Andy9o8

I believe he's comparing you to Churchill. Yes. I would rather you just said thank you, and went on your way, Otherwise, I suggest you pick up a weapon, and stand a post.

I believe the thinking to which stayhigh subscribes is this: Rich pled guilty (although he later tried unsuccesfully to withdraw his guilty plea) to running an unlawful gambling enterprise. He allegedly committed this crime while employed as a police officer with the rank of Sergeant. If that is the case, then he operated a criminal enterprise while simultaneously having both the power and the duty to enforce the criminal laws against others. Thus, the thinking goes, there is relevance between the facts leading to his conviction and whether he qualifies to be entrusted with a USPA position in which he has the power to take disciplinary action against other USPA skydivers who are accused of violating the terms of their licenses and/or ratings. The thinking further goes that: by, allegedly, personally violating the very safety regulations he is empowered by the USPA to enforce against others, he has (if that is the case) squandered his qualification to hold that position. Some might also argue, rightly or wrongly, that, whether as a matter of character or otherwise, his alleged skydiving conduct while holding this USPA position was predictable in light of his alleged criminal conduct while employed as a police officer. At least, that's one side of the argument. Of course, every argument has more than one side.

As if context didn't exist. Now you're just insulting our intelligence. Not gonna play your game.

Absolutely. Appalling there's even a shred of doubt on that.

How very subtle. Anyhow, specify an "it".

Racist people generally cite to racist sources. It's how they roll.

What? Where are you getting race out of this? It was about a private newborn old pool, fence jumpers, and illegal activity. Only two guests per resident. Security called police, not because of race, but because of actions. It perplexes me why some people perpetuate the race hatred, even when there was none to be found. But hey, why not just interject some. What do you think does more harm in t he long run? Did you not read the stories about white residents telling some of the (black) kids to "go back to your Section 8 housing" and confronting them physically? (There's at least 1 video of one of these fights between a middle-aged white woman and some of the kids.) Sure, there were multiple dynamics going on, but if you think that this thing was remotely race-neutral, you're kidding yourself. ETA: Please see this: The only good news about the McKinney pool party is the white kids’ response to racism

Now, now, no need to go to extremes. Just soak 'em in bleach for a while. Good to go!

For interesting historical context, see: McKinney, Texas, and the Racial History of American Swimming Pools

My google-fu reflects that Philly established its SWAT team around 1964. (In fact, Philly's SWAT team may have been the first in the nation.) The MOVE bombing & burn-down was in 1985.

http://www.riverbottomfarms.com/03e_pat_justchar_col.jpg

Anybody remember Chris Dorning, the ex-cop who went rogue on a terroristic rampage himself? He ended up barricaded in some house in the woods and completely surrounded. He wasn't going to give up. He was going to die rather than be taken alive. How the fuck do you deal with THAT? You tell me. They started taking the house apart wall by wall IIRC and at some point started a fire hoping to flush him out, but he likely shot himself in the head. There's no negotiating with people like that. Except your veiled implication is that this perp was "a person like that"; but I don't see where that's been shown. Yes, he was in deep trouble, and yes, he was barricaded, but he hadn't shot, much less killed anyone, he was simply trapped. And not even, in the final stages, with hostages. Nothing in the reported facts that indicates he was continuing to send lead downrange, either (though obviously he was still armed & dangerous). Bottom line, I really don't see why they couldn't have cut off the utilities, given him time to calm down a bit and get fatigued, let a professional police negotiator do his thing, and waited him out. I just don't see the exigency in using such haste in this instance.

Trouble! That starts with T which rhymes with P and that stands for pool!

Why did I expect a thread with "Camel's toe" in the subject line to rather be in Bonfire.....? Simple answer: the OP wanted to hear what those who post in BF had to say. Sure, the chances are that the thread would get moved eventually into the SC.. but he wanted to see what this group had to say (before it most likely got moved). Most posters in BF never post in SC, and have an entirely different take on a given subject than those who regularly post in SC. Personally, I appreciate the mods for allowing this, and then moving when it crosses the line. Bonfire is such a sewer. The people there have no shame.

"It became necessary to destroy the town to save it." US Army spokesman, Vietnam

Curious.... why is this coming up NOW? This occurred in August 2014. TEN months ago. I think it's because the body cam video was released to the public. I remember hearing about this awhile back. I remember the kids face. You didn't hear too much about it as it was overshadowed by Ferguson.... Andy will call me a racist for saying this, but it seems to me that it is not as big a news story because he was white, had he been black it would have been front page news and on every news channel and at least three or four cities would have burned. I think that's correct. And the reason is there isn't a national history of white people being targeted for harassment, repression, unjustfied or excessive force and deadly force while unarmed by virtue of their being white. But there is such a history of that happening disproportionally to black people. So I guess I can understand why as a matter of institutional memory and group psychology, THEY'RE JUST A TAD TOUCHY ABOUT THE SUBJECT! And, in turn, they've sensitized those in the news media to the pattern of injustices, just as they were able to do back in the early 1960s with respect to civil rights. Disappointing I have to explain that.

God, why do we need to know that? Thank you so much for the image. You people in Bonfire are fucked up. https://s-media-cache-ak0.pinimg.com/736x/3d/5f/dc/3d5fdcc1b1ca10b934e1098167e563ed.jpg

[Jan] Longmont, Longmont, Longmont! [/Jan] Jeez, guys, it's all about you.

Testify!

On Battlestar Galactica men and women served and fought side by side. Good enough for me.

But just one.

I'm not dismissing that, but in all fairness minority males tend to get profile-stopped a good deal more often than minority females.

I wouldn't agree with that, although I presume it's because you and I are focusing on different sets/subsets of statistics. I'm also including "profiling" in addition to pure, malicious harassment. For example: If you're a black male, especially under age 40, especially if you're in a residential neighborhood that's predominantly white, your chances of getting stopped "Just Because" are certainly more than 1%. Same if you're a young black male doing nothing other than walking, if it's in a poor, high crime neighborhood, because they wanna see if you're carrying or a gang-banger.

In the US, charities, more often than not, are non-profit organizations under Sec. 501(c)(3) of the federal tax code. While annual independent audits are generally considered a "best practice" for non-profits to make a record that their finances and accounting practices are on the up-and-up, I don't think that federal law requires such audits, at least in most instances. (Accountants, lawyers, etc. - if I'm mistaken, please correct me.) Some of the 52 US state-level or equivalent jurisdictions might have audit and/or regulatory reporting requirements under their own laws that are more stringent than federal requirements, but I don't know it off the top of my head. FWIW, I've served on the boards of a few small and middle-sized non-profits, and they've always had annual audits conducted by independent auditors (accounting firms). Sure. All it takes is for the right people to be willing, or eager, or forced, or effectively left no choice, to do it. This applies to anyone - charity, corporation, bank, politician, government entity, whomever.

Even better, the Vanity Fair cover shots makes Caitlyn look better than her ex-wife Kris. I rather doubt this is a good thread to be smart-assing someone named Kris. No, sirree.