted and filled with errors and outright lies to support Trump and Vance. Its pathetic.

Not just Vance but also drumphy and Noem.

 

[Mr._Clark]

One problem with the Constitution is that it isn’t treated as a living document. . . .

For 250 years the Constition did not grant the president immunity for criminal acts.

Now it does.

The Supreme Court is actively rewriting the Constitution on a regular basis.

 

[Dude#1279435]

Time passed between his shouting and ending- as I wrote, it could have just been the constant pressure and him weakening.

They got video, whether they were told to stand back, or not. That wasn't just a few people standing by.

So what you're saying then is I can't trust you?

 

[GO-NAD!]

For 250 years the Constition did not grant the president immunity for criminal acts.

Now it does.

The Supreme Court is actively rewriting the Constitution on a regular basis.

So...originalists want their cake and eat it too?

 

[highfigh]

Did you mean to reply to someone else’s post? I never mentioned adding or removing amendments or specific issues. I said the Constitution and laws should be viewed as living documents, not as immutable commandments cast in stone.

In many industries, procedures—such as specifications, operating procedures, and military performance standards—are treated similarly to laws with one big exception; they evolve as conditions, knowledge, and requirements change:

A living document is one that is flexible and updated as new information or circumstances arise.

In this sense, every court case interpreting a constitutional amendment arguably reshapes the meaning of that amendment.

Likewise, with any bill or law Congress passes, some lawyer will find language open to interpretation. Yet we lack a simple, efficient way to update laws as these issues arise.

There are ony two ways to change the Constitution- adding or subtracting. Iknow what a living document is and if it's too easy to change, we'll be screwed. The Constiotution was written in a way that was directly caused by the experiences forced on the colonies by the Crown and they wanted to prevent that kind of tyranny in the future.

A country isn't the same as an industry. It's difficult for the reason that if it's too easy, it will toggle back and forth and nobody will respect it, not that many who should, do.

 

[highfigh]

How is it hard to compare rioting with peaceful protests? In shouldn't be, but in the Floyd case, 90%+ of the protests were judged to be peaceful. Yet, many on the right claimed that violence was a common feature.

And, after the Good shooting, members of the administration - from Trump on down the line - have called her a terrorist and claimed she tried to run the ICE member down, while she was only trying to drive away. So, if or how violent a person is can be in the eye of the beholder. Of course, they may be well aware that they are making BS statements, but have an agenda to push.

To be clear, in the North American context, at least, I don't think violent protests, rioting and looting can be justified and are unhelpful. For now, anyway.* Sometimes, a protest can be mainly peaceful, except for isolated instances of violence. Does that mean the entire protest should be condemned as being violent?

Iranian protesters have been rioting and burning cars in the streets. Are they in the wrong or is it justifiable?

*If authoritarian repression ramps up, that could change.

I have a hard time understanding how causing destruction anywhere outside of the place where something bad happened will change anything. I also have a problem with people going to other cities to ramp up the violence & destruction, as they did over BLM and other 'peaceful protests' in Milwaukee- a lot of agitators came from Chicago.

You want to justify violence, I don't a a general reaction, but it's necessary when the violence is directed against a oppressive regime. One person was killed after she drove toward an agent- two of them were at the left side of her vehicle and the question I have- how many parents would put themselves in danger when they have those responsibilities?

Only tried to drive away? Did you watch the POV video? And when law enforcement tells someone to stop, they need to freaking stop. I'm not calling her anything, but I believe she made the worst decision possible, aside from firing at them.

Iranians aren't just burning cars, they're burning government buildings and others. AFAIK, they can't have guns, so it hasn't esclated to actual war but this is what happens when religious idealogues are/were in power- they always become oppressive and violent. The people wanted it to end for a long time, but the Ayatollahs and Mullahs didn't. Now, radical Islamic immigrants are claiming that Sharia will come to England and the US- even where you live, you DO NOT want that.

Have you seen what's happening in European cities?

 

[Dude#1279435]

Only tried to drive away? Did you watch the POV video? And when law enforcement tells someone to stop, they need to freaking stop. I'm not calling her anything, but I believe she made the worst decision possible, aside from firing at them.

If she were driving at the agent in front of the car than she would have ran into the curb vs a hard right that left the car coasting down the road. You have other things going on here like rules of engagement and were she a threat to violence and automatically pulling out your guns at her. I'd be for some type of an acquittal, early retirement package, or desk job since there's a gray area to this IMO.

 

[highfigh]

If she were driving at the agent in front of the car than she would have ran into the curb vs a hard right that left the car coasting down the road. You have other things going on here like rules of engagement and were she a threat to violence and automatically pulling out your guns at her. I'd be for some type of an acquittal, early retirement package, or desk job since there's a gray area to this IMO.

Any time someone drives toward a cop of any kind, it's considered 'attempted vehicular homicide' (subject to the prosecutor wanting to go after it as that)- I really don't want to watch another video of someone being killed, but I would like to see more video of what led to this shooting.

 

[3db]

For 250 years the Constition did not grant the president immunity for criminal acts.

Now it does.

The Supreme Court is actively rewriting the Constitution on a regular basis.

The dumb comment is not directed at you but at what the supreme court is doing. I can change that if you prefer.

 

[3db]

There are ony two ways to change the Constitution- adding or subtracting. Iknow what a living document is and if it's too easy to change, we'll be screwed. The Constiotution was written in a way that was directly caused by the experiences forced on the colonies by the Crown and they wanted to prevent that kind of tyranny in the future.

A country isn't the same as an industry. It's difficult for the reason that if it's too easy, it will toggle back and forth and nobody will respect it, not that many who should, do.

The irony is the US voted in a tyrannical government bent on hate, prejudice and inequality.

 

[GO-NAD!]

You want to justify violence, I don't a a general reaction, but it's necessary when the violence is directed against a oppressive regime. One person was killed after she drove toward an agent- two of them were at the left side of her vehicle and the question I have- how many parents would put themselves in danger when they have those responsibilities?

So, what part of "To be clear, in the North American context, at least, I don't think violent protests, rioting and looting can be justified and are unhelpful." looks like I'm justifying violence?

Only tried to drive away? Did you watch the POV video? And when law enforcement tells someone to stop, they need to freaking stop. I'm not calling her anything, but I believe she made the worst decision possible, aside from firing at them.

Yes, tried to drive away. And, she didn’t make the worst possible decision, he did. You think she made a bad choice, as a parent, to put herself in danger? A reasonable person would think that what she was doing shouldn't get her shot.

You keep saying she was ordered to stop. Eyewitnesses say she was given mixed orders - both to stop and to leave.
https://www.mprnews.org/story/2026/01/07/shooting-south-minneapolis-ice-agents-federal-operation

Iranians aren't just burning cars, they're burning government buildings and others. AFAIK, they can't have guns, so it hasn't esclated to actual war but this is what happens when religious idealogues are/were in power- they always become oppressive and violent. The people wanted it to end for a long time, but the Ayatollahs and Mullahs didn't. Now, radical Islamic immigrants are claiming that Sharia will come to England and the US- even where you live, you DO NOT want that.

Have you seen what's happening in European cities?

Sharia is not coming to England, the US, or Canada. And, don't let fear of a Muslim menace distract you from the dangers posed by far right evangelical Christian* theocracy.

*These people are Christian in name only and Jesus wouldn't recognize them.

 

[3db]

Any time someone drives toward a cop of any kind, it's considered 'attempted vehicular homicide' (subject to the prosecutor wanting to go after it as that)- I really don't want to watch another video of someone being killed, but I would like to see more video of what led to this shooting.

There are number of errors made here that lead to her death. You are correct in that Good should have stopped the vehicle but Good most likely panicked. On the other hand, the chump ahole who shot her was most likely inadequately trained and escalated rather than deescalated the situation. Giving gravely untrained people authority and guns that can barely form a sentence or add 2 + 2 is a recipe for disaster.

Leaders like Vance and Trump should know that a situation arises because of multiple factors but the fact that these 2 aholes went on propoganda smear campaign against Good is absolutely disgusting and vile.