Recent posts by donseptico on Kongregate

Flag Post

Topic: Serious Discussion / Asinine - and dangerous - idea from Beloit, Wi cops.

So on one hand we have ‘people shouldn’t submit to the police’s (what would be) lawful orders’

Originally posted by mikeinware:

It’s not a law yet, this is designed to soften the resolve of the American people over time to be submissive to police and authority.

And on the other we have ‘You should always be a man and follow the police’s lawful orders’….

Originally posted by mikeinware:
Darren Wilson would never have had to defend himself from an enraged Michael Brown if brown simply obeyed the command of the officer and went to the sidewalk like man. Instead he chose to attack the cop. Look what it got him.

So which position do you actually want us to believe you hold on the matter? Recognise and obey the laws as they stand at any given time, as instructed by those exercising their lawful authority or not be ‘submissive to the law of the land if it doesn’t meet with your personal approval’

 
Flag Post

Topic: Serious Discussion / Now from the government! Pay per mile!

Against the idea – no, can’t say that I am… the more you use the road the greater your personal share of the repair bill, the greater the amount of tax you need to pay to cover this.

Against the way it’s implemented – maybe – gps/tracking has advantages – not least of which, potentially, for insurance purposes (you only drive in ‘off peak’ hours, away from major traffic, always driving smoothly, etc, etc… you get a lower premium than a ‘boy racer’ who commutes in rush hour) or ’I’ve broken down/crashed and don’t know where I am’ – but also some, potential, privacy concerns.

I say potential in both cases because just because the data’s generated doesn’t mean it’s ever going to be used, retained, sold on, subpoenaed by law enforcement, etc. Of course the only way it /should/ be accessed by law enforcement is via a warrant (much in the same way as your phone records, internet search history, library reading list, credit card/bank details, etc)

 
Flag Post

Topic: Serious Discussion / Charity begins at home...

Hey Karma, next time you’re round the Koch brothers (whoever they are)…

In the meantime, I wonder whose arm mike could twist for me?? :)

 
Flag Post

Topic: Serious Discussion / Charity begins at home...

I wouldn’t presume to teach them to teach… I meant some instruction on written/spoken English (If they wanted to that is).

I did, and probably still will, volunteer… it fits into everything else I have to do better… and let’s face it, if a school can afford to pay me they need me a whole lot less than a lot of the projects I was originally looking at (still, a decent ‘plan B’ / future option).

 
Flag Post

Topic: Serious Discussion / Eric Garner fiasco

Did I mention you? However, if the ‘flame baiting’ cap fits…. incidentally, who is it do you suppose reads most of the flag reports for this forum? Some of them give us such a giggle (have to copy them to the ‘funny flags’ thread).

 
Flag Post

Topic: Serious Discussion / Charity begins at home...

Originally posted by thijser:

Consider whatever or not it could be more effective to teach local teachers, I’m sure you know that children have some difficulty with constantly switching teachers and the chaos that brings so it might be better to instead prepare to teach a number of local teacher so they can be more effective in teacher the children over a longer time.

That’s possible… although having now visited Dave’s ESL Cafe, I find myself mentally revising my plans… I could take a whole school year contract (9-10months), teach for a year whilst getting paid! (and help develop other staff in downtime)… I’m not sure how much one could teach/develop the existing staff in a period of only 2,3 or 4 months although I would imagine such training to have almost equal import to that of teaching the kids (for the longer term benefits to the school/area).

 
Flag Post

Topic: Serious Discussion / Charity begins at home...

Originally posted by mikeinware:

it sounds like the moderator is fund raising to me lol this is dangerous

I am, or I will be…. although not here. This thread is simply a method to determine different routes to accomplish the goal (and helping to determine what the goal should be… books? writing materials? laptops?).

If helping to decide such things is too dangerous for you perhaps you should find a nice padded room to sit in away from any sharp objects :)

 
Flag Post

Topic: Serious Discussion / Charity begins at home...

I haven’t yet, no Jan… new to EFL/ESL (although not to teaching) so if you have any more good sites let me know pls :)

 
Flag Post

Topic: Serious Discussion / I am damn tired of Obamacare. Now it's time for the correction. :)

Kongregate simply can do nothing to ban someone for good, they have to follow the same protocols and laws as everyone else who uses the internet. and that goes for everyone who posts here.

Somewhat off the topic… but yeah, they could…. would be a rather pyrrhic victory but definitely doable… by closing down the site, charging for access (would deter a lot of alts as well as regular users), hiring a large team of people to monitor accounts/posts 24/7 for ‘suspicious’ / ’unwanted’activity (would soon go bankrupt and close down) just the first few to spring to mind.

As far as I’m aware… there’s no law that guarantees access to any individual to a computer, the internet or any part thereof – any business can decline to serve anyone they see fit (provided, where relevant, not contrary to discrimination legislation)

edit: a thought to slightly tie to the OP… hand over the running of the site to the muppets that designed and implemented the ACA’s website… I hear that was universally available and never suffered any breaks in service whatsoever.

 
Flag Post

Topic: Serious Discussion / Could the conspiracy theory of a second US Civil War be true?

Originally posted by mikeinware:

It’s in the history books for 100 years from now:

Little jonny: Who was in the white house when china overtook the usa, teacher?

Teacher:
" There was a liberal in the Oval Office when China became number 1"

Kids:
" What happened to all the liberals?"

Teacher:

" They are extinct as of 60 years ago"

Failing to see any relevance to the OP or preceding posts… any how, history books 100 years from now would be written in Mandarin (history being written by the ‘winners’)… 100 years after that?…. 1000 years after that ? (Martian? :P)

 
Flag Post

Topic: Serious Discussion / Commentary on Freedom, Love, and All Ideals

Originally posted by mikeinware:

very amusing to see so many regs trolled hard and not even know it.

Trolly post, sure… but looks more like ‘counter trolling’ to me… what’s good for the goose and all that. Of course, peeps did & do still have the option of simply ignoring.

 
Flag Post

Topic: Serious Discussion / Eric Garner fiasco

Sheesh, quit fanning the flames people (unless, that is, you enjoy their return visits – nb: removing them seems to egg them on more so they might as well stay and be ignored).

 
Flag Post

Topic: Serious Discussion / Charity begins at home...

Now that’s an idea I like (the sending stuff back bit)… if you have any of your old lesson plans in digital format wouldn’t turn those down either ;)

 
Flag Post

Topic: Serious Discussion / Charity begins at home...

Hi Jan – I’m, looking at 3 different projects at the moment – either India, Thailand or Cambodia (with a stay in Vietnam on the homeward leg).

 
Flag Post

Topic: Serious Discussion / Eric Garner fiasco

Originally posted by vikaTae:

The very visibility of these incidents is why we should really be thinking of watching the watchers. Back to support for continually recording cameras being worn by the cops.

About to sleep but… this makes interesting reading.

 
Flag Post

Topic: Serious Discussion / Charity begins at home...

Ha, got you… a deliberately misleading title ;)

As some of you will know I’m heading off around the world again late next year (planned departure is Oct ‘15) and will spend at least a couple of months in Asia where I’m looking to volunteer working with underprivileged kids and adults teaching English as a second language (and/or generally – I’m a qualified teacher).

Now, I’ve funded out the trip but am looking for additional ways to raise extra funds for books, teaching materials and even old computers for the school(s) in which I’m applying to teach – they’re by no means a pre-requisite of acceptance however they would doubtless make the placement much more effective and rewarding.

If you’ve read this far – relax! I’m not asking you for money or materials (well, not yet anyway) but I got to thinking the other evening about at least one possible way of collecting… a ‘pocket change’ donation project.

Many of us will have paypal accounts, bitcoin wallets, etc with, frankly, insignificant amounts sitting in them – before I go ahead and try and set up something along those lines – I wondered how you, the internet savvy and sceptical think such a project would be received?

If I go ahead – would you be likely / willing to consider making a donation? I was wondering if it would be a good idea to have a maximum donation sum of, say, $5 – as we’re talking pocket change… would that be a good idea?

Anyone with experience in this area, do you know of any regulatory or other pitfalls I should be aware of (obviously I’ve started with google, but haven’t found anything too similar or very useful yet).

 
Flag Post

Topic: Serious Discussion / I am damn tired of Obamacare. Now it's time for the correction. :)

Originally posted by karmakoolkid:

don, about vaccines……don’t you do a lot of international travel?
In order to be able to get passports, last I knew of, there were REQUIREMENTS for certain shots.
Every country should have rights to protect itself from disease.

Is this anywhere close to current practices?

The point is: there already exists a precedence for legal requiring of vaccinations.
It’s not like this is a new thing and is viewed as being a loss of human rights.

Yes, just a ‘little’ – and to all sorts of ‘interesting’ places (South America and the Poles are the only continents left on the bucket list).

Medical requirements (including vaccinations) for a visa to be allowed entry in to a country vary, as you would expect, by country and range from mere ‘recommendations’ to stringent requirements.

e.g. Australia
e.g. UK

 
Flag Post

Topic: Serious Discussion / Stupid People

Originally posted by FrostyGhosts:

When you ask too much, you won’t take anything.

Quite the non sequitur… care to elaborate / explain?

 
Flag Post

Topic: Serious Discussion / The Internet Virus

What’s to discuss?

1. There’s plenty of censorship on the internet (in some places and topics moreso than others)
2. In most, certainly not all, places the censorship that is placed on the internet is, at a minimum, mandated by the same laws that affect other print and broadcast media, both criminal and civil.
3. Provided they do not break the relevant laws and regulations (anti-discrimination, anti-competitive, etc) in so doing, a website owner (like any other business) may place whatever additional restrictions on what may, or may not appear on their website(s) as they wish.

 
Flag Post

Topic: Serious Discussion / Darren Wilson a murderer.

Originally posted by DanielMontgomery:

You don’t understand the nature of Americans lmao, there’s a reason why this guy is being hailed as a hero and it is most certainly not that he did his job correctly.

So you’re saying the default for an (all?) American(s) is to celebrate ‘winning’ rather than ‘how the game was played’?

 
Flag Post

Topic: Serious Discussion / Eric Garner fiasco

umm, by definition, homicide is an illegal act (as opposed to justifiable homicide).

Yes, I said the codes of practise would be different, but should have significant similarities as based on the same legal principles. I didn’t say the UK version would apply directly to the US (as that’d be asinine) but used it to illustrate things that could/should have been done differently – perhaps you could explain why, for example, the police would leave a detainee restrained, silent and motionless on the floor (as per the reports above) rather than ensure that he could, I don’t know, breathe unassisted.

So if they need re-training on how to properly apply ‘the move’ on obese people, why do you find it impossible to believe it was administered in any manner other than ‘perfectly’ in this instance?

what Garner may, or may not have been doing before his encounter with the police is irrelevant… the grand jury were tasked to decide on the actions taken by the police officer and whether or not they amounted to wanton criminal behaviour or, I assume, criminal neglect.

As you say, the evidence presented to the grand jury is sealed so the opinions of the legal experts was ‘only’ based on their detailed knowledge of the law and how it actually applies, and the evidence that was publicly available. Absent knowledge of what was actually presented to the grand jury and without the background in criminal law, how can you justify stating with absolute certainty that the grand jury got it right? (particularly when you consider the police officer in question’s reported history). I haven’t found any, but are there any legal experts out there reported as supporting the verdict?

Thanks for the video link, it certainly supports elements from both sides of the argument as it’s obviously edited…

On one hand it doesn’t show how the encounter actually started, the police officers certainly doesn’t contradict the bystander who repeatedly stated ‘all he did was break up a fight’, other than ‘arguing’ / talking with the police officers there was no attempt to physically resist arrest, when taken down cuffs were rapidly applied to one hand but it appeared that it would have been impossible (the arm just doesn’t bend that way) to comply with any instruction to put the other hand back there, that said, Mr. Garner still didn’t appear to be resisting in any way as they rolled him and completed the arrest.

On the other you couldn’t really hear what the police were saying to Mr. Garner – they certainly appeared to be calm, professional and collected even through the take-down although Mr. Garner did state several times he couldn’t breathe (although at that point he appeared to be breathing adequately) so up to the point where they had him in custody I can’t see anything significantly wrong with their actions (there was also nothing in the film to indicate that they hadn’t been called by the store and wanted to talk to him on SUSPICION of a crime).

However, once the arrest was completed, Mr. Garner rapidly fell silent (within the limits of the camera’s microphone), and became absolutely still – signs that should have indicated some level of physical distress with the detainee – the police did not appear to be doing anything to check on his well-being, it’s hard to say how long they waited to check / seek / administer medical treatment but it is their actions during that time (or rather inaction) that, for me, smacks of criminal negligence. The very least they could / should have done once the arrest was complete would have been to sit the arrested man up to relieve the pressure on his chest (one of the easiest ways to smother someone… stop them from being able to inhale!) Had they done so it would have been obvious whether or not he was ‘playing possum’ and they could have acted appropriately.

Incidentally, as it doesn’t appear to be mentioned anywhere… they were arrested on suspicion of… did they actually find any evidence to suggest he was, indeed, actually committing the crime (loose cigarettes in his pockets? rolls of cash?) or was he, as he claimed, just ‘minding his business’ on the street?

Like it or not, just like those police officers and people standing on the street, criminals & suspects have rights & protections too – in fact in certain areas they have more rights there than they do here! What do we become if we fail to uphold those rights?

 
Flag Post

Topic: Serious Discussion / Nazi mods stifle productive conversation

Originally posted by DanielMontgomery:

My question is why are entire posts and topics being deleted because they either don’t include all of the facts (which would be impossible) or it is deemed a moot debate.

Posts that infringe copyright, lack merit, don’t start a discussion, are designed as ‘flame bait’, degnerate into slanging matches rather than discussion, etc… all go bye bye (either temp, or perm).

 
Flag Post

Topic: Serious Discussion / Eric Garner fiasco

Originally posted by LiberalPower:

He was resisting arrest. The officers told him to put his hands behind his back and he stood there talking. When the officer informs you you are under arrest it is your duty as a citizen to obey the officer of the peace. They are legally allowed to take you into custody using force if you resist. Eric Garner resisted arrest by not complying with the order. The officers knew where this was going and made the correct choice to take him down while they still had the advantage. Have you or anyone else read the reports and compared them to the video? All of it was released to examine and form a solid opinion, that is what I did.

Wasn’t it you who said something to the effect of ‘I don’t care what the law says’ in an earlier thread? If so, is it one rule for you and another for someone else?

In general, a person may not use physical force to resist a lawful arrest by a police officer who is known or reasonably appears to be a peace officer. Resisting an arrest is a misdemeanor. Resisting arrest typically involves an arrestee physically struggling with an officer as he tries to place on handcuffs, or when the arrestee struggles as he is being placed in a patrol car or jail cell.

A common defense to resisting arrest is that the officer acted with excessive force. While an arrestee is expected to comply with an officer’s reasonable actions to affect an arrest, the arrestee is allowed to defend himself from unreasonable, excessive force (source

So, by your own admission, ‘he stood there talking’ – umm, according to the definitions I’ve found that doesn’t constitute the misdemeanour of resisting arrest.

In fact, depending on exactly what was being said, talking could potentially have facilitated a safe arrest.

What reports would those be (as I type this, you’ve still provided nothing on the background)?

That all said (and apologies for multi-posts, forum formatting limits) Google throws up some interesting tidbits (if true)…

1. “The initial police report on the fatal arrest of Eric Garner in Staten Island last week makes no mention of a chokehold and downplayed the seriousness of Garner’s condition, raising questions about how the investigation would have been conducted had graphic video of Garner’s death not surfaced.”

2. "the two paramedics and two emergency medical technicians who responded to the scene on Thursday have been suspended without pay. Many have questioned why first responders did not give Garner oxygen, and appeared to do little more than check his pulse and load him sloppily onto a stretcher. According to the Times, some experts wonder whether they “were intimidated by a large police presence and as a result failed to follow protocol.”

Dr. Alexander Kuehl, referring to one of the EMTs, tells the Times, “It was like she either didn’t want to be there, which is hard to understand, or police basically told her to just let him alone. She certainly didn’t do her job. She’s totally overawed by the cops. She doesn’t do her assessment at all. There was something very peculiar about her approach.”"

3 Seems our ‘hero cop’ may not be all that saintly after all.

 
Flag Post

Topic: Serious Discussion / Eric Garner fiasco

Originally posted by LiberalPower:

Eric Garner was well known to the police. He was a lifelong troublemaker. People like that get extra scrutiny as they have no intention of ever being rehabilitated. The police were flawless in how the handled Garner. Police are not trained to listen to criminals bullshit stories in an attempt to get out of an arrest. The situation was escalated because they were in dangerous territory and the longer they went on the more people showed up. The situation took place in a ghetto. The objective is to end the event as quickly as possible then leave.

Your expert psychology hat on? No person with a criminal history (of minor? major?) ever turns their life around / is rehabilitated?

Your expert legal beagle hat on? The police acted flawlessly? Now, I’ll admit I don’t know much about the way your police are trained, what considerations they make when arresting someone, etc but given that your legal system was based on the English Common Law system (I realise that post your ‘treasonous rebellion against the crown’ tea party the systems have gone their separate ways) a good point of comparison should be the requirements for our own police force when deciding to arrest someone – it’s quite a long document, so I’ll copy the key points…

“When the police approach a member of the public for any reason, they should first consider how their presence, attitude and demeanour may influence how a person will react. This reaction will have an impact on subsequent risks to officers, suspects and the public.”

further:

“A lawful arrest by a police constable requires two elements, both of which must be satisfied:

• A person’s involvement or suspected involvement or attempted involvement in the commission of a criminal offence;

and

• Reasonable grounds for believing that the person’s arrest is necessary.

A person who is arrested, or further arrested, should be informed at the time, or as soon as practicable thereafter, that they are under
arrest and of the grounds and reasons for their arrest, even if this fact is obvious, and of the relevant circumstances of the arrest in
relation to both the above elements."

And;

“A detainee must be transported directly to hospital if they:

• Have had, or are showing the symptoms of having had, a head injury;
• Are, or have been, unconscious;
• Have suffered serious injury;
• Are drunk and incapable and treatment centres are not available;
• Are believed to have swallowed or packed drugs;
• Are believed to have taken a drugs overdose;
• Are suffering from any other medical condition requiring urgent attention;
• Are suffering any condition that the arresting officer or transporting staff believes requires treatment prior to detention in custody."

Now – as you didn’t comment on Karma’s statement that Garner was the person who broke up the fight what grounds did the police have to initiate arrest proceedings?

As he was ‘well known to the police’ – one would assume that his medical history would be equally well known – why didn’t the police check for any veracity to the detainee’s claims that he was struggling to breathe? call an ambulance maybe? (not that it would have necessarily have made any difference, but that’s really not the point).

Originally posted by LiberalPower:

Garner did not need CPR. His own physical condition lead to his death, not what the officer did. If he was not morbidly obese he would not have died. The police were well trained. Garner was repeating lies and falsehoods up until the end to try to avoid arrest.

Police are trained to NEVER remove cuffs from a criminal suspect. You should know that. You never know the true condition of the criminal. The officer applied the hold correctly, unfortunately Garner was morbidly obese. If he was not obese he would not have suffered from the legal rear naked choke hold that is approved.

Correct, you do not perform CPR on a beating heart… ‘rescue breaths’ may have been appropriate (as may have taking measures to calm the detainee to allow his breathing to try and return to normal), checking for an injury / medications / medic alert bracelet, etc would have been sensible as their presence would add credence to the detainee’s claim(s).

Perhaps you’d care to explain how the New York’s medical examiner had already ruled that the death of Eric Garner was a homicide, and that the chokehold contributed to it (asthma and heart disease also contributed) when it was your opinion that it was solely his “own physical condition” that lead to his death?

The officer may have felt he was ‘doing the move properly’ – that doesn’t make it true – a position somewhat supported by the announcement of the retraining of ALL NYPD on proper restraint?

How can you be so certain the grand jury ‘made the correct decision’ when other legal experts commented thusly;

Ekow Yankah, a professor at Cardozo School of Law, told the Associated Press it was “hard to understand” how the jury failed to see probable cause of a crime.

James Cohen of Fordham University Law School added: “Logic doesn’t play a role in this process.”
 
Flag Post

Topic: Serious Discussion / Eric Garner fiasco

Do they not have Google outside of the USA? I think people default to United States standards here as Kongregate is an American company on American soil.

Of course we do… then again, the onus to ‘set the discussion’ in motion ‘properly’ is on the OP – what good is it if the first thing you have to do is go elsewhere to find out what he’s even talking about??