I think this is girl / woman thing, right? I donât see it often with men, but I am not on social media much, and perhaps I am just in a bubble.
I do think it is mostly stupid though.
I donât understand expensive booze TBH. Maybe I am unrefined. It seems like something that has extreme diminishing returns. The $100+ dollar bottle, I only slightly prefer to the $10 bottle, and that is only sometimes. Could be I am just to frugal. I donât even pay the extra $5 to go from Admiral Nelson to Captain Morgan.
Same goes for beer. Some of my friends seem to almost have to try the interesting beers on tap. I did that for awhile, and then I realized that I usually donât even like the odd flavors. So they get their fancy beers that taste like pinesol and I usually get a Premium Grain Belt or Hammâs.
This is an issue I have with so many products from tools to food to clothes to cars to supplements to electronics and practically everything else. I understand the value of buying quality and am willing to pay more for a product that is better and will last longer/get better results/is healthier. But it seems a lot of time that the more expensive stuff is the same crap with better marketing. I just donât really have a way of knowing that Iâm not just thinking itâs better because it costs more.
We have a draw dish washer that is split into 2 draws, one is being filled whilst the other is clean. Works great until your kids put dirty dishes in the clean one
In simple terms it protects law enforcement officers when they violate a personâs constitutional rights from charges.
Affecting an arrest or not, you should still be bound to not violating rights with consequences other than the person going free or having charges dropped.
I donât need to affect an arrest to understand. Last time I checked I have a JD hanging on my wall, licenses in 3 states, clerked for a 9th district criminal
court judge, and understand legalities far better than any law enforcement officer.
Obviously, it is more nuanced than my simple answer.
It doesnât protect from actions that violate a clearly established statutory or constitutional right.
1983 suits open up then as well.
No, Iâm educated and understand exactly what it does and doesnât protect against.
And I still think it should be tossed.
There is a reason attorneys donât argue legalities with law enforcement and shouldnât ever have to. There is also a reason why attorneys actually write the laws.
WTF are you talking about? Beds are one of the prime delights of life. All snuggled in after a day outside in the cold or in the water or on the trail or at the fairâŠnothing is better than a bed. Unless itâs a table laden with delicious food. After which, a bed!
Yes, agree, and wish weâd pulled the trigger on that when we built our kitchen.
Donât care.
Agree.
Can you expand on this, please?
Agree.
No opinion.
Are there not enough currently?
After reading the posts about it, I agree. Like @punnyguy I didnât really know what it was. But now I am against it.
Rum is very nice when doing beach things. You just have to be careful not to make the drinks too juicy/sweet. Weâve been making a cross between an Arnold Palmer and a tropical rum thing for a couple of years after mistakenly getting an Arnold Palmer on Marthaâs Vineyard and (little drunk) sharing both drinks by pulling from the two straws. It was better than either drink. So now we do 1 part each cranberry and tea, 1/2 part lemonade and pineapple, and 3 rums (basic, coconut, dark) to taste. Itâs super yummy. I understand that as a top notch chef-type you may be wrinkling your nose, but there it is.
Hot take: my drink is super yummy, and anyone who thinks itâs not is a BIG SNOB.
I believe QI must exist in some shape or form, but I donât know the technicalities necessary to debate @Bauber or any JD.
I see it as very similar to malpractice insurance for doctors.
You canât ask people to rush into a chaotic situation and generate good outcomes every time. A trauma surgeon wonât save everyone they treat and a cop wonât execute a flawless victory over every asshole they are tasked with controlling.
Cops have an extra element of chaos in the form of violence and threats to their personal safety that doctors donât often have to worry about.
The people responding to the worst situations that materialize deserve a lot of protection from personal lawsuits.
They should fall under the same laws as anyone else.
The Supreme Court has also ruled you have no right to police protection and police have no duty to protect you.
In Jessop v. City of Fresno, police officers stole $225,000 in cash and rare coins when executing a warrant. Prior cases had held that it was unconstitutional for officers to steal, but those cases were factually distinct, involving the theft of different types of property under different circumstances. According to the appeals court, the officers âought to have recognizedâ that it was wrong to steal the coins and cash, but âthey did not have clear notice that it violated the Fourth Amendmentâ because prior court decisions âdid not put the constitutional question beyond debate.â
In Baxter v. Bracey , an appeals court granted qualiïŹed immunity to officers who released their police dog on a burglary suspect who was sitting down with his hands up. Although a prior court decision had held that it was unconstitutional to release a police dog on a suspect who was lying down , the court in Alexander Baxterâs case granted qualiïŹed immunity to the officers because, it held, the prior decision did not clearly establish the unconstitutionality of the ofïŹcersâ decision to release a police dog on a person who was seated with his hands in the air.
These are just 2 of many. There is no way these scumbags should be protected from civil suit, but they were.
And then people wonder why QI is shit on. All attorneys I know (most are conservative) think QI is bullshit.
