I just saw someone claim that if you tell someone they should speak english in the United States, you are a racist because there is no official language in the U.S.
"Racist" claim aside, shouldn't someone learn english in the U.S. based upon percentages of english speakers?

I mean to be fair, there's a difference between 'should learn English' and 'telling someone they should speak English.' As if the very presence of another language was a threat to the statue of liberty's virtue.

In a non-confrontational way, yeah, you should speak English here for practical and social reasons. In a legal sense, it's a requirement for citizenship (with numerous exemptions). Also you should speak Spanish if you wanna live in the US, and also you should probably learn Chinese if you wanna live in this solar system fifty years from now. Very few people are going to learn all the languages they should, so it's kinda dumb to hold it against anyone -- like, I get it, English is tough. It can be learned through thorough thought though.

@mdkDo you think the U.S. should have a national language?

@mdkDo you think the U.S. should have a national language?

Meh. There are social advantages to everyone speaking the same language (cfr: Poland is more unified than India), so the people saying it aren't wrong. But I can't see why it should matter at this point. Everything we'd stand to gain, we've already got, because that ship sailed in like the 1700s.

Then again I don't think we'd lose anything by having one. Just saying, what's the point.

@mdk There's probably no real point, but it seems odd there isn't one for such a large country. Here is a list of pros and cons though.

Also, apparently Trump's meetings with Kim Jong Un haven't gone as spectacularly as a lot of conservatives claim, though they might be back on due to Sung Kim.

@mdk There's probably no real point, but it seems odd there isn't one for such a large country. Here is a list of pros and cons though.

Also, apparently Trump's meetings with Kim Jong Un haven't gone as spectacularly as a lot of conservatives claim, though they might be back on due to Sung Kim.

There's a plan (note the date on that tweet). And bear in mind, quite a lot of progress has already happened. I'd say things are going better than they have in 20+ years. The goal now is to do better than Clinton did, something Trump is apparently good at...?

@mdk The C.I.A. are reporting that North Korea will not denuclearize. Funnily enough, they will give a few small concessions, such as opening a western burger restaurant in Pyongyang. There's just too many news outlets reporting different things, tbh.

I wasn't aware it was the CIA's decision.

Based upon previous experience, I'd say they are on the right track...
nytimes.com/1994/10/19/world/clinton-…
washingtonpost.com/news/fact-checker/…
armscontrol.org/factsheets/dprkchron

Plus that Libya statement, whether a flub or not, highlighted the fears already held by the NK Government.

My personal belief is that for a long term rather than short term solution (of the peaceful variety... Relatively peaceful), one would need to be able to convince a large portion of the upper echelons to accept a sizeable payout, combined with international amnesty from their multitudes of human rights violations, in exchange for a transfer of power. (The difficulty here is: finding a person/group/nation that would be acceptable to all major parties involved, it is tempting to propose reunification, but I don't think China is quite ready to lose their buffer state.) Even were this agreed to, its likely some military action would be required. The primary goal of this plan would be to make it possible to dismantle the NK Government without having SK turned into a "Sea of Fire".

The question to whether this is possible or not is how power-mad the NK leaders have become, whether they truly enjoy their tyranny (Undoubtedly some of them do) or if it was simply the case of making the best of a bad situation, as some Nazi's did. If we can find enough leaders willing to accept the deal (Which would likely need to be brokered in secret, and in piecemeal stages to avoid potentially alerting the more fanatical leaders) it should be relatively easy to infiltrate, and eliminate, whatever opposition to the regime change that remains. Obviously, certain high priority targets, Kim Jong Un for example, as well as whichever Military leaders directly control the batteries arrayed along the DMZ, must be acquired, or if acquisition is impossible, would need to be eliminated in the initial stages of the operation -though I tend to think without Un, this plan would probably be unworkable.

"But Spooki! If we can turn all those leaders to our side, is it really necessary to displace them?"

Yes. Unless the security of these leaders is 100% guaranteed, it is more preferable to them that the status quo remains unchanged. Kim Jong Un, the beloved Supreme Leader, would likely suffer a fate similar to Mussolini if North Korea were to undergo a sudden and dramatic liberalization, as would many if not all high government officials. Basically you would be dealing with an Oriental spring (which China can absolutely not allow to happen on its border)

Or we can continue to practice "Strategic Patience" Thanks Obama, now they have atom bombs hydrogen bombs, and ICBM's

The other option is a series of precision nuclear strikes (bit of an oxymoron that) Combined with somehow disabling the entire DMZ Arsenal in what I would consider to be the most well coordinated large scale operation of all time.

Of course none of this happens without the go ahead from China, which I imagine is driving Trump absolutely bonkers

Edit: it just occurred to me that this premise is based upon the idea that no Tyranical Government that I know of has been displaced through entirely peaceful means, if anyone has an example of one, it would be much appreciated.

Edit: it just occurred to me that this premise is based upon the idea that no Tyranical Government that I know of has been displaced through entirely peaceful means, if anyone has an example of one, it would be much appreciated.

Well, Libya, and that's why Kim brought it up. Gaddaffi disarmed, handed over power, did everything we could've asked for, and then we invaded him anyway because of what he did 20 years earlier/because the Muslim Brotherhood wanted to and we trusted them? Unclear. Either way it was a shitshow. What else, what else.... Well Apartheid in South Africa was ended mostly peacefully, give or take a few 'necklaces.' Of course now IT'S going to shit. You may be on to something.

Libya had a civil war and was pummeled by NATO missile strikes, just saying.

And apartheid while racist to the extreme is not exactly an entirely tyrannical government, while they faced condemnation over their obviously racist laws, was still on good terms with much of the 'civilized world

I should have finished reading, I just saw Libya and my brain started going "lalalalalala"

globalnews.ca/news/4246965/man-shot-4…

Shot to death for a noise complaint, and the family was given 4 cents in reparation.

I try to tell myself that America isn't racist, but how do you defend shit like this?

globalnews.ca/news/4246965/man-shot-4…

Shot to death for a noise complaint, and the family was given 4 cents in reparation.

I try to tell myself that America isn't racist, but how do you defend shit like this?

Here's BBC's writeup. The main takeaway is that the jury found no excessive use of force. If it's a justified police shooting then.... why would the police owe money? Granted the 4-cent valuation is fucking insulting and that's wildly inappropriate behavior for a judge, it's just.... I mean, I have no background on this case other than what I've read today, but it sure seems like due process was followed here.

edit: then again that ain't much for me to hold up against the guy. Maybe the jury heard some evidence I didn't get. Four gunshots at a closing door looks nakedly excessive, there.... something else, too, maybe? What, uh.... hmmmmm.... Let's see if I can dig up anything else that's not reacting to the 4-cent thing.

second edit: archive.tcpalm.com/news/grand-jury-st… Linked on the first article apparently. Okay. Yeah. Look family, I'm sorry and all, and that four-cent bullshit is still wrong but uh.... play stupid games, win stupid prizes. Don't point guns at cops.

Thank you, I'm still on the fence as to what happened, though. Atleast however, this provides an actual counter-argument to the story of "Man shot over noise complaint." The idea that he returned his gun to his waistband after being shot 3 times (once in the head) sounds a bit strange.

...I have no background on this case other than what I've read today...

...Maybe the jury heard some evidence I didn't get...

These were my two main reasons for bringing this up, my Google searches were only giving me the same thing from different sites -all of which I would consider a bit left leaning- (maybe my location affected that) and I figured someone else would have better sources than me. That and 4 dollars, let alone 4 cents really is shameful for everyone involved. It implies that while he his death was a mistake, his life was barely worth a Big Kahuna burger. It would have been better saying they were entitled to nothing do to his actions.

Thank you, I'm still on the fence as to what happened, though. Atleast however, this provides an actual counter-argument to the story of "Man shot over noise complaint." The idea that he returned his gun to his waistband after being shot 3 times (once in the head) sounds a bit strange.

<Snipped quote by mdk>

These were my two main reasons for bringing this up, my Google searches were only giving me the same thing from different sites -all of which I would consider a bit left leaning- (maybe my location affected that) and I figured someone else would have better sources than me. That and 4 dollars, let alone 4 cents really is shameful for everyone involved. It implies that while he his death was a mistake, his life was barely worth a Big Kahuna burger. It would have been better saying they were entitled to nothing do to his actions.

It would indeed. Every part of the actual awarding of money sounds broken as hell here -- but, again, my little internal Occam's Razor says there's probably more to THAT story too. Typically cases like this (and like the Trayvon Martin case), the deceased isn't on trial and the decision has little or nothing to do with them. Martin's conduct was immaterial to that case, and Zimmerman's council didn't (and/or couldn't, I honestly can't remember) say anything about it. In this case the question is "What is the state's financial burden for a clean shooting" (it was already tried and found legit years ago) -- and the judge/jury said "not a whole hell of a lot."

Which makes sense as a precedent -- every asshole who pulls a gun on cops shouldn't earn a paycheck -- but it's also a pretty loaded subject in THIS case, at least based on the version the media's chosen to run with.

My whole question is did he even actually point the gun? It was the SWAT team that showed up and discovered the gun on him, and that reported it was in his back pocket. If, for example, the wife of Greg Hill had entered the garage from inside the house (plenty of assumptions here) and moved the gun to his pocket, then I feel she would have been charged when they fingerprinted. I would still like an explanation as to how, after shooting him in the head, he decided he should put his unloaded gun away.

Also (and this is 100% purely my opinion) if the pics provided of the garage door are real and not some reproduction or something like that, by all indication, when they began to open fire, the garage door was closed (I'm almost certain police are not supposed to fire blind, it goes against basic gun safety) as well as intentionally aiming at a level that would be targeting the head (again, I believe they are trained to aim for Center of mass)

Looking at them a bit closer, it seems almost every picture actually has the garage door slightly open to elevate the apparent level at which the shots were taken. That last shot (I'm assuming it's the last shot or these police officers should have their guns taken away based on inability to aim) to the bottom is clearly excessive, there's no way he though he was shooting his foot or something. It strikes me more as a cop doing what he's told is the best result (I forget the exact phrasing but essentially it is better for the force if when they shoot someone, that someone dies)

Also I wouldn't necessarily call the guy an asshole. He was drunk as fuck. If someone was banging on my door -extremely aggressively I would guess if his music was that loud- I might grab a bat in a similar state (I'm assuming he didn't hear, or they didn't announce themselves, I know police wouldn't be screaming "Police!" Around here for a noise complaint.) If he did retrieve his gun, and interpreted a threat outside, he would already have drawn it (remember btw he never loaded it, that says quite a bit about the man's character, plenty of actual assholes walk around with a loaded gun and "+1 in the chamber").

Imagine drawing a gun, and upon opening your door the first thing you see is a police officer. Your first thought would probably be something along the lines of "Oh shit I'm about to die." Should he have shut the door? No, but he was drunk.

Was he brandishing a gun? Debatable. Should he have shut the door? Obviously not. Was there excessive force implemented. Without a doubt.

When you speak about precedent, this case is absolutely terrifying. The court found 0 excessive force and that Hill was 99% responsible because he was intoxicated. Using this as precedent any drunk belligerent assholes could be filled with lead. For example saying "Fuck you" then turning and running from a cop for public intoxication (Stupid fucking idea, I've seen it enough times that this freaks me out) and because it's dark out and the cop can't see every clear detail, he claims to see a gun (cellphone) in his hand and opens fire. In both situations the victim was clearly trying to hide/escape - even though hiding in your garage when they are outside is pretty stupid.

So all a cop has to do now is say he was afraid (In this case for his partner)? A police officers job - one of them- is to handle scary situations with a level of calmness and composure.

If I had encountered these officers when I was covered in blood after my friend had an accident, I would be dead today.

My whole question is did he even actually point the gun? It was the SWAT team that showed up and discovered the gun on him, and that reported it was in his back pocket. If, for example, the wife of Greg Hill had entered the garage from inside the house (plenty of assumptions here) and moved the gun to his pocket, then I feel she would have been charged when they fingerprinted. I would still like an explanation as to how, after shooting him in the head, he decided he should put his unloaded gun away.

None of that is in the press, so *major shrug* IDUNNO. This was tried twice and the jury heard everything we can read and more, and they're in unanimous agreement. I don't think it's unreasonable, at this point in this specific case, to go with that.

Looking at them a bit closer, it seems almost every picture actually has the garage door slightly open to elevate the apparent level at which the shots were taken. That last shot (I'm assuming it's the last shot or these police officers should have their guns taken away based on inability to aim) to the bottom is clearly excessive, there's no way he though he was shooting his foot or something. It strikes me more as a cop doing what he's told is the best result (I forget the exact phrasing but essentially it is better for the force if when they shoot someone, that someone dies)

The lowest one logically is the first shot, because the door was closing during the shooting. Again though, the whole sequence of events and all the ballistics were presented at trial(s) and administratively by IA.

Also I wouldn't necessarily call the guy an asshole. He was drunk as fuck.

I think you're misreading me there -- I'm speaking broadly with that aside. Lots of assholes DO point guns at cops, and I don't think that should be a guaranteed payout for the asshole.

If someone was banging on my door -extremely aggressively I would guess if his music was that loud- I might grab a bat in a similar state (I'm assuming he didn't hear, or they didn't announce themselves, I know police wouldn't be screaming "Police!" Around here for a noise complaint.) If he did retrieve his gun, and interpreted a threat outside, he would already have drawn it (remember btw he never loaded it, that says quite a bit about the man's character, plenty of actual assholes walk around with a loaded gun and "+1 in the chamber").

Making a lot of assumptions that aren't in evidence here.

Imagine drawing a gun, and upon opening your door the first thing you see is a police officer. Your first thought would probably be something along the lines of "Oh shit I'm about to die."

Not at all, but that's part of the problem. I have no idea how to correct the perception that "cops are here" = "I'm about to die" for minorities. Because historically speaking they're not wrong, but also that very perception itself perpetuates the problem. I don't know how to fix that.

Was he brandishing a gun? Debatable. Should he have shut the door? Obviously not. Was there excessive force implemented. Without a doubt.

That's not what the grand jury found. That shouldn't close the book on the case or anything, but there ought to be some doubt at least.

When you speak about precedent, this case is absolutely terrifying. The court found 0 excessive force and that Hill was 99% responsible because he was intoxicated. Using this as precedent any drunk belligerent assholes could be filled with lead. For example saying "Fuck you" then turning and running from a cop for public intoxication (Stupid fucking idea, I've seen it enough times that this freaks me out) and because it's dark out and the cop can't see every clear detail, he claims to see a gun (cellphone) in his hand and opens fire. In both situations the victim was clearly trying to hide/escape - even though hiding in your garage when they are outside is pretty stupid.

Here's where we're actually more okay than you think. The precedent here doesn't say that at all. The precedent here says "In the event of a clean shoot, the police are financially responsible commensurate with their role in the shooting." In this case, they also ruled that the shooting was nearly entirely Hill's fault (not an easy thing to rule, and it's even harder to see through emotions with half the evidence and a media circus, but they got there anyway), and therefore the penalty is so insultingly low. I would've rather seen it tossed out -- but as precedents go, this one's pretty fine actually.

So all a cop has to do now is say he was afraid (In this case for his partner)? A police officers job - one of them- is to handle scary situations with a level of calmness and composure.

I mean not to be cold, but a headshot through a closing door with a gun in your face is pretty composed.

If I had encountered these officers when I was covered in blood after my friend had an accident, I would be dead today.

That's not in evidence.

I hadn't considered that interpretation of the precedent. While it is hopeful that would be the interpretation of this case in the future, common-law really does come down to how a judge chooses to interpret the precedent. This is a common problem with common-law (HA). This was in federal court, not the Supreme Court.

If the Jury had not reached a unanimous decision, that would result in a hung jury. It's entirely possible for a few Jurors to impede an entire court case through this method. It might explain the ludicrous payout they determined to be adequate. (I could be wrong here, different countries allow different results regarding different cases such as 11 v 1 or 12 v 1)

Regarding the shooting, there seems to be several different versions (looking through the articles again.) Some report the door was being closed, some report the door as closed. If the door was in the process of being closed, and the officer is capable of drawing and firing his gun in that short amount of time, with accuracy (according to all reports Hill took one look at the cops and said F this Sh-t I'm out) I would assume the man also has sharp enough reflexes and perception to register multiple hits incapacitating the target. This would raise questions as to why they waited 4 hours before entering the garage. Of course this would elicit the same answer as to why he shot in the first place.

Also I am no ballistics expert, but the order of shooting is entirely up for debate, I don't think there is anyway to prove which bullet was fired first (if there is, damn science you scary). Either way that shot gives a clue as to the officers mentality, the shot is clearly off target compared to the other three, either it was a case of tracking/predicting where the target was going (falling), or he opened fire before acquiring the target in his sights. (if he had brandished a gun, while this is minorly reprehensible, I don't blame the officer) Either way im pretty sure that is the shot that missed, I just find it curious.

As for the perception, iunno, a court case like this certainly doesn't help the perception, that is on the Judge (for not throwing out the verdict) and the Jury however. Also the perception, while historically true, isn't currently accurate. That's another debate that I feel we stand on the same side of though.

I'm not saying that his thoughts were "cops are here, I'm dead" I'm saying his thoughts were, and I'm assuming he did point a gun in this case, "I just pointed a gun at a cop, I'm dead."

Honestly the only assumption I am making for that paragraph is that he had already drawn the firearm and that they were aggressively loud (which I assume they did so he could hear them. I wouldn't consider this a far stretch) I'm pretty sure I'd grab a bat based on past experiences (huge misunderstanding all around, sorry bud, I still <3 you tho) I know they wouldn't be screaming police around here, in fact in the event of a noise complaint, they would actually just call and tell us to turn it down, and would only show up if we didn't comply. Assuming similar procedure of operations, we can assume Hill may have been acting belligerently. (drunk) The assholes with plus one in the chamber is again experience - and coming from a country where the idea of a civilian carrying around a firearm, let alone a handgun, is uncommon to say the least.

I mean not to be cold, but a headshot through a closing door with a gun in your face is pretty composed.

<Snipped quote>

That's not in evidence.

Not to sound sadistic, but I laughed like a madman at that.

Thank God it's not in evidence lmao, I've been told I look like a murderer even when I'm having a blast, so I can only imagine the thoughts of the Officers who did see me.

Another counter argument, that I am surprised hasn't been mentioned at all, is that Hill's home was directly across from a school. It's possible that the over-reaction by the Officer was in part due to concern for the students exiting the building (it was right as the school day was ending) If the officer mentioned this during the trial, and assuming the gun was actually drawn, I would be in complete agreement with the verdict. However, I haven't seen one mention of the officer reporting concern for the students.

Obviously, the media, biased or unbiased, is not able to provide a play by play account of court proceedings (well they could if it was a public trial, but i doubt many would read it) Which is exactly why I asked for alternative media regarding the trial. However even the alternative media sources provided agree on the entire story, excluding (garage door withstanding) the location of Hill's gun at the time of the shooting. Sadly, this is the most integral part of the case to determining who was in the wrong. While I'm sure the Jury was presented with plenty of evidence we will never hear nor see, in the court of public opinion (as well as in actual court) while it would be nice to have all the facts and evidence, we must come to our conclusions based upon the tools (information) we have at our disposal.

P.s. The Jury's decision is one of those tools, as is the Judge's decision not to throw it out. My disagreement with their decision doesn't change that. Just wanted to make that clear.

To my fellow Canadians:

I'm sure we all were expecting it to a degree, but is anyone else a bit shocked at how the Liberal Party is being butchered in Ontario right now?

In the last 24 hours, Donald Trump has left the G7 crying in a heap to fly halfway around the world and solve the North Korea crisis. Here's a complete list of everybody else in the world with balls that big and/or results that powerful: