Protestor gunned down in Austin - Daniel Perry trial

[Hoji]

Lol

That was some weapons grade faggotry.

 

[Renegade]

Garner doesn't prohibit shooting a fleeing felon, it prohibits it is certain cases.

Yes, that is what I wrote.

Shooting a fleeing felon has been illegal (except under small circumstances)

eta

Quoting exactly from the opinion:

Held: The Tennessee statute is unconstitutional insofar as it authorizes the use of deadly force against, as in this case, an apparently unarmed, nondangerous fleeing suspect; such force may not be used unless necessary to prevent the escape and the officer has probable cause to believe that the suspect poses a significant threat of death or serious physical injury to the officer or others.

So he would have to show "significant threat of death or serious physical injury to the officer or others." Now if driver was randomly shooting people as he drove down the street, that would be doable. But a single engagement against a masked assailant with a rifle while as mob is surrounding your car and banging on it, is not likely.

Like I said above, it would be interesting see the second shooters version of events and what he knew when he opened up.

 

[Renegade]

In this case the 2nd shooter *MAY* have believed the shooting to have been unprovoked (incorrect, but possibly reasonable) and feared this armed person who had just fired shots at someone was going to return and do more harm.

That is a very complicated line of thought for a rioter to have in 1-2 seconds. Occam's Razor says he just started shooting without understanding the legal justifications.

At this time it is not clear when he started shooting. We know there was a delay, but was the car still at the scene, or was 50 yards down the street? Did he actually see the driver shoot? etc.

 

[cycleguy2300]

Yes, that is what I wrote.

Shooting a fleeing felon has been illegal (except under small circumstances)

I wasn't disagreeing with you...

Sent from my SM-G965U1 using Tapatalk

 

[ZX9RCAM]

I was never much of a fan, but that will be the last of his videos on any of my screens.

Guess I should be okay that I didn't even open it.

 

[Renegade]

I wasn't disagreeing with you...

I was emphasizing and updated it with verbage from case and how it comes into play.

 

[Davetex]

That was some weapons grade faggotry.

Does the ATF monitor that shit?
Asking for a friend.

 

[Brains]

Dude can try to guilt and shame and name-call all he wants, but the net result is he can still kiss my ass.

 

[GoPappy]

OK. YM has now lost me. I used to find some useful tidbits on his channel. I will no longer bother looking.

YM lost me a long time ago. He could spend 30 minutes explaining the answer to 2+2.

Time is our most precious commodity. Got no time for long-winded blowhards.

 

[deemus]

That was some weapons grade faggotry.

You sir are a true wordsmith.

 

[Axxe55]

I have now been elevated to scum off the bottom of someone's shoe!

Foster is not a patriot. He was a radical BLM member.

I was never really a fan of YankeeMarshal, but for sure never will be now.

 

[Low_Speed]

They are not employees.

They can terminate the contract.

They are employees. In everyway except that Uber is using the term so that they don’t have to pay benefits.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[Axxe55]

They are employees. In everyway except that Uber is using the term so that they don’t have to pay benefits.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Kind of my thoughts. They are redefining them as "private contractors" so as not to deal with all the normal things associated with having employees.

I have worked as a private contractor several times in the past in my field, and as such there were many company policies I was exempt from, because I wasn't an employee.

 

[oldag]

They are employees. In everyway except that Uber is using the term so that they don’t have to pay benefits.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

LEGALLY, they are not employees.

That better?

Uber does not want to pay unemployment taxes, workers comp, benefits, etc. And they want to try and reduce their liability. They also want to avoid a myriad of HR laws/regulations that apply to employees. And Uber is far from the only company using this tactic.

 

[Low_Speed]

Kind of my thoughts. They are redefining them as "private contractors" so as not to deal with all the normal things associated with having employees.

I have worked as a private contractor several times in the past in my field, and as such there were many company policies I was exempt from, because I wasn't an employee.

Yeah, I know. My wife is an independent contractor. It is a pain.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[Axxe55]

Yeah, I know. My wife is an independent contractor. It is a pain.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

There were times I really enjoyed the freedom of not being an employee, but there were times when it was a real hassle.

 

[Low_Speed]

LEGALLY, they are not employees.

That better?

Uber does not want to pay unemployment taxes, workers comp, benefits, etc. And they want to try and reduce their liability. They also want to avoid a myriad of HR laws/regulations that apply to employees. And Uber is far from the only company using this tactic.

Not really. Not better at all. I understand that they are giving people that drive for them that title to skirt their obligations. That doesn’t mean that that in the true sense that they aren’t employees. I don’t agree with California lawmakers on much but they saw through Uber and what they were doing.

They treat their drivers as employees in every way except in how it benefits the drivers.

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[toddnjoyce]

They are employees. In everyway except that Uber is using the term so that they don’t have to pay benefits.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

The NLRB disagrees.

https://src.bna.com/Ibt

 

[oldag]

The NLRB disagrees.

https://src.bna.com/Ibt

Don't confuse the boy with facts.

 

[Hoji]