WrestlingRasta

That’s a whole lot, but something we agree on. SS is not something I have factored in one iota in regards to retirement. It’s just something that’s not in my control and I gave up on bothering with it. Whatever my benefit when the time comes, money for toys and travel.

I am not scolding you. And my question is, what does all of that have to do with a law enforcement officer taking an patch, entering into an agreement, accepting his compensation for that agreement, and then at the most critical juncture of his obligation in that agreement, making the decision not to? None of what you said has anything to do with that officer making a decision not to fulfill his duty. Nor does all of that answer: for what purpose was that trained law enforcement officer issued a firearm?

The position is literally, specifically, for the protection of the school and its people. I’m sure that exact question with those exact worlds were not asked…but, are you serious? For what purpose would that trained law enforcement officer be issued a firearm??

To answer your question as I have stated this was act of a coward. No I have not risked my life with the added element of having to take someone else’s. I have risked to save children (run into a fire) But neither your nor my examples relate here, as I have not contracted and received compensation for the specific purpose of protecting those children, nor am I a trained police officer. Entering into something that you knew involved inherent risk, which in this case up to and includes loss of life, and you accept your end of that agreement, but at the most critical time you back away from the primary function you are there for……I mean, that’s not at all a similar question to what you are asking.

How did home invasion get involved in a topic about a law enforcement officer who contracted and accepted compensation to protect children at a school?

I wasn’t saying that is happening, my comment is more general in nature. But…to answer your question, the compromise in the popular vote is that it is decided by the majority. It’s only “me against the metros” if you want to make it that way.

And therefore, sacrifice and compromise are necessary, if we want to maintain a functioning and civil society. In other words, everything can’t always be what I think is absolute best for me.

The original questionn wasn’t does the cop have a legal obligation, the question was SHOULD. My opinion is yes because you signed a contract and accepted compensation for the specific, detailed purpose of protecting those children. Is he a coward because he had a weapon and a signed contract for compensation to protect those children, but did nothing while those unarmed people inside were slaughtered….yes he is a coward.

No. Just more visible, and ‘bad’ gets more attention. Now, less tolerant….maybe??

Which makes me happy to see. An indication of law people judging a case on the merits of law and not a political party.

The question of the enforcement clause has already been in front of SCOTUS, and was found that if the states are not adhering, then congress shall have the power to enforce. They did not find that Congress and only Congress can enforce.

It’s not even close to the same things. Not in any way shape or form, past the word allegations. You can dig in and say “but Biden” all you want but it doesn’t change the facts. Never will.

We didn’t even make it two full pages before “but what about Biden” was invoked. You may want to look at the initial case, prior to it reaching the Supreme Court of Colorado, where the lower court found, through evidence and testimony, that he did in fact engage in insurrection. The Colorado Supreme Court did not make this finding. They agreed with the finding of the lower court, that heard the case, and found that his office of president is relative to the 14th amendment. It helps to know the facts if you are going to dig in so deeply.

It was actually the lower court that got the case that decided he engaged in insurrection, then left it up the the Colorado Supreme Court that if engaging in insurrection in his position related to the 14th. Additionally, he doesn’t not have to be convicted or charged to be disqualified. And there is no process in our government by which the people vote on whether or not a constitutional amendment is being violated.

A key element that a lot of people seem to be forgetting, or conveniently ignoring, it’s that a few registered Republican voters brought the case and won.

That key element? Can you point to where that key element is in the 14th?

Yeah, don't like the 'suspected' part about it.

Would have to look a lot more into it, but if it’s true what he says about “suspected”…..don’t like that part at all. If there is evidence and they are illegal…different story.

Which is why it's certainly reasonable to judge each scenario on its own merits, and not blanket one action for every scenario.

Is the Colorado Supreme Court decision on the 14th? This is not me ‘giggling’ here, serious question/discussion. It’s putting the ball in SCOTUS’ court to say Colorado you were wrong. Either way they decide is huge. If they decide Colorado wasn’t wrong, then that’s game over as far as his election run is concerned. If they go against Colorado, it doesn’t make it game over the other way but it will certainly add to his charge. So the Supreme Court is set to decide A) if he is immune from charges and B) is fit to hold office again.

So I’m seriously curious, how they get that number processed, verified, and all of that to the point it’s accurate public knowledge to be posted in chat rooms by 7:00pm eastern time? The way I framed that may sound like I’m being sarcastic, but I’m truly curious about that.

Is that….a report that today 12.5k people crossed, or there was a report made today that (at some point) 12.5k people crossed?

Having a legal obligation does not mean automatic prosecution if in violation of that obligation. Contracts are legal bindings. Every breach of contract is not a means for prosecution. In this instance this individual entered into a contract, where he was payed by the people of that community in exchange for the specific obligation of protecting their children. it’s seems like violating that contract with the public in such a horrific and impactful way should have some legal remedy.

Particularly an SRO who's position is specific to protect and serve the school staff and children. If that were not the case, there would not be an elevation of SRO's in response to an elevation in school shootings.

The picture at the bottom of that article is just freaking chilling.