Strike

You saying they DIDN'T suspend a commander for faking data?

The data is LITERALLY fake. They LITERALLY suspended a guy for faking the data in D.C., and that was before Trump even took control of the department.

That, and "Anything Trump does bad even if it's a good thing for the country or city."

The Wash. D.C. Police Union supports Trump's actions, acknowledging that crime is out of control and D.C.'s policies are to blame, but the libs here think crime is going down there!!!! You can't make this stuff up!!!!!

That's awesome. Good to know we do that. An actual useful agency in government. Never Forget.

I have never heard of this department. Interesting.

I don't doubt that he's asked other people dumber questions. And he may even have done it to me, but this one is up there. That's all I'm sayin'......

This is the dumbest question you've ever asked me. Congrats!!!!!

I'd say it's negligent either way. But we're all negligent every day in some way or another. The question is whether we show some grace and recognize that no one is 100% perfect and while negligent it's one of those things that COULD happen to anyone and as such not worthy of being criminal. I am of that point of view. This guy is going to be paying the price for this bit of negligence for the rest of his life.

If it was negligence when the kid drowned it was negligence BEFORE he drowned, just dumb luck that he hadn't drowned up to that point. And that's what he would be charged with, not murder or anything like that. But you said above that you would ONLY charge him IF the kid died. Hence the inconsistency of the liberal position. The negligence in the Kardashian case is that the kid wasn't wearing a life vest. While she was tending to him, she was putting him in an unsafe position just like the father did leaving his kid outside near the pool unattended. My stance is 100% consistent. Yours isn't.

I don't have those stats. Do you? Not that it matters. My stance is that this was a tragic accident, and I would feel the same way if it happened to Kourtney Kardashian on a boat. I also believe you punish the behavior, not the outcome as you believe, something you notably ignored from my previous post. So my stance is consistent; yours is not. You want to selectively punish people based on some unknown criteria, which is the typical liberal response. But it makes it hard for people in society to know what/when they will be charged over tragic accidents.

Yeah, ok. That's the problem with you libs. Lack of consistency and being ruled by emotion.

It may seem ok but had they gone in to the drink there's no way she saves her kid. It's fools gold thinking that kid was safe. Hence the coast guard guidance that says the kid should have a life vest on, and her acknowledging her negligence publicly.

Yeah because no Mom EVER was distracted when her kid drowned in a pool.

Look it up. It's a big story just like this one.

So you only want to prosecute when the end result is bad? Then we shouldn't prosecute drunk driving unless the driver crashes and does damage or hurts someone.

Just out of curiosity, those of you who think he should be charged with a crime, would you still think that if nothing bad had happened to the kid but a neighbor noticed the kid near the pool unaccompanied and called the police? If you do think he should still be charged under those circumstances, why aren't you complaining about Kourtney Kardashian?

Of course it is, which is why i used the word "distracted" in my post above. People have gotten distracted for millions of reasons for the entirety of mankind. And in the past this would have been considered a terrible, preventable tragedy, but not a crime. But here we are.

Honestly, why don't they just have midgets at home plate so they don't have to bend.over to call balls and strikes? Would probably be more accurate.

Thanks. I set a timer because it looks interesting. It looks like it's from 2022 and there were three episodes but they're only showing two of them.

She's probably Jewish

I could literally post a hundred things from his articles that prove he has no credibility, but I'll just REPOST this quote from one of his articles that I posted up above: If you believe that someone who posts the above in an article is credible I don't know what to tell you except that we disagree on his credibility.

Uh, he was wrong. You're backtracking now. ROFLMAO.

Bring it up all you want. I think the relevant take away for anyone reading this is that when i cite sources they're typically something like CBS, while when you cite sources they're typically Billy from the gaming chat room or the infinitejaz substack that no one has heard of and is admittedly an Anti Israel Pro Palestinian blog.

No, did Billy from the gaming chat room tell you to say that?