It would make it simpler to realize if they're just taking the piss or really are as stupid as what they write... (Although I've seen some quality AC posts as well.)
Who said they could assume they could?
I said there's very little reason to think they would not be able to.
That's a very important distinction logically.
Why would there be little reason to think that? Aside from all the expenses of homeschooling itself (books, materials, etc - both for parents and students), there's also the loss of income from at least one parent (when there even are two) not working. That can easily be half the household income gone, plus the expenses, and they still have to pay the taxes. And in a single parent household, what's the option? Live 100% on public assistance all the time?
You appear to be confusing "not be able" with "would not be a hardship."
That right there is the problem. If they had a choice, this would all be moot. Dumbasses who refuse to vaccinate their kids couple simply send them elsewhere with little or no cost. As it stands, if you're stupid enough to honestly believe vaccines will damage your child, your options come down to bending to the will of the state that you inject poison into your child or lose half/all of your household income and try to educate them yourself.
Again, you are advocating that it should be a reasonable option for parents to be unreasonable.
Look at all the anonymous cowards...
Was that what you said when you found that smoking was banned in elementary schools?
Doing something that you believe to be right that puts other human beings in serious risk is a burden that YOU must bear.
Do you think driving a school bus full of children while drunk is a freedom you need?
So, basically, there's very little reason to think that a parent refusing to vaccinate their child would not be able to home school them
Not much reason to allow unvaccinated (by choice) children into public schools then.
...The Road Warrior then.
I bet people can still buy that movie down under.
Which has what to do with what?
The crazy ways people try to dispute or prove things with huge numbers of assumptions... lol.
Presuming you're trying to argue that you can tell from a chest wound(s), that Brown had his hands up makes the ridiculous assumption that when he was shot in the chest his hands were up instead of at some other time in the process.
Imagine the following scenario - for which there is no proof and yet it is as valid as any other - Brown starts running away, shots are fired and he turns around with his hands up - as he is turning around with his hands up, he is shot in the side. This makes Brown lower his arms and grab his side. He is now facing the officer and a round now enters his chest. Brown doubles over in pain towards the officer. The officer now puts one in the back/top of Brown's skull (because he's bent over enough for this to happen), Brown raises his head and catches the next one in the forehead.
Totally plausible - but more importantly - we have no f***ing idea if this actually happened or not.
The official report says there was a shot in his side, and one in his chest.
Entrance wounds are about as reliable an orientation indicator as you will get.
Which shot are you referring to?
Also, I am only referring to the official autopsy that the Grand Jury worked off of - apparently the autopsies differ
According to the autopsy he was shot FROM ABOVE which means that either 1.- the cop got on top of the car and jumped so he could shoot a 6 foot plus robber in the top of the head or 2.- the robber was charging at the cop in a football tackle stance (which just FYI is consistent with every wound on Brown).
Rather than dissect all of your diatribe, we can simply start with the initial faulty premise.
The autopsy claims there is a bullet entrance wound in the vertex of his scalp. That's the back side of the top of your head. The bullet came to rest in the right side of his face. That means the bullet traveled from the upper rear of his head towards the front of his face.
Now, somebody who argued like you do would claim this meant he was shot in the back of the head while walking away - but bullets can do crazy sh** when they enter a body. It certainly DOES mean that your stupid assertion that being shot in the top/rear of you head means you had your head down charging like you were in a football stance is incredibly unlikely (for many other reasons as well - people don't run in a
football tackle stance
- you can't, you start off in that stance. You can't run like that unless you like staring at the ground and being bent over at the waist.)
Maybe you should read the official autopsy report.
Shot in the top of the head.
Shot in the forehead.
Shot in the side.
Shot in the back of his right arm.
Shot in the chest.
A bullet graze wound on the outside of his right arm that doesn't seem to indicate the direction of the bullet.
A bullet graze wound on the outside and near the bottom of his hand that is oriented toward his thumb.
Yeah think about it, it makes perfect sense if he stops running away and turns around and puts his hands up.
Crazy how you didn't consider that possibility.
7 witnesses (black) collaborated cop's story. Brown was running at the cop, after beating him and pulling his gun
Can you provide any links supporting this from a credible source? I've only been able to find information that a single witness claimed that Brown charged the officer.
I can't find any witness information that says Brown beat the cop, or pulled his gun - other than the police officer himself.