Jump to content

Karlbear

Members
  • Content Count

    53,031
  • Joined

  • Last visited

About Karlbear

  • Rank
    62 warning points
  • Birthday 10/26/1974

Contact Methods

  • Website URL
    Array

Profile Information

  • Gender
    Array
  • Location
    Array

Recent Profile Visitors

21,644 profile views
  1. It doesn't have to be a motivation - it can be a desperate reaction. In general police presence for the AA population in the US is not a de-escalating tactic.
  2. Hah, no. Not remotely true. That might have been how many were refunded directly to CDPR, but it's not close to the number that was refunded elsewhere. (looks at the number) BOY is that not true If I had to guess, I'd say it doesn't count any refunded from Sony or MS stores directly, any refunds from best buy/amazon/gamestop directly, any refunds from steam (which is still likely the biggest refund source), and any other subretailers.
  3. It's also not a given that if the police hadn't shown up someone would be stabbed. Suicide by cop is a real thing.
  4. Religion never fails a person, only a person can fail a religion.
  5. The idea that you can just choose to not be with people who are risky is a really bad take. Even taking out the idea that you're just totes cool with them suffering and dying, the real problem is that the vaccine does not stop spread entirely nor does it work perfectly. This is why we keep getting outbreaks of things like measles. And it also means any one who cannot get the vaccine - because they are ineligible or because it will not work for them - will be forced to risk their life or forced to stay at home. This libertarian ideal of allowing the assholes to dictate who has the right to exist in society is pretty shitty.
  6. Yes, because he was not in the act of violence at the time. I don't understand why someone who is immediately attacking someone else with a knife is equivalent in behavior to someone who simply has a weapon on them but is not acting violent. Simply carrying harmful items is not and should not be treated the same as someone who is violent with or without a weapon. I 100% agree. This is more about a strategy to talking to it- it's not very strategic to compare this to Rittenhouse. Compare to the cases where police were able to subdue someone with a weapon who was acting immediately threatening.
  7. Again, it's really not. Comparing the behavior of police when someone is not actively attacking someone else with their behavior when someone is just doesn't work. Rittenhouse and how he was treated is an entire different problem, but comparing the two really doesn't work on any level. There are plenty of other cases where a police officer successfully defused a person acting violently with weapons that you should use. Rittenhouse really isn't that.
  8. It's not really a fair comparison. Rittenhouse ran up to police with his gun on his back to turn himself in after it happened. Police were not there when he shot two people. I think it's a deplorable thing that probably should be an unlawful killing, but this equivalence does no one any favors.
  9. I think that there are two problems here that are slightly different than the actual shooting. The first is that police were called to a domestic disturbance. There is very rarely a need for police to go to these sorts of things and their presence almost certainly exacerbated the conflict. The second is that black girls are often seen as being older and more dangerous than white girls, which results in excessive force.
  10. I'm still so excited to see this evidence!
  11. I guess it's hard for me to feel that this is that amazing of a thing when we've had two more police murders in the last week including one in the same goddamn city, so the threat of police accountability? Not so threatening. I'm less angry given this verdict, but I'm still really fucking angry about it.
  12. In related news, this was the original MPD account of Floyd's murder:
  13. It would - if that was all she did. But instead what she did was show up in the city, speak to a bunch of protesters in the city that the jurists live in or near, and said things that were construed by some as incitement of violence if the jury did not reach a guilty plea. The obvious thing that some people may say is that this was jury tampering - this is what the defense said, in fact.
  14. No. In most cases (including this one) they are sequestered only while deliberating on the verdict. Sorry, you want the 'today is a good day' thread for that kind of hippie bullshit
  15. The judge specifically mentioned that it could be grounds for an appeal, so I don't think it's exactly the bizarre situation that you are implying.
×
×
  • Create New...