So what, just let him walk the fuck away and not arrest him? Fucking lol

You know exactly what I mean; reductio ad absurdum doesn't make you look clever or justify the way you're treating the matter.

They're like the black people of the animal world.

>mfw

I could see that. I can believe you look like that.

I wish the British labour party was this sensible. >.>

We all do.

I have massive amounts of respect for coppers who do the job right.

Murdering a 'cuffed man in the back of your police car? No. They should swing.

http://www.klfy.com/story/26349989/victor-white-autopsy-findings-released

“My son didn't shoot himself. I never believed it. I won't believe it,” said Victor White, Sr., the father of 22-year-old Victor White, III, who back in March, died from a gunshot wound.

It happened while handcuffed in the backseat of an Iberia Parish Sheriff's Office patrol car, during a drug arrest. According to State Police, who are handling the investigation, once at the jail, White refused to exit the vehicle.  As the arresting deputy requested assistance, they say white produced a handgun he had been hiding in his pants, and shot himself in the back.

But the autopsy, performed by the Iberia Parish Coroner's Office, reports the opposite, listing the cause of death as a gunshot wound to the chest. The family is puzzled as to how he could have shot himself in the chest with his hands cuffed behind his back.

"My initial response was correct, that something was awry, and that something had gone wrong,” said White, Sr.

The manner of death was ruled a suicide. But, the family of White aren't convinced.

State Police cannot comment, saying it's an ongoing investigation. White, Sr. says authorities aren't even talking to the family, leaving them without closure.

"Here is a family that, we are still grieving,” said White, Sr. “I'm angry the autopsy report took so long. I'm angry and frustrated with the fact that it's still not over."

What the fuck is wrong with the police in the U.S.?

But considering Republicans are for smaller government

I'd kill myself.

Not even kidding or exaggerating.

lel

git gud scrub

Or we could tax the shit out of the über wealthy and corporations instead of taking money out of Grandpa Jones retirement savings.

Grandpa Jones isn't paying social security tax, though, since he's already retired.

The point is not who pays for the spending, the point is who is doing the spending. I would rather have consumers boost aggregate demand in a positive way than have the government carpet-fund every fucking sector in the economy when it doesn't even work - no matter where the money comes from.

New Zealand, harmonising the Left and the Right since 1990.

Sorry all that econo-jargon just melted my face off ._.

Oh come on! It wasn't that bad!

I'm actually surprised I didn't pick up on this sooner. But it seems like a policy proposal that could, in a very meaningful sense, reduce tensions between those of us who are of a more market-friendly strand and those of us who are more social democratic. Basically, New Zealand's Labour Party wants to put fiscal policy in the hands of the central bank.

For the uninitiated, fiscal policy is to do with the revenues and expenditures of government. Keynes - the namesake of Keynesians - advocated activist fiscal policy in times of recession such as deficit spending or cutting taxes.

Essentially, the Labour Party wants to give the central bank control over mandatory pension contributions, which could be lowered in times of slow growth or recession to boost aggregate demand. Scott Sumner, who like me is a neo-monetarist (usually adversaries of Keynesians), is quite taken with the idea, even though it'd probably be better to just stick with monetary stimulus.
 
However, I think it should go further than this. It should be expanded to all social security contributions, not just retirement savings. Put fiscal stimulus in the hands of the central bank, which is far better than it being in the hands of the legislature (can you imagine trying to pass another stimulus package?).

It's also translate-able. We all have social security in one form or another, with America's forms being eponymous and FICA, and the U.K.'s being N.I.

The best part? Lord Keynes himself is on board.

I am converted to your proposal…for varying rates of contributions in good and bad times. (June 16, 1942). Keynes, Collected Writings, vol. 27, p. 208.

…[Y]ou are able to show fluctuations in income of an order of magnitude which is significant in the context… So far as employees are concerned, reductions in contributions are more likely to lead to increased expenditure as compared with saving than a reduction in income tax would, and are free from the objection to a reduction in income tax that the wealthier classes would benefit disproportionately. At the same time, the reduction to employers, operating as a mitigation of the costs of production, will come in particularly helpfully in bad times.  (July 1, 1942). Keynes, Collected Writings, vol. 27, p. 218.

It's nice to see the Left some up with something so incredibly sensible.

For the econotards: New Zealand's Labour Party wants to give the central bank the power to vary mandatory contributions to pensions, so it can be lowered in times of recession to boost spending.

"No, I cannot holster my weapon, draw, aim, and fire my taser in 1.5 seconds.  Even if I could, I would not risk my life or my partner's life by using it and missing. 

Could one have drawn his taser while the other kept the subject covered?  Maybe.  It would endanger one of them for sure, especially since the subject was easily within range to lunge and cause harm before he died.

I promise you, if someone decides to come at you with a knife, you're not going to reach for your pepper spray."

Fuck, I didn't notice that.

That being said, British police officers in this country deal with knives on a daily basis, without the use of deadly force. I'm more understanding of the officers' position though, but it is still blatantly evident that there is a problem with methods of enforcement and the racism within the force.

Anybody else got anything mildly interesting?

So, there was a status which Recon had commented on (we're friends on Facebook), and the status was: "I usually carry a pistol. What do you think would happen to me if someone punched me in the face and I shot them six times?"

Recon's reply:

Sadly Jim, for far too many people, your injuries would be irrelevant and overshadowed by your response. For many people the issue would be your gun and the fact that you had one (clearly "looking and eager to use it") the fact that you fired, the outcome of that shooting (such as a body on the deck) and why you (as the misinformed strongly believe) "chose to shoot 6 times" and/or "why didn't you just shoot once to wound?".

Even more telling and discouraging? Each of those other aspects would be a multiplier if the person who attacked you first was of a different skin color. I know you, and I know that race wouldn't be a factor if someone were to attack you. The fact that you were attacked and responded in order to stop the threat would be your only motivations.

I always thought Recon was a guy virtually without biases, who withheld opinion until all the facts were present. Sigh.