INIT915

It has nothing to do with "liking how it's worded". It's a dangerous practice, and has been addressed multiple times here on this board, that you should refrain from making statements of a legal nature if you can't back them up. There are many members of this board who use this board as a learning tool, and to be fed misinformation is a dangerous and bad practice, and it does this board, all the members, and yourself a significant disservice.

And what, pray tell, does that have to do with venting (an expensive) roof that arguably did not need to be vented?

Tasers have saved THOUSANDS of lives and prevented THOUSANDS more in injuries. That is the bottom line. Many people have been tased, which, if a Taser wasn't an option, probably would have been shot. Consider all the successful cases of perps with knives, baseball bats, and other weapons that might have otherwise been lawfully subjected to deadly physical force.

Please be specific. Under what law or legal theory?

How, in the same post, can you say that the IC is liable, and then say you don't know what legal actions could be taken? You said he is liable, no? In general, not directed to any of the members who posted here, but that's one of the problems with our country. Their answer is always “sue, sue, sue!!!” But when asked on what legal grounds, you always got the same answer. "I don't know." If you’re going to say someone is civilly liable, please back it up.

That would not qualify as an actionable cause for the purpose of a civil suit.

Do you believe that public sector employees do not pay income/property/school taxes?

That may be the longest sentence I've ever seen (in my entire life). On top of that, from an administrative standpoint, your post is complete with assumptions, highly questionable assumptions mind you, but assumptions nonetheless. You’ve yet to provide any empirical evidence supporting your claims. Again, we eagerly await your documentation supporting your claims that it is more efficient to utilize engines/ladders to do the work that Mohegan currently has SUV’s for.

"batt. 12" -- Perhaps you could provide us with some of your empirical data that weighs the cost/benefit analysis of using SUV's in place of Engines/Trucks, accounting for fuel, wear/tear, insurance/liability, etc, etc... You do have that, right? I know you wouldn't be making such declaratory statements unless you had supporting documentation after carefully evaluating all available evidence, right? I eagerly look forward to specific links that you provide us so we can all become as educated as you are and make such broad statements.

Are you familiar with the many private sector companies who provide educational benefits that far exceed any public sector employees. It has long been widely accepted that an educated workforce is a more productive workforce. When I finished graduate school, there was a FD Lt. in my program. His city (here int he Hudson Valley) paid $12,000 for him to obtain his graduate degree. The city then utilized him and was able to dismiss a six-figure private contractor who had been doing work he was now capable of doing for free. Such personnel moves are called investments. Care to disclose the company you work for? I'd be interested to see how much success they have had in not investing in their employees... My brother works in the private sector. His company paid 100% of his tuition for both his MBA and his law degree at a rather expensive Boston area college. That was over $250,000 in free money. Many, many, many private companies do that. No public sector employees have anything like that. And the Harrison case you discuss, as Chris mentioned, was widely reported on at the time. That officers degree was in physical education, which arguably has a direct correlation to law enforcement work.

Don't you mean "Social Compact"? Your command of "facts" continues.

http://www.cnn.com/2011/US/04/20/california.inmates.rescue/index.html?hpt=T2 Anyone ever seen anything like this?

Actually, legally speaking, public funds can be used for Hess's defense, as long as he is indemnified by his employer. (Which I'm sure he will be). And speaking personally, public funds should be used, as Hess was acting appropriately and in the performance of his official duties.

Well, a few things. I might suggest that your grammar is more ignorant then my opinion, but I’m above that, so I won’t.  And while discussing ignorance, let's take a look at your "facts". Every single one of your assertions is wrong. I believe that is ignorant. Your contention that all public employee unions are entitled to all the benefits you list is just absurd. Please let us know the source where you are drawing your "facts" from.

Murder needs intent? Really, even here in New York? I refer you to NYS Penal Law Section 125.25 Subd. 2. On a side note, I agree with you, I doubt that was his "intent", however his actions were depraved and reckless and did in fact threaten Officer Hess's life.

A "Fund" had already been started for Hess to offset legal expenses. Started by his Union by the way, those narcissistic money grubbers!!! (For everyone else, yes, I'm being sascastic.)

You have to excuse him. His anti-Union posts are typical.

Is this a legal opinion? If so, what is the actionable cause in your example?

I bet most states didn't even give lawmakers cars to begin with.

You think this is revenue generating for the public sector?

I love the "LoHud Lawyers". Especially the one who cites "probably cause". They're even better then all our "EMTBravo Lawyers"!

Didn't try to make a race issue out of it? Are you serious?!?!?!? I watched them in an interview say, in no uncertain terms, that if their son was white, he would not have been shot.

Mourning and slandering are different emotions. The Henry's are relying heavily on the latter, and less on the former.

"Criminal profiling" and "racial profiling" are two very different things. Professional law enforcement officers know the difference!

Yes, but those two examples are very different from widespread investigation/prosecution of police. In the first example, you admit (and seem to consent) to profiling, and in the second, that was an opinion, a far stretch from any official policy or action of the DoJ. So to make a blanket statement that the DoJ is being overly aggressive against law enforcement seems unfounded (just my opinion).