Political Discussion

Chucktshoes said:
The fire extinguisher story was just that, a story. It was walked back pretty early on from official sources. It didn’t happen. The media continued to run with it long afterwards, but within a couple of days family members said he died of a stroke.

The only ‘weapon’ there is any evidence was potentially used against Officer Sicknick was pepper spray.
Click to expand...

Ah OK. Was unaware of that. I didn't pay much attention to the event after that day/week. Is there any video of him being punched or kicked? or co-officer accounts?
 
  • Like
Reactions: Tyr
jaycee said:
Ah OK. Was unaware of that. I didn't pay much attention to the event after that day/week. Is there any video of him being punched or kicked? or co-officer accounts?
Click to expand...
"Due to privacy laws, Dr Diaz is unable to say whether the officer had any pre-existing medical conditions. However, he did acknowledge the policeman's role in the events, telling the Washington Post: "All that transpired played a role in his condition."


Speculation over Officer Sicknick's death was the source of widespread disinformation after the New York Times reported erroneously that protesters had bludgeoned him with a fire extinguisher - a claim the newspaper later retracted."
 
bfly said:
"Due to privacy laws, Dr Diaz is unable to say whether the officer had any pre-existing medical conditions. However, he did acknowledge the policeman's role in the events, telling the Washington Post: "All that transpired played a role in his condition."


Speculation over Officer Sicknick's death was the source of widespread disinformation after the New York Times reported erroneously that protesters had bludgeoned him with a fire extinguisher - a claim the newspaper later retracted."
Click to expand...

The Times makes so many major errors. They were rescued by the Trump years.
 
Chucktshoes said:
Single source? Every media outlet ran with the story that the rioters had murdered a DC cop (even though there were statements with days that questioned that narrative). Not only that but lots of folks who had spent all of 2020 railing against police were suddenly clutching their pearls. I bet if we went back through this very thread to then we would find some interesting posts doing just that. I could be wrong, but I strongly suspect I’m not.

Any assaults on officer Sicknick absolutely did break the law, just as any other assaults on other officers in the capital that day, or assaults on any officers around the country do. They should be charged accordingly.

What they weren’t is murder or manslaughter, or any serious felony for causing someone’s death.

Your couch question is not a question that can be answered in any reasonable way and is not a question that our legal system concerns itself with. It is wholly irrelevant outside of attempts to make an emotional argument.

Once again for the record, I don’t support or condone the capitol riot, but I’m not bleating about an non-existent insurrection either. I also don’t support or condone the other riots around the country for the last year or the one that’s getting ready to hit after the Chauvin verdict.

People’s views of these events are almost entirely determined by their politca alignment. The lack of any sort of logical consistency in approach to the events of the last year is boringly predictable pure partisan hackery.
Click to expand...

I mean the media was single sourcing first hand accounts.

Yea the pearl clutching is rich considering what happened in the summer. I will say that the Capital police weren’t as prepared for violence and were told to not act with force. Compare behavior displayed at BLM protests.

My couch question it there not to provide certainty. It illustrates the increased probability that something fatal is more likely to happen when encountering traumatic shocks to a persons system (pepper spray). It’s not murder, but is intent to cause harm.

Was using word like coup or armed insurrection justified? I see it as a matter of degree. All the actions that led up to that day were pointed at motivating people by lying to them, to stop an legitimate election.
 
jaycee said:
Ah OK. Was unaware of that. I didn't pay much attention to the event after that day/week. Is there any video of him being punched or kicked? or co-officer accounts?
Click to expand...

Dtknuckles said:
I mean the media was single sourcing first hand accounts.

Yea the pearl clutching is rich considering what happened in the summer. I will say that the Capital police weren’t as prepared for violence and were told to not act with force. Compare behavior displayed at BLM protests.

My couch question it there not to provide certainty. It illustrates the increased probability that something fatal is more likely to happen when encountering traumatic shocks to a persons system (pepper spray). It’s not murder, but is intent to cause harm.

Was using word like coup or armed insurrection justified? I see it as a matter of degree. All the actions that led up to that day were pointed at motivating people by lying to them, to stop an legitimate election.
Click to expand...
I’m sure there likely is as many officers engaged in physical altercations with rioters.

“Sicknick, 42, was sprayed with a chemical substance outside the Capitol at around 2:20 p.m. ET on Jan. 6, the report said.

He did not suffer an allergic reaction to the chemical irritants dispensed by rioters, Diaz told the Post, nor was there evidence of internal or external injuries.”

I’m not a doctor, but I think the odds of a physical strike causing a stroke without leaving any other sign of injury are pretty low.

I’m not saying the events of the day didn’t contribute, the ME says they did and any reasonable person would likely come to the same conclusion.

My point is that if you cannot show direct connection from action to outcome, there is no basis greater charges, or even to make the statement that ascribes blame for his death to the rioters.

Officer Sicknick’s death was unfortunate, and nothing will make that easier for his family, but saying he was murdered when he wasn’t doesn’t make it any easier on them either.
 
Indymisanthrope said:
I think it's possible to respect/accept the legal conclusion that the circumstances surrounding Sicknick's death do not rise to the standard of a prosecutable crime while still understanding that his death was almost certainly not unconnected to those events.

The whole thing exists in the gray space of post hoc ergo propter hoc -- we don't know whether/to what extent his death was a result of what happened to him that day, but the unusual nature of the double strokes in such extreme proximity to another very unusual event makes it impossible not to draw those connections for, as you say, any reasonable person.
Click to expand...

[/QUOTE]
I don’t think we really disagree that much on the facts, it’s just the surrounding language. After all, “the events of the day were likely a contributing factor in Officer Sicknick’s death from the double strokes” doesn’t pack quite the emotional punch as “Capitol Officer Sicknick was murdered/killed by rioters.”
 
Montana's governor signed two voter suppression bills into law yesterday. State democrats have already filed a lawsuit against both laws.

Of course republicans say these laws have nothing to do with voter suppression or making it harder to vote. They are all about voting security:rolleyes:

One bill eliminates same day voter registration.
The other bill enacted voter id.
 
I have a girl crush on Lina Khan.
  • Khan is a hero for critics of tech who want to see broader principles replace the "consumer welfare" standard of antitrust, under which harm from a company's monopolistic behavior is judged largely by whether consumer prices rise.
  • She served as a legal fellow in FTC commissioner Rohit Chopra's office in 2018. Chopra, President Biden's pick to chair the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau, has been an aggressive advocate for tough actions against tech companies.
  • Khan and Chopra wrote a paper last year arguing the FTC has the authority to craft new rules targeting anticompetitive practices, an idea gaining traction at the agency.
  • She went on to serve as majority counsel for the House Judiciary antitrust subcommittee, helping shape a sweeping report published after a year-long investigation.
  • In pre-hearing statements, Khan argues that the FTC must update how it assesses legal violations and unfair and deceptive conduct and should be given power to win monetary relief for victims of illegal activity.
  • The ascent of Lina Khan, tech antitrust icon
 
Earlier this week Apple announced and launched AirTags. AirTags are a lost item finder and their announcement have stirred up a lot of drama and controversy.

Tile, the maker of a similar product that has been on the market for a couple years cried foul play when Apple Entered the market. Tile also called Apple's entry into the market timely because just the next day Tile had an appointment to testify in front of the senate regarding their antitrust hearing. And tile spend their entire time talking about "Apple's unfair advantage" and how they "bullied" them around.

Basically, their issue with Apple being competition is Apple has the unfair advantage of also being in control of the phones and app store. "The platform advantage". With Apple entering this market they opened up the "Find My" API to third party developers with iOS 14 last fall to avoid any antitrust issues and allowing competitors like tile to have direct access to this feature on iPhones. However, Tile says they have been asking Apple for open this API up since the beginning of 2019 and Apple. Tile has also been asking for Apple to unlock NFC communication since 2019 so that third party developers could access this technology / chip in iPhones. Only ApplePay used NFC until the launch of AirTags. Apps were not granted access to this for security reasons, for example, many android apps were built by scammers that can steal anyones credit card info from the "tap to pay" NFC chip on the cards if they get within 2 feet of the card. With the launch of AirTags, apple is also opening up NFC to third party devs in May with strict review standards to make sure no app is built that can steal personal information.

Tile, however claims, Apple's delay in opening up their walled garden gave Apple the unfair advantage of making a superior device and release features before tile could because Apple's bullying delayed their development cycle.

And of course Amy Klobuchar, the senate's antitrust hearing leader ate it all up saying with very damning words "This is exactly the kind of behavior this committee is trying to uncover in this hearing".

Though, I feel like this is just crying about competition. Apple has done everything they can to open up their platform for third party developers to avoid a microsoft like class action lawsuit. All while doing it with the focus of their consumers privacy and security. But tile seems to be portraying an "Evil monopoly" picture.

Also, in other related drama, a lot of people don't understand how AirTags work and that they were built with privacy in mind. They are not meant to be used to track people or pets. And, in a industry first feature Apple designed them to notify you if you have an AirTag following you around that is not yours that has been away from its owner. It will pop up with a message on your iPhone or compatible smartphone alerting you and telling you how to disable it. Apple did not cover this in their keynote speech and spent the day yesterday doing damage control telling everyone about this privacy first feature after anti domestic violence groups sounded the alarm about stockers being able to track / track people.

Privacy first is a very good thing, but also means AirTags can't be used to find stolen items. They will alert the thief of their presence and tell them how to disable them to avoid potential abuse by stalkers. So there are a lot of people saying the AirTags are useless then.

But their main design is to help you find items you frequently lose. Like car keys. They are also designed to be attached to luggage so it's easier to find your bag at the baggage claim. They will alert you of when your bag is coming and how far away it is.
 
RenegadeMonster said:
Earlier this week Apple announced and launched AirTags. AirTags are a lost item finder and their announcement have stirred up a lot of drama and controversy.

Tile, the maker of a similar product that has been on the market for a couple years cried foul play when Apple Entered the market. Tile also called Apple's entry into the market timely because just the next day Tile had an appointment to testify in front of the senate regarding their antitrust hearing. And tile spend their entire time talking about "Apple's unfair advantage" and how they "bullied" them around.

Basically, their issue with Apple being competition is Apple has the unfair advantage of also being in control of the phones and app store. "The platform advantage". With Apple entering this market they opened up the "Find My" API to third party developers with iOS 14 last fall to avoid any antitrust issues and allowing competitors like tile to have direct access to this feature on iPhones. However, Tile says they have been asking Apple for open this API up since the beginning of 2019 and Apple. Tile has also been asking for Apple to unlock NFC communication since 2019 so that third party developers could access this technology / chip in iPhones. Only ApplePay used NFC until the launch of AirTags. Apps were not granted access to this for security reasons, for example, many android apps were built by scammers that can steal anyones credit card info from the "tap to pay" NFC chip on the cards if they get within 2 feet of the card. With the launch of AirTags, apple is also opening up NFC to third party devs in May with strict review standards to make sure no app is built that can steal personal information.

Tile, however claims, Apple's delay in opening up their walled garden gave Apple the unfair advantage of making a superior device and release features before tile could because Apple's bullying delayed their development cycle.

And of course Amy Klobuchar, the senate's antitrust hearing leader ate it all up saying with very damning words "This is exactly the kind of behavior this committee is trying to uncover in this hearing".

Though, I feel like this is just crying about competition. Apple has done everything they can to open up their platform for third party developers to avoid a microsoft like class action lawsuit. All while doing it with the focus of their consumers privacy and security. But tile seems to be portraying an "Evil monopoly" picture.

Also, in other related drama, a lot of people don't understand how AirTags work and that they were built with privacy in mind. They are not meant to be used to track people or pets. And, in a industry first feature Apple designed them to notify you if you have an AirTag following you around that is not yours that has been away from its owner. It will pop up with a message on your iPhone or compatible smartphone alerting you and telling you how to disable it. Apple did not cover this in their keynote speech and spent the day yesterday doing damage control telling everyone about this privacy first feature after anti domestic violence groups sounded the alarm about stockers being able to track / track people.

Privacy first is a very good thing, but also means AirTags can't be used to find stolen items. They will alert the thief of their presence and tell them how to disable them to avoid potential abuse by stalkers. So there are a lot of people saying the AirTags are useless then.

But their main design is to help you find items you frequently lose. Like car keys. They are also designed to be attached to luggage so it's easier to find your bag at the baggage claim. They will alert you of when your bag is coming and how far away it is.
Click to expand...
Kind of linked to this, I've just finished this article...

www.wired.com

The Cold War Over Hacking McDonald’s Ice Cream Machines

Secret codes. Legal threats. Betrayal. How one couple built a device to fix McDonald’s notoriously broken soft-serve machines—and how the fast-food giant froze them out.
www.wired.com www.wired.com
 
I just heard a story about how if you use online payment services like Cash App or Venmo and someone pays you, legally it needs to be reported as income and is taxable. This includes money people pay you back for things such as drinks or food.

While these payments are under the table, and almost everyone doesn't report them. If you ever get audited by the IRS they could come up to bite you in the ass.

You should set all your transactions to be private so that the IRS can not see them publicly.



What I don't get, is if someone is paying you back because one person covers the the tab, why is the money paid back to you supposed to be considered income?
 
RenegadeMonster said:
I just heard a story about how if you use online payment services like Cash App or Venmo and someone pays you, legally it needs to be reported as income and is taxable. This includes money people pay you back for things such as drinks or food.

While these payments are under the table, and almost everyone doesn't report them. If you ever get audited by the IRS they could come up to bite you in the ass.

You should set all your transactions to be private so that the IRS can not see them publicly.



What I don't get, is if someone is paying you back because one person covers the the tab, why is the money paid back to you supposed to be considered income?
Click to expand...
yeah and also what if I'm buying drugs


jk, move on copper
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top