FBI Opens Investigation into Shooting of Michael Brown

[sterlingice]

Originally Posted by Edward64

If the sensationalist headline is wrong and exaggerated, then I would question the rest of it.

On one extreme, if she and her friend were just walking and not doing anything wrong then this is clearly excessive force and all those cops should be fired/reprimanded.

On the other extreme, if her supposedly groped friend had tried to assault a cop or another civilian, and she did try to break away, then I don't see an issue with what happened.

So, lets understand what preceded this and get the context before calling these cops "bad apples".

Unless she suddenly lost half her body mass because she went from She-Hulk to just a regular woman or was being stung by very tiny bees that could kill her if they didn't get them off... just no. There's no real CONTEXT. To turn it back around on you, what context would justify that beating?

Even if she had just kicked them in the balls and yelled every epithet in the book at them, IT DOESN'T JUSTIFY THAT BEATING.

It sure as hell could add to her penalties in the courts, but that is not for the police to administer.

SI

[GrantDawg]

Originally Posted by JPhillips

Force as punishment should never be accepted from police officers. That's not their role in the justice system.

This statement should be posted above the door of every police station, so that every officer has to see it before they begin their shift. Too often, it looks like force is more retaliatory than actual need.

[Edward64]

Originally Posted by sterlingice

Unless she suddenly lost half her body mass because she went from She-Hulk to just a regular woman or was being stung by very tiny bees that could kill her if they didn't get them off... just no. There's no real CONTEXT. To turn it back around on you, what context would justify that beating?

Before I answer, a caveat. For any latecomers who may not have read the entire thread here are my 2 stances on the video.

"Cops Groped Her"?

Nice sensationalist caption. Grope as in a free boob squeeze, nah. Grope as in trying reposition his hands as she was struggling and broke free, yeah I can see that.

I can easily see these cops overreacting and at fault. I can also see situations where cops are justified in this response and ... its dependent on the context of what happened before the film started, why they restrained or arrested her.

My response to SI is based on a hypothetical of 2 extremes (see above) on what would justify the force/beating used after escaped from restraint. It doesn't mean I believe either happened.

To answer your question on what IMO would justify the use of force to subdue (some say punish, I say subdue until I get more context) ...

If they were restraining her because (1) she tried to shoot/stab/toss molotov/run down a cop or civilian and (2) she broke free from the cop restraining her (e.g. not because of boob grabbing because that is debatable) and (3) refused orders to get down.

[GrantDawg]

Originally Posted by tarcone

My 1st job in my present career was in a very small town in rural Missouri. If you wanted to join the KKK you went to the police station, if you wanted to join the militia, you went tot he local army surplus store. The militia was extreme.

This was in the late 90s.

When I worked for a small church in middle Tennessee, I was constantly finding KKK pamphlets in the parking lot. I had suspicions who was leaving them, but talking to him you would think butter wouldn't melt in his mouth.

[Edward64]

Originally Posted by tarcone

My perspective. I was able to stop at one second. That is when the hand is moving up towards her breast or on it. It looks like she is reacting.,

Again, that is how I see it. So I go with #1.

I did see that at 1 second. I saw she started to try to get away before the 1 second while his hand was on her shoulder. But okay thanks for looking again.

[Arles]

Originally Posted by Edward64

Uh no? If it was inadvertent, that means she was struggling to get free (resisting arrest maybe?) before he accidentally groped her.

Why would he apologize when she was trying to break free?

I ask you as I've asked Brian and Arles -

Is there any level of assault to a cop (or civilian) that would justify the cops' response when she broke free from his restraint?

Unless she had some kind of deadly weapon (and even then there are better ways for trained cops to disarm than 7 baton shots on the legs), there is no situation where that beating was acceptable on an unarmed civilian (esp a smaller woman). Cases like this is why we are in this spot now - cops feel the need to go over the top to teach a lesson to a civilian because they pissed them off. That has to stop - period.

[JPhillips]

Originally Posted by Arles

Unless she had some kind of deadly weapon (and even then there are better ways for trained cops to disarm than 7 baton shots on the legs), there is no situation where that beating was acceptable on an unarmed civilian (esp a smaller woman). Cases like this is why we are in this spot now - cops feel the need to go over the top to teach a lesson to a civilian because they pissed them off. That has to stop - period.

And they said we had nothing in common.

[sterlingice]

Originally Posted by Edward64

Before I answer, a caveat. For any latecomers who may not have read the entire thread here are my 2 stances on the video.
My response to SI is based on a hypothetical of 2 extremes (see above) on what would justify the force/beating used after escaped from restraint. It doesn't mean I believe either happened.

To answer your question on what IMO would justify the use of force to subdue (some say punish, I say subdue until I get more context) ...

If they were restraining her because (1) she tried to shoot/stab/toss molotov/run down a cop or civilian and (2) she broke free from the cop restraining her (e.g. not because of boob grabbing because that is debatable) and (3) refused orders to get down.

Just so I'm clear, you're ok if there are 7 cops, a couple of which beat a single woman like that for
1) If she tried to do something to a cop but was no longer armed?
2) Had previously tried to escape?
3) Merely refused a verbal order?

If I'm reading that right, then we're probably in different zip codes about what we feel is justifiable force.

I'm firmly of the belief that it's the court's job to punish. The cop's job is to merely apprehend.

SI

[Brian Swartz]

There is something about the idea of not breaking the law in the process of enforcing it that is fundamentally essential.

[Edward64]

Originally Posted by sterlingice

Just so I'm clear, you're ok if there are 7 cops, a couple of which beat a single woman like that for
1) If she tried to do something to a cop but was no longer armed?
2) Had previously tried to escape?
3) Merely refused a verbal order?

If I'm reading that right, then we're probably in different zip codes about what we feel is justifiable force.

I'm firmly of the belief that it's the court's job to punish. The cop's job is to merely apprehend.

SI

Your take is not how I would describe our hypothetical. How I would describe it is:

1) She tried to severely injure a cop/civilian but was no longer armed
2) Struggled and escaped the cop restraining her, hands free (no handcuffs), showed aggressiveness and unwillingness to comply
3) Refused order(s) to get down and so was forced to be subdued

It's pretty simple to me. If cops ask you to do something, don't resist and comply. If you resist, expect to be forced to comply. Yes, if you get someone like Chauvin you are SOL but my presumption is and in my, admittedly limited data set of interactions, vast majority of cops are not "bad apples".

[Brian Swartz]

I think the disconnect here is that there is massive gulf between 'be forced to comply' and 'get pummelled while literally standing still'. If someone is resisting a lawful detainment, running away, attacking the police or another civilian, etc. batons or more may very well be necessary and justifiable.

None of that is happening here at all.

ETA: I think you're correct that it needs to be mandatory to obey police instructions. People throwing things at the police, I don't care how mad they are, is wrong. Any semblance of order requires a certain level of enforced authority. But none of that has anything to do with this situation.

[Arles]

The issue is the response from multiple cops on one woman should be to de-escalate the situation and apprehend her with the least amount of force possible. Something like two people each grab her on opposite arms and the third cuffs her (shouldn't be that tough).

Instead, the cops get aggravated and try to punish her for not listening/following their command. I think I've said this a thousand times, but the focus needs to shift from punishment/teaching a lesson to de-escalating the situation with the least amount of force possible. I know that's not easy - but neither is being a black man walking down a street in LA. Yet, we expect them to act perfect, but we can't require a cop to adjust their tactics (esp against unarmed people) to reduce violence.

[RainMaker]

Is there going to be a 3-page discussion on the semantics of something that is clearly evident on actual video with someone who just the other day praised an officer for coldcocking some mentally ill women from behind?

The video speaks for itself and maybe some people just like seeing women get knocked around. What's the point of some pedantic "just asking questions" debate? You either want a country that has officers who act like that or you don't.

[AlexB]

Originally Posted by sterlingice

Unless she suddenly lost half her body mass because she went from She-Hulk to just a regular woman or was being stung by very tiny bees that could kill her if they didn't get them off... just no. There's no real CONTEXT. To turn it back around on you, what context would justify that beating?

Even if she had just kicked them in the balls and yelled every epithet in the book at them, IT DOESN'T JUSTIFY THAT BEATING.

It sure as hell could add to her penalties in the courts, but that is not for the police to administer.

SI

This sums it up pretty good for me. Yes, we don’t know what happened before the video, but regardless, it doesn’t justify anything we see

[larrymcg421]

Originally Posted by Edward64

I'm not being facetious when I say this is an interesting thought exercise. I like history but I don't really want to read all that other stuff right now.

Can you come up with something more contemporary and let's have a conversation? Let's say from 1990's onwards?

No.

[Edward64]

I thought the twitter spammer had blocked me. I guess not.

I would like to respond but know that Ben would not like it. Do not take my lack of response as concession to your accusation.

[Edward64]

Originally Posted by larrymcg421

No.

Okay, np.

[cuervo72]

Originally Posted by larrymcg421

No.

This is the correct answer.

[larrymcg421]

Officer delays family racing to see dying mom - Front Office Football Central

I'm reminded of the above thread. In that case, a cop detained a man for running a red light when he was rushing to the hospital to see his dying mother in law. Even the defenders of the officer admit that the officer was upset about how Moates acted and tried to "teach him a lesson".

And to me, that's a serious problem when cops think like that. In cases like the one above, it led to the guy not getting to see his mother in law before she died. In other situations, it leads to something much worse.

[Arles]

Here's the way I would put it:

Imagine your kid/sibling just did what these people did, what show of force from the police would you feel is acceptable/warranted for what they did? When you come up with that answer, apply it to the woman in the video or other videos shown here and see if it matches.

[Atocep]

Originally Posted by Edward64

Your take is not how I would describe our hypothetical. How I would describe it is:

1) She tried to severely injure a cop/civilian but was no longer armed
2) Struggled and escaped the cop restraining her, hands free (no handcuffs), showed aggressiveness and unwillingness to comply
3) Refused order(s) to get down and so was forced to be subdued

It's pretty simple to me. If cops ask you to do something, don't resist and comply. If you resist, expect to be forced to comply. Yes, if you get someone like Chauvin you are SOL but my presumption is and in my, admittedly limited data set of interactions, vast majority of cops are not "bad apples".

Do you think using force in a way such as this on someone that isn't a physical threat to any of the officers makes people both present and watching the video more likely to comply with officers in the future?

We have laws to handle people that put up a resistance when arrested. If they're not a danger to themselves, the officers, or anyone else then let the law do it's job. We don't need Judge Dredd out on the streets passing judgement.

One thing we should have learned by now from our experience trying to police other countries is that when you use force on a population it does nothing but build resentment that builds up until unrest erupts.

[TCY Junkie]

Originally Posted by Brian Swartz

There is something about the idea of not breaking the law in the process of enforcing it that is fundamentally essential.

So a guy is speeding, how a cop supposed to catch up to him?

[Edward64]

Originally Posted by Brian Swartz

I think the disconnect here is that there is massive gulf between 'be forced to comply' and 'get pummelled while literally standing still'. If someone is resisting a lawful detainment, running away, attacking the police or another civilian, etc. batons or more may very well be necessary and justifiable.

None of that is happening here at all.

I can see your point about 'be forced to comply' vs 'get pummeled'. I see an initial hit to her back and rest of hits to below waist. I see measured efforts to take her down and force her to comply. Getting pummeled would be to the head and continuing to strike after she was down.

But I understand we differ and I'm glad we can agree to disagree civilly without resorting to the common tactic of ad hominems. I'll wait for a new article or a LEO to chime in.

[Arles]

Originally Posted by TCY Junkie

So a guy is speeding, how a cop supposed to catch up to him?

I'm pretty sure it's not against the law for a cop to speed with his sirens on. But the point was using excessive force should be clearly against the law and all cops should know that.

[Edward64]

Originally Posted by Arles

Here's the way I would put it:

Imagine your kid/sibling just did what these people did, what show of force from the police would you feel is acceptable/warranted for what they did? When you come up with that answer, apply it to the woman in the video or other videos shown here and see if it matches.

Arles, using the hypothetical scenario where I said

1) She tried to severely injure a cop/civilian but was no longer armed
2) Struggled and escaped the cop restraining her, hands free (no handcuffs), showed aggressiveness and unwillingness to comply
3) Refused order(s) to get down and so was forced to be subdued

I absolutely would be grateful the cops were able to contain her without killing her. Strikes to leg, midsection is nothing compared to what they could have done (e.g. head, continue to hit when down, the Chauvin maneuver for 6+ minutes).

[Arles]

So you would be grateful that the cops didn't kill an unarmed woman who was struggling to get out of custody? I think this is part of the problem - we have a really low bar for cop behavior against citizens who break any law. My expectation would be for the cops to re-apprehend her, use 2-3 to keep her still (without beating her - it is possible) and then apply handcuffs. At that point, she can be lead to the back of a cop car (if she's getting arrested).

I don't care what an unarmed woman in her situation has done, she hasn't earned a beating like that. Even if she did put her hands on a cop - the cop needs to be better than her.

[TCY Junkie]

Why not talk about how to balance the number of blacks that are poor. Democrats either don't care for 50 years or inept at making programs to help them out of situation. Cops are not the root of the problem, cops focus on poor as they commit most crime.

[RainMaker]

Originally Posted by TCY Junkie

Why not talk about how to balance the number of blacks that are poor. Democrats either don't care for 50 years or inept at making programs to help them out of situation. Cops are not the root of the problem, cops focus on poor as they commit most crime.

Democrats are inept. That is no secret.

The poor don't necessarily commit the most crime, they are just enforced the hardest.

[thesloppy]

Because that was & is already constantly happening and the suggestion that addressing police brutality would somehow weaken that response is ridiculous?

[Edward64]

Originally Posted by Atocep

Do you think using force in a way such as this on someone that isn't a physical threat to any of the officers makes people both present and watching the video more likely to comply with officers in the future?

We have laws to handle people that put up a resistance when arrested. If they're not a danger to themselves, the officers, or anyone else then let the law do it's job. We don't need Judge Dredd out on the streets passing judgement.

Assuming she didn't escape the restraint because of a boob grab and she did it to escape and resist the cop ...

She got free, hands free. I can absolutely see where she would be a physical threat of the cops. Not fatally kill a cop (unless she was Jet Li) but yeah, a threat to physically injure a cop.

FWIW, just a data point. I took years of TKD and I sparred with all different sized women. There were some that were formidable and I would not want to mess with. Maybe that's my perspective where I don't underestimate women especially one that escaped a cop holding her.

[sterlingice]

Originally Posted by Arles

So you would be grateful that the cops didn't kill an unarmed woman who was struggling to get out of custody? I think this is part of the problem - we have a really low bar for cop behavior against citizens who break any law. My expectation would be for the cops to re-apprehend her, use 2-3 to keep her still (without beating her - it is possible) and then apply handcuffs. At that point, she can be lead to the back of a cop car (if she's getting arrested).

I don't care what an unarmed woman in her situation has done, she hasn't earned a beating like that. Even if she did put her hands on a cop - the cop needs to be better than her.

I don't care if she's Jeffrey Dahmer. If she's not an immediate threat, their job is to apprehend her. It's up to a jury of her peers and judge to rule on her punishment.

SI

[whomario]

Originally Posted by TCY Junkie

So a guy is speeding, how a cop supposed to catch up to him?

For a mere speeding violation or even any sort of non-violent crime (say a shoplifter), why not just get the plate number and serve a warrant. Or use modern technologies (like GPS Darts) and spend money on that rather than military equipment. Or not get the guy this time. Not every crime/arrest is justifying every response/risk: not to themselves, the suspect and especially not the general public.

[Edward64]

Everyone, I get the sense of incredulity and (from some) sarcasm to my position which inevitably leads to unproductive back-and-forth which will then lead into ad hominem attacks and then have me (IMO justifiably) respond more in kind. This will only result in pissing off Ben.

I think you guys understand my position and I appreciate the civil conversation (except from the spammer).

[TCY Junkie]

Originally Posted by RainMaker

Democrats are inept. That is no secret.

The poor don't necessarily commit the most crime, they are just enforced the hardest.

The poor absolutely do commit more crime without white collar crimes included.

[Atocep]

Originally Posted by Edward64

Assuming she didn't escape the restraint because of a boob grab and she did it to escape and resist the cop ...

She got free, hands free. I can absolutely see where she would be a physical threat of the cops. Not fatally kill a cop (unless she was Jet Li) but yeah, a threat to physically injure a cop.

FWIW, just a data point. I took years of TKD and I sparred with all different sized women. There were some that were formidable and I would not want to mess with. Maybe that's my perspective where I don't underestimate women especially one that escaped a cop holding her.

The points you're trying to make to defend this or see it from another perspective are a large part of why there's a lack of respect for the police and some are unwilling to comply. You can try to play the what if game all day, but there is some risk that police officers take every day in doing their jobs. If they're not up for that then they shouldn't be doing it.

You have multiple cops in the area and you're going to treat an unarmed woman as a serious threat because some girl in a TKD class got the best of you a few years ago? Their lives were not at risk and in the worst case scenario she could have maybe done some minor damage by the time the situation was back under control. That warrants at least 6 baton swings while stands still without making any threatening movements?

As I asked, do you think people that see this incident are more or less likely to comply with officers in the future?

[TCY Junkie]

Originally Posted by thesloppy

Because that was & is already constantly happening and the suggestion that addressing police brutality would somehow weaken that response is ridiculous?

Won't have much luck addressing just the tip of the iceberg. Wish people were as passionate about developing programs that help.

[RainMaker]

Originally Posted by TCY Junkie

The poor absolutely do commit more crime without white collar crimes included.

I think that's the issue. White collar crimes are ignored in this country. If you are wealthy, laws don't really apply to you.

Burglary accounts for $4 billion in losses a year. Wage theft is over $40 billion. Guess which one is completely ignored?

[whomario]

There is a big portion of german police that lean haaaaard right at the least btw and plenty of headcases, difference is they are less likely to express their beliefs on the job due to very different standards, incentive not to do it re: accountability and punishment.

Originally Posted by Edward64

So I'll end this by saying I can easily see these cops overreacting and at fault. I can also see situations where cops are justified in this response and ... its dependent on the context of what happened before the film started, why they restrained or arrested her.

No, it is not. They are there to police the situation and (at most, actually, not as the Default) to arrest, not there to enforce their will on the situation and "respond" and punish. What exactly is the worst thing to happen here from this moment onward ? It takes a few seconds seconds longer to subdue her ? Is there any scenario where those seconds matter in this instance ?
So even if you engage on the premise they did not do it out of spite, malice or anger: Seriously, if they are as well trained as always claimed, it should be no problem to subdue her without using batons. For a trained professional to handcuff and arrest an unarmed citizen in a clearly defined situation (this is not happening in a big crowd or mass scuffle where police have to defend themselves !) there should be no need to beat anybody to the point they can't physically resist.
Having to work harder with less force and more restraint is not grounds to use more force.

The whole idea of "prevention by imtimidation" could also be mentioned here. At what point do you concede that fighting fire with fire is not working ? That projecting 'strength' and not giving an inch does actually result in more violence and dangerous situations (for police officers, too !), not less ? Not to mention the issues it brings for actual policing and crime solving. You need public trust here. Both big picture and individually.

One major difference between the US and most of Europe (this is pretty universally regulated by accords nations signed on to) as i understand it is this: The US puts it on the individual officers and their "reasonable belief" (of potential danger) or determining the 'reasonable' amount of force, in Europe the wording is any force used needs to be "absolutely necessary" and when used needs to be the "minimum amount necessary".

Those semantics matter because one puts the burden of proof and the starting point within the spectrum of available options somewhere waaaaayyyy different than the other.
With unarmed suspects at the very least (!) it should always be a progression from the absolute bottom up (which very much includes exhausting all options with no force) in small increments, not jumping 5 steps after a few seconds or as soon as they show any sign of non-compliance.
Which will very often be instinctive and not a conscious decision.

There is a lot police do badly over here btw and some countries like France have big issues of their own in terms of power abuse and racial profiling but this key difference makes the consequences much less severe when cops here screw up. Not just in terms of killings, but also injuries.

[RainMaker]

SHOCKING VIDEO: LAPD officers seen striking protesters with batons in Fairfax district confrontation https://t.co/gWbBswwzvs pic.twitter.com/HscxXj4sKN

— ABC7 Eyewitness News (@ABC7) June 4, 2020

[Edward64]

Originally Posted by Atocep

As I asked, do you think people that see this incident are more or less likely to comply with officers in the future?

I respectfully won't bother responding to your first 2 paragraphs as I believe I have pretty much expressed my opinions. However, I thought this last question was interesting from a different angle.

For myself, I would more likely comply. I am guessing first-gen legal immigrants will more likely comply more. I'm pretty sure majority of first-gen immigrants have that attitude of work hard and don't make waves.

For the broader US population, I am purely guessing but those that have more trust in the police would comply. Those that have less trust would not.

So from bit and pieces that I've read, this would mean whites would likely comply more, hispanics less, blacks way less.

I would be interested in yours and others thoughts on the same question?

[Lathum]

Originally Posted by RainMaker

I think that's the issue. White collar crimes are ignored in this country. If you are wealthy, laws don't really apply to you.

Burglary accounts for $4 billion in losses a year. Wage theft is over $40 billion. Guess which one is completely ignored?

People v. Turner - Wikipedia

[Brian Swartz]

Originally Posted by RainMaker

The poor don't necessarily commit the most crime, they are just enforced the hardest.

They do commit the most violent crimes by far, and that's the primary thing that cops on the street are there to interdict. White-collar crime is a very important issue, but crimes against property (white-collar or not) have a much lower clearance rate that the violent offenses and the impact on society is clearly different as well.

[RainMaker]

Originally Posted by Brian Swartz

They do commit the most violent crimes by far, and that's the primary thing that cops on the street are there to interdict. White-collar crime is a very important issue, but crimes against property (white-collar or not) have a much lower clearance rate that the violent offenses and the impact on society is clearly different as well.

White collar crime is not important because we don't care as a country. We decide that shoplifting some shoes is a more serious crime than stealing millions from employees.

[tarcone]

As someone said earlier, George Floyd got a death sentence while Lori Loughlin is allowed to manipulate the system in her favor.

[Butter]

Originally Posted by TCY Junkie

Why not talk about how to balance the number of blacks that are poor. Democrats either don't care for 50 years or inept at making programs to help them out of situation. Cops are not the root of the problem, cops focus on poor as they commit most crime.

An interesting aside on this thread which appears to be mainly focused on one guy and his tiresome, BS rationalizations on police brutality that he must believe are Extraordinarily Important because he literally won't shut up.

But I've been doing a lot of reading and do think that poverty is a root cause. I'm curious what you would have the "Democrats" do, as we can probably agree that they are the only party interested in trying to fix this problem. The GOP literally can't stop fixating on minor fraud or abuse in any social programs that for some reason seem to invalidate all of the program, despite its just having given a half trillion handout to various companies with almost no oversight.

What do you recommend?

[Brian Swartz]

Originally Posted by tarcone

As someone said earlier, George Floyd got a death sentence while Lori Loughlin is allowed to manipulate the system in her favor.

Hard cases make for bad law. You could just as easily point out that Bernie Madoff went to jail for the rest of his life while people get away with shoplifting (to use an example already mentioned in this thread) constantly. The larger trends and patterns are what matters.

[Flasch186]

Originally Posted by Butter

An interesting aside on this thread which appears to be mainly focused on one guy and his tiresome, BS rationalizations on police brutality that he must believe are Extraordinarily Important because he literally won't shut up.

But I've been doing a lot of reading and do think that poverty is a root cause. I'm curious what you would have the "Democrats" do, as we can probably agree that they are the only party interested in trying to fix this problem. The GOP literally can't stop fixating on minor fraud or abuse in any social programs that for some reason seem to invalidate all of the program, despite its just having given a half trillion handout to various companies with almost no oversight.

What do you recommend?

A wholesale multibillion dollar investment in inner city schools and entrepeneur programs inlcuding 0 or low interest loans is just a start.

[Butter]

The erosion of the property tax base on school systems that are funded that way (like in Ohio) is definitely a real problem. Ohio's state legislature is pretty much GOP 4 lyfe due to gerrymandering, so a funding switch would be a tough sell here. I know other states fund schools differently, so wondering what those might look like.

[Carman Bulldog]

Originally Posted by RainMaker

I think that's the issue. White collar crimes are ignored in this country. If you are wealthy, laws don't really apply to you.

Burglary accounts for $4 billion in losses a year. Wage theft is over $40 billion. Guess which one is completely ignored?

But that isn't a police issue, it's a societal/governmental issue. Furthermore, you are actually going to need to direct more financial resources towards policing if you want to solve the more complex crimes.

Right now, police are essentially societal band-aids, acting as babysitters of the impoverished in a multitude of roles, many of which they do not have sufficient training for (nor could one necessarily expect to have anyone trained in all of these roles). This includes an expectation that they are have expertise in the areas of law, use of force, solving crime, mental health intervention, and social work.

[thesloppy]

You could literally give every single american an income above the poverty level for close to what we've spent on covid relief in the last three months, for whatever that is worth.