Comments by "L.W. Paradis" (@l.w.paradis2108) on "Dr. Todd Grande"
channel.
-
202
-
79
-
72
-
67
-
65
-
62
-
52
-
51
-
47
-
44
-
42
-
41
-
39
-
34
-
32
-
31
-
30
-
30
-
30
-
29
-
28
-
28
-
26
-
25
-
25
-
24
-
24
-
23
-
22
-
22
-
19
-
18
-
18
-
17
-
17
-
17
-
17
-
17
-
16
-
16
-
15
-
15
-
@gaiangalaxy3198 Spoiled? I'm not an American, I'm non-Western, and I avoid speaking English whenever possible. Very bad guessing, but in line with the false flag narrative you are apparently pushing.
You seem to want people to refuse to be vaccinated for extraneous reasons, having nothing to do with a rational cost-benefit analysis, and certainly nothing to do with their health. You insult them, repeatedly, hoping that will make them mad enough not to be vaccinated.
Or maybe it's simpler. You had the vaccine, you didn't really want it, now you have second thoughts, so of course you want everyone else to be in the same position as you are. That's common, too. The simplest explanation is usually the best.
15
-
15
-
14
-
14
-
14
-
14
-
14
-
13
-
13
-
13
-
13
-
13
-
13
-
13
-
13
-
12
-
12
-
12
-
12
-
12
-
12
-
11
-
11
-
11
-
11
-
11
-
11
-
11
-
11
-
11
-
11
-
11
-
10
-
10
-
10
-
10
-
10
-
10
-
10
-
10
-
10
-
10
-
10
-
9
-
9
-
9
-
9
-
9
-
9
-
9
-
9
-
9
-
9
-
9
-
9
-
9
-
9
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
@Rokaize Did you READ the complaint? Your understanding is wrong.
Your statement that guns drawn was "reasonable" under the circumstances of this case is purely conclusory, with no basis in the facts. The Graham v. Connor case stands for exactly the opposite principle: reasonableness is an objective standard. It is analogous to the "reasonable person" standard. It is not based on what these officers thought was reasonable, but on what a reasonable officer, properly trained (and not, say, prone to brutality or hysteria) would consider appropriate under all the facts and circumstances of the encounter. By your logic, that would allow almost anything. In fact, it does not. What in Graham v. Connor sounds to you like highly general language is in fact quite technical.
Naming something a felony stop, or devlaring it to be high risk does not make it so. Probable cause to believe a felony is in progress or is imminent is required. Why would a driver that does not speed up in response to sirens be considered a felon or high risk?
I used to advise judges on the law in the cases before them. So I wrote bench memoranda on the briefs and records of both sides, criminal and defense, federal level. Give it up. You thought insults would land?
7
-
7
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
@SuMMeRFLi5 First of all, you do not have the correct timeline, which her own attorney presented during the press conference she called to announce her lawsuit. The search of the child's backpack was not initiated by her report. Second, you have no evidence that Ohio law requires her to immediately call the police due to the suspicion she had and articulated, which is the only thing that counts with respect to her suit. Third, even if it were true that calling police was required, it does not block her law suit. A mistake, even of that nature, is not full assumption of risk.
(Where did YOU go to law school? Don't worry, attorneys know how to keep people like you, who think you know the law better than the judge does, off of juries.)
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
Two things about the wife's mental health and the drugs found in her system: first, if she was experiencing panic disorder, this could have been due to some intuitive sense of not being safe with her husband. That doesn't mean he killed her, because there were certainly other things he did wrong that she may have known or sensed, but her disorder by itself certainly does not make it more likely she committed the crime, either, and her panic could have been exacerbated by feeling unsafe with him.
Second, the medications in her system: never underestimate the fact that major corporate interests are aligned against recognizing that some widely-prescribed drugs are very dangerous to a tiny group of people. So, there were interests involved in suppressing that possibility. That would make it harder for the defense to get a qualified expert to testify for their side.
This is a tough case. Apparently, a lot of people who analyzed his entire statement to police agree it would be hard to fake believing his family was alive without slipping, and hard to fake interest in seeing the video of what happened. But that doesn't point to guilt or innocence, necessarily. It just means he really did have a traumatic memory lapse, making it impossible to assist in his defense.
5
-
5
-
5
-
@ralsharp6013 Exactly. At college, varsity cheerleading is entirely different, involves certain acrobatics that can be done safely, and includes men and women. But in high school, you often see minor girls sexualized. It depends on the school, but usually the uniforms are in poor taste or skimpy, no boys are involved, and very little gymnastics, acrobatics, or modern dance is taught. So what is it for? To teach girls to cheer boys -- who themselves are playing a school sport where they risk a head injury? I thought school was supposed to be for improving your brain.
I wonder if most people know how odd this is, globally speaking. No one else has sports of this nature for young adolescents.
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
@iksnaz553 Very interesting. I had not seen these reports. This is excruciating for Gabby's family, being their first holiday without her, but I hope more answers are forthcoming. It seems as though there were a lot of chances to save her life. Not an ordinary case at all.
Did you see her mother on 60 Minutes Australia? I was shocked by how astute, intelligent, and level-headed she was, and she admitted she did not have bad feelings about Brian. She is not changing her story now, either. She comes across great. Sometimes you will see a mom who pushes a daughter to date and so forth, unwisely but with good intentions. Not this mom. I got the feeling nothing escaped her, and that Gabby was very much loved and appreciated, and not pushed to get engaged at a young age.
I've never seen anything like it, frankly. I wouldn't have thought this could happen.
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
This didn't make sense. Here is the timeline, available in many places including CNN:
August 12 -- the videotaped police encounter we saw
August 17 -- Brian flies back to Florida to clean out a storage locker and get some supplies, and possibly money
August 23 -- Brian returns to Salt Lake City, rejoins Gabby; they were apart for about 5 or 6 days
August 27 -- incident in restaurant, last text from Gabby to parents that was clearly from her
By August 30, Gabby was dead.
This timeline shows interruptions to the buildup of rage described here. It also shows that Gabby had a real opportunity to get away, or at least to talk to someone she trusted, August 17 through 22, a solid five days.
So, what happened? If you want to prevent stuff, you need to know what happened.
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
@user-xg3uy6hq9g Let's make it a wrap. I am NOT saying she did not/could not have a perfectly innocent for not calling. I am saying it was not normal not to call. The normal thing, the expected thing, would have been to call. That does not make failing to call into something immoral, sinister, suspect, etc. (Are fine distinctions, like, over now? Do we just line up and take sides? As fast as possible, then dig in? Brilliant.)
Second, DO NOT say someone is drunk unless you know for fact that they are. DO NOT presume they are drunk. People with unusual medical conditions have died that way. Plus, it is rude. ("College kids drink, that 'must be' what she did." Stereotype much?? We'll be sure to return the favor, see how you like it.)
4
-
4
-
4
-
@boatguy3800 It is not unfounded speculation, and records were classified, sealed, or destroyed. In 1977, the Harvard Crimson reported as follows:
"The Central Intelligence Agency (CIA) informed University officials this week that Harvard "was involved in one way or another" in two research projects conducted under the agency's MK-ULTRA human behavior control project, Daniel Steiner '54, general counsel to the University, said yesterday.
Steiner said the University received substantial financial records from the CIA outlining Harvard's involvement in the controversial mind-control program. He refused to release any details about the documents yesterday, but said the two research projects in question did not include any drug experimentation.
The CIA secretly operated the MK-ULTRA research project for 12 years beginning in the 1950s to study the effects of alcohol and various narcotics on witting and unwitting human subjects at a number of American universities and colleges.
The New York Times reported last month that the CIA had sponsored a separate series of hallucinogenic drug experiments conducted during the 1950s at a Harvard-affiliated teaching hospital. The tests studied the effects of LSD on students from Harvard and other Boston area universities."
It was easy to find, bro. I omit links, as YT usually shadows them (they make monitoring for TOS compliance too hard).
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
I basically agree, and never knew the detail about passing close to a commercial plane. If that does not scream, "land that thing now," I don't know what does. However, absolutely no one who cannot follow a checklist or think logically could pass law school exams or any bar exam. Today the ultrawealthy get away with everything, but it wasn't the case for his generation, as was obvious by the fact that he did fail the NY Bar twice (which isn't rare, by the way). The Bar told him "no" twice.
BTW, I'm not a fan at all, as I hope is clear. Someone with his means, and for this flight, could have easily engaged a co-pilot. He killed two people through gross negligence. There's no excuse. Also, I would never frequent a Kennedy. Their rate of accidental deaths involving unacceptable risks is well documented. But this video is chock full of nonsense, too. I don't see what people get out of it, frankly.
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
@gratefulila9980 Exactly. Literally try everything else first. Diet, walking, massage, being outdoors and looking up at wide vistas, clouds and so forth, the horizon line of a large body of water, any form of art therapy (music, painting, dance), keeping a journal and writing poetry, yoga. Try several at once, it's synergistic. If you're not opposed to eating an animal, vegan plus occasional fish is worth a try. If you do eat meat, try giving up mammals, and giving up all but fermented dairy (yogurt, kefir, camembert), and eating that only in moderation.
4
-
4
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
@gigi9301 You're so sweet. I'll modify that to 250 dates with guys better than these.
I don't know what to say about the larger issue. We hear too much about the sensationalized horror stories, and yet we also know about a lot of bad relationships in real life. I don't know how to gauge this any more. Take a pause, trust in your instincts, and don't be too quick to believe what anyone tells you, and don't be too eager to spend time alone with anyone you don't know well, are important rules today. On the other hand, go out for a casual dinner in groups of friends, whenever you get the chance. Think of safe ways to meet more people and observe them. I think casual dinners, with three to six people, to be a plan. ;)
Lots of outdoor dining around, still, and that improves the mood and the safety factor, not just for COVID. ;)
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
@BurroGirl You know, when I heard that in parts of India, ivermectin was being given to all the residents of a particular state as prophylaxis, I thought it was just a typical Internet rumor. Later I found out, from a legitimate news magazine, perhaps Forbes (I forget), that the Indian government most certainly did distribute ivermectin as prophylaxis, and that WHO strongly objected to this decision and cautioned against relying on ivermectin in this way. In MY opinion, the SCIENTIFIC approach would be to attempt to determine whether this course worked. There are undoubtedly confounding variables, and some sort of multiple regression would need to be employed, and a causal relationship might not be established, despite our best efforts. Still and all, if a person is not curious, and rejects these QUESTIONS, then they are not employing a scientific approach. They are deploying propaganda. No thanks.
2
-
@BurroGirl Well-designed studies have their place, as does epidemiology in actual practice. In fact, the latter has to be considered. It should be obvious why. Every fully approved drug has to continually be monitored for its actual effects on actual people, using it in their actual, daily lives. The NIH's official position on ivermectin is that it warrants further study, and that there is not sufficient data to recommend it, or to tell doctors to refrain from prescribing it. Go to the website and see. Or, if you want to hear actual scientists discuss this pandemic, you could listen to Lex Fridman interview Dr. Racaniello, who is a virologist at Columbia University. (Both he and Fridman are, of course, vaccinated.) But maybe I misunderstood you. Do you not want to know whether the use of ivermectin in India made a difference, assuming we can determine that? Surely you can't be saying that you don't want to know. Everyone wants to know.
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
@Lindsey0007 I'm so sorry, and I know how it is. Truly, I do.
I know of seven cases, confirmed, where people suffering from cancer were emotionally abused or excluded -- five were women, mostly with breast or ovarian cancers, and two were children, both boys. Yes, even pediatric cancer -- it's staggering. A person has to look for ways to find emotional sustenance and reinforcement. I can also tell you from experience that American culture is the worst where obsession with money is concerned, and bullying is rampant. It is VERY hard to maintain perspective. I spent five years outside the States, which was a revelation, and even I've been worn down.
I have found reading helps much more than any more modern media, because the process gives you more control. Journaling is rewarding. I have found that I can lose myself in the arts. But it is still very hard. I also regret saying this, but giving others a "second chance" has almost never been a good policy -- which is hard, since I am only doing what I would hope others would do for me. Sometimes you can't. When you know who someone is, don't talk yourself out of believing it just to have company.
These are not good times. It is very, very hard to maintain perspective and know that it is not you. Societies in decline are not fun, and we are always taught to self-blame. That is nonsense. This society is not doing well. Do all the things that could help you. Don't skimp on good food, exercise. Take breaks from news. Do the thing you liked most when you were 16 or 14, or 22. Reach back. Be kind to yourself.
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
@user-xg3uy6hq9g I can use logic: if a person is in shock and paralyzed by fear, then they are not in a normal state, capable of doing normal things. If x, then y.
"How many people come face to face with someone like that under those circumstances?" Who was "someone like that," at the moment she came "face to face" with him? What were "those circumstances?" Based on what we know now, or based, obviously, on what she perceived then?
We know what is "normal" through case histories of other crimes. We also know based on the fact that other countries mandate calling for assistance if you are able to do so and do it safely, and failing to do so is considered a crime. This is called "nonassistance a personne en danger." Such lack of assistance in those societies requires an explanation, and such societies generally include civil law/Roman law countries (common in Latin American, Latin Europe, Russia, and elsewhere).
We, I admit, have no such general obligation. So I guess it is normal not to call in that sense. In my opinion, I don't like to see it normalized from an ethical point of view, but, as you can see . . . well. We are on our way.
Good luck to you.
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
@Sam j What cherry-picking? That was her life. What have you done for your mother? Furthermore, she is a married woman expecting a child. Where is your respect for that? (Just can't hold your tongue?)
Her father won a lottery and put aside the money so that all three of his children would have college funds and no need for loans. Very commendable, I agree. A very cool thing to do. It doesn't, however, buy the right to profit from his relationship with her. (In my own life, I always cut my parents a lot of slack, so personally, I could never hold it against a father, but family relationships, especially divorced family relationships, are complicated. I won't judge others. Anyway, parents SHOULD educate their children whenever they can. It is their job.)
People think Meghan Markle "got more than she deserved," somehow, hence the hatred. You focus on her because you find her very attractive. That is an opportunity to practice feeling attraction without having to lash out at the object of your attraction because you can't possess that object. It's a good discipline to learn. It is a skill that is less rare in other societies, I can vouch for that.
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
@josevigil4233 I have listened, at length, and I admit I've only read excerpts. I think it's a huge pity he gave up pursuing philosophy seriously. I have no doubt that he is talented.
I'm not trying to censor him. I'm giving my opinion, which is at least as valuable as anyone else's. I think there is an essential dishonesty in all of these gurus, and their primary concern is not in making you happier, but more docile, so that you'll be less of a "problem" for your family, friends, job, the medical system, the nursing home. I went back to an old writer lately, none other than the compulsively irreverent, spunky and brash Eric Jong, in her earliest works. It's making me happy. It's making me want to do stuff. I'll worry about "spirituality" later.
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
@zeusathena26 On the contrary, there is as much hesitancy in Germany as in the US, and more hesitancy in France and Russia than in the US. But it is less politicized in most of the rest of the world, that is true.
Do you seriously think telling someone they were not injured by a previous vaccine when their doctors told them they were, and then trying to provoke guilt in them, is persuasive? Persuasive to what purpose? Anyone who succumbs to disrespect and takes a medicine they do not believe is good for them based on sound reasoning (and that has not yet received full approval from the FDA) is not functioning as a responsible adult. They are just bowing to pressure.
Look up CDC information, or any other official source, and see what it tells you about vaccine efficacy. We hope and believe immunity lasts longer than six months but we do not know. We believe immunized people with mild "brealthrough" infections are not highly contagious BUT we do not know. We think booster shots will be needed, and that people may choose different types of shot from their initial vaccination, but we do not know. IOW, no scientific basis for your pontificating.
2
-
2
-
2
-
@ginalynn6963 Gina, you are spreading outright lies. If what you say were true, why does every country have a vaccine program, including those outside the US sphere of influence?Also, some, like Pakistan, are offering many choices, none of which are mRNA. They may be right, they may be wrong. But they are clearly not "under the thumb of Big Pharma." China has vaccines, as does Russia, Iran, North Korea, Venezuela, Cuba . . .
This is why I question whether the wildest anti-vaxxer stories aren't planted to make everyone hesitant look STUPID.
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
The term "conspiracy theory" has been weaponized. People who do not understand evidence-based reasoning or Bayesian probability, even on a bare, intuitive level, and spin a more elaborate conspiracy when a simpler story is revealed to be baseless, are giving real conspirators the perfect cover.
RICO was designed to address something.
Extensive research into clandestine operations has revealed astounding conspiracies by the FBI and the CIA to dupe, use honest artists and writers as fronts, experiment on people with psy-ops protocols, and assassinate dissidents. Read Frances Stonor Saunders, read Flint Taylor. Or read The Atlantic on Ted Kaczynski, the "Unabomber." Or watch a BBC doc by Adam Curtis, take notes, then do your own verification of the claims.
The real strangeness of the world, and of what people will do to one another, feeds these theories and the anguish of the people who believe them.
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@mandywhorwal642 Let's say someone who has committed a murder "deserves to die." How does that give the state the right to execute them? I'm serious. They are singularly inept at determining who is a murderer, and at executing murderers, and have proven themselves inept in both not just sporadically, but systematically. Your question is theoretical. Even if you're right, that has nothing to do with the issue.
Why do you think all other developed countries have ended capital punishment? Not because they think someone who, say, tortured a baby to death, or shot some 70 young people in cold blood, should get a "second chance." Nor are they wimps, nor are they stupid. U.K. ended the death penalty after executing the husband of a woman murdered by a serial killer, after that serial killer testified against the husband. That did it for U.K.
Watch that documentary on the four sailors, the "Norfolk Four." Then come back.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@doomguy510 Exactly, she was sincere, naive, and without a trace of guile. Since when do you tell armed officers that you have OCD, that you slapped someone (which neither the officers, nor the 911 CALLER, witnessed), and so forth? That is naive. Consult any lessons you like, produced by attorneys, including some who have been police prior to taking up a legal career, on what to do during a police encounter.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@drebk These types of stories make me suspicious -- I begin to think they are being deliberately spun to erode constitutional rights. That's the pattern we see. People do fall for it. In this case, it was naive, gentle Gabby who made statements to police she should have been taught never, ever to make. We have a whole video of it. The only statement anyone should ever make in her position is "I feel unsafe." All the rest can be sorted out later. Any confessions, admissions, etc., if they should ever be made, should only be made in open court, under oath, with counsel present. Nowhere else, ever.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@SteveK139 The story that people rushed at Rittenhouse, who they believed -- rightly or wrongly -- was an active shooter, because the media uses terms like "assault rifle," and scares them, and not because, say, Columbine, or Sandy Hook, is beyond laughable. You can think whatever you want of Grosskreutz, but at that moment HE believed he was saving lives, not interfering with self defense. A high school sophomore knows more psychology.
A generation after Columbine and Wisconsin's legislature was incapable of drafting a reasonable and constitutional gun law with respect to minors. They get paid because . . . Tell me again.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@AceRamone A "status" stemming from any medical condition or disability cannot disqualify you from being a lawyer. Obviously, it can from being a pilot, and in some states from having a job where you have access to firearms, but these are considered exceptions to the general rule: the Americans With Disabilities Act protects the disabled. There is no general disqualification from practicing medicine, but certain specialties, like surgery, may be off limits. On the other hand, if a person commits any offense during a manic or depressive phase, that changes the picture entirely. They are not excluded on account of their illness, but on account of their crime. Even having said that, though, there are lawyers who were once convicts: Shon Hopwood is the most famous example. He taught the president's daughter at Georgetown University School of Law. Some psychiatrists have definitely had serious disorders, and have written memoirs about the insight their own cases gave them in treating others with similar issues. A psychiatrist with a history of mental disorders would probably be part of a group practice, and wouldn't go out on their own to establish an independent office. It might be a condition of his license to practice with others and be open about his challenges.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@Anabee3 Where did he advocate for deceiving anyone?
If he committed a crime, or did anything that could give rise to a lawsuit, absolutely take him to court and call him to account. Or, go to the press, get the Internet to condemn him, and so forth. That's a person's right, too -- but I don't respect that. When you enter into any affair and marriage isn't on the table, you know you're taking a chance.
From what he has said, quite openly, about his misspent youth, it is not a shock to me that he has relationship problems now. I wouldn't have dated him.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@rmooreg Read the jury instructions, in particular with respect to McGinnis. Obviously you don't know what I'm referring to. As for howling voices, I don't know whether Rittenhouse has the stomach to sue for defamation, but considering what some MSM said about him, he certainly could maintain a case, and win. I'd welcome it. Tgeir lying has got to be punished, they are doing it for money at this point.
The howling voices on the other "side," however, that endorse vigilantism and think it's fine for minors to strut around with AR-15 style weapons strapped to them, and proclaim Rittenhouse a "hero" (and this clown here seems to think nomenclature is the issue, and that nomenclature creates fear of guns -- when two people approached Rittenhouse to try to disarm him after he fired four shots, and many other shots were heard as well, no fear there), well, I see that as a far bigger problem going forward, and much more likely to harm me directly.
Do you really imagine we have the largest incarcerated population in the world, with the large majority non-white, because those other people are Bad People? Do you think they are committing vastly more crime? Really? Anyone who thinks so needs a good dose of Chris Hedges. As for the racial implications of this case, have you considered the analysis of anyone who disagrees with your anodyne view, like Briahna Joy Gray, a Harvard-trained lawyer turned journalist? You should. If I can listen to Grande, Tucker Carlson, Megyn Kelly, etc., you can listen to Hedges and Gray.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@receipts324 Oh, you're thanking me for turning you on to some good books, right? (I mean, egoless people never play one-upmanship games, . . . try to undermine others, . . . and all that weird, childish stuff, right? Why would they?)
You are so welcome! I hope you enjoy Plato (Apology, Gorgias, definitely before The Republic, although Socrates' words in Republic Book X about not knowing what is truly good or bad in life's most tragic accidents is sublime) and Murakami's Underground. Great winter reads! :)
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
It's interesting to me that my parents, as immigrants, had a very bright line of demarcation: a high school student is a pupil, a child. Upon graduation, they are an adult. College students are adults. It was literally a rite of passage in their minds. I thought the American style of bringing up adolescents step by step, and treating them differently at 14, 15, 16, and 17 was so much wiser. I'm getting the sense that this culture has moved to seeing all people under 18 as children, and all sex between adults and adolescent minors as "pedophilia," with all the horror that entails. I don't think that makes sense at 17, or 16. The law is written that way, too, to account for small differences in age (one person 16, the other 19, for example). Teachers have no business approaching students, ever -- nor do professors, no matter the age. Former students who are adults when first approached are a different matter. I know marriages like that. Everyone does. I don't see a problem.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@logicalblackman8228 I don't defend Yoshi. Consider, however, the time line. The point is, there was no need for Rodney to put himself in a position where he could need to use deadly force, when avoiding it was easily accomplished. All he had to do was stay in the house, call 911, and have his firearm ready in case of physical breach of his dwelling. These are WELL KNOWN RULES of self-defense. If YOU voluntarily put yourself in a position where you may be more likely to need to use lethal force, then YOU could be civilly and/or criminally liable. In this case, Rodney was found liable in tort and lost his house. Your justification of Rodney is misleading, because he did end up being liable. Many self-defense laws create a defense against a civil judgment as well. Not what happened here. So, it's not just a matter of ethics.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@Jimmy911ism I thought he settled. That was the premise. I don't know if it is the case; we presumed it was, for the sake of argument. I agree with your point, you're absolutely right. However, in this case the bare facts are not in dispute. If there were no way to find him liable as a matter of law, the case could not go to a jury. It would be dismissed. So, no trial, no settlement. There has to be a reasonable way to argue that he did wrong as a matter of law -- gross negligence, recklessness, something. Some breach of a legal duty, not just moral. Otherwise there's no case. There's nothing to try.
Here's a contrast: suppose I wake up to find that a stranger broke into my house and is assaulting me. I reach under the bed, grab my gun, and shoot him. He recovers and is now in a wheelchair. If he sues me, the case will be dismissed with prejudice -- and he may have to pay my lawyer. That's because as a matter of law, I did absolutely nothing wrong. The state can prosecute him, and I can sue him, and both are viable lawsuits. His suit against me isn't. There's no legal ground for it at all. No jury gets to hear it.
This is true even if he were drunk and honestly thought we were married.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@sadiyasaleh233 When you go on the attack like that, you could convince people not to call for help, do you realize that? In a lot of countries, failing to help when you can is called "nonassistance a personne en danger," and is a crime. In America, no one has a duty to report someone else's accident if they had no part in it, even if they are safe and able to call. If I were immature, an interaction like this could convince me to just mind my own business, which is my right to do, and never call to help anyone again. You should apologize for assuming my view is baseless, and for attacking me personally. Whole societies make it their law that there are times when you have to call. I never blamed the victim here, I made that crystal clear. I agreed the OP is basically right.
Think about the world you want to live in. Someone called to help you. You attack someone who supports that.
1
-
@sadiyasaleh233 I didn't judge her, much less "crucify" her. I never asked that anyone do what they cannot.
I don't care about the consensus. The "consensus" was, briefly, that anyone who was unvaccinated should be deprived of a hospital bed. Not to mention that if you are homeless it "must be" your own fault. That's an ongoing "consensus." So much for consensus. And frankly, I don't even see the "consensus" you see -- though I'd rather see posts like OP, which I basically agreed with from the start, than people blindly criticizing her. Which is why I did not do so, either.
Suddenly, you're semi-reasonable, BUT you are still casting aspersions at ME and claiming I said something I did not say, or even think, much less speak. You are still putting words in my mouth. Shame on you.
I am less likely to call for help today than I was a week ago, although I still have my ethics, and courage, which I have for my own sense of self, and not so much based on normal, human compassion. We have a completely dysfunctional society now. Consider what you want to contribute to, and how you want to live.
Blocked.
1
-
@sadiyasaleh233 My gawd, your post prior to your last post is a string of lies. You don't even realize it?
If a person is indeed in shock, are they in a "normal" state? No. They are not. Is it always a person's fault that they are not in a normal state, capable of doing normal things? NO. Who said it was?
Who today does not know about how long shock can last, how common incipient PTSD is, how "fight, flight, freeze" is a state a person cannot will themselves out of? Who suggested these things are not real?
That's not what the discussion here is about. The discussion, or at least the legitimate one, simply notes that we don't know whether this is what happened to her. We only assume it is possible.
Just how much baggage are you placing on the word "normal?" And why?
Good thing someone did the normal thing for you, when you needed the normal thing to be done.
1
-
1
-
@sadiyasaleh233 Ha. I forgot to block you. You just demonstrated that I did not blame her in the least. I continued to reiterate at every point that I did not blame her. And if she was severely traumatized, she was not in a normal state, and she may not have been able to do normal things. You can respond to any comment as you see fit, including a comment that was never made and was expressly excluded. If you want to go around misrepresenting what has been said, that is your issue.
A lot of countries have laws that impose a general duty to call for help, IF a person is able to do that, and to do it safely. If they can't, no one makes them. Such laws are, ahem, normal in most of the world. (In the US, we rely on moral persuasion, assuming that still exists.)
I am trying to call you to your senses to tell you that you are normalizing conduct that could come back to hurt you. If you don't care, that's up to you. I certainly don't take it personally. It's not my problem. (Nice little DARVO move, after pointlessly personalizing a theoretical discussion -- is that all ya got?) This time, blocked for real.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1