#finleys incoherent answers

[cyarskj1899]

Sadists With Sirens: White Paramedics Who Strapped Earl Moore Face-Down On A Gurney Charged With Murder For Suffocating Him

Bossip

Bossip Video 

Source: m-gucci / Getty

The Washington Post reports they both face murder charges for allegedly suffocating Moore to death.

Sangamon County Coroner Jim Allmon declared Moore’s death a homicide. An autopsy confirmed the cause of death was “compressional and positional asphyxia due to prone face-down restraint on a paramedic transportation cot/stretcher by tightened straps across the back.”

Sangamon County State’s Attorney Dan Wright announced first-degree murder charges for both paramedics at a press conference on Tuesday.

Wright asserted that Finley and Cadigan “did acts without lawful justification” and knew “based upon their training, experience and the surrounding circumstances, that such acts would create a substantial probability of great bodily harm or death.”

Earl Moore’s last moments were filled with hostility and cruelty

Springfield PD responded to a call about a man in distress at 2:05 a.m. A woman on the scene told officers that Moore was an alcoholic on his fourth day of withdrawal, which can be deadly for severe addicts. The cops requested paramedics for Moore, who was calm but suffering from auditory and visual hallucinations.

Bodycam footage shows that the 35-year-old was too incoherent to answer questions, walk, or even stay on his bed. Officers explained the situation to Finley a few minutes later, who went full Karen as soon as she stepped in the room.

Finley screamed for Moore to sit up when he couldn’t answer her questions. Instead of rushing him to the hospital, she dragged him across the floor like an animal. She continued shouting orders while refusing to help or even touch him.

“You’re gonna have to walk ‘cause we ain’t carrying you! I am seriously not in the mood for this dumb sh*t,” Finley yelled at the barely conscious Black man. “I’m not playing with you tonight.”

Finley stormed out after her tantrum, leaving Moore still incapacitated on the floor. You know it’s bad when the police think you’re a savage towards an innocent Black man.  Springfield Police Chief Ken Scarlette said she treated Moore “poorly and didn’t give him the care and compassion and respect he deserved.”

“It is clear based on the officers¶body-worn camera footage that the patient was not able to walk and the medical personnel were not offering any assistance. The three officers took turns helping the patient through the residence and onto the stretcher outside,” the Springfield PD said in a statement.

Moore was limp as Cadigan slammed his body facedown on the gurney and covered him with a blanket. Both EMTs strapped Moore down and loaded him into the ambulance at 2:26 a.m. St. John’s Hospital staff pronounced Moore dead at 3:14 a.m.

Moore’s family and community demand justice

Civil rights attorney Ben Crump announced that the family hired him and Bob Hilliard of Hilliard Martinez Gonzales.

“Earl saw neither care nor compassion in his last moments when he was suffocating, strapped face down to a stretcher by LifeStar employees,” Crump said in a statement.

Finley and Cadigan are in custody at Sangamon County Jail on $1 million bonds. They each face 20 to 60 years in prison.

“This was a Black young man who lost his life due to negligence, and we want to make sure that justice is being served. He was treated unfairly,” said NAACP Springfield chapter and statewide president Teresa Haley at the press conference.

Sent from my iPhone

[finleycannotdraw]

If you think about it "let's run away together" is queer for "I love you"

yes yes it 100000% is, good god

#good omens #finleys incoherent answers #genderkwerfirebird #‘let’s run away together’ crowley suggests to his entirely platonic friend #hmmm nope #yeah they’re in love

[thenickelportrust]

What if someone is flirting with the MC and they won't take the hint that the MC is spoken for? And then the RO overhears the MC being super exasperated? "HOW DENSE CAN YOU BE WHEN I TELL YOU THAT I'M VERY MUCH IN LOVE AND IN A COMMITTED AND LOVING RELATIONSHIP, I AM ACTUALLY IN A LOVING AND COMMITTED RELATIONSHIP?"

Finley: Okay so, it would depend on whether or not this gets said person to go away or not. If they do go away then I imagine Finley would just wait until the MC themself leaves the room and say something along the lines of, “So, you’re in love with the person you’re dating, hm? They have some extraordinary luck to be with someone like you. In fact, I’d bet that they’re pretty in love with you, too. And if they’re not, then they must be crazy.” And help them try to relax after that fun time and maybe even joke about how awful that person was with them. If the person doesn’t go away even after that, then Finley would absolutely step in, probably with some line along the lines of, “I couldn’t help but overhear some yelling over here, and I wanted to make sure everything was all right. … Who am I? Well, I’m the other half of that loving and committed relationship you’re currently willfully ignoring.”

Raf: If the MC is in that kinda minor annoyance trouble then you can absolutely 100% bet Raf will slide on in there to back them up however they need be. If that means skeddadling outta there and giving them an excuse to leave then he’ll call them over, or if that means walkin’ on up and showing that he’s said person that they’ve just yelled about then he’ll do that too. He’d probably not mention the specific statement later on- mostly due to his own belief that love should be something that makes you happy (he needs to take his own advice), so in a way it’d be better to not focus on the statements that come out of annoyance due to someone else’s interference and instead just kind of make sure to slip in an “I love you.” sometime after that conversation. (Unless they asked him if he heard, in which case he’d say just this, but also that he thought it was sweet.)

Jacob: Jacob… Jacob rushes into things without thinking so I have this image of him in my head that he’d already be rushing in to help a clearly distressed MC then they explode this little tidbit and he was also probably already in the middle of a sentence or preparing something in his head to help the MC out and he just ends up tripping over his words and somehow combining the two speeches into something essentially incoherent and by the time he’s gotten his words straight the other person has probably left and he just kinda sighs and follows it up with a, “You know what? I love you too. Though I’d also really love it if you let me be the one who gives some grand confession or act of love for once.”

Lucy: I mentioned before when talking about jealousy that Lucy can be a tad bit possessive- but also hasn’t ever really had to worry about jealousy due to a mix of her natural confidence, the fact that she believes in loyalty very, very strongly, and the fact that when she wants to be- she can be pretty gosh darn intimidating. This would be where Lucy would use that last part to her advantage to help out the MC and get whoever is bugging them to bugger off. I imagine Lucy striding up to the MC’s side- either with her arms crossed or one arm around them- and just kinda calmly saying something along the lines of, “You should really listen to them, you know. Or to me- when I say that it’s pretty damn rude to bother my (boyfriend/girlfriend/lover/what have you).”

Yolanda: Yolanda is someone who would wait and see what said botherer’s next move is, and then afterwards either slide in for damage control or to get them to go away if they didn’t already. I feel like she really wouldn’t have to say much for the latter- and she knows it. Considering how she’s, y’know, Yolanda Waltz I have a feeling she’d simply waltz (pun fully intended) on in and as soon as she plants a kiss on the MC’s cheek and says a little, “Oh, there you are darling, I was looking for you. I’m so happy I found you, my love.” (Or probably something that lays it on a little less thick) I would imagine that whoever it is would just kinda give up and walk away. I mean… how else are you gonna compete with her?

Eileen: Eileen would, upon hearing the MC’s distress, of course go over to help them. But she’d probably stop in her tracks when she hears this kinda thing being said. Admittedly, she might start giggling, which would give her away immediately- and wave it away with a kind of, “Sorry, sorry, I should really be used to hearing you say that… I’m not. It still makes me happy to hear- even if it wasn’t exactly the best situation to be in for you… Well, I’m sorry, but it still makes me happy.”

Informant: The Informant would intervene if the person doesn’t back off afterwards, most likely just to get the MC out of there and call them aside or make up some excuse of why they need to leave. Afterwards he’d definitely comment on what they said with some kind of, “So, you’re in love with me then, hm?” (Even if they’ve already said ‘I love you’ before he’d still try and tease them about it. But of course it’d always end with an “I love you, too” from his side.)

Ricky: Ricky would use his years of media expertise (and by media expertise I mean getting the media to go away) to get said person to leave if they hadn’t already. I can imagine he wouldn’t say anything to the MC at first or even declare his relation to them, just walk inside and break into the conversation with an “Excuse me Sir/Ma’am/Ser/etc., I couldn’t help but notice…” and do this politician-thing to get them out of the room. Afterwards he probably wouldn’t say much either, it would have to be the MC who brings up the ‘how much of that did you hear?’ question. (To which he’d reply with only the most suitably snarky answer- a sort of, “Well, with how loud you were screaming it was difficult not to hear all of it.”) And he’d leave the MC hanging for a while afterwards, but he’d probably smirk and reply, “You know, I had always held out at least some modicum of hope that perhaps you’d be able to say you love me to my face. However, since that appears to have not been possible and I am, frankly, not quite as… attuned to public emotional outbursts as you are, I can only hope you’ll be satisfied knowing that I love you too. Even if I didn’t declare that quite as… dramatically as you did.”

V: V would absolutely saunter in there (and if the door is closed you can bet that they’re kicking it down), walk up to whoever it is (most likely with one arm around the MC) and say something along the lines of, “Well, now, I can certainly understand what it is you find attractive of this charming young individual. However, as they’ve very much just said. They’re taken. By me, in fact. And so, I will be taking them away from here, and you, now.” And they’d probably lift the MC up and carry them out. Afterwards they would absolutely tell the MC that because they had such a grand declaration of love and affection that V now needs to plan something suitable for them to match it with a declaration of their own- can’t be outdone at their own game, after all.

#answers #model citizens unmasked #v bayer #ricky dempsey #the informant #eileen abney #yolanda waltz #lucille pinchette #jacob greenhill #rafael darzi #finley burke

[ronlofland]

Of Slants, Skins, And Signs: Section 2(a) Prohibition of Disparaging Trademark Registrations Struck Down!

Well, that happened! According to the Supreme Court’s opinion in Matal v. Tam, Section 2(a) of the Lanham Act, which purports to prohibit the registration of marks that “disparage . . . persons,” is unconstitutional.  When we first started blogging on this topic, here, we noted that certain stars were aligning for a constitutional showdown.  Subsequent posts here, here and here, followed the course of the proceedings to the Supreme Court.  That showdown has now taken place, with every single one of the eight sitting Justices of the Supreme Court striking down Section 2(a), albeit for slightly different reasons.

“Babbling Incoherently”

All members of the Court determined that the nature of the speech at issue was private speech, not government speech.  Justice Alito brought the point home thusly, “[if] the federal registration of a trademark makes the mark government speech, the Federal Government is babbling prodigiously and incoherently.”  (Slip Op. at 14-15.)  Let that sink in a bit.  I don’t think Justice Alito meant to draw a parallel to our current political discourse, though it makes you wonder.  Politics aside, because the Trademark Office does not otherwise filter messages in registering a trademark, a cacophony of messages emanates from that office.  The Court noted that, because there is no government endorsement that accompanies registration, “registration does not constitute approval of a mark.”  (Slip op. at 15.)

In this section of the opinion, the unanimous Court also noted its concern for copyright law if it held that trademark registration should be considered government speech.  It noted that trademarks share with copyrights an expressive content, and the brevity in which a trademark conveys an expression is not a sufficient distinction to treat the two registrations differently.

Individuals and Groups

Seven of eight justices also agreed that Section 2(a) affects not only individual “persons” but groups of individuals, including those who share race or ethnicity.  The Court decided this issue even though it was not included in the writ of certiorari because the answer to this question could have avoided a determination on the constitutionality of the provision.

Government Subsidies?

There was a difference in opinion on the next portion of the analysis.  Four justices (Alito, Thomas, Breyer and C.J. Roberts) analyzed next whether the trademark regime fits within the government subsidy line of case, such as Rust v. Sullivan, 500 U.S. 173 (1991) (reviewing law providing public funds to private groups for family planning services), and National Endowment for Arts v. Finley, 524 U.S. 569 (1998) (reviewing law providing cash grants to artists).  This plurality found that the trademark registration regime “is nothing like” the types of government programs where the Court had previously upheld the constitutionality of government-subsidized speech.  In connection with this argument, the plurality rejected the government’s urging to create a new doctrine directed to “government-program” cases.

Commercial Speech?

The four justices also avoided deciding whether the speech regulated is “commercial speech” under the Central Hudson Gas & Elec. v. Public Serv. Comm’n of N.Y. line of cases, which analyzes commercial speech under intermediate scrutiny.  They concluded that the restriction would fail under whichever level of scrutiny as a content-based restriction of speech.  They rejected the first rationale, seeking to limit speech that offends, because it is not a legitimate substantial government interest, and they sidestepped the other proffered reason, “the orderly flow of commerce.”  The four justices found that, regardless of which rationale is considered, the statute also is not “narrowly drawn” to achieve the stated goal.

The plurality also threw a little shade on the commercial speech distinction, noting that it can be difficult to draw lines in practice: “The commercial market is well stocked with merchandise that disparages prominent figures and groups, and the line between commercial and non-commercial speech is not always clear, as this case demonstrates.  If affixing the commercial label permits the suppression of any speech that may lead to political or social ‘volatility,’ free speech would be endangered.”  (Slip op. at 26.)  Perhaps the Court would revisit the Central Hudson test given the proper vehicle.

The four other justices (Kennedy, Kagan, Ginsberg and Sotomayor) concluded that the government program analysis was unnecessary to the outcome of the case.  This plurality concluded that Section 2(a) was a content-based government restriction on free speech deserving of heightened scrutiny.

What’s Next?

From this decision, we should expect Section 2(a)’s prohibition on morally scandalous trademarks also to be struck down on First Amendment grounds because the arguments are essentially the same.  This is just a supposition at this point, however, because both groups of justices were keen to note that this decision does not establish the framework for determining the constitutionality of any other sections of the Lanham Act.  This is important to remember when considering the constitutionality of labelling requirements under the Lanham Act, for example.  The Court gave itself sufficient analytical wiggle room to distinguish between the type of speech regulated by Section 2(a) and speech regulated by labelling laws.

What does this all means for the parties and for trademark practitioners?  Simon Tam gets to continue his pursuit of his trademark, and the NFL carries the day on protecting its mark for the Washington Football Club.  And perhaps there will also be a short-term run on the Trademark Office to register offensive trademarks.  Applications that have been rejected on the basis of Section 2(a) have a new life for those who use or intend to use the marks in commerce.  Given the robust First Amendment rights exercised by tee-shirt wearers walking through midtown Manhattan, I would not expect much more than a ripple in the tone of branding discourse resulting from this decision.  Consumers ultimately have the power of the purse to regulate commercial conduct – if consumers do not like the slogan, they will not buy the brand.

The power of the marketplace likely resolves most issues, but Section 2(a) also provided cover for refusing registration of messages that also would not be entitled to protection under First Amendment jurisprudence.  Perhaps a different version of Section 2(a) is needed to address these situations.

Source: http://ift.tt/2u8e1iP

#trademark law #trademarks

[finleycannotdraw]

What's the two princess podcast? (Spoilers are great, my anxiety kicks in on media if I don't know what's happening)

Oooh! So basically, it’s a podcast (on Spotify) where there are two kingdoms with a forest between them, and the kings of both kingdoms had a huge fight 18 years ago, and now there’s an ever-growing forest between them. The princes, their sons (Rupert and Amir), are prophesied to (what they assume the prophecy means, at least) fight each other in order for one to win and his kingdom to prevail, but of course the two princes meet beforehand and become friends! (One doesn’t know the other is the other prince, though). Anyway, they don’t really fight. They bicker plenty, and they encounter a random group of theatre kids-turned-assassins (I think), and at the end of the first season, they realize that one kingdom will rise because the two of them will get married and join the two kingdoms!! It’s very cheesy and I absolutely love it!!!!!! (If you like fighting, though, there’s a badass lesbian (i think) knight named Joan!)

Also, there’s a dragon named Porridge.

(The second and third seasons include more antagonists and people trying to stop them from getting married, and more barbarian theatre productions, and a siren named Lorelai) (I recommend this podcast in case you couldn’t tell)

#finleys incoherent answers #genderkwerfirebird #:) #the two princes #the two princes podcast #ttp #ttp podcast #the two princes spoilers #ttp spoilers #ttp rupert #ttp amir #I love them #ttp joan #hope this was helpful!!

[finleycannotdraw]

what i am taking from this is that no choc milk = stroke

correct😩😩👑👑 this is why we need chocolate milk, everyone🤠🏳️‍🌈 love wins

#look at me I’m also having a stroke #finleys incoherent answers #hello leaf :D #emojis tw

[finleycannotdraw]

"Gay Disney Prince" Did you mean The Two Princes Podcast? (Also, how do you load images in ask?)

^^^^^^

(Love that podcast with my entire soul)

(I have.. no idea, sorry)

#finleys incoherent answers #genderkwerfirebird #the two princes podcast

[finleycannotdraw]

Me 🤝 Finley:

Getting into Night At The Museum this week

*sobbing intensifies*

h,, how we doing babe

I’m vibrating I literally adore these morons with my entire soul I’m WRITING FIC AND DRAWING THEM so you KNOW I’m in deep

#finleys incoherent answers #zebracakesarecopingmechanisms #natm

[finleycannotdraw]

OMG NEW PFP!!

YEAH!!!! I NEEDED SOMETHIN TO MATCH THE THEME MORE :D ITS JUST ANOTHER CARTOON OF ME BUT WITH A BACKGROUND

HOW HAVE YOU BEEN??

#finleys incoherent answers #new pfp #hello leaf :D

[finleycannotdraw]

i'm sorry fin i must enlighten you too

LEAF,,, BABE,,,, DARLING,,, DEAR FRIEND OF MINE,,,,,,,

W H Y

#HOW DO I FUCKING TAG THIS #hello leaf :D #or should I say HELLO LEAF WHAT THE F U C K #finleys incoherent answers #this needs a trigger warning of some kind but idk what

[finleycannotdraw]

So tell me about Chase, their story pronouns

*gasp* is this... a chance to infodump about my ocs?

Chase (he/him) is one of the main characters in the book I’m writing! He knows that another character, a kinda communist-ish immortal wizard politician, is trying to expand their magic system to the rest of the universe, and Chase thinks it’s a bad idea to go against the natural order of things, but he knows he’s not powerful enough on his own to stop Niko (aforementioned wizard politician), so he decides to weaken the magic system so that Niko can’t spread it everywhere. The only way to weaken the magic system is to destroy a number of the crystals on their planet, which he attempts to do, and causes a lot of explosions. People don’t like him much after that, and most of the characters think of him as the villain for a while, until they actually meet him. In short: there is no conceivable way he’s a bad guy.

Anyway, he’s bisexual and polyamorous, and has a wife (Cathy) and a husband(ish) (Quinn) (he and Quinn couldn’t get properly married because Quinn is also immortal and very important politically, and the job he is now estranged from forbade him from having relationships. He’s on the run now and has to avoid anything involving the law, including marriage. They still say they’re married, though.) Cathy and Quinn aren’t romantically involved with each other, but they’re best friends and I have an actual playlist of songs I think they’d dance to in their kitchen.

My protagonist is a cynical freelance mercenary named Emma, and she doesn’t like people At All, but she’s the first person to listen to Chase (and therefore the first to believe him when he says what he’s doing), and they see themselves in each other in a way, so they become almost immediate friends.

Anyway, Chase is a Complete Dork. He probably dances on sponges while mopping his floors. He paints his nails crimson, he Loves celery, he makes a lot of jokes about having multiple prosthetics, he smokes a bunch, he’s Very dramatic, he never wears shoes but always wears suits, he Does Not Take Shit from Anyone, he has a cat named Zamael who is most commonly known as Zamburger, he’s snarky, he flirts with people, he calls Cathy and Quinn “love” and “dear”, he loves mini staplers, and he’s a super supportive dad.

Also, if Fall Out Boy was around on the planet these characters are from, Chase would definitely listen to them.

Thank you for asking about him!! :)

#finleys ocs #my ocs #chase demora #infodump #finleys incoherent answers #genderkwerfirebird

[finleycannotdraw]

why is the

wh

#hello leaf :D #finleys incoherent answers

[finleycannotdraw]

fren!! for the ask game

AFJDJJFKFJDJGJFJFJSJFJ<33333

#finleys incoherent answers #hello leaf :D #ask game

[finleycannotdraw]

look their in love

L O O K T HE YRE IN. L O Ve😭😭😭😭😭

#hello leaf :D #frogs #emojis tw #finleys incoherent answers

[finleycannotdraw]

Yellow midnight and cyan🥰

omg shjfjdjgkdjjfjg🥺🥺 ily lets go watch stars

#gayhufflepuffworld #finleys incoherent answers #color ask game

[finleycannotdraw]

fin fin new hair!!!! if your hair actually green or-?

yes yes yes my hair is actually green!! :D

#finleys incoherent answers #beautifuldaysahead #hello!! :) #i dyed my hair