So what are they actually being required to do? Because the quote from the law doesn’t seem to specify any actual compliance mechanism or metrics. Seems like the kind of open ended (and mostly toothless) in the same way PR statements from politicians and colleges on DEI tends to be. 

So he Karened it up over not being able to break a rule he had been allowed to before.

Oh, makes sense. I just hadn't noticed any info on what went down other than he killed her. So I didn't know if there conflicting stories about the events.

So I guess all there is to do and see if the evidence is released and if it seems lacking/non-existent (which isn’t exactly a rare issue with the police).

“22% of all hate crimes reported in major U.S. cities”

Wait, how would stand your ground enter into this. Is anyone claiming she attacked her killer?

? I would assume he would be charged with both.

I doubt they would love too. It would be a huge scandal and people might start asking if what family you are born into is a good barometer for whether you should have access to sensitive state secrets. Additionally he likely has a number of well connected friends and family members who might cause a stir at the…

I mean regardless of how “modern” they are they are still an inbred monarchy whose power is based on a shaky claim to divine mandate.

I mean outside of whatever funds he’s making for speaking and what ever he has left from the criminal case, he’s probably almost judgement proof.

No, the faction we are backing includes neo-Nazi’s. There isn’t really much of a reason to believe the government itself is.

When someone presents an alternate story of what happened, I will be more than happy to look at that too. But if the cops are saying one thing and the facts in the article seem to agree with that, thier hardly seems to be a reason to assume that they are lying.

I would imagine it’s quite possible he’s going to lose at least some of these lawsuits. At the very least, establishing his liability only requires preponderance of evidence instead of beyond a reasonable doubt. Also, just because you aren’t guilty of murder or manslaughter; doesn’t mean you are financially liable.

Those websites definitely are that (to my limited knowledge at least).

Oh, it definitely would be. But that would be a complete change in policing concepts and culture. Our police force is not equipped, trained, or incentivized to accept or deal with threats to thier safety. And to a lesser extent, I imagine US law also treats lethal force used in self defense different than many of…

I'm kind of surprised it's taken so long for all of these lawsuits to get filed. 

“It’s unclear if the officers involved in Washington’s shooting had received that training.”

That's fine and all. Just wasn't sure if you were disagreeing and pointing to that as part of that or not.

I mean, discussing an alternative to the bill seems fairly germain to the bill itself. That doesn’t seem off topic at all.

? Not sure what your point in relation to my comment is.