Rivalarrival

Brb, pouring out two ounces for my poor, disadvantaged, neurotypical homies.

Pretty much, yeah. It'll be a problem if the tenant wants to move before then.

I'm looking forward to Trump's state funeral.

Showing up with bricks of cash would be less beneficial than dredging their harbors and building out new power plants and fixing all the damage done by the last big earthquake.

Show up with bricks of cash, and harbor-dredgers, electric generators, and construction companies will be racing each other to figure out how to get them from you.

Yeah, I'm not so sure about a specific hard cap on assets. I'll need some greater explanation and/or convincing on that.

I would like to see a hard cap on registered securities: stocks, bonds, etc. I think any portfolio worth more than $16.7 million should have the excess taxed at 1%. That tax should be progressive, with a 100% top tier rate on everything over $1 billion.

Unlike tangible assets, securities don't need to be sold off to pay such a tax. We can just transfer the excess shares to IRS liquidators, who can sell them off in monthly lots no larger than 1% of total traded volume.

The law, like those passed in New York, California, and Minnesota, will require many manufacturers to provide the same parts, tools, and documentation to individuals and repair shops that they provide to their own repair teams.

I'm sensing downsizing of "repair teams" in the not so distant future, with calls for repair being forwarded to sales.

Gentrification isn't the problem. Rent is the problem.

Eliminate rent. Convert rentals to land contracts or private mortgages. Convert apartments to condominiums

When the residents of a neighborhood are owners instead of renters, they gain an unexpected windfall from gentrification.

How do we eliminate rent? How do we convince landlords to sell? How do we convince them to issue land contracts instead of rental agreements?

Massively increase property taxes, but issue owner-occupant credits to revert those increases. Only owner-occupants get the credit. Investors do not.

Eat up their profits, unless they switch to an investment strategy that puts the deed in the occupant's name, such as a land contract or a private mortgage. With the deed in their name, the occupant gains equity as property values rise.

The concept of renting needs to die in a fire.

am not interested in the nitty gritty of the legality of what the cop did.

Then there is no discussion to be had. The law is the foundation of officer training and policy. To discuss the officer's actions, we must first understand the legal climate under which he acted. He knows it: he has been trained on the law.

if you fear for your life then it is legally acceptable to maim the assailant. But to kill them I think is a step too far.

Under US law It is never acceptable to act with intention to kill or main the assailant. Having the intention of maiming the assailant is not self defense: it is aggravated battery. Having the intention of killing the assailant is not self defense: it is attempted murder.

The only intention contemplated by the laws governing the use of defensive force is "stop the threat". The only valid purpose any imperiled person or other defender can have is "stop the threat".

If they have time to decide between "killing" or "maiming" the attacker, the attack is not sufficiently imminent to justify any use of force. Their imperfect use of defensive force then qualifies as criminal. That they were attacked is only a mitigating factor; it does not exonerate the criminality of their actions.

I do not think the hoe is "reasonably capable of causing "grievous bodily harm"".

I think training that attitude into police would be a monumental mistake. Prideful, cocky, and overconfident in their own abilities,

*ridiculous.

I have trained in quite a bit of self defence with various different martial arts.

What training and instruction have you had on the laws governing use of force in defense of self or others?

The hoe could be lethal in a very unlucky scenario, as you say, if it struck an exposed neck, or major artery.

Is it reasonably capable of causing "grievous bodily harm"? Being rendered unconscious or otherwise unable to defend oneself, or losing an eye or other significant organ would qualify as "grievous" in these circumstances.

Would a person reasonably fear either "death" or "grievous bodily harm" from an individual wielding a hoe as a weapon?