Group items tagged

I don't think it's concerning. The government is there for a reason, and they need power to do their jobs. I tend to sympathize with cops because it only shows the bad police that are in the system, a video of an officer doing something good rarely goes viral.

I sympathize with the cop. He is here to protect us from people that can cause bad things, Michael Brown actually attacked him and the cop did what he had to do to survive. You have to show respect to cops and he didn't do only because he was black or that he wanted to kill someone, he did it becuase the felt threaten for his life

I usually don't see death as an answer to anything unless that person is causing harm to other people. I don't think the officer should have actually killed him but instead used a different method to getting him to do what he wanted him to do.

I think these examples are very concerning. I sympathize with the suspect, Eric Garner, after watching the short 2 minute clip of the incident. The suspect was unarmed, and was only verbally refusing arrest, there is no probable cause for putting the suspect in a choke hold, and very well killing him. The grand jury that decided that officer, Daniel Pantaleo, did the right thing started peaceful protest in the Garner family. This is like the case in Ferguson, Missouri, except these protest do not include, looting, setting businesses on fire, or tear gas.

I think there could have been a better way to control the situation other than a choke hold. It would be understandable if it was for a few seconds to calm Garner down, but the police should have known when to stop. He should have been charged for excessive force.

I strongly sympathize with Eric Garner and his family in this case. Police are stepping over the line in instances like these, and no penalties are given to them. The fact that death is necessary for the resistance of a single unarmed citizen is horrific. Resisting arrest or not resisting arrest, if there is no threat of fatal harm to the police officer, no arrest should ever resort to murder.

I understand that the police thought they had to stop him, but putting him in a choke hold was not the right way. They are going to far with the power they think they have.

i didn't see any reason why the officer put Eric Garner in a choke hold for what he did, the officer was abusing his power, a choke hold was not the right answer.

They are going to far with the power they think they have, a choke hold was not right way to go

yes especially the part when the officer put eric in the choke. the officer thinks he can do whatever he wants just cause hes a cop and had some power of us but he took it to far

There were better methods of restraint to get Eric Garner into handcuffs. A choke hold was definitely not necessary, and the cop was definitely abusing his power. No attempted arrest should end in the death of someone, cop or citizen.

The cop has a right to detain anyone that is breaking the law, but he should not have put him in a choke hold. He has numerous tools capable of detaining someone such as; handcuffs, pepper spray, and a taser.

I don't believe that anyone should have any chances of death when being put in handcuffs, but I also don't know the full story of the incidents of the victims, maybe they weren't cooperating and the cops felt that the only way to control them was the chokehold. I believe that the cops should find another way to hold down their victims when handcuffing

I think that this case is similar to the Ferguson case which could cause more people to start protesting more and even worse then they already are. Things could get really bad if it ever happened again.

I think trying to voyage to Mars is a good idea because not all of Earth's resources will last forever and there is only so many other options to keep life as normal as possible without changing dramatically.

A voyage to Mars is a huge step in science and I think that it is a great step. We could find resources there that are not on earth. Things that can change our world.

I thing a trip to Mars is a good idea. This could get us closer to discovering what's out int he universe, while the thought is exciting it is also a little scary. I agree with the point that Logan made, we aren't going to have our reasources forever. At some point in time we are going to have to find a solution for other means of reasources.

i think its a good idea because we can find new things and maybe the things will make the earth better

I think it is a good idea, we can discover new things in the universe.

An exploration to Mars is an amazing idea. The resources we have on Earth, won't last forever. And finding other ways that will help us survive is a great thing. It's a pretty big step in helping humans, and Earth itself.

I think that this is a great idea. I think that exploring the unknown in the universe is very exciting and intriguing.

I think that this is good because if people keep treating the world like they do eventually we will run out of resources and need more. Mars could possibly have new and better resources.

I have heard of this before. Poor kid though it would stink to go through this, however by the time that he would become older he would get to eat more foods.

how is a child born with this disease? i would hate to be like that. i feel bad for the little kid.

There was a story about a kid like this on true life as you get older you get to eat more.

That must be really hard dang i feel bad

I bet he makes some of the most creative dishes.

poor kid. the thought of only being able to eat certain foods must be brutal.

I think that would suck bad. i wonder how he feels.

This is just awful. I hope he grows out of it.

That's his fault

I believe that the government is correct because they have already paid for the land, therefore it's theirs. Even though it was more than likely an accident I think that the sentencing should be brought down.

Texas should let more refuges into their state because its not their decision, its the american goverenments

I think we should help these refuges because we have procedures in our immigration process that, if done correctly, we will be protected against the very few ISIS terrorists that hide withing those refuges. Also it is a stand against ISIS if we continue letting them in because we will show that we are not afraid of them and fear is all terrorists have against the world.

I think since Texas wasn't informed that the refugees were coming, they have a reason to be mad. Suing may be a little extreme, but it is a huge worry if they are threats to the safety of the Texas people, especially since it was confirmed they cannot do accurate background checks on them

I think that the US should be doing what we can to help but I don't think anymore refugees should be allowed into the country. We should not be held accountable for taking care of them. If our nation will be put in danger by possible terrorists posing as refugees, we shouldn't allow anymore. A lot of the refugees that have already come to America have been complaining because we aren't giving them more things. We gave them food, shelter and protection but they complain about not being given TVs. Why should they get free things if half of our nations populous is under poverty line and expected to fend for themselves? I completely understand that they need help but we should not have to put our country in harms way to do it. There is no way to know if they are terrorists or refugees so we shouldn't take the risk.

We should let them in but only with very high monitoring to track out the terrorists hiding in the crowds. It might be a evil way to do it but we will be able to stop the terrorists dead in their tracks without just ignoring their please for help. (ZAC OLSON)

Texas should let them in but they should take certain steps to make sure that they are not terrorists. It isnt their choice to keep them out its the governments.

The American Government should let the state make their own decision. If the state doesn't want to help, then let it be.

I really don't know what I think the government should do at this point. I'm pretty neutral on the subject, because I fear for our safety while I also fear for the refugees. I do strongly believe though that these refugees do need a place to go where they can be safe, but it's hard to know whose good or bad.

i wouldnt the refugees in because you dont know which ones are a threat i believe it would be to much of a risk

I think that the way things are now, with the US not being able to individually make the decision whether or not refugees are allowed into a specific state, is the best for us right now because having one decision for the whole country is more organized and orderly than having every state with a different policy on refugees. Personally, I feel for the Syrian refugees because most of them are women and children. But at the same time, with the risk of letting terrorists in, it is a tough decision. If we did thorough background checks on every single person that came into the US from Syria then maybe I would think this would be okay. Because I don't think it's fair to stop women and children from living a good life here because there MAY be a terrorist among them.

I believe that we shouldn't let just anyone in maybe do a background check before they enter our country just in case something is likely to happen, Not being stereotypical but with all the things that ISIS has done so far they could possibly plan something if we were to not accept any Syrians at all because we're "afraid".

They do and they dont know whats all going down but they should let them in because its choice of the government to let the refuges in

I personally think that arming teacher would be a huge risk but yet could be a life-saving moment. Just think about it if a student would happen to go crazy in our school they would know that every teacher is armed with a gun so they'll do anything to get a gun from a teacher but yet if they tried anything a teacher could end up saving kids lives. I'm kind of in the middle. Also not selling guns to teenagers I mean that's crazy look what happened in Florida!!! I wouldn't want that to happen in our school. Checking their background and mental state I agree on, I just don't understand why this world and this generation needs to be holding guns to protect themselves I mean that's sad.

I think that arming teachers would be a great idea, but schools shouldn't feel this unsafe. I believe that this outrage has kind of became yesterdays news the first couple of weeks there were a lot of controversy but has died down for the past 2 weeks. Solutions are hard to reach because not everyone agrees on one solution so whatever the government decides to do not everyone will be happy with the end result. I think that everyone should just be happy that the government is trying to solve this problem and they shouldn't freak out until they see a change.

I believe there needs to be more limitations to those that obtain guns. Guns have become an unnecessary evil that many have taken advantage of greatly. The outrage has not yet become "yesterday's news" because many are still fighting and protesting for more effective gun laws. Many survivors from the Parkland shooting are coming forward and sharing their stories about the actions that took place inside their school and how horrifying the event was. They are still coming forward and still fighting to show everyone what it is like from their perspective. The politics of this issue make solutions difficult to reach because they many times propose an idea to prevent conflict in the future, but they do not follow through with the potential idea.

I think that even if we try to have teachers have guns in school it will be a major problem. I think some teachers will be against it and students will be scared to come to school knowing their teachers have guns. I think the only thing schools can do to prevent this from happening is better security like more officers at the schools. The Parkland shooting won't be yesterdays news because many people are affected by this.

Its very easy to get a gun. Guns should be legal just stricter tests and background checks.

I feel that increasing the minimum age to buy firearms isn't really gonna make a change in what is happening because I feel that people are still going to find a way to get this firearm. i feel that politics are making this difficult because everyone has there own opinion on what to do and how it should be done. but this isn't something that should become "yesterday's news" we should be figuring out ways to make the school the safest it can be

Honestly, I don't think we need teachers with guns, that is taking it a little too far, like that if they hit the wrong person or get angry at a kid and lose it and kill or injure a kid. I think we just need to have better protection in schools, and also we need to be aware of signs before things happen. Most times when there is a shooter they end up posting about it before it happens or will show signs that they might do it, and we just brush it off when we should be focused and do investigations if someone is on facebook bragging saying they are going to do it. We also need to have better plans for when a shooter does come, instead of sitting in a corner and hoping they don't come to you, we should figure out how to get out or something else instead of being sitting ducks.

I don't really have a side that I'm 100% for I think no matter what happens there is always going to be someone who isn't happy which is going to lead to more conflicts.

I think there should be some way to check mental health before buying a gun and stronger background checks. Maybe arm a few teachers that are capable that way its almost as if you have another cop in the school. I belive they need to find a compromise to make everyone happy and stay safe.

I do think that students and their families shouldn't feel unsafe while going to school so I think that schools should either have more armed security or teachers should have guns. I do think this is kind of dying down and it isn't being talked about as much as it was 2 weeks ago.

So... solve the problems of gun violence... with more guns? This is the White House's big plan. Because we have a Conservative cabinet, they do not support putting more restrictions on guns. This is why there is such a big debate. Others want more restrictions so this does not happen.

I believe that there are many causes of a school shooting and because there are so many aspects to it, it then becomes difficult to fix. Sure you can make the buying age older but, then they will resort to other weapons which would just put a band-aid on the problem. Maybe more security would work? In the Flordia school shooting, there was a police officer there, there was protection but, somehow it still happened. I 100% believe that something needs to be done but, it's going to need to be more than just 1 thing that changes.

Arming teachers is not a good idea, people who have witness school shootings do NOT want to see more guns in their school. Kids want to feel save in school.

I think we just need better protection in schools and we must also be aware of the signs before things happen.

I agree with limiting the ability to have guns. the parkland shooting will never be yesterdays news, its important to know about it so there can be prevention from this happening again. There are way more shootings going on around the world everyday that not as big as the mass shooting, but to just know that people are getting shot back to back because of the unnecessary presents of guns, that frightening and shows that we need a change. I also think teachers should NOT have access to guns. People may think they have the ability to carry guns, and believe that they can be smart with them, but i disagree.

I think arming teacher would be a great idea, but like most people are commenting kids and teachers should not feel this unsafe in a school building. I think more security on schools is required to make teens and children safer. Yes, raising the gun purchase would help, but there is always still a way for people to get their hands on a weapon if they wanted to do harm to others. In the end, there are too many crazy and unsafe people out there and I think if they wanted to damage they could find a way I think the ultimate solutions are taking more precautions at schools.

I agree with Taylor Nickerson, guns should be more restricted since they have become more dangerous than they should be. Nobody should feel unsafe going to school, or anywhere really. You're supposed to feel safe at school, with others. Guns and weapons as deadly as these shouldn't be so accessible, or easy to get. They should have a higher age restriction and make sure that they're going to use them properly and not going to harm others.

i think the government shoulf take care of these things before it get out of hand and people get hurt. to them it take people dying or having a tragic thing happens for them to take initiative to do something about it. for example like sucide theres no posters up right now it there but then a week later someone commitis and then thats what is covering the walls poster after poster about bullying can lead to death. sucied pervention. stop things early

I honestly think it would be a huge risk to arm teachers with guns but it could also be a good thing. The reason i think it would be bad is because i personally have been in a class where a teacher can't control themselves and freak out on students. Now if you armed teachers and they have a little "break down" they have easy access to and weapon and all those children in the class are in major danger. But there are positive things about arming teachers like if there was a person in the building trying to kill kids, the teacher could easily go and kill the shooter before he kills innocent kids. So there are good things and bad things about but i still don't know if i personally would feel safe knowing teachers have guns and easy access to them.

i belive that what trump is saying "That we should arm teachers with gums and have them trained" evan if it's for the selfish reson of wanting to protect your self, is something good that could happen to all the schools in the US and it would stop school shooters a lot quicker

I believe that It could be a good or bad thing because student can fear going to school knowing teachers have them but it can also be good if someone is in the school and protect students.

I agree with Noah Lybarger with what he's saying that people will still find a way to get them. I personally believe that politics are making it hard because everyone has their own opinion and there are a lot of ideas on how to fix it, some that might work and some that won't, but they are completely different from each other. I feel they should raise the age and do a more thorough background check before the sale of firearms. Also a good idea to protect schools themselves is raising the security and maybe having more police officers around, making it a place where everyone feels safe. On the other side if it was made illegal to have a weapon, but just likes drugs and even all the way back to when alcohol was illegal, people that want to do harm like that they would find a gun somehow (just like people find drugs) would be able to find it and making it illegal to get a weapon would make the person that found one even more dangerous because people would be more defenseless than we are now.

I do not believe that teachers should have guns because I think that that would just cause more problems and violence. I think that we need to add more restrictions for guns and I think we need to ban semi automatics to the public because there is no reason for it. I believe that honestly there would be more violence and deaths if teachers were to have firearms in school.

I don't think that arming teachers would be a good idea, because I don't think there is a single teacher I have had that would have the willpower to shoot a person. Many school shootings are done by young people, and it would take a lot out of someone to shoot them, is this really what we want to do to our teachers?

I believe that teachers having guns isn't going to improve safety for a school by much. What happens when a kid doesn't listen in class so the teacher pulls the gun on the student threatening them? Or worse, what if a student got a hold of one of these guns? We need to add more restrictions to guns and when they can be solicited to you because getting a hold of weapons at the mere age of 19 only seems to more endangering. There would be so much less violence if there were more restrictions to guns.

I believe that arming teachers with a gun,would be a good idea. Because that could make the school much safer.

This event does seem very hypocritical. This is pretty much saying government officials need to be safe, but schools do not.

"As a result, firearms and firearm accessories, knives or weapons of any kind will be prohibited in the forum prior to and during his attendance," I find this event to be extremely hypocritical. It is basically a slap in the faces of all the Parkland victims. Why are they, and other citizens, not being treated with the safety precautions that politicians are. I find this very offensive for Pence to do this.

Agreeing with rtanner112, it is hypocritical and very ironic. It seems like the "higher up" only care about themselves, and not the common people.

How do you forget about the very thing that was growing inside you for 9 months

everyday i lose more faith in humanity

Was she on anything. You think she would have heard the child in the back claiming she thought she dropped the child off.

How do you forget your 8 month old son is in the backseat?

You can;t forget a baby. They will cry and you would know if you loved and cared about your child as to if they would still be in the car or not.

If you forget about having your baby in the car, then that's just considered bad parenting and she should just be charged.

New parents have been shown to be more forgetful right at first because of the huge change in life that they don't realize it. But this is going way to far with it, death happened, usually it's only for a minute not long enough for an infant to die.

i don't feel like it was on accident i think they meant to do it but they didn't mean to be gone as long but time just didn't intend for anything wrong to happen

I find the reason to be incredibly sketchy, but I do believe the mother did not mean to kill her child. Perhaps she left her child in the car and meant to only for a small amount of time but forgot?

This is crazy

I don't think she intentionally killed her kid but it's crazy how you can forget about your baby being let in the car

How do you just forget?

How forgot your child? this is so sad

That's insane why wouldn't the mother check the backseat before she got out of her car.

I don't think you can just forget your child in a car, this child normally always has your attention

I can't believe this.

If she said she really dropped him off at the daycare center she would have been conscious of taking him there. Also there should be footage of her dropping him off. If it shows she never showed up, shes obviously lying about that instance and there is more to the story.

okay first off, if you need your purse or something material in the back to remember you have a baby, you shouldn't have one. second off, what the heck did she do when she went to the daycare? how did she imagine giving the baby over to the daycare or something?

how do you forget about your child that is only 8 months old. This is just heart breaking.

Completely heartbreaking. How can you "forget" about a child?

my opinion, i would have went off of what the tattoo said because i would have seen it as his wishes. he was pretty much gone when he arrived, plus there was no family with him. there was no one/nothing saying otherwise so i would have just let him go.

I would be lost but I think I would still resuscitate him because tattoos can sometimes be a regret and they had no way of knowing if it was legit or not.

I think it was a good call to wait until they had actual (documented) proof that he did not want to be resuscitated instead of just going off of the words on his body.

i think it was good that he was saved

Very tough situation!

Personally, I find it very wise that the doctors would have guessed that he had been resuscitated in the past. Especially due to his old age and multiple problems. It was also wise of them to follow this mans wishes and let him go.

I think they did the right thing by not resuscitating him because tattoo's can sometimes be jokes but, no one would joke about this sort of thing. In addition to that he was nearly dead when he got there so it may have been easier for him.

I think it was a good choice to wait for documentation of him not wanting to be resuscitated.

he was only defending his religion and his believe just like they were and he hoped they could've seen it it too

Despite his religious beliefs no body should have the right to discriminate against customers based on race, religion, gender identity, sexual orientation, etc. If the situation were reversed I am positive he would be outraged that someone discriminated against him based on his religious beliefs. He is using the excuse of "standing up for his religious beliefs" to hide his hateful homophobia.

I think gay people can get wedding cakes, they just wants to do usual wedding system.

I think that as the owner of the bakery, he has the right to serve whoever he would like, it is ridiculous that some people would go as far as to sue someone for a stupid cake, grow up and get a life.Stop victimizing yourselves.

I feel that the business owner can choose not give them the cake. A business has "the right to refuse service to anyone". Besides, its not like that business is the only place they can get their wedding cake.

As the owner of the shop he should have the ability to refuse service to someone if their request goes against his beliefs, also the couple instead of just going to another place to get a cake and not causing all these problems decided to make it a big deal wasting time and money for both parties. Both parties involved are in the wrong

Agreed Aaron

I can see where both sides are coming from. But any business has the right to refuse to serve anyone they feel like. People may see it as wrong but any business can do this.

Nobody should be discriminated against, but with our first amendment right says he legal does not have. "congress shall make no law respecting religion an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof"

I wonder what is going to happen next.

I agree that he does have the right to deny service to people and it seems he was very polite about, even if I don't personally agree with it I still think he shouldn't be sued. Although I do find it interesting how in this article the couple didn't have any quotes or anything.