And for the inevitable GENIUSES who will question why the use of a "restraint chair" inside a prison cell is wrong. There are several reasons but one of them is that the inmate can be injured or even killed this way, depending on his or her individual risk factors.
Ongoing physical mechanical restraint inside institutions like prisons and so-called "hospitals" can be very dangerous, which is why it is decreasingly used, in civilized places.
BRIEF restraint for immediate risk reduction is justified, but that is not what's alleged here.
When the government has a person in custody to protect that person or others from imminent harm, there are book-length rules and guidelines for how to do it without killing them.
For example, this 1995 US DOJ document is a good start:
Every cop, prison officer, or other authorized person in the USA should not only know of that 26 year old document, but be so familiar with the details as to be able to pass a spot test on them at any time.
It's not just about civil rights. It's about saving lives. ALL lives.
What gets lost in the daily debate over injury or death in custody is that the use of legally justified force can save the life of the suspect, officer, or bystander, BUT it can cost the life of the suspect if it's done wrong.
That suspect could be YOU, regardless of color.
My goal is to convince as many people as possible to care about victims of crime (& an unlawful use of force by an officer is a crime) whether their skin color is similar to your own OR NOT.
Here is a black officer, Victor Hill, accused of endangering inmates under his control.
I don't yet know how many of Hill's inmates were endangered by these practices, nor do I know their skin color. I'm guessing that as POC are over-represented in the justice system as both offenders AND victims, that they are over-represented in this group, too.
• • •
Missing some Tweet in this thread? You can try to
force a refresh
Well said, @DonnaLeeSun. I have the same approach.
Donna is "Unapologretically Canadian."
I am Unapologetically New Zealander/Kiwi. Granted, "sorry" has a special meaning in Canada, eh? But our countries do have a lot in common. Mini-thread:
I really get what Donna is saying in her Twitter bio:
"Trumpism has a strong foothold in Canada & we ignore it at our peril. Pay attention, esp. to PP, former PM Harper & idiot Premiers!"
The same is true of New Zealand, Australia, and our OG mothership: The UK.
PP stands for Pierre Poilievre, who became the leader of Canada's conservative party on 10 September 2022.
For me it's super simple: Far right extremism gained a foothold in the US, only to be rejected by majorities of voters multiple times since. Because #DemocracyWins.
Evidently, my above use of the term misogyny has triggered a few of them.
They're trying to insinuate that Kohberger was a liberal which, even if true, would have nothing to do with the points made in my tweet. We already know several things about him, and his crimes...
Further, when writing the above list of 5 known and/or confirmed misogynists, some of whom have killed at least one woman, I considered a range of factors that put them on that list.
I want to encourage discussion about misogny and the targeting of women by violent offenders.
Esp. the 2020 US presidential election, and others where right wing governments were (and will soon be) punished for anti- public health and safety, anti-science, ignorant approaches to pandemic response.
Do politicians and their advisers get this yet? In most households, it is one or more women who take basic health and safety seriously, & who develop a superior knowledge base due to our more complex biology, higher rates of illness, & greater need for infection control measures.
Of course there are many men with the same health knowledge and risk management priorities as women, but we are talking about "in general" here, and how that applies to elections.
Gotta laugh, my tweet generated the following reply from a maga account:
"Ukraine flag in bio"
Ad hominem/genetic fallacy is all they have. They deflect by targeting the player not the ball. Because playing the ball is too hard for them. It requires honesty & courage.
I'm talking about changing the way domestic violence incidents are handled, and doing more to put long term distance between known DV offenders and their legal access to guns.
An idea best espoused by the outstanding @BeauTFC. Link to follow.
The outstanding @BeauTFC talked about this issue here:
I wonder what price between $8 billion and $44 billion Elon Howard Hughes Musk might consider to sell this vital pro-democracy communications hub before he completely destroys it.
I mean, that's his goal, right?
He paid waaaay too much for it. Value currently estimated at $8 billion. Surely there are billionaires out there with the ability to build a consortium to entice it out of his grubby little hands?
There's a good argument for the US federal government buying it, too...
Or a group of countries. It's not all about the US, you know.
What does the Putin regime have on Musk, that could get him to over-spend so much money? The global fascist movement is the only winner out of this. Or was it the Mercers?