Skip to main content

Rights of the Disabled to Remain Silent When Applying For Aid

What You Don’t Have To Tell The Lender If You Are On Disability

Don’t speak to anyone but a lawyer.

In November 2014, the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau (“CFPB”) launched a bulletin asking people to take notice and cease certain disallowed practices by people who lend money to others, aka lenders. The problem is that some lenders have asked disabled loan applicants illegal, irrelevant questions before offering them the loan they should not be asking.

At the outset, it remains a common fact that you must face many questions when applying for a loan. Questions about your finances must be answered honestly before you can borrow the loan proceeds. Income information is the most essential part of this information.

How Does Social Security Law Income Come Into Play?

However, lenders must tread softly in cases of income-related questions about people who receive social security disability income. An issue recently asked of borrowers on disability is if they know how long their disability income will continue to be paid out. This is the question that the CFPB has explicitly not allowed lenders to ask their borrowers. In addition, researchers have found that many banks contact the doctors of disabled persons to learn about their disability condition and how long it might continue.

If the lender insists on these questions, it raises serious concerns about the transaction. Such questions are not permissible. Simultaneously, the borrower must not bother to arrange for any documents containing information about the condition of the disability or its duration.

The officials have said from the governing authorities that asking for such documents and information from people with disabilities is discrimination and against the law. This concern might sound new. But this concern has been around for quite some time.

Example Of A Recent Bank Asking Illegal Questions Problem

We see this in a recent example. A bank asked similar questions about activities that were synonymous with asking the terms of disability. Furthermore, the bank asked the borrower whether he would continue to receive his disability income for another three years. The bank did this before offering him refinancing on his mortgage. Besides, the bank also approached the borrower’s doctor about the status of his disability.

The bank grasped the situation well and ended up settling the matter by offering a significant sum to the plaintiff before entering into lengthy court procedures. A borrower with a disability is only required to disclose that he receives disability income. The victim gets the amount of revenue coming to him. Any questions and inquiries from the lender beyond this are not permissible.

Related Issue – Attorneys and Clients In Dealing With Online Communications

Let’s take a realistic look at the American Bar Association’s Standing Committee on Ethics and Professional Responsibility and its communications recommendations. These are tips for attorneys new to the field or with more experience. Regardless of your years in law, we have a few ideas for you to explain to clients trying to apply online for loans or dealing with lawyers.

Not every incident is the same, but it offers insight into some general rules. For the most part, attorneys and customers should consider their messages and:

  • The content of the message itself, including sensitive or private information. How are these communiques organized?
  • What is the practicality of improving or introducing new email security standards and understanding its downsides? Is it super important?
  • What is the point of intercepting or reading these communications by someone you did not authorize?
  • What impacts your communications with your clients: large and small, routine, and more involved?

As you can imagine, this is a bit of a puzzle for an attorney who does not specialize in web or commercial security. Sometimes, the lawyer’s office occasionally hires outside help to find who fished or hacked your client’s email forensically. So, as you can see, it’s not just that a bank can’t ask about a disability; the client should be careful about providing an SSN or any other unique information, such as universal passwords. However, in others, there are several vital steps your firm acts on internally. Each one makes a fundamental difference.

Taking Plaintive Steps

This is why the ABA and other organizations ask how data is handled. Also, many attorneys have no or just cursory training in these matters. However, you only have so much time or money.

Consider the following:

  • Who handles your information? What is their info security training?
  • What is your email routing method? Does your site use HTTPS protocol?
  • Is sensitive data labeled or treated as such? Consider means of securing this type of data separately.
  • Is this in line with your communications and privacy policy? Every firm worth its salt has one, which makes your files more secure and inspires confidence in your clients. They notice.
  • Each attorney should read and digest the new Model Rules of Professional Conduct. This provides an essential backdrop for lawyers’ preparation for recent and upcoming changes.

Changing to a uniform, secure email or communications network allows for less juggling between different systems and less to consider for each client. Often, firms utilize a reliable cloud-based solution for their needs. Besides, even those without a lot of cash on hand have options. You may want to research Google Drive and Dropbox as their primary or secondary mode of such use. Each is free to use. However, asking a lawyer and a tech expert how secure they are would be helpful.

Furthermore, keep each in mind as you proceed. This list isn’t comprehensive. However, it allows firms of all sizes a jumping-off point in making communications that can and should be above reproach or worry. In time, this pays for itself many times over. One less thing on your plate. Furthermore, each bit of security is critical for your firm.

Moreover, the Social Security Administration (“SSA”) does not give disability income to recipients by duration. Disabled lenders should beware of such tricks from banks. If this story sounds familiar, contact a skilled attorney. The Ehline Law Firm Personal Injury Attorneys, APLC, is here to help.

You, Drones, Civil Rights and Privacy – Legal Status of Drones

The use of drones could be innocent or for nefarious reasons. They could be as simple as photographing a sunset over the beach. But this high-tech device could snoop on someone inside their house. So the use of drones as poking devices intrigues attorney Michael Ehline. He says UAVs bring to mind many legal complications.

Government agencies and the military have used unmanned aerial craft for years. For example, they help fight terrorism and conduct domestic surveillance. But now, private companies like Amazon are seeking FAA approval for business use. For example, their “Prime Air” program recently hit the news. The Amazon website claims that companies can use aerial devices for delivering online merchandise, and pizza delivery is no different.

Private Citizens And Drones

Private citizens are not left out of the equation. Some citizens may be intrigued, and other people who were hobbyists of this kind of technology may be full-blown into it. One of these people is Santa Barbara resident Cliff Baldridge, a tech-savvy aficionado and an everything Google expert. He has used radio-controlled vehicles for approximately three decades and drone aircraft for practical and charitable purposes.

Mr. Baldridege believes he is an expert and uses drones to capture aerial footage of Santa Barbara vistas and then post it on his Santa Barbara Arts TV page on YouTube. The pictures are taken with an AR Drone 2.0, which he has modified to hold a Go Pro HD camera. He said the modified technology enables Mr. Baldridge to access stunning images and video. He also said that without the drone’s utilization, he would never be able to capture these images.

  • Potential Liability Issues?

Personal injury lawyer Michael Ehline, who writes a legal blog, said Mr. Baldridge must be careful about using drones and the film. The licensed professional stated that there could be two legal issues with using these aircraft: the right to privacy and the FAA. Mr. Ehline said that even following the FAA licensing rules, the penal code is another issue. And this section includes people maintaining their reasonable expectation of privacy.

Reasonable Expectation of Privacy?

Recording in public places is permitted under California law so long as you keep your reasonable expectation of privacy intact. An example would be people at the beach who are unaware they are on tape. So now, it could be a violation of the law. But at the same time, videoing a police officer making an arrest remains legal.

This technology gives Mr. Ehline pause since he believes it is possible that legislators and judges will soon agree to government drone use. Of course, they will restrict private citizens’ aircraft use.

He said that it would not be unforeseen for law enforcement tue they have the right to use drones to record but simultaneously take that ability out of ordinary citizens’ hands. Mr. Ehline adds that in California, the stance taken by the courts is a pro-government position.

District Attorney Joyce Dudley and a Santa Barbara representative stated to the News-Press that they do not use drones to their knowledge. Mr. Ehline still sees that using these aerial vehicles could quickly invade privacy. He said that law enforcement should be held accountable. Moreover, Ehline noted how beautiful it would be to have a drone capture a police officer stopping recording the incident.

Recording Police Reduced Police Misconduct?

He cited Rialto’s case, where a systematic video recording of police officers on the job showed an 80% reduction in misconduct reports. In this situation, the officers carried cameras. And those devices recorded their actions. But imagine how much better this would be with drones. It could keep less-than-admirable officers acting within the law.

The other issue is that it could provide the government with the Legislature’s intent for using surveillance without a warrant. Even the drones Amazon plans to use could be tapped into. Companies like Amazon, which is attempting to get approval for enhanced business opportunities, could go along with the government’s requests for drone information to gain that support.

The current private drone use regulations include the following:

  • Flying below 400 feet

Mr. Baldridge said that the guidelines for recreational and hobbyists come from the 1981 circular. These standards state that airborne model aircraft should remain a “sufficient distance from populated areas.” Baldridge also says you should not fly the craft above 400 feet.

Also, drones must remain within sight of the pilot at all times to avoid endangering others and to avoid charges of recklessness.

  • Privacy

Mr. Baldridge said that there is a general expectation of privacy in public. He has not heard of any cases in Santa Barbara where people are concerned about their privacy. But he said that this craft is as high as a palm tree when it is over 50 feet in the air. So, for him, it’s filming public scenery and landscape. So, in that case, the drone isn’t low enough to look in someone’s windows.

According to District Attorney Dudley, she does not know of any current lawsuits related to privately done use.

  • The FAA is working to establish rules to include drone use in the national airspace.
  • This process is going slowly, and the agency has reported being behind schedule in developing standards. So, the agency will not meet the September 2015 deadline. Transportation Department Inspector General Calvin Scovel III stated as much at a House Transportation Aviation subcommittee 2014.

The California Assembly passed drone-related legislation pending; Governor Brown finally signed AB 2306. The law now codifies the illegality of unmanned aircraft systems invading a person’s privacy.

  • Senator Dianne Feinstein, the chairwoman of the Senate Intelligence Committee, spoke out about a personal incident with a drone. That has made her question her past support of the NSA surveillance program regarding personal privacy. Sen. Feinstein said on 60 Minutes that she was in her home and there was a demonstration outside. When she went to look out the window, there was a drone outside.

She said this made her question what benefits society would gain from drone use. She also pondered the roles of stalking or invading privacy and wondered about the distance the drone came to the house. The legal part of drone regulation remains to be discovered, including whether or not California legislation will clamp down on drones, invasions of privacy, or other nuisances.

Other Sources:

PDF

Senate Passes PACT Act – Veterans Groups Celebrate for Vets Exposed to Toxic Burn Pits

Veterans Groups Celebrate as Help is Available for Veterans Exposed to Toxic Burn Pits

The PACT Act was finally passed through the Senate. It had its ups and downs. But eventually, the Senate Veterans Affairs Committee got this critical act through the chamber Tuesday night, off the Senate floor, and onto the desk of President Joe Biden.

This bill had been stuck in a bit of a stalemate, and disability benefits for the veterans exposed to burn pits were undoubtedly up in the air. When military family members heard the bill was stalled, they realized that health care benefits for these vets also weighed in the balance.

Left-Wing Comedian Slammed Republicans

By a vote of 86 to 11, a decisive and bipartisan win, the Tuesday night vote in the Senate was initially held up by minority leader Mitch McConnell and Republican senators as well as three Republican amendments, which ultimately led family members of these veterans to be frustrated and saddened. Even comedian and activist Jon Stewart criticized the Republican party for rejecting the bill. But he was not the only one who harshly criticized Republicans for holding up this bill. Learn how to set up a claim here.

The legislation passed the Senate earlier in a vote in June, but it required a technical fix, so it had to go through the process again. When that happened, toxic exposed veterans were put at risk as Republicans attempted to change language in the bill, slowing it down.

This delay caused outrage among veteran groups, and GOP senators were put into a tough spot since they were slowing down help for America’s veterans.

During this wait, which blocked the swift passage of the act, veterans and their families have been camping out in front of the Capitol building, vowing to stay until the PACT act is passed. They remained as the Senate began voting. Senate Majority Leader Chuck Schumer spoke to this group and said,

“You can go home knowing the good and great thing you have done and accomplished for the United States of America.”

Millions of Vets Potentially Covered

The newest Senate vote helps to expand VA health care for millions of combat veterans who served around burn pits and received toxic exposure. It also forces the VA to presume that certain types of cancer and respiratory illnesses were related to their military service. This allows vets to get more disability payments to compensate for these injuries without providing proof. Before this act, the VA would force veterans to have indisputable evidence that the pits caused these conditions.

Burn Pits Covered

Approximately 70% of the veterans and their families who have tried to obtain disability payments for these conditions were previously denied. These burn pits were used to dispose of everything from cans, plastic, and chemicals to human and medical waste.

Hundreds of thousands of Vietnam veterans will benefit from this bill passing. In addition to respiratory illnesses, it will also cover conditions like high blood pressure and conditions caused by Agent Orange exposure. It is estimated that approximately 600,000 of the 1.6 million Vietnam veterans still living will be eligible for more compensation due to this exposure.

Additionally, any veterans with past assumed exposure to Agent Orange after serving in Cambodia, Guam, Laos, Thailand, Johnston Atoll, and American Samoa are also covered under this bill. Once the bill crosses President Joe Biden’s desk to be signed, it is projected to add approximately $277 billion to the federal deficit over the next decade.

Still, there is much to Achieve for West Coast Marines

Michael Ehline and the Ehline Law Firm stand by veterans and help them block the legal barriers that stop bills like this from getting final passage. We hope you are glad the Senate passes health care provisions like this, but we need to immediately open up Camp Pendleton and El Toro’s toxic water exposure claims. Give our firm a call today at (833) LETS—SUE.

  • Contaminated Water Lawsuits
    • Camp Lejeune Cancer Claims

Is It Negligent to Let Biological Males Compete in Girl’s Sports?

According to the courts and science, a transgender person is someone with “gender dysphoria” or who wants to be the opposite sex but isn’t. To preface this, we know that politicians, college campuses, and even the U.S. military have been pushing a theory that there is no biological difference between males and females since the election of President Biden.

We also know that the military has lower physical standards for females because, in general, biological women are nowhere near as physically powerful, aggressive, or as large as biological males.

“Men have a higher speed and physical strength compared to women. A meta-analysis was conducted on 47 separate studies that measured how far men and women can throw various things. The effect size, i.e., the size of the difference, was significant in this area. . . In many studies, men are both physically and verbally more aggressive than women, with medium effect sizes.” (Source.)

Men Competing as Women Dominate Female Sports?

We also know that biological males allowed to compete in female sports dominate and devastate the biological females they compete against, with very few exceptions. Speaking about these truths of male and female differences on social media will likely get you banned for hate speech.

The question many are asking is why? Why don’t they force biological females to pass the same physical standards as males in sports and the military if there are no differences? Why have thousands of years of science been flushed down the toilet in favor of this new, transgender participation rule that men and women are the same, these people ask?

Now, we have a young lady battered in a sports game by a biological male with what would be considered superhuman strength for most biological females to possess. On October 22, 2022, footage surfaced of a volleyball match at a high school in North Carolina where a transgender “girl” (a biological male with a gender identification issue) smashed the ball, striking a biological girl on the opposing team, resulting in severe head and neck injuries.

The ball’s estimated speed before it hit the female volleyball player at the Hiwassee Dam High School was around 70 mph, resulting in long-term concussion symptoms. According to the board, their decision to forfeit all games against the team that let males on their team was purely based on safety concerns as they danced around the controversial topic of allowing overwhelmingly powerful men pretending to be girls to compete in girls’ sports.

However, when such incidents lead to injuries, many people question, “Is it negligent to let biological males compete in girls’ sports?”

Some States Have Issued Laws to Ban Transgender Athletes from Playing in Sports Teams

Texas rules ban transgender students from competing outside their gender in sports teams. However, the loophole in the law allowed transgender athletes, who changed their birth certificates to reflect their gender identity, to still play against female athletes. Conservative lawmakers recently closed that loophole, making Texas the latest state to bar transgender girls and possibly other self-identified strains of LGBTQ youth from automatically participating in women’s sports.

18 state legislatures have enacted laws or rules on the transgender athlete ban. Although the bills passed in states protect fairness in sports, they contradict Biden’s executive order on combating discrimination based on gender identity. The executive order overturned Trump’s policies and the rules laid by the National Collegiate Athletic Association. California is the only state that protects trans athletes, and more than 15 states have friendly policies toward transgender athletes (unlimited access allowing boys and nonbinary youth to compete against girls in sports.).

Does the Involvement of Transgender Athletes Prevent Participation of Female Students in Sports?

There was an argument that letting transgender athletes participate would drive women athletes away from high school and college sports on the playing field due to apparent, undeniable hormone levels. However, that is not the case, as female athletes rose more than 13% nationwide from 2018 to 2019. Even states that do not exclude trans kids from school sports in the university system saw an increase in girls’ participation.

The rise in female and male participation in sports was due to more schools offering comprehensive athletic programs. Creating opportunities for students will attract them and allegedly level the athletics playing field.

Now that we’ve debunked the notion that transgender athletes prevent girls’ participation in sports let’s go to the main issue.

Advocates and Lawmakers Argue That Male Participation Could Affect Women’s Opportunities

Some advocates and coaches believe that keeping biological males from participating in female sports may be a Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 issue, especially following the Supreme Court’s decision on the Bostock v. Clayton County, Ga case.

Title VIII pertains to the employment rights of individuals where they cannot be fired based on their sexual orientation. However, the main concern is Title IX of the Education Amendments Act of 1972, where legislation protects women’s right to participate competitively in education and sports.

Over the years, women fought for their rights to equal athletic opportunities mainly based on gender differences. Before Title IX, women often faced discrimination, depriving them of educational opportunities, and allowing males to compete directly with women could continue this discrimination.

Critics believe that young women are becoming spectators in girls’ sports and allowing transgender athletes to push back the progress women have made in the last five decades. Many girls do not like the idea of being forced to share the bathroom or take showers with boys “pretending” to be girls, either.

Arguments Against Participation of Transgender Girls in Female Sports Teams

Those advocating for biological males to participate as females believe that gender is a choice. If a biological male wishes they are the opposite sex, it must be that way. However, medical professionals and sports advocates disagree,

There Are Physical and Cognitive Differences among Genders

Among psychiatrists and other medical professionals, there is a consensus that if a man believes they are opposite sex, it does not make it accurate since it does not fall in line with the biological reality.

They believe that using drugs to suppress hormones does not alter biological sex or eradicate the certain physical advantages males will have against biological females.

Besides physical advantages, there are cognitive and behavioral differences, such as visuospatial skills and tracking objects, between sex differences.

It Could Also Be an Ethical Issue

Allowing transgender women to compete against biological females also becomes an ethical issue. Using drugs in competitive sports to alter the physical body is unethical.

The argument here is why drugs that counterfeits female biology should be given a free pass to offer girl protection to boys.

Constitution and Title IX Protects Transgender Rights: B.P.J. v. West Virginia State Board of Education

Idaho passed the Fairness in Women’s Sports Act in 2020, preventing biological males from competing against females and preserving equal athletic opportunities for women in girls’ sports. These bills are seemingly based on the fear that transgender students or athletes will dominate over high school girls or biological females, even when there is little to no evidence that this has or will happen.

West Virginia also passed a similar law barring the male sex from competing against women, which gave rise to the case B.P.J. v. West Virginia State Board of Education. A school told their student, B.P.J., that she could not join the girl’s cross country or track teams because of the newly enacted bill and B.P.J.’s transgender status.

B.P.J.’s biological sex was male at birth, but she knew she wanted to be a girl from a young age. In 2019, she started taking puberty-delaying pills after the doctors diagnosed her with gender dysphoria.

All her classmates had accepted B.P.J. for who she was, but now, because of the law, things suddenly changed for her, prompting her parents to sue the West Virginia State Board of Education. The lawsuit stated that the law violated B.P.J. ‘s 14th Amendment rights and Title IX.

The court found that the law discriminated based on B.P.J’s transgender status and was discrimination under Title IX. These laws try to solve problems that do not seem to exist. There are multiple cases where the courts found that Title IX protects transgender individuals.

Can I Sue for Sports Injuries?

In the case where the trans woman smashed the volleyball at 70 mph, causing injuries to the other female player, the question “Is it negligent to let biological males compete in girl’s sports?” should not arise.

Regardless of gender, anyone can be held responsible for causing harm to others due to their negligence. In sports, if injuries arise due to a regular act of the game, then there is no liability. But, if a player crosses the line, the injured party can pursue compensation. However, if girls are forced to compete against more prominent, more powerful men pretending to be girls, liability may exist against those running the team. This is because girls never consented to play against males, so they joined an all-female team!

Schedule a Free Consultation with Ehline Law to Discuss Your Civil Rights and Options to Compete in Sports Fairly

If you suffered sports injuries due to negligence, contact us at (833) LETS-SUE for a free consultation. You may qualify for compensation.

Marine Stops Subway Threat CRT v Self-Defense Comparative Analysis

Investigation Continues as Legal Consequences Await

Date: May 6, 2023 – Daniel Penny, a 24-year-old Marine Corps veteran from Queens, has been publicly identified as the individual responsible for the tragic death of Jordan Neely.

“…had a series of run-ins with New York police, a law enforcement source told CNN’s John Miller, including 42 arrests on charges including petty larceny, jumping subway turnstiles, theft, and three unprovoked assaults on women in the subway between 2019 and 2021.” (Source, CNN)

Penny, the Marine, had remained unnamed until online sleuths discovered and revealed his information on Thursday night, prompting the press to follow suit. Authorities had previously refused to disclose his identity, adding to the case’s mystery.

Penny’s attorney, Thomas Kenniff, released a statement on Friday night asserting that Penny acted in self-defense and to protect other passengers after Neely began aggressively threatening them.

“When Mr. Neely began aggressively threatening Daniel Penny and the other passengers, Daniel, with the help of others, acted to protect themselves, until help arrived,” said Kenniff.

Kenniff emphasized that Penny had no intention to harm Neely and could not have foreseen his untimely death. The statement also highlighted Neely’s documented history of violent and erratic behavior and drew attention to the mental health crisis in the City. The incident occurred on Monday afternoon aboard an F train, where Penny was captured on video choking Neely.

See the Video Here:

The distressing footage showed Penny tightly gripping Neely’s chin above the neck while another unidentified man held his arms. The conductor and others on the train called for police intervention, and eventually, a bystander warned Penny about the potential consequences of his actions. Penny released what the media incorrectly are calling a choke hold, and Neely, who appeared unconscious, was later pronounced dead at a nearby hospital.

Penny, a West Islip High School graduate, enlisted in the Marines in 2017 and achieved the rank of sergeant before leaving the service in 2021. According to his lawyer, he is currently a college student. People who knew Penny expressed mixed sentiments, with some sympathizing with his circumstances and believing he acted in self-defense, while others mourned Neely’s tragic death.

As the investigation unfolds, the far-left, Soros-connected Manhattan District Attorney’s office is considering potential charges against Penny. The decision of whether to present the case to a grand jury will determine if charges should be brought. Legal experts suggest that based on the available video evidence, charging Penny with murder may be challenging under state law, which requires proving the intention to kill. The press’s irresponsible use of the term “chokehold” is also reminiscent of the political show trial of Rittenhouse.

Charges of second-degree manslaughter or criminally negligent homicide are possibilities if prosecutors can convince a more likely than not all Democrat Grand Jury that Penny was not reasonably acting in self-defense, potentially influenced by cradle-to-grave CRT influences. Their thoughts are unavailable, but their beliefs are why they have Alvin Bragg. To strengthen the case, authorities urge additional witnesses to come forward with firsthand accounts. Their testimonies will be vital in assessing the events and determining the appropriate legal course. The New York Police Department has encouraged anyone who witnessed the attack and has not yet come forward to share any information they may have.

Penny, represented by criminal defense attorney Thomas Kenniff, has not commented. The legal process awaits him as the community and authorities grapple with the tragic loss of Jordan Neely and seek a fair resolution in this distressing case.

Could Political and Racial Bias Against Whites Lead to Another Rittenhouse Situation?

In recent times, discussions surrounding the Critical Race Theory (CRT) narrative and the pro-self-defense argument have garnered significant attention. This has led to passionate debates and diverging perspectives over when a white male can defend himself or others and not be accused of racism, misogyny, etc. CRT, an academic framework that analyzes the influence of race on societal structures, has become a focal point in discussions about systemic inequalities.

Concurrently, concerns about personal safety and the need for self-defense have gained prominence among individuals who fear the consequences of rising crime rates and instances of violence. This article explores these narratives objectively, presenting different viewpoints and encouraging inclusive dialogue, attempting to find common ground and promote understanding.

Our most recent example is New York; subways have become a cesspool of lawlessness. A former US Marine, who happened to be melanated (white male), stopped a violent, black male with a history of convictions for violent crime. Because the Marine is white, the press, BLM, and civil rights attorneys are already sensationalizing this case.

I am also an inactive US Marine. I am an expert in martial arts and have studied judo, BJJ, boxing, and other fighting arts my entire life. I am going to discuss this use of force from a neutral perspective and not assume, as academics do, that this case has anything to do with systemic racism. Having watched the Marine, it was clear that the choke was not deep for most of the hold and that he was trying to restrain the attacker while other passengers held down his arms until help could arrive. No racial slurs were used. The passengers were terrified of this aggressor, and that is why he was taken down. For legal reasons, this should be an open and shut case in virtually any other country or state than NY, DC, or California. Granted, the New York Times is already fueling a racist narrative to besmirch the Marine.

The Marine has no money, so the family is barking up the wrong tree if they think there is money. They can’t sue the City, as the police have zero duty to protect anyone. Their job is to protect the government unless they assume a duty to protect you. Let’s take a look at his known training.

Examining the Use of Rear Naked Chokes in Marine Corps Combat Training to Enhance Self-Defense Skills and Maintain Public Safety

The United States Marine Corps (USMC) is known for its rigorous and comprehensive approach to self-defense training. One technique taught to Marines is the rear naked chokehold, a grappling maneuver that has raised discussions around its efficacy, safety, and potential implications for public safety. This article delves into the use of rear naked chokes in USMC training, exploring their purpose, application, and ongoing debates surrounding their usage.

The rear naked chokehold, a submission hold commonly employed in martial arts and combat sports, is taught to Marines as part of their hand-to-hand combat training. Its primary objective is to quickly and effectively neutralize an opponent by restricting blood flow to the brain, rendering them temporarily unconscious. The technique relies on precision, control, and understanding of the body’s vulnerable points, making it a valuable tool in high-stress situations.

Advocates of including rear naked chokes in USMC training argue that it provides Marines with a non-lethal alternative in scenarios where the use of lethal force may not be warranted. The ability to swiftly subdue an opponent can help prevent escalation and minimize harm to the Marine and the aggressor. Proponents argue that thorough training and strict adherence to protocols ensure the responsible and judicious application of this technique.

However, critics raise concerns regarding the potential risks associated with rear naked chokes, mainly when used outside the controlled training environment. Questions have been raised about the potential for injury, mostly if the technique is not applied correctly or if the recipient’s underlying health conditions make them more susceptible to harm. Critics also caution against the potential misuse of this technique by untrained individuals who lack the necessary knowledge and experience to execute it safely.

In response to these concerns, the USMC prioritizes comprehensive training and emphasizes strict adherence to guidelines and protocols. Marines undergo extensive training under the supervision of qualified instructors who ensure the proper execution and understanding of the technique. Additionally, ongoing assessments and evaluations help maintain proficiency and minimize the risk of injuries during training and real-world encounters.

It is crucial to note that rules of engagement and ethical considerations strictly govern Marines’ use of rear naked chokes. Marines are taught to prioritize de-escalation and to use force judiciously, employing the technique as a last resort when all other options have been exhausted. The focus remains on maintaining public safety while preserving the lives of all individuals involved.

As debates continue around the use of rear naked chokes and other self-defense techniques, ongoing research, expert input, and open dialogue are essential to ensure the responsible application of such methods. Striking a balance between practical self-defense and public safety remains a priority for the USMC, which continually evolves its training programs to adapt to changing circumstances and ethical considerations.

Sources:

  • United States Marine Corps Martial Arts Program Handbook. (n.d.). Retrieved from [link]
  • Grossman, D., & Christensen, L. W. (2004). On Combat: The Psychology and Physiology of Deadly Conflict in War and Peace. PPCT Research Publications.

Based on the video, if you look at a Marine’s forearm, you can see space between the trachea, and at least one jugular is not fully compressed. In any event, the Marine is not a police officer trained in restraint for NY Metro. He is arguing that he killed what he had to eliminate a very violent many, also known to be dangerous to women. These are irrefutable facts. Now, right away, the woke DA and City are looking at this as white on black, so obviously, the white Marine is a racist. Hence, despite letting criminals out of jail, including the one that this Marine just killed, it is systemic racism that caused all of this. CRT guides the City government. So let’s discuss.

Understanding Critical Race Theory

Critical Race Theory (CRT) purports to mimic the framework that originated with the Black Nationalist Movement and crept into legal scholarship. It has since expanded to various disciplines. It examines how race intersects with social structures, power dynamics, and systemic oppression.

CRT proponents argue that racism is not merely a personal belief or action but is deeply embedded in societal institutions and norms. By exploring the intersectionality of race, class, and gender, CRT aims to shed light on how power imbalances perpetuate systemic inequalities. This section provides an overview of CRT’s fundamental principles and perspectives.

Examining the Pro Self-Defense Narrative

The Second Amendment and Individual Rights

The Second Amendment to the United States Constitution guarantees the right of individuals to keep and bear arms. The language of the amendment states, “A well-regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.” Proponents of the pro-self-defense narrative argue that the Second Amendment enshrines an individual’s inherent right. This section delves into the motivations and arguments behind the pro-self-defense narrative, addressing concerns about personal security and the role of civilians in ensuring public safety.

They argue that the Founding Fathers intended for citizens to have the means to protect themselves, their families, and their property from threats, including acts of violence. The historical context of the Second Amendment provides insights into its interpretation. During the American Revolution, the colonists faced oppression and the threat of tyranny from the British government. The right to bear arms was seen as a fundamental safeguard against potential abuses of power. It served as a means for individuals to protect their liberties and resist oppression.

Court cases have further shaped the interpretation of the Second Amendment. In District of Columbia v. Heller (2008), the Supreme Court held that the Second Amendment protects individuals’ right to possess firearms for self-defense within and outside their homes. This decision affirmed the individual aspect of the right to bear arms, recognizing self-defense as a core purpose of the Second Amendment.

Proponents of the pro-self-defense narrative argue that individuals have a natural right to protect themselves and their loved ones. They assert that the ability to possess firearms provides a sense of security and serves as a deterrent against criminals. They believe responsible gun ownership empowers individuals to take an active role in their safety. Supporters of CRT claim that since our founding fathers were white, the right to self-defense is also racist. Hence, there is no right to defend yourself since it is racist to do so.

Source:

  • Cornell, S., & Gruen, M. (Eds.). (1999). The Second Amendment on Trial: Critical Essays on District of Columbia v. Heller. The University of Massachusetts Press.

2.2 Empowering Individuals through Self-Defense

The pro-self-defense narrative emphasizes the importance of empowering individuals to protect themselves. Supporters argue that self-defense is a fundamental human right that should not be restricted. They believe individuals have the inherent right to defend their lives, property, and loved ones from imminent harm.

Advocates argue that self-defense training and the ability to carry firearms provide individuals with the means to respond effectively to threatening situations. They contend that responsible gun ownership and proper training and education can enhance personal safety and deter potential attackers. By having the tools and skills to defend themselves, individuals can assert their autonomy and take control of their security.

Additionally, proponents of the pro-self-defense narrative highlight the potential benefits of self-defense in reducing crime rates. They argue that an armed and vigilant citizenry can serve as a deterrent to criminals, as they are less likely to target individuals who may be armed and capable of defending themselves. They assert that allowing law-abiding citizens to exercise their right to self-defense can create a safer society.

Source:

  • Lott, J. R. (2013). More Guns, Less Crime: Understanding Crime and Gun Control Laws. University of Chicago Press.

2.3 Addressing Public Safety Concerns

Critics of the pro-self-defense narrative raise concerns regarding public safety and the potential risks associated with widespread gun ownership. They argue that increased access to firearms may lead to more accidents, acts of violence, or misuse of weapons. They point to incidents of gun-related tragedies and claim that stricter regulations are necessary to prevent such incidents.

Gun control advocates emphasize the need for comprehensive background checks, waiting periods, and restrictions on certain types of firearms to ensure that guns do not end up in the wrong hands. They believe that a balanced approach to gun ownership, including responsible gun laws and regulations, is crucial to ensuring public safety while respecting the right to self-defense.

Proponents of the pro-self-defense narrative acknowledge the importance of responsible gun ownership and advocate for proper training and education. They emphasize the need for individuals to be knowledgeable about firearm safety, handling, and storage to prevent accidents and misuse. They also recognize the importance of mental health evaluations and measures to control access to firearms for individuals with a history of violence or mental illness.

Source:

  • Webster, D. W., Vernick, J. S., & Hepburn, L.

Webster, D. W., Vernick, J. S., & Hepburn, L.

(2016). Reducing Gun Violence in America: Informing Policy with Evidence and Analysis. JHU Press.

  1. The Context of Encounter: Psychotic Individuals on Subways – Recognizing Mental Health Challenges

In discussing encounters with psychotic individuals on subways, it is essential to recognize the challenges posed by mental health issues. Psychosis refers to a mental state characterized by a loss of contact with reality, which can manifest in delusions, hallucinations, and disordered thinking. Individuals experiencing psychosis often require appropriate mental health support and treatment.

Here, the decedent,

Mental health disorders, including schizophrenia and bipolar disorder, can contribute to episodes of erratic behavior. These conditions may lead individuals to exhibit unpredictable or disruptive conduct in public spaces, such as subways. It is crucial to approach these situations with empathy and understanding, recognizing that the individuals involved may need psychiatric assistance rather than criminalization.

Source:

3.2 Exploring Factors Contributing to Erratic Behavior

Various factors can contribute to erratic behavior exhibited by individuals with mental health challenges. These factors may include a lack of access to adequate mental health care, medication non-compliance, or the presence of co-occurring substance use disorders. Stressful life events, trauma, or social isolation can also exacerbate symptoms and contribute to disruptive behavior.

It is important to address these underlying factors through comprehensive mental health support systems. Providing accessible and appropriate mental health services, including early intervention programs and community-based resources, can help individuals manage their conditions effectively and reduce the likelihood of disruptive incidents in public spaces.

Source:

  • Kessler, R. C., Angermeyer, M., Anthony, J. C., et al. (2007). Lifetime prevalence and age-of-onset distributions of mental disorders in the World Health Organization’s World Mental Health Survey Initiative. World Psychiatry, 6(3), 168–176.

3.3 Analyzing Perceived Threats and Fear in Public Spaces

Public safety concerns arise when individuals encounter psychotic individuals displaying erratic behavior in public spaces like subways. Recognizing individuals’ subjective experiences and fears in these situations is essential. Individuals may feel threatened or unsafe when confronted with unpredictable behavior, leading to heightened anxiety or fear.

It is essential to approach these concerns with sensitivity and address them through comprehensive strategies that balance safety and compassion. Promoting awareness and education about mental health conditions can help mitigate fears and foster empathy. Additionally, implementing training programs for law enforcement and public transportation staff can equip them with the skills to de-escalate situations involving individuals experiencing mental health crises.

Source:

  • Corrigan, P. W., Morris, S. B., Michaels, P. J., et al. (2012). Challenging the Public Stigma of Mental Illness: A Meta-Analysis of Outcome Studies. Psychiatric Services, 63(10), 963-973.
  1. Comparative Analysis:

Critical Race Theory vs. Pro-Self-Defense

Approaches to Addressing Societal Injustices

Critical Race Theory (CRT) and the pro-self-defense narrative offer distinct approaches to addressing societal injustices, albeit from different perspectives. CRT focuses on systemic racism and the impact of historical and structural factors on marginalized communities. It calls for institutional transformations and challenges the status quo to achieve racial equity and social justice.

In contrast, the pro-self-defense narrative emphasizes individual rights, particularly the right to self-defense, as enshrined in the Second Amendment. It emphasizes personal autonomy.

It values personal autonomy and individuals’ ability to protect themselves and their loved ones from potential threats.

4.2 Emphasizing Collective Action vs. Individual Empowerment

CRT advocates argue that addressing societal injustices requires collective action and systemic change. They do this by silencing anyone they disagree with. They highlight the need for community engagement, policy reform, and challenging systemic structures perpetuating racial disparities. CRT focuses on the interconnectedness of social identities and aims to dismantle oppressive systems such as merit and earning things based on hard work, as hard work is racist. They do this through collective efforts, infiltrating public schools, colleges, and local school boards.

On the other hand, the pro-self-defense narrative emphasizes individual empowerment and personal responsibility. It highlights the role of self-defense as a means for individuals to assert their autonomy and protect themselves. Proponents argue that empowering individuals to defend themselves contributes to overall public safety.

4.3 Balancing Rights and Responsibilities

The debate between CRT and the pro-self-defense narrative raises questions about balancing rights and responsibilities within society. CRT emphasizes the responsibility of institutions to address systemic racism and ensure equity, arguing that individual rights should not overshadow the collective well-being of marginalized communities. Conversely, the pro-self-defense narrative emphasizes the right of individuals to protect themselves but also acknowledges the responsibility of owning firearms. Proponents often advocate for responsible gun ownership, including proper training, background checks, and adherence to laws and regulations.

4.4 Finding Common Ground for Social Justice

Despite their different perspectives, CRT and the pro-self-defense narrative can find common ground in addressing social justice issues. Both recognize the importance of addressing systemic inequalities and advocating for policies that promote safety, equity, and well-being. By engaging in constructive dialogue and understanding the underlying goals of each perspective, it is possible to bridge the gap and work towards comprehensive solutions. This may involve addressing both the faith-based, academic systemic factors contributing to alleged racial disparities and implementing measures to ensure responsible gun ownership that prioritizes public safety over skin color.

Sources:

  • Delgado, R., & Stefancic, J. (2001). Critical race theory: An introduction. NYU Press.
  • Kates, D. B., & Mauser, G. A. (2007). Would Banning Firearms Reduce Murder and Suicide? A Review of International and Some Domestic Evidence. Harvard Journal of Law & Public Policy, 30(2), 649-694.

, who had