JPINFV

That's going to be an extremely tough sell. After all applying that standard, could you explain how SCOTUS came to the opposite decision essentially with National Socialist Party of America v Village of Skokie? A bunch of neo-nazis having a parade pretty much anywhere, but especially in a largely Jewish town seems like something that would raise to the 'inciting a riot' level, however SCOTUS found in the neo-nazi's favor. Similarly, it doesn't meet the "fire in a theater" test. Per Schenck v United States the test is ""The question in every case is whether the words used are used in such circumstances and are of such a nature as to create a clear and present danger that they will bring about the substantive evils that Congress has a right to prevent." How would the mosque be a clear and present danger? (note before anyone starts yelling about how it only mentions "Congress," read the 14th amendment). Also see Brandenburg v Ohio. Essentially, inflammatory speech isn't illegal unless it reaches the point of inciting immediate lawless action. Again, do you have a source that isn't written as an opinion piece? When a supposed news article includes lines like, "All of a sudden, even members of the community board that stupidly green-lighted the mosque this month are tearing their hair out," it leads me to believe that said article lacks any sort of journalistic ability. Also, I love how the author fail to cite a source for the Sept. 11 opening date. We're supposed to just take her word on it?

I'm trying to figure out why CoAEMSP would care enough to even entertain the thought of giving IAFF two spots, especially since the only reason given was to "assure that fire departments seeking accreditation have the necessary votes to be successful." Is the IAFF admitting that their programs aren't up to snuff?

The point to the slavery and McDonald v Chicago is that the majority can't overturn the rights retained to the people, which includes freedom of religion. If it could be proved (which I imagine would be fairly easy in this case) that the issue resolves around not religion in general, but one specific religion in particular, then denying the opportunity to build a mosque is a blatant violation of first amendment protection. The government, be it by direct action of the people or by action of the elected representatives, can't say, "It's not that we have a problem with a house of worship on this site. We just have a problem with your specific religion building a house of worship here." As far as the NY Post article, I'd like to see that date in something that doesn't seem written like an opinion piece.

If this is construed as a freedom of religion issue (i.e. anything but a mosque is fine), then decidedly not. The entire reason that rights and powers are set in the constitution is to prevent mob rule. If 60% of the country wanted to bring back slavery, should we? Ask Chicago right now about what happens when a majority (albeit all I know for sure is a majority of elected representatives) supports an unconstitutional law post McDonald v Chicago.

To be fair, if Canada attacked us, it's be the 51st+ states. However a country didn't attack us, religious fanatics did. Religious fanatics do not dominate any of the major monotheistic religions and all of the monotheistic religions have parts of their religious text that they aren't too proud of in the modern world. It's not hard to go through the Torah or Bible and pull in-context quotes that support fanaticism.

So you would support banning churches from being around abortion clinics? Oh, and for the love of God, if the people building and supporting the mosque are US citizens, then it's their soil as well.

However, it's that small portion of muslims that have people going, "ZOMG MOSQUE. ZOMG BURKA. ZOMG MOSQUE NEAR GROUND ZERO INVITES AND SUPPORTS TERRORISM." I guarantee you that if the argument was, "You can't build a church near an abortion clinic, it's insensitive and politically incorrect. What are the women going to think when they come out and see a cross across the street!" the same people arguing against the mosque would be arguing for the church.

However, the important term is legal. We can ban something just because one or a group of people are upset. Do you think that the muslims on the other side think it's sensitive or respectful that they are being treated as terrorists because of guilt by association? If you have an idiot coworker who goes off and does something grossly stupid, should the state EMS licensing authority be allowed to pull your license for no better reason than the fact that you worked at the same company? I hope you can't see a steeple anywhere near any government buildings or near the Twin Towers memorial. First off, is there any evidence that this mosque is going to be requiring or recommending burkas? Second, if a woman wants to wear a Burka, then that's her right, provided certain commonsense requirements are met (i.e. traffic stops, etc). This is supposed to be America. No one can force anyone to wear a burka. Quick question. Would anyone here support banning churches near abortion clinics? After all, christians are well known abortion clinic bombers. Oh, wait. Those are radical christians, and not all christians are radical. However all muslims are radical, or have the potential to be radical.

However the claim is being made that a mosque equals Sharia law. If we have "too many sane and rational human beings" for that to happen, then I fail to see the concern. A mosque (or even several mosques) isn't going to suddenly turn a town into Kabul.

Yes, this country is going to Sharia Law just as all of the Catholic churches are trying to force Canon Law onto the country.

I'm curious as to when the movement to repeal the First Amendment of the US Constitution begins.

Yep, which is why it would make it a lot cheaper to fight if you can spread the cost out over 4-5 defendants than trying to go at it alone.

California requires additional paperwork and certification at the company level for the company to become an "AED service provider." Thinking as a businessperson, why go through the expense and effort to add non-required equipment that requires extra paperwork, statistics tracking, education (beyond a quick inservice) and testing for a piece of equipment that, if everyone (including facilities requesting services) are doing their job properly, should never be used? Here's one local EMS agency's ('county EMS') procedure for becoming an AED Service Provider. http://www.co.fresno.ca.us/uploadedFiles/Departments/Public_Health/Divisions/EMS/content/Policies,_Procedures_and_Memos/content/Fresno,_Kings_and_Madera_Counties/200_-_299/211-1.pdf

I wonder if there's anyway for all of the defendants to band together to hire a lawyer instead of having everyone hire their own lawyer. Kinda of a reverse class action suite.

I agree with this as long as the crew isn't making the jump of 'positive psychiatric history means the patient is de facto a danger regardless of what an actual assessment shows.' A patient who is an immediate threat to themselves or others due to disease or disorder, including psychiatric illness lacks capacity, including the capacity to refuse medication needed to stabilize their condition. A patient who is violent while off their medication but is currently is medicated is not a de facto threat who lacks capacity though.

I don't use a hands free accessory and never had a problem related to hands. The problem with talking on the phone is that it's the conversation and not an issue with hands free vs in hand. Actually, I find my driving is much more affected when I use the loud speaker option (hence being technically "hands free" and in compliance with California law) than when I hold the phone up to my ear.

Not only that, but once again I'm a sad panda because it's right in the middle of Resp with out final being on the 17th and the 8th and 9th has class days that I absolutely can't miss (Given the class, either OSCE or group presentation in one of the classes).

He's also the life of the party at parties he never even attended.

Since when was this about forcing a car through an intersection. You were talking about taking an affirmative action to box in an ambulance.

True, they need a reason. However they don't need a reason to follow you until you commit a traffic infraction.

Hmm... Can we get an IP check? I have a feeling I know who the troll is...

Unless every intersection has a red light camera or a police officer (doubtful), the red light is just a request to stop. I highly suggest that you treat it similarly to ambulances and fire engines and ignore it as well.

Obvious troll is obvious...

Beginning of EMT class? Nope. Underwent a Livescan background check prior to be certified in California and a CORI check prior to being employed in Massachusetts.

Never underestimate the impact of someone willing to calmly take charge of a scene. That alone is doing much more to help than just walking away because of a lack of interventions.