BINGO we have a winner. I expect to see your face on TV as the voting rights poster child. We need voting laws to protect people like you from being denied the opportunity to vote. OOPS we already have a Federal law. 220 days without a day off violates the Federal Fair Labor Standards Act. So if you are telling the truth, you need a good lawyer to secure a tidy monetary settlement against your employer.....but you are not telling the truth so never mind.

Danforth. My response was about early voting hours and was completely accurate. But bringing up your mother in law again as an example.....yeah the one that was housebound, blind and unable to fully participate in society and take advantage of social services because you couldn't be bothered to help her get an ID.....she does not fit the description I gave because she was not a "poor person who had to choose between voting and going to work" was she? Or did she have a McDonaldspart time gig you didn't mention? Try again.

If you want to Segway to "what about reduced time to return a ballot" does it seriously take any person SIX MONTHS to get that accomplished? You are telling me 78 days to get a ballot to a mailbox is unreasonably restrictive? Faux outrage.

Danforth. My response was about early voting hours and was completely accurate. But bringing up your mother in law again as an example.....yeah the one that was housebound, blind and unable to fully participate in society and take advantage of social services because you couldn't be bothered to help her get an ID.....she does not fit the description I gave because she was not a "poor person who had to choose between voting and going to work" was she? Or did she have a McDonaldspart time gig you didn't mention? Try again.

If you want to Segway to "what about reduced time to return a ballot" does it seriously take any person SIX MONTHS to get that accomplished? You are telling me 78 days to get a ballot to a mailbox is unreasonably restrictive? Faux outrage.

"That's literally an attack on poor people who will find it more difficult to choose between being at work at voting"

Faux outrage based on misinformation. The new law EXPANDS early voting opportunities.

Old law allowed for just 1 Saturday from 9-4 , new law mandates 2 Saturdays 9-5 minimum, 7-7 optionally by county

Old law on weekdays specified "normal business hours", new law mandates 9-5 minimum, 7-7 optionally by county

Not to mention that Georgia law REQUIRES that employers give time off to vote. So find me a poor person who works 9-5, 22 days straight with no days off, for an employer who violates the law by refusing them time off to vote... in a county that doesn't do the 7-7 option or the Sunday option......oh, and who also has no birth certificate so can't get a picture ID to qualify for a mail in ballot. I'm betting investigative journalists are trying real hard to find a person like that to put on TV.

"Police are trained to get you to give up your rights, and to get you to say things which establish probable cause or reasonable suspicion for a search and an arrest. That's not serving the community. That's bullying.

In victimless crimes, most officers don't try that hard. They would rather you invoke your right to silence and shut the hell up so they can complete their paperwork and be done with you. If there is a victim, you are the bully and if the officer uses lawful interviewing techniques to get you to "give up your rights" and tell the truth like a man, I'm all for it. The end justifies the means when the child is protected from her rapist because an experienced detective convinced him to give a detailed confession.

Have I done bad? I'd like to believe not but that is not for me to judge. I took my oath seriously, followed the law and had good intentions. And no, I'm not just "one of the good ones" . The vast majority of officers I worked with were just like me. It's a crap job with high stress, long hours, and takes away your holidays, weekends and evenings. You get cursed at, threatened spat on, kicked, punched and exposed to pathogens. There is very little reward other than the good you can do in your community. If you don't love your community you don't last long.

It is clear from your comments that most of your knowledge about police work comes from TV and movies. Serpico was based on events that occurred in the 60's. Cops "rat each other out" all the time, they just don't call press conferences when they do so. Many complaints come from the inside, and yes, I have reported other officers misconduct. Nobody wants a bad cop gone more than the good cops he or she works with.

Most are taken off the streets but not fired immediately for various reasons, often strategic. Internal investigations generally don't commence until the criminal investigation is concluded, again for strategic reasons. Firing an officer immediately impedes the prosecution. You cannot compel a fired officer.read to answer questions or cooperate in an investigation.

In most cases police are called to do mental health interventions because the mentally il person is committing a crime, or at minimum, disturbing the peace, and somebody feels safety or property is threatened by said person and calls 911. Most mentally ill people are not dangerous, but many are, particularly among the minority of those who commit crimes or disturb the peace in other ways. Do you expect a dispatcher to make that determination over the phone and decide whether to send a police officer or social worker? Do you expect a social worker to go into the most dangerous neighborhood in town to intervene with a person likely to be armed or suffer8ng a psychotic episode?

It would be ideal to pair up a social worker with every police officer but that is not practical or sustainable in most areas. The majority of calls do NOT involve a mentallynill person, so the social workers time would be wasted. Quick response teams dedicated to those calls would not be geographically efficeient in a large area. The beat officer would still get there first. Training them officers for mental health intervention is the most practical option....and it works....most of the time.

Yes, I did enjoy it and I did shine. I knew the names and histories of every homeless or mentally ill person on my beat and they knew mine. I established a rapport and did a lot of good in my community for this vulnerable element of society, as have many offer officers before me and since.......the vast majority of us.

Never heard of "Killology" had to google it. I don't believe it is being routinely taught in police academies, more private sector seminar stuff.

So you think the classroom part of the police academy is the "entirety of the training" ? You are thoroughly clueless and have no idea what is involved in police training. Makeup your mind, Snoofy,. Is it ACAB? Or "we can fix this with more training". Day one of CIT training was enough to teach Hobbs to recognize that Ms. Garner was having a mental health episode, NOT actively resisting. The next five years of his career, interacting with mentally ill people EVERY SINGLE DAY as most officers do should have honed his skills. There is no excuse for him.

Of course, more training is always good, but most officers exceed the minimum training requirements. Many police departments (including mine) require a 4 year degree. Many have certified as hostage negotiators or EMT's Most have MORE training and experience dealing with the mentally ill than a typical "social worker" like you. How many credit hours did you complete in abnormal psychology? How many interventions with mentally ill, and intoxicated people do you involve yourself with on an average day.

Most police officers utilize this training and experience very well, as evidenced by the tens of millions police stops every year that end without incident. The very small minority end up on YouTube because of the gross incompetence of the officer involved. This is one of those, and it is one too many....but "more training" is not the magic pill that will fix it.

Personal experience, I worked for three different law enforcement agencies and got this sort of training starting about 25 years ago. Maybe Loveland doesn't teach that, (which would surprise me) or maybe Hobbs didn't pay attention. No excuse for that. Not gonna waste my time proving it to you Google it. Obviously you think police officers get no training concerning mental health and that is the solution. Those who believe this is the solution to the problem have misidentified both. Link?.

Personal experience, I worked for three different law enforcement agencies and got this sort of training starting about 25 years ago. Maybe Loveland doesn't teach that, (which would surprise me) or maybe Hobbs didn't pay attention. No excuse for that. Not gonna waste my time proving it to you Google it. Obviously you think police officers get no training concerning mental health and that is the solution. It is not. Link?.

I just flew coast to coast across the U.S. for the first time in years. I was in awe of the hundreds of thousands of acres of vacant land here, not to to mention the rest of the world. Several hours at a time at 500 mph without seeing a single sign of humanity. My daughter said, "well it's mostly non developable land" and I said,"yeah, but it's a lot more developable than Mars" I'm baffled at why we spend billions of dollars studying the absurd idea of settling Mars.

I just flew coast to coast across the U.S. for the first time in years. I was in awe of the hundreds of thousands of acres of vacant land here, not to to mention the rest of the world. Several hours at a time at 500 mph without seeing a single sign of humanity. My daughter said, "well it's mostly non developable land" and I said,"yeah, but it's a lot more developable than Mars" I'm baffled at why we spend billions of dollars studying the absurd idea of settling Mars.

If you watch the whole video, he mentions several times that she was frail, tiny, about 4'10", weighed about 20 lbs. he knew she was not a threat but couldn't stop himself from forcefully dominating and injuring her.

Most people think excessive use of force are due to police aggression. Based on my experience, It is more the result of a fearful officer (although it doesn't appear that way because one of the first skills officers learn is to hide their fear). in this case is was most definitely aggression and suppressed rage, and I'm betting it is about this useless piece of ----- mother.

Again, I am disgusted and appalled. There is no excuse for the way this officer handled this woman. He should have recognized her mental disability immediately and adjusted his response. Most police officers DO get extensive training for this. Either Loveland is sadly lacking In training programs of the officer is just a sociopath. I found his general manner disturbing. He clearly has unresolved mommy issues, much of his phrasing sounds like he is parroting things back that his overbearing mother said to him when he was a little kid. He should never have made it through the psych testing.

Most of you are presenting the narrative that the officer saw his hands up and then decided to shoot him anyway. My point is,that narrative is scientifically impossible. The officer's decision was made BEFORE his hands went up, before he ditched the gun. If you want to argue about whether the officer should have given him more time to comply, fine, that's open for discussion, but the argument that he was shot while unarmed with his hands is disingenuous if you know anything about reaction time.

Google perception reaction time. Yes, Adams hands were up when the bullet struck him. But they were not up 1 second earlier is when the officer decided to pull the trigger. At that moment, Adam had stopped running and was turning toward the officer with a gun in his hand. That is the stimuli the officer was reacting to when he decided to pull the trigger. If he had *normal* human perception reaction time, it would have taken a second or more for the message to transmit from his brain to his trigger finger. Once his hands were up, it was too late to reverse that decision. It would take another second to recognize he was no longer a threat and stop shooting, which is what happened.

Read the bill. I did. It's stupid. It is about COVID related crime, not specifically about Asian hate crime. The word Asian isn't even in the bill. Asian hate crime is a real problem, but it is already covered under other hate crime laws.

This is the kind of stupid, unnecessary law that both sides loves to push through for NO OTHER REASON than to demonize those who object to it. Works great because nobody ever reads past the headline.

Ah......two comments so far. The rest of you are anxiously awaiting the facts (race, ethnicity and political leanings of the shooter) so you can most appropriately insert identity politics.

I got news for you. It doesn't matter. Whoever did this is a mentally defective monster. Hopes and prayers won't fix it. Neither will new gun laws. Murder is already a capital felony. That didn't stop any mass shooter ever.

E1G1, it is not uncommon for drivers to wait to pull over until they reach a safe, well lit area. In fact, I have encouraged my daughters to do exactly that. That is not new advice and should not have alarmed the officer. As long as he didn't speed up, make several turns or take other evasive actions indicative of a fleeing suspect, that should not result in escalation from a missing tag to a felony stop. If other factors were present supporting a felony stop, by golly, at least do it RIGHT. Conflicting confusing commands are dangerous and I can't blame the alt. for being hesitant to move. The young officer was afraid, of both the driver and the other officer. The older offer was also afraid, and overcompensating with aggression. No excuse fir either of them. Poorly trained cowards. No excuse fir the department either.

Mad scientist, More often than not, I "back the blue". This is not one of those times. I don't know any police officers who would disagree with Gunslinger. There is NO excuse for the way these officers behaved. I am appalled, disgusted and embarrassed for the profession. These guys were incompetent cowards. It is equally appalling that they are still employed. I hope the Lieutenant wins his lawsuit.

I believe that a great deal of the partisan divide over getting vaccinated is exaggerated media myth, polarizing clickbait. You can get a telephone survey to come out any way you want. I'm in a very conservative area and everyone I know is getting vaccinated. It's a personal decision and when all is said and done its not going to split down party lines like they think.

My daughter is severely immunocompromised and takes medication that will likely nullify the vaccine. She is very vulnerable and dependent on herd immunity. I desperately want everyone to get vaccinated for her sake, but I also don't think it is ok to compel it at this point when all we have is an emergency approval based on short term trials. My daughters doctor recommended against it and is not getting herself vaccinated. She is a well respected expert (oncology) and her arguments were reasoned. She is waiting for other vaccines under development to come out. We did our own research and believe it is *probably* safe, but what if it turns out not be? We all decided to get vaccinated, including my daughter even though it probably won't be effective for her. I don't believe we can force that decision on others at this point in development.

"Except abortion doesn't kill people"
No point in us arguing about about whether a fetus is "people". If you like, I'll go with "abortion prevents certain people from being born" and the argument is the same. And those certain people are disproportionately Black. My point was that the argument that Republicans are racist allies with the Coronavirus because it kills more of the "right people" makesj about as much sense as saying Democrats are racist. allies with abortion because it prevents more of the "right people" from being born. Both arguments are divisive partisan nastiness.

"Apply this same logic to corporate bailouts and let me know what happens."
you are correct, we agree, imagine that.

"Couldn't you say the same thing about the Nazis?" I'm no expert, but i imagine that not all German soldiers were a party to war crimes, or even aware of the extermination of Jews. They didn't have Google to analyze the inner workings of Nazi party or CNN to tell them what was going on at Auschwitz. Many were young boys, raised on propoganda, followed orders and fired back at the people they believed were firing at them. I'm not referring to Ranking members of the Nazi party or those engaging in known war crimes. They should not ehonored in any way and I think history has done a good job of sorting out the difference.

"Or the idiots of 1/6/21?" I don't see any equivalency here, but no. There is no excuse for anyone who attacked any officer or person or entered the Capitol through broken doors and windows. They knew exactly what they were doing. Different times, different rules.