packgrad said:

---

If they get rid of qualified immunity, that is exactly what will happen moving forward.

---

The supreme court has held that the police do not have a duty to protect anyone not in their custody.

IseWolf22 said:

---

packgrad said:

---

If they get rid of qualified immunity, that is exactly what will happen moving forward.

---

The supreme court has held that the police do not have a duty to protect anyone not in their custody.

---

Lol. If that's the law enforcement you want. That won't stop them from having to deal with the lawsuits though.

packgrad said:

---

IseWolf22 said:

---

packgrad said:

---

If they get rid of qualified immunity, that is exactly what will happen moving forward.

---

The supreme court has held that the police do not have a duty to protect anyone not in their custody.

---

Lol. If that's the law enforcement you want. That won't stop them from having to deal with the lawsuits though.

---

It's the current state

IseWolf22 said:

---

packgrad said:

---

IseWolf22 said:

---

packgrad said:

---

If they get rid of qualified immunity, that is exactly what will happen moving forward.

---

The supreme court has held that the police do not have a duty to protect anyone not in their custody.

---

Lol. If that's the law enforcement you want. That won't stop them from having to deal with the lawsuits though.

---

It's the current state

---

And he helped. Did the Supreme Court say they have a duty not to protect anyone not in their custody? What is your point?

IseWolf22 said:

---

pineknollshoresking said:

---

Where are the people like this? Civ, Isle, Hokie...

Dean Alfange, a progressive and labor activist, wrote the following 163 words as first published in Reader's Digest in 1952:

"I do not choose to be a common man. It is my right to be uncommon. I seek to develop whatever talents God gave menot security. I do not wish to be a kept citizen, humbled and dulled by having the state look after me. I want to take the calculated risk; to dream and to build, to fail and to succeed. I refuse to barter incentive for a dole. I prefer the challenges of life to the guaranteed existence; the thrill of fulfillment to the stale calm of utopia. I will not trade freedom for beneficence nor my dignity for a handout. I will never cower before any earthly master nor bend to any threat. It is my heritage to stand erect, proud and unafraid; to think and act myself, enjoy the benefit of my creations and to face the world boldly and say 'This, with God's help, I have done.' All this is what it means to be an American."

---

I'm not sure why you think this applies to me. On the vast majority of issues I'm for little to no intervention from the state. The things we generally argue about are areas where conservatives want more state power and not less. I'd argue I'm one of the biggest proponents of small government on this board.

---

What areas do you have a smaller government mindset than other outspoken people on here?

packgrad said:

---

IseWolf22 said:

---

packgrad said:

---

IseWolf22 said:

---

packgrad said:

---

If they get rid of qualified immunity, that is exactly what will happen moving forward.

---

The supreme court has held that the police do not have a duty to protect anyone not in their custody.

---

Lol. If that's the law enforcement you want. That won't stop them from having to deal with the lawsuits though.

---

It's the current state

---

And he helped. Did the Supreme Court say they have a duty not to protect anyone not in their custody? What is your point?

---

You mentioned that repeal of QI would lead to cops not intervening. My point was that simply that they already have no obligation to protect you (one of the biggest reasons I'm pro 2A btw).
I doubt that repeal of QI would have any measurable effect on police responding to crime. It would likely lead to liability insurance being carried by the department, union, etc.

pineknollshoresking said:

---

IseWolf22 said:

---

pineknollshoresking said:

---

Where are the people like this? Civ, Isle, Hokie...

Dean Alfange, a progressive and labor activist, wrote the following 163 words as first published in Reader's Digest in 1952:

"I do not choose to be a common man. It is my right to be uncommon. I seek to develop whatever talents God gave menot security. I do not wish to be a kept citizen, humbled and dulled by having the state look after me. I want to take the calculated risk; to dream and to build, to fail and to succeed. I refuse to barter incentive for a dole. I prefer the challenges of life to the guaranteed existence; the thrill of fulfillment to the stale calm of utopia. I will not trade freedom for beneficence nor my dignity for a handout. I will never cower before any earthly master nor bend to any threat. It is my heritage to stand erect, proud and unafraid; to think and act myself, enjoy the benefit of my creations and to face the world boldly and say 'This, with God's help, I have done.' All this is what it means to be an American."

---

I'm not sure why you think this applies to me. On the vast majority of issues I'm for little to no intervention from the state. The things we generally argue about are areas where conservatives want more state power and not less. I'd argue I'm one of the biggest proponents of small government on this board.

---

What areas do you have a smaller government mindset than other outspoken people on here?

---

Military spending, war on drugs, immigration, police reform, free trade, pro section 230, etc.

IseWolf22 said:

---

packgrad said:

---

IseWolf22 said:

---

packgrad said:

---

IseWolf22 said:

---

packgrad said:

---

If they get rid of qualified immunity, that is exactly what will happen moving forward.

---

The supreme court has held that the police do not have a duty to protect anyone not in their custody.

---

Lol. If that's the law enforcement you want. That won't stop them from having to deal with the lawsuits though.

---

It's the current state

---

And he helped. Did the Supreme Court say they have a duty not to protect anyone not in their custody? What is your point?

---

You mentioned that repeal of QI would lead to cops not intervening. My point was that simply that they already have no obligation to protect you (one of the biggest reasons I'm pro 2A btw).
I doubt that repeal of QI would have any measurable effect on police responding to crime. It would likely lead to liability insurance being carried by the department, union, etc.

---

My point was that they will be less likely to protect without QI. I doubt the insurance carried by the department, union, etc will improve that likelihood.

packgrad said:

---

IseWolf22 said:

---

packgrad said:

---

IseWolf22 said:

---

packgrad said:

---

IseWolf22 said:

---

packgrad said:

---

If they get rid of qualified immunity, that is exactly what will happen moving forward.

---

The supreme court has held that the police do not have a duty to protect anyone not in their custody.

---

Lol. If that's the law enforcement you want. That won't stop them from having to deal with the lawsuits though.

---

It's the current state

---

And he helped. Did the Supreme Court say they have a duty not to protect anyone not in their custody? What is your point?

---

You mentioned that repeal of QI would lead to cops not intervening. My point was that simply that they already have no obligation to protect you (one of the biggest reasons I'm pro 2A btw).
I doubt that repeal of QI would have any measurable effect on police responding to crime. It would likely lead to liability insurance being carried by the department, union, etc.

---

My point was that they will be less likely to protect without QI. I doubt the insurance carried by the department, union, etc will improve that likelihood.

---

Agree to disagree.

FYI, Tim Scott is supposedly proposing a compromise where QI would be largely repealed, but the liability would be assessed against the Police dept and not the individual officer.

IseWolf22 said:

---

packgrad said:

---

IseWolf22 said:

---

packgrad said:

---

IseWolf22 said:

---

packgrad said:

---

IseWolf22 said:

---

packgrad said:

---

If they get rid of qualified immunity, that is exactly what will happen moving forward.

---

The supreme court has held that the police do not have a duty to protect anyone not in their custody.

---

Lol. If that's the law enforcement you want. That won't stop them from having to deal with the lawsuits though.

---

It's the current state

---

And he helped. Did the Supreme Court say they have a duty not to protect anyone not in their custody? What is your point?

---

You mentioned that repeal of QI would lead to cops not intervening. My point was that simply that they already have no obligation to protect you (one of the biggest reasons I'm pro 2A btw).
I doubt that repeal of QI would have any measurable effect on police responding to crime. It would likely lead to liability insurance being carried by the department, union, etc.

---

My point was that they will be less likely to protect without QI. I doubt the insurance carried by the department, union, etc will improve that likelihood.

---

Agree to disagree.

FYI, Tim Scott is supposedly proposing a compromise where QI would be largely repealed, but the liability would be assessed against the Police dept and not the individual officer.

---

I saw that too.

Said that over 99% of payouts in settlements and civil suits currently come from departments and municipalities rather than individuals anyway.

https://reason.com/2021/04/22/tim-scott-is-proposing-a-major-reform-to-qualified-immunity/

Won't happen. Democrats want blood. They want individual officers held accountable. Which is also why there will be less people wanting to be police officers and why less police officers will help if QI is eliminated.

packgrad said:

---

Won't happen. Democrats want blood. They want individual officers held accountable. Which is also why there will be less people wanting to be police officers and why less police officers will help if QI is eliminated.

---

I think we are going to end up with street justice at some point in the near future.

We aren't going to have enough cops to police communities which means that you are going to get more crime. Since there is no one to protect the citizens from increased crime people who would of been victims are going to start lashing out at the criminals. Death rates are going to increase a whole lot more than deaths caused by police officers. If you don't believe me just look in places like Baltimore when the police decided that they weren't going to be responsive to calls after the Freddy Gray thing a few years ago.

Sad thing is that your going to get a whole lot more black deaths because the majority of people who commit violent crimes are African American.

You can take me for instance....I carry daily. If I see something going on that is unlawful and a detriment to me and I know that the police aren't going to respond I'm going to be a lot quicker in protecting myself of my property. After all...no police...no law enforcement...

packgrad said:

---

Which is also why there will be less people wanting to be police officers and why less police officers will help if QI is eliminated.

---

Maybe.

Or maybe it just better aligns the interests of American citizens, cops, and municipalities.

Cities move more quickly to fire repeat offender police officers that have recurrent discipline problems so as to reduce their risk of paying out settlements.

Police forces screen their incoming cops more thoroughly.

Departments ramp up de-escalation training and explore other training methods to reduce the use of lethal force.

And most importantly, even if subconsciously, individual cops aren't quite so quick to use lethal force unless it is fully justified and there is no alternative.

Early in my engineering career and around the time I was sitting for my PE I had a mentor tell me only half-jokingly "Once you start signing and sealing drawings, at every turn you need to ask yourself how you'd explain what you just did to a judge."

He was only half-kidding. When it's your career/license/ass on the line personally it makes you a little more deliberate and diligent to make sure that what you're doing is justifiable. That's not a bad thing especially when you're responsible for enacting sometimes lethal force against your fellow citizens.

IseWolf22 said:

---

pineknollshoresking said:

---

IseWolf22 said:

---

pineknollshoresking said:

---

Where are the people like this? Civ, Isle, Hokie...

Dean Alfange, a progressive and labor activist, wrote the following 163 words as first published in Reader's Digest in 1952:

"I do not choose to be a common man. It is my right to be uncommon. I seek to develop whatever talents God gave menot security. I do not wish to be a kept citizen, humbled and dulled by having the state look after me. I want to take the calculated risk; to dream and to build, to fail and to succeed. I refuse to barter incentive for a dole. I prefer the challenges of life to the guaranteed existence; the thrill of fulfillment to the stale calm of utopia. I will not trade freedom for beneficence nor my dignity for a handout. I will never cower before any earthly master nor bend to any threat. It is my heritage to stand erect, proud and unafraid; to think and act myself, enjoy the benefit of my creations and to face the world boldly and say 'This, with God's help, I have done.' All this is what it means to be an American."

---

I'm not sure why you think this applies to me. On the vast majority of issues I'm for little to no intervention from the state. The things we generally argue about are areas where conservatives want more state power and not less. I'd argue I'm one of the biggest proponents of small government on this board.

---

What areas do you have a smaller government mindset than other outspoken people on here?

---

Military spending, war on drugs, immigration, police reform, free trade, pro section 230, etc.

---

elaborate on each...

packgrad said:

---

On what basis are you saying they are "so quick" to use lethal force? Sounds like another liberal talking point. Why shouldn't there have been more lethal shootings? Comparing the decisions a PE makes when doing drawings to those a police officer has to make on a daily basis emphasizes the baseline you're coming from. It's hilarious that you think your career, license, ass is more on the line for decision making than a police officer.

---

You just made my point for me.

My decisions as an engineer don't as frequently have the capacity to do harm and yet still I was advised to view decisions through a consciously deliberate lens out of an abundance of caution.

Did Chauvin have the look of a man that was considering how defensible his actions would be in front of a judge or jury?

If he had used that level of discretion would George Floyd still be alive?

The whole idea behind de-escalation training is to minimize cavalier approaches to using lethal force, and to engage in potentially lethal situations more cautiously.

Civilized said:

---

packgrad said:

---

On what basis are you saying they are "so quick" to use lethal force? Sounds like another liberal talking point. Why shouldn't there have been more lethal shootings? Comparing the decisions a PE makes when doing drawings to those a police officer has to make on a daily basis emphasizes the baseline you're coming from. It's hilarious that you think your career, license, ass is more on the line for decision making than a police officer.

---

You just made my point for me.

My decisions as an engineer don't as frequently have the capacity to do harm and yet still I was advised to view decisions through a consciously deliberate lens out of an abundance of caution.

Did Chauvin have the look of a man that was considering how defensible his actions would be in front of a judge or jury?

If he had used that level of discretion would George Floyd still be alive?

The whole idea behind de-escalation training is to minimize cavalier approaches to using lethal force, and to engage in potentially lethal situations more cautiously.

---

Civ, I think most, if not all, on this board, believe Chauvin did "NOT" use good judgement. Let's put that one to bed as a jury found him guilty.

Now, apply your thinking, and really packgrad's point, to the Officer that killed the young girl with a knife...

packgrad said:

---

Won't happen. Democrats want blood. They want individual officers held accountable. Which is also why there will be less people wanting to be police officers and why less police officers will help if QI is eliminated.

---

I don't think that's possible. They can't ban liability insurance. I can guarantee that a repeal of QI will lead to insurance companies trying to sell plans to cops. To get more customers, they will try to sell directly to departments and/or unions.

IseWolf22 said:

---

packgrad said:

---

Won't happen. Democrats want blood. They want individual officers held accountable. Which is also why there will be less people wanting to be police officers and why less police officers will help if QI is eliminated.

---

I don't think that's possible. They can't ban liability insurance. I can guarantee that a repeal of QI will lead to insurance companies trying to sell plans to cops. To get more customers, they will try to sell directly to departments and/or unions.

---

I don't think that they will. Insurance companies are in it to make money just like everyone else. When you get rid of qualified immunity cops are going to get sued for looking at someone funny. You have a portion of society that think we should have no cops at all and aren't going to mind suing every single cop if it means that cops stop being cops

IseWolf22 said:

---

packgrad said:

---

Won't happen. Democrats want blood. They want individual officers held accountable. Which is also why there will be less people wanting to be police officers and why less police officers will help if QI is eliminated.

---

I don't think that's possible. They can't ban liability insurance. I can guarantee that a repeal of QI will lead to insurance companies trying to sell plans to cops. To get more customers, they will try to sell directly to departments and/or unions.

---

What's not possible? Police departments are already having a tough time filling positions. You think eliminating QI is going to help that issue? You think that more police officers are going to be willing to help because they have liability insurance taken out of their check every month that pays up to a certain limit (which we can expect will not be enough once lawyers see where insurance companies start). Think we can also assume the officers' monthly rates will probably go up based on how many claims are filed against the officer, frivolous or not. Sounds like it would be great for insurance companies though. Do you work in insurance?

pineknollshoresking said:

---

IseWolf22 said:

---

pineknollshoresking said:

---

IseWolf22 said:

---

pineknollshoresking said:

---

Where are the people like this? Civ, Isle, Hokie...

Dean Alfange, a progressive and labor activist, wrote the following 163 words as first published in Reader's Digest in 1952:

"I do not choose to be a common man. It is my right to be uncommon. I seek to develop whatever talents God gave menot security. I do not wish to be a kept citizen, humbled and dulled by having the state look after me. I want to take the calculated risk; to dream and to build, to fail and to succeed. I refuse to barter incentive for a dole. I prefer the challenges of life to the guaranteed existence; the thrill of fulfillment to the stale calm of utopia. I will not trade freedom for beneficence nor my dignity for a handout. I will never cower before any earthly master nor bend to any threat. It is my heritage to stand erect, proud and unafraid; to think and act myself, enjoy the benefit of my creations and to face the world boldly and say 'This, with God's help, I have done.' All this is what it means to be an American."

---

I'm not sure why you think this applies to me. On the vast majority of issues I'm for little to no intervention from the state. The things we generally argue about are areas where conservatives want more state power and not less. I'd argue I'm one of the biggest proponents of small government on this board.

---

What areas do you have a smaller government mindset than other outspoken people on here?

---

Military spending, war on drugs, immigration, police reform, free trade, pro section 230, etc.

---

elaborate on each...

---

To preface this, you may think these positions are wrong, and that's OK, but I think they still qualify as more "small government" than the standard conservative position today.

Military spending - Cut it. Less troops abroad. Higher standards for intervention. Spend less on defense contractors.
War on Drugs - the government shouldn't care what you put in your body. I am the ultimate authority on my own body. Decriminalize substance abuse and you cut down on enforcement costs and incarceration
Immigration - Make it easy to enter the country legally. A wall is a massive government project. Spend less on ICE
Police reform - police are literally the Government's armed enforcement of laws. The loss of life and liberty by the state needs to be viewed with extreme scrutiny
Free trade - voluntary exchanges of goods and services make both parties more wealthy. It doesn't matter of the other county has tariffs, tariffs are just a tax on your own population and drives up the cost of goods
Section 230 - I dont want the government policing speech on a privately owned platform, no matter how much I disagree with their moderation decisions

packgrad said:

---

IseWolf22 said:

---

packgrad said:

---

Won't happen. Democrats want blood. They want individual officers held accountable. Which is also why there will be less people wanting to be police officers and why less police officers will help if QI is eliminated.

---

I don't think that's possible. They can't ban liability insurance. I can guarantee that a repeal of QI will lead to insurance companies trying to sell plans to cops. To get more customers, they will try to sell directly to departments and/or unions.

---

What's not possible? Police departments are already having a tough time filling positions. You think eliminating QI is going to help that issue? You think that more police officers are going to be willing to help because they have liability insurance taken out of their check every month that pays up to a certain limit (which we can expect will not be enough once lawyers see where insurance companies start). Think we can also assume the officers' monthly rates will probably go up based on how many claims are filed against the officer, frivolous or not. Sounds like it would be great for insurance companies though. Do you work in insurance?

---

Holding "individual officers" financially responsible. The natural market progression is to group plans with rates primarily driven at the dept or prevent level.

I do work in insurance, but exclusively on the software side. Nothing related to liability insurance though

IseWolf22 said:

---

packgrad said:

---

Won't happen. Democrats want blood. They want individual officers held accountable. Which is also why there will be less people wanting to be police officers and why less police officers will help if QI is eliminated.

---

I don't think that's possible. They can't ban liability insurance. I can guarantee that a repeal of QI will lead to insurance companies trying to sell plans to cops. To get more customers, they will try to sell directly to departments and/or unions.

---

This would be just like the medical model. Medical providers must carry malpractice insurance, usually paid by your hiring company or the hospital system you work for. We have lives in our hands every day, so more similar to a cop's day-to-day dealings. Before it is said, yes, I know, no one is trying to hurt me in my day-to-day practice like a cop, but there are similarities.

When a patient sues a provider after a bad outcome, it almost never goes to court. Malpractice companies will always tell you up front, we will settle with the patient, because in court, the provider will almost always lose no matter if the outcome was really their fault or not. This would be similar to the cop situation as well.

I don't know of any other jobs that have something like qualified immunity. If you make a mistake, even in a high stress job, you (or your hiring body/hospital system/police force) needs to be held accountable. All other jobs are built that way.

Take a neurosurgeon for example. They get sued multiple times per year on average, because one wrong move and people are paralyzed or dead. Just part of the job. They have malpractice insurance to cover those cases, but if it continues to happen, then they are let go and stripped of their license. I think this would be a good goal for reform. The Scott-sponsored bill has some good points to it.

Surgeons pay between $30,000 and $50,000 per year in malpractice insurance.

https://howmuch.net/costs/medical-malpractice-insurance

IseWolf22 said:

---

pineknollshoresking said:

---

IseWolf22 said:

---

pineknollshoresking said:

---

IseWolf22 said:

---

pineknollshoresking said:

---

Where are the people like this? Civ, Isle, Hokie...

Dean Alfange, a progressive and labor activist, wrote the following 163 words as first published in Reader's Digest in 1952:

"I do not choose to be a common man. It is my right to be uncommon. I seek to develop whatever talents God gave menot security. I do not wish to be a kept citizen, humbled and dulled by having the state look after me. I want to take the calculated risk; to dream and to build, to fail and to succeed. I refuse to barter incentive for a dole. I prefer the challenges of life to the guaranteed existence; the thrill of fulfillment to the stale calm of utopia. I will not trade freedom for beneficence nor my dignity for a handout. I will never cower before any earthly master nor bend to any threat. It is my heritage to stand erect, proud and unafraid; to think and act myself, enjoy the benefit of my creations and to face the world boldly and say 'This, with God's help, I have done.' All this is what it means to be an American."

---

I'm not sure why you think this applies to me. On the vast majority of issues I'm for little to no intervention from the state. The things we generally argue about are areas where conservatives want more state power and not less. I'd argue I'm one of the biggest proponents of small government on this board.

---

What areas do you have a smaller government mindset than other outspoken people on here?

---

Military spending, war on drugs, immigration, police reform, free trade, pro section 230, etc.

---

elaborate on each...

---

To preface this, you may think these positions are wrong, and that's OK, but I think they still qualify as more "small government" than the standard conservative position today.

Military spending - Cut it. Less troops abroad. Higher standards for intervention. Spend less on defense contractors.
War on Drugs - the government shouldn't care what you put in your body. I am the ultimate authority on my own body. Decriminalize substance abuse and you cut down on enforcement costs and incarceration
Immigration - Make it easy to enter the country legally. A wall is a massive government project. Spend less on ICE
Police reform - police are literally the Government's armed enforcement of laws. The loss of life and liberty by the state needs to be viewed with extreme scrutiny
Free trade - voluntary exchanges of goods and services make both parties more wealthy. It doesn't matter of the other county has tariffs, tariffs are just a tax on your own population and drives up the cost of goods
Section 230 - I dont want the government policing speech on a privately owned platform, no matter how much I disagree with their moderation decisions

---

Actually, I respect your points. I think those words would come out of my mouth as well.

Military Spending - I completely agree; however, I'm not sure that is where the real money is. Being in the Military is like being a tenured teacher when it comes to benefits. I'm not sure what to do there...

War on Drugs - the problem we have here is our health system. If we can get the government 100% out of healthcare, then I can support your view 100%

Immigration - I agree, make it easier for legal immigration; however, stop illegal immigration. To me, both are American workers killers.

Police reform - on the surface, it's easy to want to do reforms, based on today's rhetoric; however, the system has been co-opted by woke local public figures that it's hard to figure where to start.

Free trade - that one bothers me. I agree with the premise; however, what China (the CCP) has done to us is extremely scary. I say done to us; however, we had willing participants. In fact, they are wanting to move the world currency standard to something like a crypto currency. If that happens, the US could, and probably will, see a dire future.

Section 230 - I get what you are saying... let me ask this? Do you think companies, like Google, are too big? Too much control? What do you do when a company like DuckDuckGo, Google, Bing, etc.. intentionally suppresses results of indexed sites they don't agree with.

packgrad said:

---

Surgeons pay between $30,000 and $50,000 per year in malpractice insurance.

https://howmuch.net/costs/medical-malpractice-insurance

---

Yes, and it is typically covered by the employer or hiring agency - not paid by the surgeon directly. I am just saying that IF that is the way they go, this is a real life example of that working well. The individual is not held responsible (unless reoccurring or something completely their fault). It protects the provider from useless lawsuits, but also every move you make and every document you sign, you have to consider that your medical license and career are on the line.

ETA: I actually think increasing funding to departments for increased salaries of officers and better training is needed. This could be a part of that as well, if Senator Scott's bill is passed.

pineknollshoresking said:

---

One juror's comment...

"I just had a fascinating sit-down interview with one of the alternate jurors in the Derek Chauvin trial," Kare 11 reporter Lou Raguse wrote. "Lisa Christensen was the juror who lived in Brooklyn Center. One night she could hardly make it home after testimony ended because of protesters blocking intersections."

"I did not want to go through rioting and destruction again and I was concerned about people coming to my house if they were not happy with the verdict."

---

Verdict will be overturned. He will be tried again. The judge was also Senator Klobachar's campaign chair. So much wrong with how the case was handled.

pineknollshoresking said:

---

One juror's comment...

"I just had a fascinating sit-down interview with one of the alternate jurors in the Derek Chauvin trial," Kare 11 reporter Lou Raguse wrote. "Lisa Christensen was the juror who lived in Brooklyn Center. One night she could hardly make it home after testimony ended because of protesters blocking intersections."

"I did not want to go through rioting and destruction again and I was concerned about people coming to my house if they were not happy with the verdict."

---

Jeez. That kinda harkens back to the old south days where a white man would never have been found guilty in a crime against a black man, because the jurors would have been concerned the kkk or other group of hate mongers would have sought vengeance. Just the script has flipped now, at least in this juror's mind

Packchem91 said:

---

pineknollshoresking said:

---

One juror's comment...

"I just had a fascinating sit-down interview with one of the alternate jurors in the Derek Chauvin trial," Kare 11 reporter Lou Raguse wrote. "Lisa Christensen was the juror who lived in Brooklyn Center. One night she could hardly make it home after testimony ended because of protesters blocking intersections."

"I did not want to go through rioting and destruction again and I was concerned about people coming to my house if they were not happy with the verdict."

---

Jeez. That kinda harkens back to the old south days where a white man would never have been found guilty in a crime against a black man, because the jurors would have been concerned the kkk or other group of hate mongers would have sought vengeance. Just the script has flipped now, at least in this juror's mind

---

And it is being encouraged, again, by Democrat officials.

pineknollshoresking said:

---

IseWolf22 said:

---

pineknollshoresking said:

---

IseWolf22 said:

---

pineknollshoresking said:

---

IseWolf22 said:

---

pineknollshoresking said:

---

Where are the people like this? Civ, Isle, Hokie...

Dean Alfange, a progressive and labor activist, wrote the following 163 words as first published in Reader's Digest in 1952:

"I do not choose to be a common man. It is my right to be uncommon. I seek to develop whatever talents God gave menot security. I do not wish to be a kept citizen, humbled and dulled by having the state look after me. I want to take the calculated risk; to dream and to build, to fail and to succeed. I refuse to barter incentive for a dole. I prefer the challenges of life to the guaranteed existence; the thrill of fulfillment to the stale calm of utopia. I will not trade freedom for beneficence nor my dignity for a handout. I will never cower before any earthly master nor bend to any threat. It is my heritage to stand erect, proud and unafraid; to think and act myself, enjoy the benefit of my creations and to face the world boldly and say 'This, with God's help, I have done.' All this is what it means to be an American."

---

I'm not sure why you think this applies to me. On the vast majority of issues I'm for little to no intervention from the state. The things we generally argue about are areas where conservatives want more state power and not less. I'd argue I'm one of the biggest proponents of small government on this board.

---

What areas do you have a smaller government mindset than other outspoken people on here?

---

Military spending, war on drugs, immigration, police reform, free trade, pro section 230, etc.

---

elaborate on each...

---

To preface this, you may think these positions are wrong, and that's OK, but I think they still qualify as more "small government" than the standard conservative position today.

Military spending - Cut it. Less troops abroad. Higher standards for intervention. Spend less on defense contractors.
War on Drugs - the government shouldn't care what you put in your body. I am the ultimate authority on my own body. Decriminalize substance abuse and you cut down on enforcement costs and incarceration
Immigration - Make it easy to enter the country legally. A wall is a massive government project. Spend less on ICE
Police reform - police are literally the Government's armed enforcement of laws. The loss of life and liberty by the state needs to be viewed with extreme scrutiny
Free trade - voluntary exchanges of goods and services make both parties more wealthy. It doesn't matter of the other county has tariffs, tariffs are just a tax on your own population and drives up the cost of goods
Section 230 - I dont want the government policing speech on a privately owned platform, no matter how much I disagree with their moderation decisions

---

Actually, I respect your points. I think those words would come out of my mouth as well.

Military Spending - I completely agree; however, I'm not sure that is where the real money is. Being in the Military is like being a tenured teacher when it comes to benefits. I'm not sure what to do there...

War on Drugs - the problem we have here is our health system. If we can get the government 100% out of healthcare, then I can support your view 100%

Immigration - I agree, make it easier for legal immigration; however, stop illegal immigration. To me, both are American workers killers.

Police reform - on the surface, it's easy to want to do reforms, based on today's rhetoric; however, the system has been co-opted by woke local public figures that it's hard to figure where to start.

Free trade - that one bothers me. I agree with the premise; however, what China (the CCP) has done to us is extremely scary. I say done to us; however, we had willing participants. In fact, they are wanting to move the world currency standard to something like a crypto currency. If that happens, the US could, and probably will, see a dire future.

Section 230 - I get what you are saying... let me ask this? Do you think companies, like Google, are too big? Too much control? What do you do when a company like DuckDuckGo, Google, Bing, etc.. intentionally suppresses results of indexed sites they don't agree with.

---

Military - It's ~15% of the total federal budget, ~50% of discretionary spending. The real expense is not solider salaries and benefits, it's defense contractors. A single Tomahawk missile is $1 million. We spend about as much as the next 10 countries combined. We subsidize defense for the rest of the world.

War on Drugs - The healthcare expenses from drug use are much smaller than the what we spend to incarcerate drug users and fight trafficking. I'd also argue that the drug war drives up prices, benefiting the cartels south of us and destabilizes those countries, driving more migrants to the US.

Immigration - I don't think you can really stop illegal immigration. Visa overstays don't get the press of the southern border, but many years they outnumber border crossings. And I don't think you can deport everyone already here. I'd rather have all of them legal and working.

Police reform - I agree it's been tainted by the current state of discourse. However there are many race neutral reforms we could pursue. You've said that you like John Stossel, you could start with his views on police reform

Trade - This is an entire thread in itself. But to boil it down, I don't think a bad outcome is possible when two entities willingly exchange money for goods. Consumer surplus is created and total wealth increases.

230 - I do think big tech is too big, but that's only because we all still use their services. There are literally 100s of social media sites. People can and should abandon the big players if they are acting badly. Let the market decide. I do have some sympathy for the idea that we should allow free speech on platforms, but I've yet to see a single proposal that get's us there without unintended consequences. I try to view new laws with the assumption that at some point, my worst enemy will be in charge. In that scenario I have yet to see something better than the status quo, which is to allow platforms to moderate themselves as they see fit

IseWolf22 said:

---

pineknollshoresking said:

---

IseWolf22 said:

---

pineknollshoresking said:

---

IseWolf22 said:

---

pineknollshoresking said:

---

IseWolf22 said:

---

pineknollshoresking said:

---

Where are the people like this? Civ, Isle, Hokie...

Dean Alfange, a progressive and labor activist, wrote the following 163 words as first published in Reader's Digest in 1952:

"I do not choose to be a common man. It is my right to be uncommon. I seek to develop whatever talents God gave menot security. I do not wish to be a kept citizen, humbled and dulled by having the state look after me. I want to take the calculated risk; to dream and to build, to fail and to succeed. I refuse to barter incentive for a dole. I prefer the challenges of life to the guaranteed existence; the thrill of fulfillment to the stale calm of utopia. I will not trade freedom for beneficence nor my dignity for a handout. I will never cower before any earthly master nor bend to any threat. It is my heritage to stand erect, proud and unafraid; to think and act myself, enjoy the benefit of my creations and to face the world boldly and say 'This, with God's help, I have done.' All this is what it means to be an American."

---

I'm not sure why you think this applies to me. On the vast majority of issues I'm for little to no intervention from the state. The things we generally argue about are areas where conservatives want more state power and not less. I'd argue I'm one of the biggest proponents of small government on this board.

---

What areas do you have a smaller government mindset than other outspoken people on here?

---

Military spending, war on drugs, immigration, police reform, free trade, pro section 230, etc.

---

elaborate on each...

---

To preface this, you may think these positions are wrong, and that's OK, but I think they still qualify as more "small government" than the standard conservative position today.

Military spending - Cut it. Less troops abroad. Higher standards for intervention. Spend less on defense contractors.
War on Drugs - the government shouldn't care what you put in your body. I am the ultimate authority on my own body. Decriminalize substance abuse and you cut down on enforcement costs and incarceration
Immigration - Make it easy to enter the country legally. A wall is a massive government project. Spend less on ICE
Police reform - police are literally the Government's armed enforcement of laws. The loss of life and liberty by the state needs to be viewed with extreme scrutiny
Free trade - voluntary exchanges of goods and services make both parties more wealthy. It doesn't matter of the other county has tariffs, tariffs are just a tax on your own population and drives up the cost of goods
Section 230 - I dont want the government policing speech on a privately owned platform, no matter how much I disagree with their moderation decisions

---

Actually, I respect your points. I think those words would come out of my mouth as well.

Military Spending - I completely agree; however, I'm not sure that is where the real money is. Being in the Military is like being a tenured teacher when it comes to benefits. I'm not sure what to do there...

War on Drugs - the problem we have here is our health system. If we can get the government 100% out of healthcare, then I can support your view 100%

Immigration - I agree, make it easier for legal immigration; however, stop illegal immigration. To me, both are American workers killers.

Police reform - on the surface, it's easy to want to do reforms, based on today's rhetoric; however, the system has been co-opted by woke local public figures that it's hard to figure where to start.

Free trade - that one bothers me. I agree with the premise; however, what China (the CCP) has done to us is extremely scary. I say done to us; however, we had willing participants. In fact, they are wanting to move the world currency standard to something like a crypto currency. If that happens, the US could, and probably will, see a dire future.

Section 230 - I get what you are saying... let me ask this? Do you think companies, like Google, are too big? Too much control? What do you do when a company like DuckDuckGo, Google, Bing, etc.. intentionally suppresses results of indexed sites they don't agree with.

---

Military - It's ~15% of the total federal budget, ~50% of discretionary spending. The real expense is not solider salaries and benefits, it's defense contractors. A single Tomahawk missile is $1 million. We spend about as much as the next 10 countries combined. We subsidize defense for the rest of the world.

War on Drugs - The healthcare expenses from drug use are much smaller than the what we spend to incarcerate drug users and fight trafficking. I'd also argue that the drug war drives up prices, benefiting the cartels south of us and destabilizes those countries, driving more migrants to the US.

Immigration - I don't think you can really stop illegal immigration. Visa overstays don't get the press of the southern border, but many years they outnumber border crossings. And I don't think you can deport everyone already here. I'd rather have all of them legal and working.

Police reform - I agree it's been tainted by the current state of discourse. However there are many race neutral reforms we could pursue. You've said that you like John Stossel, you could start with his views on police reform

Trade - This is an entire thread in itself. But to boil it down, I don't think a bad outcome is possible when two entities willingly exchange money for goods. Consumer surplus is created and total wealth increases.

230 - I do think big tech is too big, but that's only because we all still use their services. There are literally 100s of social media sites. People can and should abandon the big players if they are acting badly. Let the market decide. I do have some sympathy for the idea that we should allow free speech on platforms, but I've yet to see a single proposal that get's us there without unintended consequences. I try to view new laws with the assumption that at some point, my worst enemy will be in charge. In that scenario I have yet to see something better than the status quo, which is to allow platforms to moderate themselves as they see fit

---

Military - I'm comfortable with it being 15% of our budget. That being said, I would definitely consider pulling troops out of most of the locations we are in. The cost of defense missiles, well I don't know if the prices are fair or not. Nonetheless, it should be reviewed and I think we have to keep our defense capabilities extremely high.

War on Drugs - regardless of the healthcare expenses as it relates to drugs, we have to get the federal government out of health care! Would you consider a much stronger penalty for driving or anything else if one affects another when the one is using?

Immigration - I'm not expecting to stop illegal immigration 100%. We do need to do everything possible to stop it! I view this as a jobs issues for US citizens!

Police reform - I'll look at John Stossel's views.

Trade - I would ask you to do some research on China. Perhaps, start with the documentary "Death by China". It's older now; so, things have only gotten worse.

230 - what you have to be concerned about is internet access. If the ISP starts moderating and/or filtering content, then that is a problem. We do have competition; however, the companies are all big. My guess, which I'm not sure if this is good, is that congress will classify them as utilities and regulate them.