Mediaboss Marketing

Dear gun nuts. What? What do you mean? I cant say that. Why not? Because it hurts your feelings? Might you remember what Ben Shapiro, the high priest of conservativism, said about facts, right? About how they dont care about peoples feelings. What happened to that right-wing sermon? I always liked it. Sorry, I digress.

After a tragedy like the one at the Covenant School in Nashville, where three children and three adults were shot and killed by 28-year-old Audrey Hale, who identified as a man, used he/him pronouns and preferred to be called Aidan, Americans get a reminder of just how unhinged the firearm fanatics really are. Just let them talk and try not to cringe. There really are people out there who care more about protecting the right to own a gun than our responsibility to keep our children safe.

They stopped making sense years ago. The same people who think we should scale back the First Amendment when theyre offended by an idea, who wiped their feet on the Fourth Amendment in the name of being tough on crime, and who dont let the Eighth Amendments prohibition against cruel and unusual punishment preclude the death penalty, those same people think the Second Amendment is sacred and absolute. They think that the right to bear arms somehow extends to being able to buy any gun in any quantity, at any time without any restrictions.

Theyre okay with age limits if were talking about how a person needs to be 21, to walk into a casino, or buy a drink at a bar. But they think that person should be able to buy a rifle at 18. And they dont seem troubled by the fact that since 1791, the year that the Second Amendment was ratified, we have moved swiftly from the musket to the winchester to now the AR-15 assault rifle. As a son of a retired cop who grew up with several guns in the house, literally a rifle sitting above the fireplace, someone raised in farm country full of pickup trucks with gun racks, I dont hate guns. And Im not afraid of guns. But nor do I love guns or worship them.

I am however, quite fond of common sense. What it tells me is that you can support the Second Amendment and consider sacred the rights to use a firearm to defend yourself, your family or your home and still think we should be able to impose limits on what kind of guns get manufactured, bought and owned. One doesnt interfere with the other.

Ive been on the job as a journalist for more than 30 years, and I have seen plenty of cases of activists who dont give an inch or compromise. Everything in their politics is all or nothing. There is no in-between. The pro-abortion lobby thinks that if you impose waiting periods or parental notification laws, or even outlaw the barbaric practice of late-term abortions, well then youre not really pro-choice. The race hustlers believe that if you dont go along with every single hare-brained and divisive scheme they come up with in the name of racial justice, well then, well you must be a racist. That kind of talk gets us nowhere.

Add to that the interference from the National Rifle Association. The NRAs generous political contributions to the GOP over the years have bought the Republican Party. The organization has the receipts. I know this story. In my line of work, I battle almost weekly with powerful special interests with money to spend. They corrode and corrupt everything they touch, from the public schools to the pharmaceutical industry to the legal system and the political arena. The blue team plays this game, and so does the red team. Because in politics, the only color that really matters is green. The result? More guns, more death, more heartache, rinse and repeat.

Here is the original post:
You can support Second Amendment and want gun reform, too ... - Straight Arrow News

United States v. Hayes, 2023 WL 2542654 (10thCir. 2023)

Everybody knows its okay to pick up food after it has been dropped on the floor and exposed to germs and methylethylbadstuff as long as its picked up within five seconds. I read it on the Internet.

Once upon a time, Jillian Clarke, who was a student at the Chicago High School for Agricultural Sciences, noted that the five-second rule dates back to the time of Genghis Khan, who first determined how long it was safe for food to remain on a floor when dropped there. Ms. Clarke investigated thescientific validity of the five-second ruleduring her apprenticeship in Hans Blascheks University of Illinois laboratory. A British scientist and germ expert, Professor Anthony Hilton of Aston University, also said it is so. Thus, one can rely on a high school student, a British professor who probably has a cool accent and the ancient founder of the Mongol empire as the authority for the five-second rule.

But does the five-second rule apply toextending a traffic stop to permit a dog sniff?

Neoal Hayes was stopped in a wall stop by officers cooperating with Drug Enforcement Agency agents. The timing of the events is important: Watch for the five-second mark.

The first officer told Hayes to exit the car and turn and face the car, give me your hands. As the officer handcuffed Hayes at the rear of the vehicle, he told Hayes he was just checking for weapons. Hayes was a large man wearing long pants and a hooded winter coat.

While another officer watched Hayes passenger, a drug detector dog handler returned to her patrol car to retrieve her dog. When, seconds later, she and her detector dog approached the back of the vehicle, the first officer moved Hayes three steps away from the vehicle. The officer adjusted Hayess handcuffs at the four-minute, 33-second mark on the body camera recording. The officer told Hayes at four minutes, 36 seconds he was not under arrest. As the dog team moved counterclockwise around the vehicle and appeared at the left front corner, the first officer looked to his left, toward the handler and dog. At four minutes, 41 seconds, the dog gave a positive alert to the odor of controlled substances.

A search of the vehicle revealed 2,505 grams of methamphetamine and 10 grams of heroin inside a duffel bag found behind the drivers seat. Inside a backpack, also located behind the drivers seat, officers retrieved a small safe containing methamphetamine, heroin, cocaine, Xanax, marijuana, a digital scale, packaging material and a loaded handgun. Hayes entered a conditional guilty plea to one count of possession with intent to distribute controlled substances and one count of possession of a firearm in furtherance of a drug trafficking crime. Hayes was sentenced to 15 years imprisonment.

As part of his plea agreement, Hayes reserved the right to appeal the trial courts denial of his motion to suppress evidence of the drugs and firearm. Hayes argued the officer unreasonablyprolonged the traffic stopto pursue an investigation into drug trafficking unrelated to the original purpose of the stop. He claimed the Rodriguezissue thus turns on the legal and factual significance of the five seconds between 4:36 and 4:41 on the body camera video (i.e., the time between the officers advisement that Hayes is being detained, and the dog alert, which occurs five seconds later). Hayes was relying on the rule ofRodriguez v. United States(575 U.S. 348 (2015)), that a stop may last no longer than is necessary to effectuate the initial purpose of the stopAuthority for the seizure thus ends when tasks tied to the traffic infraction are or reasonably should have been completed.

The court issued aper curiamdecision, meaning all three appellate judges agreed on the outcome. The short decision merely states that the judges conclude the detaining officer did not violate Hayess Fourth Amendment rights in this case. Two judges wrote individual opinions. One opined the officers had reasonable suspicion to detain Hayes and investigate drug trafficking, therefore the traffic stop length was not an issue. Another judge stated that the Hayes case is a good example of why, in adjudicating thereasonableness of a seizure, we should avoid drawing bright lines and placing rigid time limitations on law enforcement. This is because reasonableness rather than efficiency is the touchstone of the Fourth Amendment.

InRodriguez, the Supreme Court considered a seven-to-eight-minute delay, contrasted with the alleged five-second delay in this case. The rule fromRodriguezremains valid: A stop for a traffic violation may take the time necessary to determine whether to issue a traffic ticket and check the drivers license, determining whether there are outstanding warrants against the driver, and inspecting the automobiles registration and proof of insurance. Extending the stopbeyond that timerequires an independent reason to further detain the driver.

Now, thats not to say the five-second rule applies to traffic detention extensions. The takeaway fromUnited States v. Hayes? Courts may be open to some truly minimal, negligibly burdensome delay and may acknowledge thatRodriguezdoes not prohibit all conduct that in any way slows the officer from completing the stop as fast as humanly possible in the name of efficiency.

Read more Ken Wallentine case reviews here.

Go here to read the rest:
Does the five-second rule apply to extending a traffic stop to permit a ... - Police News

The city of Charlotte urges a federal judge to dismiss a lawsuit from a man who says he lost two fingers because of police actions during a 2020 protest.

Kyre Mitchell filed suit in January against the city, its police chief and former deputy chief, 17 current and former named Charlotte-Mecklenburg Police Department officers and supervisors, and 50 other unnamed officers from other law enforcement agencies.

He claims their actions during a May 30, 2020, protest caused the injuries that led to amputation of the middle and ring fingers on his right hand, as well as burns affecting the rest of his hand.

The protest took place in connection with the killing of George Floyd. Police deployed teargas, pepper bullets, and flashbang grenades while dealing with protesters, according to a memorandum the city filed Thursday.

Plaintiff alleges that around 11:30 p.m, while he was standing near other protestors at theintersection of Fifth Street and North Tryon Street, he picked up an object that then exploded in his hand, according to the city memo.

Mitchells suit claims that he saw a police officer standing 50 away, who threw a device that landed directly at his feet. To protect people nearby, he picked up the device and planned to throw it away. The device instead exploded in his hand.

Plaintiff offers multiple theories as to who allegedly threw the object that injured his hand, the city argued in its memo. In one theory, Plaintiff makes identical allegations against each of the thirteen CMPD Officer Defendants and alleges that one or more of these officerspersonally deployed the chemical munitions and the flash-bang grenade that caused the Plaintiffs injuries. In another theory, Plaintiff alleges that his injuries may have been caused by someone else either a different CMPD police officer or law enforcement officers employed by neighboring Cities and Counties who provided aid to the CMPD.

Plaintiff fails to even state the factual basis for his conclusory allegation that the personwho threw the device was a police officer, the citys memo continued. Plaintiff specifically alleges that at least some police officers were dressed in plainclothes on May 30, 2022. Nowhere does Plaintiff describe the person who threw the device that ultimately injured his hand. To the extent Plaintiff is alleging that the person who threw the incendiary device could have been dressed in plainclothes, that further contradicts his speculation as to the identity of the person.

The city also rebuts Mitchells claims against police supervisors. The memorandum cites officers likely protection from liability through qualified immunity. It rejects Mitchells claims that the city or the individual defendants violated his First and Fourth Amendment rights.

The city also challenges Mitchells attempt to have a federal judge ban Charlotte-Mecklenburg police from using flashbang grenades in the future.

No one doubts the severity of Plaintiffs hand injury, Charlottes memo concludes. But Plaintiff offers nothing more than speculation that his injuries were caused by one of the 17 named defendants in this case, each of whom Plaintiff seeks to hold personally liable. Neither is there any plausible allegation that a policy or custom of the City is to blame.

Mitchell will have a chance to respond to the citys motion before the U.S. District Court for the Western District issues a ruling.

More:
Charlotte moves to dismiss lawsuit from man injured during 2020 ... - Carolina Journal

Item 1.01. Entry into a Material Definitive Agreement.

On March 30, 2023, Travel + Leisure Co. (the "Borrower") entered into the FourthAmendment (the "Fourth Amendment" to the Credit Agreement, dated as of May 31,2018 with Bank of America, N.A., as administrative agent (the "AdministrativeAgent"), the several lenders from time to time party thereto, and the otherparties thereto (as amended, restated, amended and restated, supplemented orotherwise modified from time to time, the "Credit Agreement"). Pursuant to theterms of the Fourth Amendment, the Administrative Agent and the Borrower agreedto replace the London interbank offered rate-based interest rate applicable toborrowings under the Credit Agreement with a secured overnight financingrate-based interest rate, subject to the adjustments as specified in the FourthAmendment.

The description of the Fourth Amendment in this Current Report on Form 8-K (this"Current Report) is a summary and is qualified in its entirety by reference tothe complete terms of the Fourth Amendment included therein. The FourthAmendment is filed hereto as Exhibit 10.1 and is incorporated by referenceherein.

Item 2.03. Creation of a Direct Financial Obligation or an Obligation under anOff-Balance Sheet Arrangement of a Registrant.

The information set forth in Item 1.01 of this Current Report is incorporated byreference into this item.

Item 9.01. Financial Statements and Exhibits.

d) Exhibits. The following exhibit is furnished with this report:

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Edgar Online, source Glimpses

Here is the original post:
TRAVEL & LEISURE CO. : Entry into a Material Definitive Agreement, Creation of a Direct Financial Obligation or an Obligation under an Off-Balance...

In Puerto Rico, we must change the current view of some that capitalism is wrong for the island. To those that say so; in my opinion, view socialism as the equal sharing of resources, when in fact, it is the equal sharing of hunger, dependency, unemployment, inequality and misery as you will read below.

The more we read or watch news stories in Puerto Rico, the more we have become canvassed with a rant of rich against poor, of those who have succeeded against those who have not.

Many preeminent columnists have a leftist flair or inclination that borders into communism.

While, for one, we must respect each person's political views or tendencies, we must wonder to what extent these leftists, including press or media personalities, would venture to life and work in a place that lives their leftist views each and every day, nations like Cuba, Venezuela, Nicaragua, Russia, North Korea, China or Belarus.

Cuba

One of the closest examples and a favorite among local leftists is Cuba, and the sheer attractive nature of the nation makes us wonder why they have not moved there.

In Cuba, the average monthly salary equals $148.73 per month or $1,784.76 per year, which is more or less what an entry-level per-hour employee makes in a month.

Also, according to the website Reporters Without Borders, the Island nation of Cuba remains the worst country for press freedom in Latin America, with a rank of 173 out of 180, and is outranked by China, Iran and North Korea. The government closely monitors all television, radio and newspapers. The Constitution prohibits privately-owned press. All independent journalists are kept under surveillance to diminish their ability to perform their jobs.

Nicaragua

Another great example is Nicaragua; the average monthly salary equals $307.81 per month or $3,693.72 per year, which is more or less what a manager makes monthly.

Since President Daniel Ortega came to power, the independent media has endured censorship, intimidation and threats. Journalists are constantly stigmatized and subjected to harassment campaigns, arbitrary arrests and death threats and remain among the worst countries for press freedom in Latin America, with a rank of 160 out of 180. Most of the best journalists have had to flee the country. There are practically no independent media within the country due to a strong wave of repression that the Daniel Ortega regime launched against opposition politicians, civil organizations, and independent media. The media that continues to report on government abuses are digital, with most of its journalists in exile.

Venezuela

The last example is Venezuela; the average monthly salary equals $53 per month or $636 per year, which is more or less what many workers make here in a week.

After the arrival of Nicols Maduro in 2013, government policies against pluralism in the media increased; the official monopoly on the imports of paper and printing supplies resulted in the disappearance of the printed editions of dozens of newspapers, remains one of the worst countries for press freedom in Latin America, with a rank of 159 out of 180. A blurred policy for granting or revoking concessions for radio broadcasting decimated the sector, with 200 radio stations closing. The Venezuelan government practices a sustained policy of blocking news content on the Internet, affecting all independent media portals. The leading independent media are Radio Fe y Alegra, Efecto Cocuyo, Unin Radio, El Estmulo, El Pitazo and El Diario.

Remembering The Bill of Rights

As we consider the liberties granted to us by the U.S. Constitution, we thought it prudent to remind ourselves of the Bill of Rights' power and some of its amendments.

1. First Amendment: Congress makes no law respecting an establishment of religion or prohibiting its free exercise. It protects our freedom of speech, the press, assembly, and the right to petition the Government to redress grievances.

2. Second Amendment gives citizens the right to bear arms.

3. Fourth Amendment protects citizens from unreasonable search and seizure. The Government may not conduct any searches without a warrant, which must be issued by a judge based on probable cause.

4. Fifth Amendment provides that citizens not be subject to criminal prosecution and punishment without due process. A citizen may not be tried on the same set of facts twice and is protected from self-incrimination (the right to remain silent). The Amendment also establishes the power of an eminent domain, ensuring that private property is not seized for public use without just compensation.

In the nations we described, none of these rights protect their citizens, much less the press. We often wonder how easy it must be to have a leftist or socialistic bias in a nation that protects your rights as a citizen or member of the press.

Moreover, the columns or radio programs many of these leftist bias media members have would not be possible under the leftist's regime they so vehemently venerate, respect, and highlight. Instead, if not all had they been living and working in Cuba, Venezuela or Nicaragua by now, they would have left for the United States seeking political asylum to be protected by the Bill of Rights every Puerto Rico, USA citizen enjoys.

Sadly more and more these days, we read or watch programs where reporters disdain successful entrepreneurs, calling most of us "Colmillus" or "Bourgeoisie."

Too often, most speak as if we lived on two different islands when we are one country; we share the same soil and dreams and face the same problems and challenges.

Puerto Rico is a mix of groups that coexists and intertwines. We are all parts of the puzzle in which we must seek solutions to create sustained development and economic growth for Puerto Rico. We must ever forget that each sector is the strength of the other, so it is our responsibility as Puerto Ricans to work together.

Transforming Puerto Rico is the Key

For more than 20 years, my life's work has been to promote Puerto Rico's transformation into a sustained growing economy with ample opportunities for all citizens to develop their future, whether as an entrepreneur, teacher, chef, plumber, electrician, nurse, doctor, or business owner. The Transforming Puerto Rico Foundation has developed the Puerto Rico First Goals, which are the basis for Puerto Ricos transformation.

Goal 1: Transform Puerto Rico into a country with robust economic development and sustained 4% growth over the next ten years.

Goal 2: Transform our industrial structure into one in which employment in activities related to a knowledge-based economy with not less than 25% within ten years.

Goal 3: Create 300,000 new jobs in the private sector within ten years.

Goal 4: Increase the labor participation rate to 55% within ten years.

Goal 5: Reduce the unemployment rate to 5% within ten years.

Goal 6: Close the development gap; the gap is created by the percentage of GNP that represents consumption, and the rate that represents the investment, in Puerto Rico far exceeds that of our peers.

Goal 7: Reduce the government apparatus by transferring to the private sector any corporation, operation, or service that the private sector can perform more efficiently- by moving to a governance structure that is characterized by the following: employing no more than 15% of the employed workforce and a Consolidated Budget that does not exceed 25% of GNP.

Goal 8: Transform the education system from primary to university level into one focused on entrepreneurship, trades, and transformation.

Remember that "transformations are marathons, not 100-meter races." To accomplish them, we have to work together without losing sight of the fact that the role of the private sector is vital. We cannot forget that the private sector is made up of the cashier, the construction worker, the office worker, the clerk, the nurse, and yes, also the engineer, the doctor, and the businessman.

Indeed, the private sector represents the backbone that supports the economy. This puzzle represents 80% of the country's labor force, with over one million workers and a payroll of $31 billion annually. The private sector works hand in hand with municipalities, non-profit entities and also makes up 83% of the economy's total income.

Undoubtedly, there is a fair perception of what some call the big interests or "grandes intereses" in Spanish, and yes, we all create jobs and risk our capital every day to have a genuine "big interest" in making Puerto Rico the best place to work and live in the world.

In conclusion, Sir Winston Churchill said it best in a speech October 22, 1945 in the House of Commons, saying, "The inherent vice of capitalism is to distribute benefits unequally. The inherent virtue of Socialism is the equal sharing of Misery."

View post:
Socialism and the Equal Sharing of Misery | Business ... - The Weekly Journal