After a handcuffed ride in the back of a police van, a man was left paralyzed and needed his legs amputated, lawsuit alleges
After a handcuffed ride in the back of a police van, a man was left paralyzed and needed his legs amputated, lawsuit alleges
A man filed a federal lawsuit Monday alleging he was paralyzed and needed his legs amputated after police officers in St. Petersburg, Florida, put him in restraints, placed him in the back of a police van without a seatbelt and then drove in a reckless manner.
Cuffed in the back of a van with no seatbelts. You can get a ticket for not wearing a seatbelt in your car.
You're viewing a single thread.
A homeless guy slept in public too many times, and the police decided to arrest him.
They handcuffed and chained him then drove fast and slammed the brakes on purpose with him in the back of the van. That broke his neck - paralyzing him from the neck down. Both legs needed to be amputated as well.
For falling asleep in a grass lot...
Call me crazy, but I would be happy to pay extra in taxes to make sure everyone had a roof over their head, healthcare (including dental, vision, mental health care), and their basic needs of life met (including hygiene products). If that comes out of police budgets, so be it.
What's crazy is it would likely cost less in taxes to do!
it 100% costs less to house the homeless instead of leaving them on the street. the cruelty is the point
whats more it costs less to also give them money for basic needs as well.
that's called socialism.
Maybe that's what I want
I live in Canada and I want more socialism but our politicians keep destroying the system because they have rich friends that need help getting richer (Doug Ford I'm looking at you)
I know this is a joke but we should stop making it. It confuses the dumbasses.
Genuine question; How is it a joke? That's pretty much what we do where I'm from, and we're generally considered socialists.
If you take an industry, and make it owned and run by the workers, take the NHS of the UK for example. It's paid for by taxes, therefore owned by the public, and is run by the public, that's socialism. But just paying tax alone to have more services isn't socialism. Socialism is defined by the ownership and regulation of business and service by the people.
So paying taxes for the government to pay a private company to do the work is not socialism, for example madicaid in the US.
It doesn't seem like a big difference at first but the results are massively different.
I see, that is a very good point and an excellent explanation. Thank you.
Just want to say when I said "confuses the dumbasses" I wasn't referring to people like yourself, I was talking about hyper capitalists.
I figured as much :)
Why? This is how things are done under Socialism. That's why Socialism is good.
Yeah but then you'd get people trying to be homeless on purpose
spoiler
This is a joke, please don't hurt me
Edit: how the fuck does spoiler text work
The sad thing is some people don't think that's a joke.