I will agree that historical data is not always an accurate predictor of future events. But in this case we are talking not about what will happen, but about would the administration’s future actions be influenced by the possibility of people attacking transformers. It is reasonable to say that in the past, similar administration’s didn’t worry about similar things, so it is unlikely that the current administration will either.

The root of the issue is allowing officer to lie in order to deprive people of thier rights.

He knew he had nothing, he was just trying to get a confession by saying it was a 100% lock. The cameras wouldn’t matter as much if lieing like that was illegal.

Trump is going to get his armed resistance one way or another I guess.

Your simple point isn’t the mic drop you think it is. You seem to think this administration would care about maintaining order in every city block through the night. They would create green zones for themselves with power and such, but the rest would be on thier own each night, and probably only minorly managed during the day even. Workers and whoever they need would have to go through security to get into the green zones to work for food. This playbook has already been written and perfected over centuries.

They will just use generators. I mean seriously, the military can deploy to places like Afghanistan and iraq, where I am sure they had no power until they took over the power facilities and such. They can handle power without a grid just fine.

I wasn’t suggesting it would be permanent. But it would reduce the need temporarily so that maybe the military atc could cover while they train new people. At least the government might see it that way. They don’t care much about the long term anyway.

Well I am saying it won’t deter the gov in anyway.

The ones I am talking about have small jets or those turboprop planes for commercial service. And of course private small planes. I’ve seen a tower, but I guess it could be empty.

But why would the gov care if you are without power? The ones they need will be well protected.

I don’t have numbers, but there are tons of tiny regional airports. The kind that have only a handful of flights a day. But they all still need ATC right. I bet you can halve the need by just shutting those down. A small number of people will have to drive further to catch a flight.

I mean they are probably drug boats. But that isn’t really the point. It’s that he/we are unilaterally imposing a death sentence on another country’s citzens when the penalty in our country isn’t even death for these crimes. And, no trial, no transparency. Even if they are 100% guilty, it would still be wrong.

Though it doesn’t say the church knew anything about the assualt. Could be ragebait since we know churches have shuffled people to protect them before.

Why is a 4 year old alone with the pastor? Why was he driving another girl home from church.

It feels more like he was a family friend as well as a pastor. Probably babysitting and such. While I have no love for organized religion, nor believe there is any reason to trust a padtor more than any other person. The pastor thing may not be as relevant as it is being made out to be here. Still relevant, but I don’t think it is necessarily what gave him access to these girls.

While I agree, it isn’t just religion. Seems any organization that gets past a certain size goes the route of protecting its “leadership” over others. But religion is a great example of it.

Seems like the American experience for a lot of people.

You really just want someone to disagree with, I get that. But we are actually saying the same thing. The faxt. That the constitution protects these rights is exactly why when the police ask to remove this injuction it doesn’t change the overall protection given bythe constitution. It only changes the flawed state level injuction that is protecting people trying to create a riot from a peaceful protest.

It’s technically more than one law, but this link should take you to the part where they define journalist (they call it newsman which tells you how outdated it is) https://www.rcfp.org/privilege-compendium/california/#a-shield-law-statute

As for the injunction, I had it a little off. It was in fact a federal court. But it applied to DHS AND the police. The police were asking to be excluded for the reasons I have stated.

My ,ention of portland was to say that they learned of the tactic being used there, and wanted to prevent it in LA.

You read the article? Really? Why lie? The article is about a state of california court, city council, and local police department. Search on the word constitution and you will only find this.

"We expect demonstrations this weekend to be safe, respectful and consistent with the rights guaranteed to every resident under the Constitution.”

I was wrong on it being about a law, it was about an injunction. The injuction was related to the law I looked up about Californias definition of a journalist. Which is the reason for the dispute. The injunction uses the term journalist which based on the law is both unprovable on the scene, and specifies working for a news organiztion. Neither the injunction, nor the law that defined journalist made an exception for that person who claims to be a jounalist participating in or instigating violence.

What has been seen in portland is right wing streamers, claiming to be untouchable because they are “media”. All while they try to start fights with the protestors.

Did you even read?
I litterally said it should be defined by thier actions. And the law does in fact require they are working for a news agency, and doesn’t say define journalist by thier actions. Which allows anyone on the scene with a camera to claim they are a journalist, even when they aren’t, and then act anyway they want. That is why they wanted to suspend the law.

In fairness, what does it take to claim to be a journalist these days. Streaming activist can claim to be journalists. So basically, anyone with a phone camera out can claim to be a journalists. That would include the right wing “influencers” trying to instigate incidents. Seems to me they need to define journalists by actions (and perhaps require significant signage on the person). And probably need a law against pretending to be a journalist as a cover for violence. But that last law would probably be abused.

Sure they could, but them everyone would take thier business to the company that didn’t. Who knows, maybe that is how we got fed ex and not some other company.