Bad Data Determining Dates

The reason behind the federal government lying about an unemployment rate is obvious. They want to project any sort of good news knowing that most of the people who will be delivering their message in the media are either in on it with them, too lazy to look beyond the headline, or too innumerate to figure out the scam even if they are inclined to dig.

Similarly in New Jersey Governor Murphy is looking to reopen on his timeline (ie. soon after he gets $5 billion for his budget) with politically convenient exceptions and is throwing charts out there that nobody is questioning.


.
This screams out for explanation. In South Korea one case can lead to hundreds more. Why is it different here?

As to nursing homes, according to the Manatt report they are supposed to have 45,000 residents on average in them yet we have 34,094 reported cases.
.

.

Eventually there will be more positive tests than residents. Are people being tested multiple times as tests become more available* and, if so, wouldn’t that information be of value?

On the national level the data distortions may be even worse:
.

.
.
.
* My test took two minutes to take with results in 90 minutes:

Component Your Value Standard Range Flag
SARS CoV-2 by RT-PCR NEGATIVE NEGATIVE
This test was performed by real time RT-PCR using the Emergency Use
Authorization SARS-CoV-2 BD MAX and is intended for the qualitative
detection of nucleic acid from the SARS-CoV-2.
The 2019 novel coronavirus (SARS- CoV-2) target nucleic acids
are NOT detected.
Negative results do not preclude SARS-CoV-2 infection and should not be used
as the sole basis for treatment or other patient management decisions.
Negative results must be combined with clinical observations, patient
history, and epidemiological information.

General Information

Ordered by Alon Y Mass, MD

Collected on 06/04/2020 7:17 AM

Resulted on 06/04/2020 8:45 PM

Result Status: Final result

47 responses to this post.

  1. Posted by boscoe on June 7, 2020 at 11:40 am

    “In South Korea one case can lead to hundreds more. Why is it different here?”

    Maybe because we don’t have crowded nightclubs open? When we do, one of these weeks/months, maybe we too will have mass positives traceable to a single person or
    location. That has nothing and everything to do with Murphy’s presentation of historical virus reproduction trend lines. It is low in New Jersey PRECISELY because of enforced social distancing. When restrictions are relaxed, either the virus reproduction rate will temporarily increase or herd immunity will have set in. More likely the former, followed by the latter. What exactly is your point?

    Reply

  2. Posted by NJ2AZ on June 7, 2020 at 12:41 pm

    I heard the police are still….*piecing* together what happened

    Reply

  3. Posted by A on June 7, 2020 at 3:47 pm

    Off topic…

    Tough Love, June 7, 2020 at 1:11 pm
    “Clearly you don’t understand how slowly big data moves. Must be above your pay grade as a light-bulb-changer.”

    Total bullshit.

    Especially with wages. Private wages are much more volatile (and usually counter-cyclical) than public. As a public employee who routinely went two to three years with no wage increase, I can attest to that. As one who once received a 17 percent increase in one year, I laugh at your ignorance/perfidy.
    ———————————-
    Tough Love:
    “Yup …….. that’s correct ……. and you can take it all only from those now overcompensated. Happy now ?”

    Of course not, you simpleton. You still don’t get it. Willful ignorance? For years you have been implying that all public workers are overpaid; a common mistake, for the innumerate. Inexcusable for a self proclaimed financial expert who professes to “educate” us on “ludicrously excessive pensions.”

    One in your position(?) should be well aware of the flaw of averages, so we can only assume your false claims are intentional.

    It is deceptively simple (or simply deceptive) to imply that all public workers are overpaid because the LOWEST paid workers earn much more than the private sector.

    Tough Love,
    “……. and you can take it all only from those now overcompensated. Happy now ?”

    No, and, hell no.

    Mathematically it can be done. That is using your spreadsheet as a master instead of a tool.

    The compression of public sector compensation* is a nearly universal phenomenon worldwide, for reasons far beyond the ken of your spreadsheet.

    No, that does not make it “right”, but does mean there is widespread support. Call it income redistribution, call it socialism, if you will. Or call it pragmatic; it seems to have evolved over time simultaneously almost everywhere.

    Several human capital studies in the past decade have determined that state/local government compensation on “average” is roughly comparable to private compensation. One has concluded that the average state worker is overcompensated. Fair enough. I strongly recommend reading that study:
    Overpaid or Underpaid? A State-by-State Ranking of Public-
    Employee Compensation
    Andrew G. Biggs
    Jason Richwine
    April 2014

    As well as the others from that period.

    Caveat; the Biggs study does not include law enforcement or firefighters. Law enforcement for some reason being a special bur under Tough Love’s saddle (why not firefighters? IDK). Obviously, higher pension costs for safety workers are largely a factor of early retirement. It is much more expensive. Again, this is virtually a world wide and long standing practice. Instead of just “doing the math” I welcome Mr. Love to challenge this practice in your local town hall or state legislature. Bring the big spreadsheet.

    1) Pension reform is critical and long overdue.

    2) Pension reform is not “just” pension reduction.

    3) Leave pension reform to the adults.

    Reply

    • Posted by Rex the Wonder Dog! 🐶🐶🐶🦴🦴🦴 on June 7, 2020 at 11:14 pm

      As I have said before Dougie, you ass is extremely jealous of all the bullshit coming out of your mouth and that your fingers are typing these days ….
      Off topic…

      Tough Love, June 7, 2020 at 1:11 pm
      “Clearly you don’t understand how slowly big data moves. Must be above your pay grade as a light-bulb-changer.”

      Total bullshit.

      Especially with wages. Private wages are much more volatile (and usually counter-cyclical) than public. As a public employee who routinely went two to three years with no wage increase, I can attest to that. As one who once received a 17 percent increase in one year, I laugh at your ignorance/perfidy.
      ———————————-
      Tough Love:
      “Yup …….. that’s correct ……. and you can take it all only from those now overcompensated. Happy now ?”

      Of course not, you simpleton. You still don’t get it. Willful ignorance? For years you have been implying that all public workers are overpaid; a common mistake, for the innumerate. Inexcusable for a self proclaimed financial expert who professes to “educate” us on “ludicrously excessive pensions.”

      One in your position(?) should be well aware of the flaw of averages, so we can only assume your false claims are intentional.

      It is deceptively simple (or simply deceptive) to imply that all public workers are overpaid because the LOWEST paid workers earn much more than the private sector.

      Tough Love,
      “……. and you can take it all only from those now overcompensated. Happy now ?”

      No, and, hell no.

      Mathematically it can be done. That is using your spreadsheet as a master instead of a tool.

      The compression of public sector compensation* is a nearly universal phenomenon worldwide, for reasons far beyond the ken of your spreadsheet.

      No, that does not make it “right”, but does mean there is widespread support. Call it income redistribution, call it socialism, if you will. Or call it pragmatic; it seems to have evolved over time simultaneously almost everywhere.

      Several human capital studies in the past decade have determined that state/local government compensation on “average” is roughly comparable to private compensation. One has concluded that the average state worker is overcompensated. Fair enough. I strongly recommend reading that study:
      Overpaid or Underpaid? A State-by-State Ranking of Public-
      Employee Compensation
      Andrew G. Biggs
      Jason Richwine
      April 2014

      As well as the others from that period.

      Caveat; the Biggs study does not include law enforcement or firefighters. Law enforcement for some reason being a special bur under Tough Love’s saddle (why not firefighters? IDK). Obviously, higher pension costs for safety workers are largely a factor of early retirement. It is much more expensive. Again, this is virtually a world wide and long standing practice. Instead of just “doing the math” I welcome Mr. Love to challenge this practice in your local town hall or state legislature. Bring the big spreadsheet.

      1) Pension reform is critical and long overdue.

      2) Pension reform is not “just” pension reduction.

      3) Leave pension reform to the adults.

      Reply

  4. Posted by Anonymous on June 8, 2020 at 1:59 am

    You can say that again!

    Reply

  5. Posted by A on June 8, 2020 at 3:55 am

    Tough Love:
    ” Me “trying”. No, I’m not personally “trying’ anything.”
    ” All I’m doing is my best to expose the theft and abuse ….. and along the way, the many ways in which those perpetrating this abuse cheat, mislead, distort, omit material facts, and lie.”

    Good for you. Here is a typical example. (Actually, Connecticut is an extreme example, yet…)

    Unequal pay, Connecticut style:
    Biggs…
    ” Public employees receive total compensation packages that are 25 to 46 percent higher than private employees with comparable skills and experience.” (Depending on assumed discount rate.)

    OK so far… maybe.

    ” If Connecticut public employees were compensated at similar rates to private employees, the state would save between $1.4 billion and $2.5 billion a year. ”

    For the sake of discussion, I’ll buy that.

    ” The average Connecticut state government employee in our data sample receives an annual salary of $70,970, plus annual benefits, either received in that year or accrued toward retirement, worth between $54,561 and $75,641, depending upon how future pension benefits are valued. A private sector employee with similar education, experience and other characteristics would receive $71,112 in average annual salary, but only $29,371 in annual benefits.”

    Now we are on shaky ground. Back to averages.

    If the goal is ” Appropriate compensation levels for government employees can be approximated by analyzing how workers with similar levels of education, experience and other earnings-related attributes are paid in the private sector.” the cuts would not come from the average public worker. They would necessarily come mostly from the least educated, lowest paid public workers. Quoting Willie Sutton again, “Because that’s where the (excess) money is.”

    Biggs spent a lot of time in 2014 discussing and quantifying pay compression in the public sector. In the Connecticut paper, that was reduced to two sentences:
    ” These results do not imply that every Connecticut state government employee is “overpaid.” As discussed above, the measured compensation premium is an average* and does not preclude the possibility that any given state government employee receives a fair market compensation package or potentially even receives less than he or she might in the private sector.”

    *The flaw of averages.

    To have public compensation equal to private sector employees with similar education, experience and other characteristics, one would need to eliminate or greatly reduce both pensions and healthcare AT THE LOWEST INCOME LEVELS. Not at the “average” or above pay levels. I don’t see any popular or political support for that.

    Reply

  6. Posted by Tough Love on June 8, 2020 at 8:54 am

    Wow ………………. Stephen Douglas just decided that a back-and-forth discussion (about 25 comments long) on the recent BURY Blog post titled “Shooting the Brees” should be continued here. Above, he posted choice snippets as he is inclined to do.

    If your are completely bored out your gourd (perhaps self-quarantining), reading them would provide something to do, and lightly help you fall asleep. The 25 (or so) long back and forth started after a observant comment from commentator THIS (to Stephen Douglas, again posting under the handle”A”) to which I responded:
    ———————————————————–

    Quoting THIS ……..

    “@A You committed about 5 fallacies in incorrectly trying to get yourself to the result you wanted. ”

    lol……….. routine for Stephen Douglas, not an anomaly.
    ———————————————————-

    I guess that pissed Stephen off (and starting our back and forth)….. having to acknowledge that someone else recognized and is calling him out on his BS.

    No reason to continue to indulge Stephen. It’s the same biased (everything pro Union and Public Sector worker/retiree) blather over and over.

    Reply

  7. Posted by Anonymous on June 8, 2020 at 10:49 am

    LOL!

    WHY ARE YOU SO ANGRY?

    Reply

  8. Posted by A on June 8, 2020 at 11:32 am

    Guilty as charged. Same old bullshit, eventually buried forty comments down. I thought I would drag your ignorance into the sunlight. It is very clear the “excessive” pension and benefit costs you continually cry about are caused mostly by the lowest paid public workers. #23 percent bullshit. There is nothing you can do about it politically. There are plenty of actual pension reforms you could get behind if you would lose the attitude. New Jersey underfunding is primarily a factor of decades of stiffing the kitty. You are not helping. If you are “not personally “trying’ anything”, just get out of the way.

    No, I do not advocate reducing pensions and benefits to the lowest forty percent of public workers. Even most conservative or libertarian pundits don’t. You say you do. “Do you have a problem with EQUAL?” “ZERO justification to pay public workers more than private for the same job!” As I have stated many times, it is a worldwide phenomenon. You couldn’t change it if you tried, but that does not stop you from mischaracterizing this as some kind of union cabal.

    I do apologize to John, though, for getting off topic. I will try to avoid that in the future.

    Reply

    • Posted by Tough Love on June 8, 2020 at 12:06 pm

      Nothing new. Same old BS ………… Public Sector workers/retirees are “special” and deserving of a better deal. NO Stephen, they’re NOT.

      Reply

    • Posted by A on June 8, 2020 at 12:29 pm

      It is a policy decision. Across the nation and around the world. Above your pay grade and intellectual level.

      Reply

      • Posted by Tough Love on June 8, 2020 at 4:22 pm

        Indeed a “policy decision” by Union-owned Elected Officials to grant excessive benefits to the Union’s members.

        And ……. “Above your pay grade and intellectual level.”

        That’s a hoot, coming from a light-bulb-changer.

        Reply

      • Posted by A on June 8, 2020 at 4:35 pm

        “That’s a hoot, coming from a light-bulb-changer.”

        Your juvenile insults and your hubris are very Trumpian.

        Quoting… Moi:
        “As I have stated many times, it is a worldwide phenomenon.”

        Every state, every OECD country.

        Verified and quantified by Biggs, 2014 Keefe 2012. If you think the evil unions are responsible for decades of policy worldwide, you should get your tinfoil hat adjusted.

        Reply

        • Posted by Rex the Wonder Dog! 🐶🐶🐶🦴🦴🦴 on June 8, 2020 at 5:05 pm

          Your juvenile insults and your hubris are very Trumpian.
          And YOUR comments, all of them, reek of desperation with your public employment “Entitlement Mentality”.
          🐕 🐕 🐕

          Reply

          • Posted by Tough Love on June 8, 2020 at 6:21 pm

            Rex,

            Cut him some slack ………… he was a Public Sector light-bulb-changer. What’ do you expect …….. intelligent UNBIASED discussion ?

        • Posted by A on June 8, 2020 at 8:32 pm

          It didn’t take all that long for the light bulb changer to convince the self proclaimed financial guru that a change from 2%@50 to 3%@50 is not a “fifty percent pension increase”. It’s a fairly simple concept to grasp, and we were all younger then. Some people still can’t figure it out, so I’ll give him kudos for that.

          It has been years, and like pulling teeth, to get to “Yup …….. that’s correct ……. and you can take it all only from those now overcompensated. Happy now ?” We got so close a couple of times.

          Fifth grade math tells you that if you reduce the pay of –only– those who are now overpaid…
          The “Public Sector Total Compensation ADVANTAGE” will be eliminated.

          Biggs made it abundantly clear that the “10 percent advantage nationwide” (23 percent in NJ) was driven entirely by the even greater advantage in the lowest 40+/- percent. Another fairly simple concept, but so tough for many to give up their preconceived biases.

          The flaw of averages.

          Tom West… It is a myth that public workers are overpaid, except at the level which requires no education. Pardon us for giving them something more than Medicaid.

          Keep calm and carry on, TL.

          Public pay compression is a real thing, as is early retirement for safety workers. They were both here long before you and will be here long after you’ve gone.

          CAPS LOCK and constant repetition won’t change it.

          Could be worse. Could be four more years of Trump.

          Reply

          • Posted by Tough Love on June 8, 2020 at 9:58 pm

            You have a very poor memory Stephen,

            I was the one who agreed with you that it wasn’t a 50% across-the-Board increase. It was someone else (don’t remember who now ….. it was quite a while ago) that kept insisting that it was 50%.

            Yeah ………. I accept your APOLOGY (in advance).
            ————————-

            Now if you’re gonna continue to say it was me who said that, I suggest you prove it with a link, or your be surprised at how insulting I can get.

          • Posted by Rex the Wonder Dog! 🐶🐶🐶🦴🦴🦴 on June 10, 2020 at 2:30 pm

            Tom West… It is a myth that public workers are overpaid, except at the level which requires no education.
            Totally false. BUT, the level of no education jobs in gov work is about 80%-90%.

            And TRUST me, the few professional jobs left, nurse, doctor,dentist, lawyer, are ALL coming from the BOTTOM of the BARREL. From the worst professional schools, with the lowest ranked graduates in those tier IV schools, who would make LESS in the private sector; if they could even be hired. I know MANY gov lawyers, dentists and doctors who could never be hired in a real life (especially lawyer) job.

          • Posted by Anonymous on June 11, 2020 at 4:36 am


          • Posted by Anonymous on June 11, 2020 at 5:07 am

            your be surprised at how insulting I can get.

        • Posted by A on June 9, 2020 at 1:22 pm

          So far…

          Tough Love. June 7, 2020 at 8:06 am

          “It’s that net Public Sector Total Compensation ADVANTAGE that financially impacts the Taxpayers, and it needs to be eliminated.”

          Tough Love: June 7, 2020 at 1:11 pm

          “……. and you can take it all only from those now overcompensated.”

          Tough Love. June 6, 2020 at 7:24 pm

          “I couldn’t care which element of their compensation is reduced as long as the total equals but does not exceed that of comparable Private Sector workers.”

          Are we going to backtrack on this again? Because some of us do care where it comes from.

          Reply

          • Posted by Tough Love on June 9, 2020 at 1:28 pm

            Yup ……… just eliminate it.

            And Stephen, since your so adamant that the VERY high Police compensation is a “policy decision”, it raises the question of just WHO is making that “policy decision”. Might it be the Police Unions and Elected Officials they put into Office?

            Care to opine on this ………….

            https://www.zocalopublicsquare.org/2020/06/09/california-police-officers-salary-benefits-pension-city-government-political-power/ideas/connecting-california/

          • Posted by A on June 9, 2020 at 4:48 pm

            “Escalating Salaries, Benefits, and Pensions for Police Are Crowding Out Other Services Our State Badly Needs”

            Not true.

            “The full-scale police looting of municipal budgets began 20 years ago, when unions forced changes in pension rules that made it possible for officers to retire as early as age 50, with pensions that would be nearly as high as their salaries. These pension changes were both retroactive and permanent, and included easily-abused rules that allowed cops to maneuver to spike their pensions astronomically.”

            Half true. If he is aware of the pension increases twenty years ago, surely he is aware of the pension decreases eight years ago. Not that he is –required– to include that. We can’t always reinvent the wheel, and if we included –every– detail in –every– article, the result would be TLDR, and a waste of newsprint.

            However, it does mean he cannot then claim that “pensions and benefits are increasing. Pension formulas (and spiking) have not been returned to 1999 levels, they are considerably below 1999 levels.

            I shan’t trouble you again with the possibility that these police are –not– overpaid, but anyone else can simply Google “California police shortage”
            E, if any of your friends are interested, the pay is very high, as is the cost of living. Some cities are offering signing bonuses up to $15,000. The weather is awesome, but get the earthquake option on your bodyvest.

            Back to the misleading title, pensions and benefits are not escalating. What is escalating is the cost of the unfunded liability. That is where pension reform is badly needed. Actual pension reform.

          • Posted by A on June 9, 2020 at 6:08 pm

            Tough Love…

            “And Stephen, since your so adamant that the VERY high Police compensation is a “policy decision”, it raises the question of just WHO is making that “policy decision”.
            —————–
            Early retirement for police (and fire, and military) is a policy decision. Well into the last two centuries, worldwide.

            Police salaries are market driven. Even in California. If you don’t build it, they won’t come. The potential applicants and some current police are looking at the job, and looking at private sector jobs, and more and more they are choosing the private sector. It happens all the time, Police, Teachers, Accountants, Attorneys, Engineers, Plumbers. Workers with skin in the game; that’s who are making crucial life decisions.

            It is invalid to compare pensions outside the context of total compensation. As public pensions are decreasing, guess what? There is pressure to increase salaries. As sure as night follows day, or vice versa.

          • Posted by Tough Love on June 9, 2020 at 7:48 pm

            Quoting Stephen Douglas ………..

            “Half true. If he is aware of the pension increases twenty years ago, surely he is aware of the pension decreases eight years ago. ”

            Oh my, are you for real? You say that KNOWING that the increases 20 years ago were applied RETROACTIVELY, and that the pension decreases were not only NOT applied retroactively, but ALSO did not apply to the future service of anyone hired before the change in the pension formula.

            How can you say such shit ………. selectively picking what supports your agenda, and ignoring what doesn’t …. and do so with a straight face and expect to be taken seriously ?
            ————————————–

            Quoting Stephen Douglas …….

            “Pension formulas (and spiking) have not been returned to 1999 levels, they are considerably below 1999 levels. ”

            AGAIN …….. they were NOT reduced for the future service of anyone hired before the 1999 changes.

            Why do you keep leaving out IMPORTANT details like that. Oh, I know ….. because you are biased.

          • Posted by A on June 9, 2020 at 8:03 pm

            Because….

            THIS…

            ” Not that he is –required– to include that. We can’t always reinvent the wheel, and if we included –every– detail in –every– article, the result would be TLDR, and a waste of newsprint.”

            You and I… and the readers, are very well aware of this. Still, pensions –are– decreasing, employee contributions –are– increasing. Pension –costs– are increasing because

            DON’T PAY THE BILLS, THE DEBT GETS LARGER

            Time for actual pension reform.

          • Posted by Tough Love on June 9, 2020 at 8:27 pm

            Quoting Stephen Douglas…………

            “DON’T PAY THE BILLS, THE DEBT GETS LARGER”

            No, “DON’T OVER-PROMISE AND THE BILLS ARE A LOTL SMALLER”

            As Rex would say……….. “fixed”.

          • Posted by Rex the Wonder Dog! 🐶🐶🐶🦴🦴🦴 on June 10, 2020 at 2:33 pm

            If he is aware of the pension increases twenty years ago, surely he is aware of the pension decreases eight years ago.
            Dougie, tell me, us, WHY you LIE so much? The 3% pensions were NOT “decreased” 8 years ago. The 3% multiplier is STILL there. They raised the age from 50 to age 57, which was almost NO decrease whatsoever because the average retriement age was not 50, but age 54, 55.

          • Posted by Tough Love on June 10, 2020 at 2:48 pm

            Rex, That’s because in CA the most “valuable” Police pension benefit comes after 30 years (so most retirees are near age 55). In NJ the most valuable Police pension comes after 25 years, so most retire near age 50.

          • Posted by A on June 10, 2020 at 9:22 pm

            PEPRA
            Creates three new defined benefit formulas for new safety members with a normal retirement age at 50 and a maximum benefit factor at age 57. Also requires that new safety members be provided with the new formula that is the closest to the formula offered to classic members of the same classification and that provides a lower benefit at 55 years of age than the formula offered to classic members.

            Normal Ret Age Maximum Benefit Factor

            Basic Formula 1.426% at Age 50 2% at Age 57 and older

            Option Plan 1 2% at Age 50 2.5% at Age 57 and older

            Option Plan 2 2% at Age 50 2.7% at Age 57 and older

            —————————
            Prior to 1999 the standard CHP formula was 2%@50 (2.7%@55)
            —————————
            The new plan is 2%@50 (2.7%@57) at age 55 would yield 2.5 percent

            There is no 3% for new safety employees.

      • Posted by A on June 8, 2020 at 4:45 pm

        “It’s ‘the biggest political crime in American history’”

        “What is the crime?”

        “You know what the crime is,The crime is very obvious to everybody,”

        “it’s been going on for a long time”

        “If you look at what’s gone on and you look at now, all this information that’s being released, and from what I understand that’s only the beginning.”
        ————————————

        LOL !!

        IT’S THE UNIONS !

        YOU KNOW WHAT THEY DID !

        EVERYBODY KNOWS !

        WHERE’S MY DAMN HAT/

        Reply

  9. Posted by Tough Love on June 8, 2020 at 12:16 pm

    A good start …. eliminate Public Sector Union “influence” by outlawing Union campaign contributions:

    https://calmatters.org/commentary/proposal-to-prohibit-police-unions-from-funding-district-attorney-campaigns-doesnt-go-far-enough/

    Reply

  10. Posted by MJ on June 8, 2020 at 2:29 pm

    Did anyone see the Democrats in the House kneeling today……while pushing their police reform agenda?

    Reply

      • Posted by PS Drone on June 8, 2020 at 9:50 pm

        Whatever happened to the doctrine that looters are warned and, if they do not leave immediately, are subject to being shot? Shoot a few and the rest flee like rats from a sinking ship. We are a total bullshit society with no balls to enforce the law in situations like this. We need Frank Rizzo back.

        Reply

        • Posted by Rex the Wonder Dog! 🐶🐶🐶🦴🦴🦴 on June 10, 2020 at 2:39 pm

          Whatever happened to the doctrine that looters are warned and, if they do not leave immediately, are subject to being shot?
          LEO absolutely CANNOT use deadly force (shooting) against ANYONE, unless their life, or that of others, is in imminent threat of death or GBI. So you see a looter, he refuses to obey commends to stop, and instead he/she takes off running with the loot!!! What do you do? You try to run them down if possible, if not you let them flee. Why not cap them in the back with a few rounds as they flee, preserving valuable merchandise? You cannot shoot him/her in the back as they flee. Why? Simple, because life is far more precious and valuable than minor insignificant material possessions. Read Tennessee v Garner if you have some free time, good analysis.

          Reply

    • Posted by Tough Love on June 8, 2020 at 6:22 pm

      Man …………. the cops went ROGUE ! Complete insanity !

      Reply

      • Posted by Marine1 on June 8, 2020 at 6:43 pm

        TL- But wasn’t it on order of Mayor Wilson Goode ?

        Reply

        • Posted by Tough Love on June 8, 2020 at 7:04 pm

          I don’t know, but I don’t care who it is that orders the Police to drop a big bomb onto the top of an occupied building ………… the Police should have responded ………. NO, not happening !.

          Just like it seems that Trump has been told by his Generals ……… NO, when he called for regular US Troops to quell protesters.

          Reply

          • Posted by Rex the Wonder Dog! 🐶🐶🐶🦴🦴🦴 on June 10, 2020 at 2:47 pm

            I don’t know, but I don’t care who it is that orders the Police to drop a big bomb onto the top of an occupied building ………… the Police should have responded ………. NO, not happening !
            I would NEVER comply with an illegal or unlawful order. AND if life was involved then that opposition would increase 1,000 fold. If a LEO supervisor believes an order is UNLAWFUL, especially in life and death circumstances, they have a DUTY to refuse to execute it. The Nazi’s claimed they were just “following orders” when they mass murdered millions of Jews, that did not cut it at the Neuenburg War Crimes Trials in 1946-49, so it sure as hell wont cut it today.

  11. Posted by MJ on June 9, 2020 at 6:54 am

    Marine 1, I remember it well. Total incompetence on part of the mayor and police. They ended up burning down and entire city block if I recall correctly. Horrible situation for all involved especially innocent neighbors. I wonder whatever happened to the Ramona Africa family? I also wonder how it was allowed that the MOVE organization was able to basically make a fortified bunker in the middle of a row street homes? No body noticed?

    Reply

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out /  Change )

Google photo

You are commenting using your Google account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: