- Quickdraw McLaw
- 46 Comments
- 451 Views
- Judge Larry Hicks ask BLM to explain why Nevada horse roundup should continue. [RJ]
- Ruggs faces sentencing tomorrow. [RJ; 8NewsNow]
- Lawmakers raise penalties for fentanyl trafficking. [TNI]
- Metro officer shows restraint with taser in dealing with food vendor. [KTNV]
- Commissioner Tick Segerblom says county should rehab more motels for homeless, not build a mega campus. [Nevada Current]
Leave the horses alone.
BLM and Hicks. Dirty dealing with dirty.
Leave the street vendors alone
LVMPD posted the video to justify their actions. I always love their response which is "We are investigating so we cannot tell you anything but we want to tell you everything bad about the other guy– not that we are jumping to conclusions…." The video shows a cop who is strung way too tight and gets physical way too quickly over a fruit vendor.
My initial reaction after watching the snippet that I saw was that the cop should have tased the guy. He was resisting arrest (and he was in fact engaging in illegal behavior, whether you agree or not) and it looked like he got physical with the cop. Why would that be allowed to happen without consequence? And by no means am I some “Blue lives matter” fanatic. In fact, I think cops are jerks a good deal of the time and, in fact, they have been jerks to me. However, I am of the mindset that you should listen to the order at the time and argue about it later, if need be. This type of behavior leads to people getting killed.
Cop initiated the contact repeatedly so not sure where the "he got physical with the cop" narrative came from. Furthermore the narrative that "[t]his type of behavior leads to people getting killed" is precisely the problem. He is a fruit vendor. Under no circumstances should be be discussing people getting killed over the illegal selling of fruit.
Yes, the cop “initiated contact repeatedly” because he was trying to cuff the guy. Now, I will say, after reviewing the video again I am slightly confused as to why the cop says “not business” when asking for the guy’s license. That raises the question as to whether the vendor has one or not but the news article quotes metro as saying the cop had some type of interaction with the vendor the day prior and the vendor did not have one. In any event, If the cop has probable cause to believe the guy was acting illegally, the cop has the right to ask for ID. The vendor is clearly not cooperating. At that point, I think he has the right to cuff him.
The cop entered the interaction "pissed off." Seems too emotional for the job. So emotional that when he tripped, he jumped up all embarrassed and targeted the vendor for additional harassment.
1:22 – My guess is that the vendor absolutely has a business license, he just doesn't have a sidewalk vendor permit. One allows you to operate, the other allows you to operate by the road.
From the hundreds of hours I have spent in J Ct. I am absolutely guessing that there is neither a sidewalk permit or a business license.
That cop was way too emotional and aggressive. There’s no justification for his language, level of aggression, or violence. That video should be used at the academy to teach recruits how NOT to handle a situation. All he did was escalate the situation. I don’t care at all that the man had been previously told to leave or whether or not he was licensed. Metro’s actions are indefensible. It’s a fruit cart ffs. No one should have a weapon drawn on them over a fruit cart.
What the hell? The vendor immediately escalated and said no and refused what appeared to be lawful commands. How do you blame the cop for the VENDOR escalating? The whole BLM thing destroyed respect for cops.
Thank you, 3:19.
Because its a Fruit Cart. Because the cop showed up pissed off (maybe regarding what happened the day before or maybe not). Because there is no justification for getting violent over a fruit cart. Whether they are lawful is to miss the point; they were ridiculous showings by the cop of how big his schlong is and pushing the limits of his authority. That you can act like a badass behind a badge does not mean that you should.
3:50 what caused it, or the associated scenario, is irrelevant. Let's say a person was eating cotton candy, tying unicorn balloons, and ministering to orphans while reciting Scripture. Once the cop says put hands behind your back and the "good guy" reaches, walks away, etc. it's reasonable to assume there is a danger – don't care what brought me there – the CURRENT circumstance causes worry. Your theory would require the cop to assign a probability of danger like drug deal reaching for weapon more dangerous than religious zealot reaching for weapon. No one knows who is more dangerous, that's why we all obey and sort it out later.
Because its a Fruit Cart. Because the Fruit Cart guy was pissed off (maybe regarding what happened the day before or maybe not). Because there is no justification for ignoring a lawful command over a Fruit Cart. Whether they are licensed or not is to miss the point; they were ridiculous showings by the Fruit Cart guy of how big his schlong is and pushing the limits of flaunting the law. That you can act like a badass behind a Fruit Cart does not mean that you should.
Thank you, 4:06
@1:22 – The cop was asking for his identification/driver's license, but the vendor kept giving him a business license. And so he was like, not that license, your other license! At least that's how I understood it.
1:22 here, Right, thanks 4:16. I actually understood that he was asking for ID, but I was just questioning it because in my original comment (12:27) I had been working under the assumption that the guy was NOT licensed. I was assuming it was the licensing issue that was the catalyst for the entire incident. So when the cop says “not business” it just called my assumption into question.
3:19,
BLM didn't destroy respect for cops. You know what did? The prevalence of video recording devices in society. It turns out that cops can frequently be ill-informed, hyperaggressive illegally searching and seizing bastards. The only reason that it took so long to become well-known is because their previous targets weren't believed over the officer's testilying.
But for the grace of the Record Button, the cop would still always be believed over the accused criminal.
4:32 is correct. Cell phone cameras have proven what scum bags cops really are. We need psych evals for every single academy applicant.
4:32 is right that cops can be assholes and the sunlight of a video camera can be a great disinfectant and a street vendor pushing a cop down should go to jail.
4:32 is absolutely correct. Which is why when confronted with a camera, a cop's first inclination is to get physical and hurt people. https://www.ktnv.com/news/education/clark-county-school-district-leaders-respond-to-video-of-violent-attack-at-las-vegas-school
@4:31 – Clark County currently does not offer business licenses for food carts. Though I think the new law may require them to begin doing so. The man may have had a state business license and was trying to show that. Though a state business license wouldn't authorize him to sell food at the Las Vegas sign or on the strip because that's prohibited even to valid businesses.
I'm sure raising penalties for drug trafficking will work THIS TIME even though it's never worked before, ever in the history of humanity. Singapore executes people and they still traffic. You can't turn off economics just because it concerns a vice. Prices will move up and down but the supply will never end as long as there's a demand.
You're correct. Let the free market sort that out. Let the drug traffickers to their business.
I assume you're also in favor of withdrawing all public resources used to house, feed, bathe, or otherwise support the traffickers' customers, the addicts living on the streets. Right? Arrest them for their criminal behavior, convict them, jail them, no probation. Keep them away from the normal people. Right? The free market is fair.
11:36 I like how u twist his point then argue against it – straw man much?
Drugs are a fact of human existence, always have been and always will be. How many of the attorneys reading this are closet alcoholics? Why does the Bar require SA cle every year? They see what's causing problems. How many alcohol DUIs result in death or serious injury every year? Humans want to get high, whether it's drugs, religion, food, endorphins, adrenaline or alcohol, etc.
OBVIOUSLY some of these behaviors are less desirable than others. But all we've tried since Nixon is increasing penalties and it DOES NOT WORK. The drugs won the war on drugs and we need to try something else. Harm reduction is a good place to start. Free and readily available residential treatment would be second. Addicts change when they decide to change, and when that day comes they shouldn't have to wait 6 months to enter a facility. Maybe try reopening asylums to treat mental illness. Investing in universal basic income would reduce the brutal societal pressure on some folks who frankly cannot cope with modern society and turn to drugs.
So, no, nobody is saying let the drug dealers take over, but we do need to address the DEMAND because addressing the SUPPLY is a fool's errand. And if you are older than 15 and can't recognize that failure then I can't help you.
The War on Drugs was won by the CIA in 1983.
Even though what 12:50 says is entirely true, we must not accept that view, as it will deprive political candidates from a basic tactic they have used since the 60's and 70's.
That tactic is that the candidate runs for office on an anti-drug stand, insisting "Drugs are bad! We need to do something about drugs! They are destroying our youth!"
Then, of course, once the candidate is elected, they proceed to do absolutely nothing about the issue. When they run for re-election, and they are challenged with the question of what they actually did about drugs during their tenure in office, they respond something like "Um…um…well, I proposed we form a feasibility committee to study the problem."
As 12:50 suggests, the result of any valid feasibility study would be "don't waste your time. Society carps about this problem, but, in general, society does not want it meaningfully addressed."
I tend to largely agree with 12:50 and 1:27.
With that said, certain drugs should continue to be controlled to some extent, plus there should be serious penalties to peddling drugs to minors, plus we should have greatly improved, and far more affordable rehab treatment for those who desire it, etc.
However, to argue about any war on drugs is a farce, as no significant governmental efforts have ever been in place to effectively address importation, manufacture, distribution, etc.
Who would want the job of a "Drug Czar"?, whether on a state or federal level, as the job guarantees built-in failure since, no matter how great and valiant your efforts may be, the statistics will continue to establish that the problems are becoming worse and worse.
@11:36 This OP is obviously from San Francisco. It works so well there, let's do it here.
Buh bye BlueJeans
Dear Valued Customer,
We want to share that Verizon has decided to sunset BlueJeans by Verizon in the first half of 2024.
Over the past few years, we have built an award-winning product that connects our customers around the world. However, due to the changing market landscape, we have made this difficult decision.
Our team will be in touch during the coming weeks with further information specific to your BlueJeans services. Rest assured, you can continue to use your BlueJeans services as usual until further notice. Our teams will be available to assist you once the transition begins.
In the meantime, if you have any questions, you can reach out to your BlueJeans support team or feel free to contact us at https://support.bluejeans.com/s/contactsupport.
Finally, we want to take this opportunity to thank you for being a BlueJeans customer.
Why wouldn't they just sell it?
What video conf systems have other courts used other than Bluejeans? I've used Zoom for Government with a few BK court settlement conferences and a trial during the pandemic – is that something they could tie-in to their system? Google Meet is consumer friendly (easy to setup and don't need a 12 year old to teach you how to use it) but not business friendly (not tied into centrally managed network services.) WebEx and Microsoft Teams are business friendly but not really consumer friendly. Zoom seems to have best of both worlds and their Zoom for Government guarantees things are hosted in the U.S. only and certified secure for even federal government use. That'd be my vote if I could vote on a Bluejeans replacement.
The feds use zoom for government. Hopefully something can replace bluejeans.
There is always $50 a session CourtCall. Man did they botch it by getting greedy.
@3:45p – there isn't a hearing date that goes by that I don't give thanks that I don't get that #!#$@#% email from CourtCall offering to allow me to make a phone call through their system for $50 to appear remotely. CourtCall should buy BlueJeans from Verizon.
Question about CLEs: How old of a CLE can I take? Is it 3 years?
However old it is, hopefully it's a CLE on how to use Google
That is sooooo rude hahaha
@4:27, bad day bud?
3:54,
Regulation 2 (1) Alternative Program Formats
a. Alternative format programs are eligible for credit commencing on the date they were first produced and for the three (3) years immediately thereafter.
In support of @4:27p – https://bit.ly/4424CcM
@5:17, thanks. That other person was clearly having a bad day.
We all make choices in life, and some choose not to be so easily offended by the words of strangers. Especially if a stranger constructively points out another's laziness.