If nothing else, just scroll to around 1:03:00 and watch the last couple of laps.
Whatta cliffhanger. How did I miss this the first time around.
More on Chloroquine/Azithromycin. And On Dr. Raoult.
And were missing a very important aggregate number indeed: a control group. How would a comparable group of patients have performed in these RNA tests for contagiousness under another standard of care? Even with or without azithromycin, if you cant stand the thought of not giving them hydroxychloroquine? We dont know. Without matched controls, and without being able to look at individual patient data, we just dont know how good this treatment was or frankly if it was any good at all. We may be seeing a notable effect size in what is still a small trial, or we may be seeing something thats not that remarkable or the result of a poorly controlled protocol.
APD Deputy Chief Harold Medina said that around 1:15 p.m., officers were sent to the 900 block of Edith SE, near Broadway and Coal, because an employer was concerned about an employee and wanted to see if he was OK.
They made contact with the individual, Medina said in a media briefing at the scene. At this time, an altercation occurred between the officers and the individual, at which time at least one APD officer did discharge their firearm.
Medina said the shooting occurred inside the house and no other civilians were there at the time. He said he did not know whether the man was armed with a gun or any other weapon. He didnt provide any other information about the altercation.
The churches which continue to meet are no doubt relying on the First Amendment to back them up.
They should pay mind to those cases where First Amendment meets identifiable physical danger:
FEINER v. PEOPLE OF STATE OF NEW YORK
On the evening of March 8, 1949, petitioner Irving Feiner was addressing an open-air meeting at the corner of South McBride and Harrison Streets in the City of Syracuse. At approximately 6:30 p.m., the police received a telephone complaint concerning the meeting, and two officers were detailed to investigate. One of these officers went to the scene immediately, the other arriving some twelve minutes later. They found a crowd of about seventy-five or eighty people, both Negro and white, filling the sidewalk and spreading out into the street. Petitioner, standing on a large wooden box on the sidewalk, was addressing the crowd through a loud-speaker system attached to an automobile. Although the purpose of his speech was to urge his listeners to attend a meeting to be held that night in the Syracuse Hotel, in its course he was making derogatory remarks concerning President Truman, the American Legion, the Mayor of Syracuse, and other local political officials.
The police officers made no effort to interfere with petitioner's speech, but were first concerned with the effect of the crowd on both pedestrian and vehicular traffic. They observed the situation from the opposite side of the street, noting that some pedestrians were forced to walk in the street to avoid the crowd. Since traffic was passing at the time, the officers attempted to get the people listening to petitioner back on the sidewalk. The crowd was restless and there was some pushing, shoving and milling around. One of the officers telephoned the police station from a nearby store, and then both policemen crossed the street and mingled with the crowd without any intention of arresting the speaker.
At this time, petitioner was speaking in a 'loud, high-pitched voice.' He gave the impression that he was endeavoring to arouse the Negro people against the whites, urging that they rise up in arms and fight for equal rights. The statements before such a mixed audience 'stirred up a little excitement.' Some of the onlookers made remarks to the police about their inability to handle the crowd and at least one threatened violence if the police did not act. There were others who appeared to be favoring petitioner's arguments. Because of the feeling that existed in the crowd both for and against the speaker, the officers finally 'stepped in to prevent it from resulting in a fight.' One of the officers approached the petitioner, not for the purpose of arresting him, but to get him to break up the crowd. He asked petitioner to get down off the box, but the latter refused to accede to his request and continued talking. The officer waited for a minute and then demanded that he cease talking. Although the officer had thus twice requested petitioner to stop over the course of several minutes, petitioner not only ignored him but continued talking. During all this time, the crowd was pressing closer around petitioner and the officer. Finally, the officer told petitioner he was under arrest and ordered him to get down from the box, reaching up to grab him. Petitioner stepped down, announcing over the microphone that 'the law has arrived, and I suppose they will take over now.' In all, the officer had asked petitioner to get down off the box three times over a space of four or five minutes. Petitioner had been speaking for over a half hour.
The language of Cantwell v. State of Connecticut, 1940, 310 U.S. 296, 60 S.Ct. 900, 84 L.Ed. 1213, is appropriate here. 'The offense known as breach of the peace embraces a great variety of conduct destroying or menacing public order and tranquility. It includes not only violent acts but acts and words likely to produce violence in others. On one would have the hardihood to suggest that the principle of freedom of speech sanctions incitement to riot or that religious liberty connotes the privilege to exhort others to physical attack upon those belonging to another sect. When clear and present danger of riot, disorder, interference with traffic upon the public streets, or other immediate threat to public safety, peace, or order, appears, the power of the State to prevent or punish is obvious.' 310 U.S. at page 308, 60 S.Ct. at page 905. The findings of the New York courts as to the condition of the crowd and the refusal of petitioner to obey the police requests, supported as they are by the record of this case, are persuasive that the conviction of petitioner for violation of public peace, order and authority does not exceed the bounds of proper state police action. This Court respects, as it must, the interest of the community in maintaining peace and order on its streets. Schneider v. State of New Jersey, Town of Irvington, 1939, 308 U.S. 147, 160, 60 S.Ct. 146, 150, 84 L.Ed. 155; Kovacs v. Cooper, 1949, 336 U.S. 77, 82, 69 S.Ct. 448, 451, 93 L.Ed. 513. We cannot say that the preservation of that interest here encroaches on the constitutional rights of this petitioner.
We are well aware that the ordinary murmurings and objections of a hostile audience cannot be allowed to silence a speaker, and are also mindful of the possible danger of giving overzealous police officials complete discretion to break up otherwise lawful public meetings. 'A State may not unduly suppress free communication of views, religious or other, under the guise of conserving desirable conditions.' Cantwell v. State of Connecticut, supra, 310 U.S. at page 308, 60 S.Ct. at page 905, 84 L.Ed. 1213. But we are not faced here with such a situation. It is one thing to say that the police cannot be used as an instrument for the suppression of unpopular views, and another to say that, when as here the speaker passes the bounds of argument or persuasion and undertakes incitement to riot, they are powerless to prevent a breach of the peace. Nor in this case can we condemn the considered judgment of three New York courts approving the means which the police, faced with a crisis, used in the exercise of their power and duty to preserve peace and order. The findings of the state courts as to the existing situation and the imminence of greater disorder coupled with petitioner's deliberate defiance of the police officers convince us that we should not reverse this conviction in the name of free speech.
I would substitute for "riot" in that last passage the knowing and deliberate transmission of an infectious disease which likewise poses an "immediate threat to public safety".
In the event you happen to hear someone claiming that they can produce an 80% rate of successful treatments with no severe symptoms, do bear in mind that's the normal outcome...
The firm of Seiler Epstein Ziegler & Applegate represents a couple of plaintiffs in this interesting suit.
Two individuals, Adam Brandy and Daemion Garr, are joined by several businesses and the NRA in this matter.
They are quite a distinguished law firm which, in addition to the address indicated in the complaint, may also be found at sezalaw.com.
Blood donation events, times and locations can be found by zip code here:
They are packing them in at River Church in Florida...
Miracle delivery from debt. Just pay your seed money.
Profile InformationGender: Male
Member since: Fri Jan 20, 2006, 07:14 PM
Number of posts: 62,444
- 2020 (109)
- 2019 (139)
- 2018 (126)
- 2017 (94)
- 2016 (119)
- 2015 (96)
- 2014 (54)
- 2013 (88)
- 2012 (147)