Young Mother TASED, CUFFED AND ARRESTED for Not Wearing Face-Mask at Mostly Empty Stadium to Watch H

Discussion in 'Political/Religious Topics' started by K75RT, Sep 24, 2020.

  1. neophyte

    neophyte Wonderment :) Forum Contributor

    information: update Interesting read

    https://www.washingtonpost.com/nation/2020/09/28/alecia-kitts-taser-mask-video-ohio/

    Kitts’s attorneys say police misapplied state law, which provides an exemption from mask mandates for those with medical conditions.

    “Ms. Kitts explained to the policy officer and administrators that she has asthma, but they ignored her,” Thompson said in a statement to WCMH. “Their position was that un-masked asthmatic must leave the stadium, [which] is not consistent with any directive or other law.”

    AD
    But Bainter said the rules are clear. “Bottom line is we require you to wear a mask whether it’s in school or at events,” Bainter told the Daily News. “You have to wear a mask, and if you don’t wear a mask then you’re asked to leave."

    All the vitriol won’t shift the school district’s policy, he said.

    “I’m not going to change that. I’m not,” he commented. “You have to wear masks to events. That’s the guidelines, that’s the rules, and that’s what we have to do."
     
  2. Rocky7

    Rocky7 G&G Evangelist Forum Contributor

    5,228
    18,214
    Alberta
    True. And by the same token - not to be rude - those uppity German Jews could have worn the yellow stars in public and taken them off in their own homes.

    That's how appeasement of tyranny works out.
     
    Last edited: Sep 29, 2020
    K75RT, ItstheHOFF, TXplt and 2 others like this.

  3. Brother Bob

    Brother Bob G&G Evangelist

    As of right now, the U.S. Government has not passed any laws forcing anyone to wear masks! If they tried, Constitutional Attorneys would challenge that decision to the U.S Supreme Court!
     
    ItstheHOFF, TXplt and neophyte like this.
  4. Huey Rider

    Huey Rider G&G Evangelist Forum Contributor

    Bilbo is going to try if elected; he already said so.
     
    neophyte likes this.
  5. Ranger4

    Ranger4 G&G Evangelist

    Trump had not and will not issue a mask mandate or a stay at home order. But the Supreme Court has already ruled that the California stay at home mandate for churches can be limited to only 25% capacity and not more than 100 persons. Here is the Supreme Court opinion, written by Chief Justices John Roberts.https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/19pdf/19a1044_pok0.pdf#page=2

    If you read that Supreme Court opinion, it was back when only 100,000 had died. States have even more dead bodies now so their claim that Covid is a crises is stronger. The Court would just take Judicial Notice of the crises and probably just rubber stamp any new state level mask mandate or stay at home orders.

    And here is Chief Justice John Roberts flippant comment about it not being unconstitutional. SOUTH BAY UNITED PENTECOSTAL CHURCH, ET AL.v. GAVIN NEWSOM, GOVERNOR OF CALIFORNIA, ET AL
    " The notion that it is “indisputably clear” that the Government’s limitations are unconstitutional seems quite improbable".

    And with that, the US Supreme Court denied the injunction and let California impose a radical stay at home order, which was more strict on churches than other places. Kavenough wrote an excellent dissent at the end and worth the read. Many lawyers represented the Pentecostal Church and a Baptist Church that joined in. But they were also represented by the THOMAS MORE SOCIETY, a DC law group of constitutional attorneys who deal in religious and family issues.

    Just saying, the California stay at home law was held constitutional by the Federal District Court in California, the 9th Circuit, and then the Supreme Court. Does not get much more clear than that. If the new Justice is seated it may change as she would likely shift the 5 to 4 the opposite way. But as of today, state court orders like the stay at home order or limiting the amount of people who can go to a church or a restaurant or other place at one time, is clearly constitutional. A mask mandate would probably be even easier to put in place because it does not involve something so serious as a direct interference with religion which would require the highest level of scrutiny. It is what it is.
     
  6. Ten Man

    Ten Man G&G Evangelist

    23,954
    50,324
    Tennessee
    No. It is NOT "Clearly Constitutional." It is an OPINION!

    When the day comes that a bunch of wussies in black robs back the mini-tyrants restricting AMERICANS from freely breathing AIR, this country is LOST.

    You can take your sycophant "law and order" bias and shove it.
     
    K75RT, neophyte, Jaison and 1 other person like this.
  7. Ranger4

    Ranger4 G&G Evangelist


    OK, call it what you want to call it and like it or be upset. It is not my opinion, it is actually the Order of the United States Supreme Court, with an attached rational (Opinion) in why they did not find the California stay at home order unconstitutional. Many people on this forum where not aware the Supreme Court had already ruled on a state mandate.

    It is the final order of the highest court in the nation and no place else to appeal to. They can still continue with the underlying lawsuit, but that will take years. Meanwhile California gets to restrict church services and stay at home orders.

    The Chief Justice issued the ruling which was voted on 5 to 4: "The application for injunctive relief presented to JUSTICE KAGAN and by her referred to the Court is denied."

    No law and order bias here, just reporting exactly what they did on the challenge of the stay at home law being constitutional or not.

    Not sure what your complaint is, I am just reporting the documents showing what happened when several groups of constitutional lawyers challenged that issue in California on behalf of two churches, and lost. At least for now we do not have the freedoms most of us thought that we had. They can stop you from traveling internationally, states can quarantine people from other states, and they can tell a church how many people can attend. Not my rule, I just report what they did. People need to know what has already happened in the courts on these issues.
     
  8. Junction15

    Junction15 G&G Evangelist Forum Contributor

    Sturgis!

    I was curious so I followed some search engine links. I found it strange (not really) that we are not seeing much of anything about this in the news.

    It's been about 6 weeks since it ended. I read some estimates that upwards of 460,000 people attended. And all 460,000 wore masks and practiced "social distancing" to prevent spreading COVID-19.

    No they didn't! (sarcasm) Maybe a few wore them, but I doubt it was very many at all. Photos support that.
    After it was over, the MSM that we all love and trust, reported that 250,000 people had been sickened and were dying due to exposure to Covid at the rally. I saw some fake news saying that upwards of 2 million people were going to die because of the "irresponsible, selfish" people that attended.

    So far, that "information" has not born any fruit. Other sources have claimed that there were approximately 88 to 140 cases of COVID-19 that were due exposure at the rally.

    Further, it was reported that cell phone tracking was used to determine where people were coming from and returning to. No large increases in those places that could not also be attributed to exposure in those areas. However, the studies have not been completed (sounded like they will not be since the studies were not leading in a direction they wanted)

    So far, it is 0.03% of the attendees that might have been exposed to COVID-19 at the rally. Or might have been exposed elsewhere - who knows?

    It all comes down to the big question - Mask or no mask?
    Do they do any good? Why didn't hundreds of thousands get sick at Sturgis? I dunno but maybe those folks were not as irresponsible as the MSM accused them of? Maybe the people that were sick stayed home? Maybe they all were just lucky? Maybe 2 million are dying and Donald Trump is covering it up? (Pick the ice cream flavor that YOU like).

    To date, I have heard of no LAWS requiring the use of masks. I have heard of GUIDELINES and RULES admonishing people to wear masks. I have also seen guidelines saying to wear a mask OR stay 6 feet apart. And that you can be closer around family and friends that are not sick.

    I think the cop way over exceeded his authority when he tased that woman and that lawsuits are being drafted.
    However, folks need to pick their battles. Pissing off a cop usually does not lead in a good direction. I do believe in making a stand. I do not believe in standing in the crosswalk because I have the right-of-way when a truck is bearing down on me. I'll find another way to stand up for my rights without getting crushed. (Don't misunderstand - I would risk my life to push someone out of the way and have done so numerous times. I simply don't want to waste my life if there is another way)


    (A side point that should also be concerning to everyone is how cell phones were being used Big Brother is truly watching YOU! Listening too. Reportedly the cameras and microphones can be activated remotely as well.)
     
    TXplt, Ranger4, K75RT and 2 others like this.
  9. I normally don't post or repost something I posted in another section of the site...but this has to be posted here. DemocRat political operatives admitting on a hot mic that masks are POLITICAL THEATER... again in their own words not mine...


    So this woman was picked out and beaten for an executive order put in place for political theater...NOT SAFETY..welcome to tyranny in the USSA.
     
    Last edited: Sep 30, 2020
    TXplt likes this.
  10. TXplt

    TXplt Gun Toting Boeing Driver Forum Contributor

    Yup. Basically a large-memory voluntarily carried bug which can determine position and velocity and record (real time or specific time/place) information.

    I know of no law either; what's claimed is the shutdowns and mask 'mandates' come from another broadband ('emergency powers' and the like) law activated by some executive action somewhere (governor or local) to do basically anything.
     
    Junction15 likes this.
  11. Ranger4

    Ranger4 G&G Evangelist


    Lancet: https://abcnews.go.com/Health/optim...-protection-reduce-covid-19/story?id=71019436
     
  12. Ranger4

    Ranger4 G&G Evangelist


    I agree. Did you read the Lancet study or just the article? Forget what ABC might have said and read Lancet for yourself. Lancet is perhaps the most reputable medical research reporting organization in the world.
    https://www.thelancet.com/journals/lancet/article/PIIS0140-6736(20)31142-9/fulltext
    The Lancet has published about 87 scientific articles related to Covid so far this year, that is what they do. They do not reach hard conclusions nor do they tell anyone what to do as a policy, just make suggestions based on the science.

    That being said, for any medical report to have value to the reader, they need to know what it is or is not. It is narrowed to an analysis of 3 issues only. That is the effectiveness of distance, face masks, and eye coverings to protect the spread of covid both in a health care setting and secondly in a community setting. Nothing else.

    The reason the report is so long and detailed is because every medical research article they publish must have each contributory study analyzed for irregularities or difference in methodology and they must be explained. It is so long because they analyzed and reported on 172 different reports from different countries and organizations.

    Another thing they did not do is get into the types of eyeglasses or masks or the affect of ventilation or air conditioning on distance, all of which would matter in a public policy recommendation. They just reported on what appeared to work or did not work with the three concepts on infection spread, distance, eye protection and masks generally.

    Nobody has time to read all 172 reports but I commend the actual Lancet report to anybody who wants to look at the data without the political influences. Like any medical report people can believe it or not. It is not a report that gives exact results, it just reports the results of 172 reports across the globe. FWIW

    FWIW
     
  13. I read the link You provided....masks do not work...as stated earlier metrology the science of size is in effect here....This is a political psy-op...did you watch post 109...they know! You feel free to wear your ineffective mask...
     
    TXplt likes this.
  14. Ranger4

    Ranger4 G&G Evangelist

    Uh well, post 109 is one Democrat who does not think they work and got caught on a mike. Pretty dumb lady.

    The Lancet publication did not say masks stop the virus, it says that distance, eye glasses, and masks each show a trend across 172 studies to lessen the rate of infection.

    A more detailed study was sent for review, accepted and published
    in the National Academy of Applied Sciences. If you take the time to read it you will have a hard time discounting their study. The reason is they took hard data from Italy and New York, and Wuhan who had drastic outbreaks that were NOT stopped by stay at home orders. Then when the mask mandate was ordered, the rate of infection dropped dramatically. How can that be? In all three places?

    These researched used the term "atomization? They explain in detail that the early thought was that the virus was spread by airborne chunks of spit from coughs, sneezes, singing and such, whereas atomization is simply the vapor from the human breath, respiration at 18-20 times per minute, every minute you are in an elevator, a hallway, meat packing plant or nursing home. The stay at home orders did not prevent you from getting it any of the above places where people still had a right to be. Their analysis showed the trend line set with the other measures not working, but when masking was required, the rate of new infection dropped dramatically. Look at their charts and all the supporting data. The stats do not lie and their methodology is remarkably detailed. Masking for some reason reduces the flow and amount of infection it takes to do damage. New York and Italy have dense populations, so probably not the same drop in infection in places that differ in population density.

    The medical research was funded by the Welch Foundation, a Texas non-profit who funds scientific research in chemistry, medicine and similar areas. About 1/3 of their grants are to private Christian Colleges in Texas, nothing related to any liberal college at all. So, here is the link, from Texas A and M published in the National Academy of Sciences.
    https://www.pnas.org/content/117/26/14857
    The charts alone tell the mask story. The researchers have little to gain by misapplying the data, and I see no gaps. They were funded by a conservative group but show no ties to any political group. It is what it is.