No assumptions needed.

https://li.phila.gov/property-history/search?address=2101%20N%20COLLEGE%20AVE

The owner who doesn't have proper licensing and hasn't kept their properties up to code.

So the owner hasn't been paying their bills here either, but you didn't seem to want to touch on that?

SVB failed because of investment decisions that would have had to have been helmed by the absolute highest level of management.

That level of management would enjoy the ability to come and go as they please regardless of SVB's remote work policy.

Having employees in an office or not would not affect SVBs executives from adopting investment strategies that included covering short term deposits with long term investments without aggressive hedges against interest rate fluctuations.

They choose those instruments because that's where the highest return was at the time. They did not consider long term implications of that because they were concerned with short term profitability. Likely because their compensation and bonuses hinge on meeting profitability margins, not ensuring the future stability of the bank.

That would require blaming someone other then "the gays", and that dog just don't hunt.

And then immediately contradicted themselves and said oh wait they aren't actually banned.

As if the only overarching policy is seeing what they can get away with and then dialing in back when confronted.

Governments are formed to provide for the general welfare of their citizenry, among other things. 80 year olds being forced to work to keep up with rent is a clear societal problem that is negatively impacting the general welfare of the citizenry.

Not rocket science. Even if you just want to look at it from an economic angle you don't want older people having to work for longer and longer as you're bottlenecking jobs for younger people.

That's the rub of the situation.

If cash bail reform was in place, the odds that this defendant gets out of pre-trial detention is significantly lower than our current cash bail system where it is just about can you find the money.

Our current system is controversial because you end up with situations where pre-trial detention isn't about whether a defendant is a danger to the community or how much of a flight risk they are, but simply did they have money or not.

That's what cash bail reform is about.

Yes, that's near the entire point of bail reform.

Pre-trial release shouldn't hinge on whether you're rich in not.

Either you're a risk to the community or you aren't. It shouldn't be about if you have money or not.

That's why I threw in the qualifier. Too many times descriptions of footage of LEOs by LEOs is so far from what is actually shown that it's beyond understanding.

So it would not surprise me if that description is not accurate in part or as a whole. My guess would be that the attempt to separate the dogs would likely be the area doing the most heavy lifting on the veracity end.

Also really want to know what the other owner was doing.

If her dog was in actual danger and it wasn't just two dogs making noises at each other, she tried to actively separate them and couldn't, and was controlled in the way she ended up employing her weapon; this was reasonable action.

Assuming the description given is accurate.

Doesn't make it a good idea to keep doing it.

By national concern you mean reported in a local news affiliate?

Just like those times a cop leaves their gun at a Wendy's

Why are you asserting that there is no public need to disclose information about this case?

This is the real world impact of recently passed legislation that dramatically impacts the public.

It's almost like playing a sport and being a politician are different things.

And your evidence of this is?

https://www.brennancenter.org/our-work/research-reports/myths-and-realities-understanding-recent-trends-violent-crime

The article contains links to other articles/studies if you want to dig down to where they are getting their info.

It's really telling that you want to try and oversimplify complex issues but are dismissive of Krasner doing similar.

After all, in his view, the root cause is clearly visible to anyone that is reasonable and objective. Gun violence is driving these increases in violent crimes. Gun proliferation has increased sharply. The more guns you have the more gun related crime is going to result. It really is that simple.

The grandstanding can cut both ways.

If it were a prevailing factor you'd expect to see differences in violent crime increases in areas with progressive DAs adopting similar policies vs areas with tough on crime DAs, but that's not being born out.

Gun laws may have not changed, but gun purchases have absolutely increased in recent years. Which is why police nationwide are seeing sharp decreases in time to crime rates, which track the length of time from purchase to use in a criminal act.

If Philly deserves better the Krasner then opposition to him should be able to pick better candidates then a "Democrat" shilling for the one of the few organizations in Philly people like even less then the DA, the GOP, and a wacko ranting about bathtubs and wanting macho prosecutors.

A legitimate impeachment effort wouldn't have to prop itself up with less then credible studies as indicated by the article. That speaks to this being about politics.

Economic and social disruption due to the pandemic is the most likely culprit given it's likely the only circumstance to hit everywhere.

Violent crime has risen essentially across the board in the US. It's impacted cities, suburban, and rural communities. Red states and blue states. Red run cities and blue run cities.

It's not a localized event so trying to lay it on a localized cause is not a logical conclusion to draw.

Similar increases have occurred in essentially every city. Cities with progressive DAs, cities with tough on crime DAs. Correlation is not causation.

Moreover the people of Philadelphia reelected Krasner in 2021.

Shouldn't the good people of Philadelphia have a say in their DA?

You can still collect unemployment if fired in your two weeks.

You still answered it wrong. You've said you can't collect if fired ("period"). This is incorrect

Being fired is what makes you eligible. Voluntarily quitting would disqualify you. The exception being if they were to make drastic changes to your job or hours basically forcing you to quit, this may qualify as "constructive dismissal" which is the same as being fired.

You only won't qualify if you are fired with cause. But with cause to an employer and with cause to unemployment are two different things.

Rather then pulling from a copaganda site, you could have gotten the information directly from Philadelphia's controllers website.

https://controller.phila.gov/philadelphia-audits/data-release-police-budget-and-homicides/

In Minneapolis the budget has grown since George Floyd's murder

https://m.startribune.com/minneapolis-police-spending-rises-as-defund-movement-fades/600126143/?clmob=y&c=n&clmob=y&c=n

Same with Chicago

https://www.civicfed.org/blog/city-chicago-public-safety-spending#:~:text=The%20Chicago%20Police%20Department%20makes,of%20%24715.3%20million%20in%20FY2022.

Do I need to go on? There was lip service paid to diverting police funds to mental health service in most cities, it either didn't actually occur, or was immediately undone with the next year's budget leap frogging 2019s.

We keep pouring money into this black hole, and we get no benefit from it. We get cops milking disability and departments buying surplus military year, but we aren't safer.

Have you ever been to a city in the Northeast? It's as if you don't think Philly, NYC, and Boston have large populations of undocumented workers and just decided to be sanctuary cities for a non-existent demographic. What do you think they just cross the Rio Grande and stop moving?

https://www.pewresearch.org/fact-tank/2019/03/11/us-metro-areas-unauthorized-immigrants/

You keep bringing up defunding the police, but can you name a city where that actually occurred?

It didn't occur in NYC or San Francisco. Both those cities are top 5 in money spent on police per capita. Large cities ran by Democrats on average increased funding for policing more then Republican ran cities in 2022. So who exactly has actually defunded police if Democrat run cities are spending more on them?

Next you'll bring up liberal prosecutors, but again how many actual cities have elected them? Philly has, San Fran did, but that isn't true for most cities. And crime has risen across the board regardless of whether cities have elected liberal prosecutors or not. Additionally liberal prosecutors do not impact arrest rates unless the police decide to stop doing their job. Krasner isn't the reason Philly cops can't get a suspect for these shootings in the first place. Go read into the recent forum where mothers of shooting victims said they canvased the neighborhood. He certainly isn't the reason hundreds of officers are scamming disability.

Moreover go look at the cities that rank highest in violent crimes rates it's not Philly or NYC. They just make the news more for the same reason NYC sports teams are a bigger stage.