Especially after today. I see Jinger and Jeremy have a forthcoming book as well that probably isn’t going to be released or do well now. Leave it to Josh to screw up even more for that poor girl.

Since you are on FJ: I am attempting to catch up and haven’t paid much attention to the Duggar threads quite some time. Can you tell me if this has anything to do with why Jill and Derrick stopped going to TTH? This place is far slower than FJ so perhaps I can catch up on all the back story here. I am reams behind there.

Assuming these are federal charges and felonies, is it really possible she could lose her children to this man or his family?

Freejinger is on fire. I hope Chocolate Reign drops by for this. I would appreciate some of her US legal commentary.

American corporations have a long, illustrious history of forcing their workers into high risk and dangerous situations, so this is one in where perhaps using the status quo of employers being allowed to require whatever they want is not the best argument. Asbestos, cancer causing chemicals and many others were also part of the work requirement people were required to deal with in order to work, and were told they were “safe” for decades. Of course the corporations should be held accountable if something they forced ended up causing harm. The only problem in America is more often that not, the company gets away scott free and the workers are left to deal with the fall out. If they want to force the issue, they should be prepared to pay up for potential fall out. If they can’t stand behind that, perhaps they shouldn’t force the issue. Corporations forcing vaccine should not enjoy the same immunity vaccine developers are covered by for developing one in an emergency situation. If you require it, be prepared to support those injured by your requirements.

What about borrow from his 401k for a downpayment on the second house and just deal with the two mortgages for a short time. It’s still cheaper than renting. If you think the house till move quickly, you would be looking at what? A month? Two months? Then you could properly prep your empty house and not waste/lose money on the Knock thing, while getting the most out of your current property.

@Murphy101- thank you for the explanation.

I am asking out of sincere curiosity- why does a church need to know where children attend school or where a parishioner is employed? Birthdays I can understand for either recognition or assigning classes, but I have never had any church ask about where my children go to school or where I work. Is this common in American churches?

Manufacturers have even attempted to budge away making high end lines in other than SS, and to no avail. I do wonder if perhaps it is because professional/industrial kitchens are predominantly, if not completely, SS and most want that real commercial kitchen look. I thought copper would trend for a while but it has not caught on it would seem. Perhaps patina is off putting in a kitchen. @PeterPan- I had forgotten about the geese! Thank you for bringing me a chuckle remembering those.

I do not understand why they need to call and verify the address. That’s quite odd. Why not just post the note for the child and assume the address on file is correct, and if it is not, then oh well. It seems like an excuse for a pushy sales call to return to church which is very off putting frankly.

Sorry, no, I should have said law, not bill. The AB5. But Prop 22 impacted that I believe. @Not_a_Number here is a Forbes summary on this year’s PRO attempt. https://www.forbes.com/sites/eriksherman/2021/03/24/pro-act-and-abc-test-no-one-knows-what-the-effects-will-be/?sh=7561605339e6

No. It is extremely similar to the CA (sorry- law, not bill). By definition of the ABC standard (they’ve attempted to pass this bill for years) AOPSwould likely fall under it, as they dictate what you teach, and how you teach it. If you started your own tutoring service, obviously that would be different. But this would likely classify you as an employee.

I don’t think you are being ridiculous. I would simply tell the Director you find cold calling people inappropriate and neither of you will be participating. Then possibly ask if there is another area your daughter can help.

Angela Moore is the name of the foster mother. The news I have seen/read has Paula Bryant, the biological, non-custodial mother making the assertion that the call was made by Ma’Khia. Neither were present at the time of the incident.

I have not read or seen where the police have identified the callers. There were two calls. The media has speculated and named both Ma’Khia and/or the foster sisters, depending on the media source. I agree with Plum that they would do best to stop speculating.

What I watched did not touch on anything surrounding that. The foster mother was shown clipped saying (I cannot remember exact words) that the children fought frequently since Ma’Khia had moved in, however it also sounded like the two other girls/women did not currently live there? The voice over stated the other girls had come over to put on a birthday party for the mother and had asked Ma’Khia to help clean up before she got home because she liked a clean house, a fight ensued over that (physical or verbal not specified) and one of the other girls called the police. If I followed correctly the biological mother was quoted as saying Ma’Khia was an honor student and this was out of character. I would imagine being in foster care would be extremely difficult to bear as a teenager in the best case, but apart from saying the foster children frequently argued, that was all that was addressed. Nothing was said about why, how long or anything else to do with her placement away from her biological mother.

I read this morning that the other women/girls (age was not specified) in the altercation were the foster mother’s former foster children who had come by for a celebration.

I am not Melissa obviously, but this thread makes me see the very different way Americans think of/approach policing in the abstract. American policing seems very reactive, yet some people on this thread and in general comments in media seem to want to have the effects of a proactive police force without actually desiring the proactive policies. It isn't really applicable to compare proactive policing and all that entails with reactive policing where the police are primarily only summoned when there is a problem. There is a missing factor of relational policing in these instances. You do not seem to have local relational policing, except in schools from how it sounds at least. (Armed police in many schools, yes?) I wouldn't call traffic stops proactive necessarily either, although I think some view it as a prevention tactic in some cases (drink driving/under influence for example), as usually it would seem those are still reacting to a problem. Add in how many different jurisdictions there are in the US with city police, county sheriffs, public safety officers, and other types of law enforcement with different boundaries and purposes and it's not homogenous at all. I don't think it's really helpful or useful to do much comparison between the US and UK as the societal differences are so vast on this topic in particular. The police seem to be working, in this instance in particular, within the parameters they are given. The police were summoned. It was a life threatening scenario. The officer reacted to protect the unarmed citizen in immediate danger. End stop. He wasn't there to provide mental health counsel. He was there to protect.

To clarify my post above, I was not meaning preventative versus reactive to the situation in question with the officer using lethal force. Rather in general, I do not think it is currently in favor in America to use preemptive and preventative policing. I believe it was called Stop and Frisk and how that is now a frowned upon tactic. There are differently held views on surveillance, preventative tactics, such as questioning, searching and other things that would not be tolerated in America and would be seen as a violation of rights. That makes it difficult to broach an apples to apples comparison. You do not have an equal protection to Miranda or unlawful search in the UK like in the US. There are rights of course, but they are no where near as broad in the UK. Although I am not a legal expert to be able to compare on a point by point legal basis. But generally speaking, Americans have and hold more tightly to certain rights. I do not think the general video surveillance in the US is quite the same either, although perhaps so in large cities?

There is an entirely different approach it seems in that UK policing in general is much more preventative than it seems American law enforcement is in the present day. Preventative tactics like stop and search are routine there as opposed to American where such tactics are seen as endemically racist and frowned upon. Police also partner more with communities up front. You could perhaps say it is preventative versus reactive policing. https://www.london.gov.uk/sites/default/files/mopac_knife_crime_strategy_june_2017.pdf Officers also wear knife proof vests and train specifically against knife crime. There is a group from Scotland who has actually gone to America to help train police forces in other ways to combat knife crime, without lethal force. Being said however, how many knifings there still are that occur with frequency, particularly among teenagers males.

I was referring to being fine with having an officer stand by and do nothing while your child was stabbed. Many would find that outrageous and demand to know why the officer did not do something.

Yes, and the grasps on nightsticks typically are inset several inches to provide leverage. You are not holding a baton by the tippy end. Not to mention for a baton to be useful you must have a solid landed blow, not just the tip of the baton to make contact. However the tip of a knife can easily do lethal damage if it lances across the right spot.

I question how many people would sign up to be in law enforcement if they were expecting to engage in hand to hand combat with persons wielding butcher knives or cleavers as standard procedure. Do you know how close you have to get to someone to effectively strike them with a baton? Well within strike range of a knife.

Serious question. If your child was being raced toward by a physically mature person with a knife aimed for the throat, you would want the officer to take the chance of using non lethal force to stop this person, knowing that the odds are reasonable that non lethal force would be ineffective? Would you waive your outrage and right to sue if they sent a mental health centre professional instead and your child had their throat slit open?

According to the news, he is a decorated sharp shooter who is also an MP in the National Guard. He did not appear to lack in marksmanship training in any way whatsoever.