Search results

Did you read the bill? It deals solely with communicable diseases.

Have you missed that being Jewish isn't a political belief?

I think you are reading way too much into this. When have political beliefs been considered a communicable disease? The bill specifically states its intent And just so you know this is pretty dang close to what Maryland already authorizes, namely the isolation and quarantine during a public...

Dude, you are married to Kyle!!!!!!!!

So you got nothing. Figures! Why no charges, you ask? I didn't know the investigation was complete, link please? And asking what threat authorized the employment of deadly force certainly isn't vilifying. Vilifying is what you are doing to Ms. Babbitt.

A bad hair day over and over.

And exactly what was the threat that authorized their use of deadly force?

Happy birthday, hope you have many more!

Pointing out that the "Use of Force" doctrine seems to have not been followed by the officer that shot and killed Babbitt and identifying you as a stupid liar.

And you truly are stupid and a liar as I have done no such thing. And once more, where are these excuses you say are being made. Put up or shut up!

Are you stoned or just stupid? I do not recall talking about the dead cop at all, show me where I justified it. And where are those excuses?

Vilify? Where is that happening? And again, where are the excuses you spoke of?

Where are these "excuses" you speak of?

Well, as to a grand jury, don't they only get what the prosecutor wants them to get? And the officer could still be fired, demoted, sued. It isn't only a criminal issue.

What use of force doctrine am I obliged to follow? Not to mention that I now live in a castle doctrine state that includes my right to protect not only myself and others, but my property.

Ah, no. My view is that the officer that FIRED his weapon killing a woman was not under imminent threat of death or serious bodily harm. Thusly he should face consequences for unauthorized use of deadly force.

Joe thinks that "united" means the opposition is linked with chains and his overlords/constituents hold the whips.

Sure it is, as evidenced by your comment Note that there is nothing about imminent threat of death or serious injury only that she was somewhere she wasn't allowed to be.

Well I'm no scientist, but when you have foreign crap injected into your body you can expect that your body will have some form of reaction to it.

Probable cause? The doctrine calls for a "reasonable belief" upon the user of deadly force as to if the threat was imminent. Under your view it seems that any and every officer in close proximity to a protestor could have "legally" shot all of them.