Southern wrote:What the fuck did you just fucking say about me, you little bitch? I’ll have you know I graduated top of my class in the Navy Seals, and I’ve been involved in numerous secret raids on Al-Quaeda, and I have over 300 confirmed kills. I am trained in gorilla warfare and ...feathers wrote:Combat?!? An eigtheen-year-old versus a trained police officer is now combat? The heavens forbid that your army should ever have to go to war.AndrewV69 wrote:Something tells me that someone has never fired a gun in a combat situation.
Nerds. Nerds EVERYWHERE...
Re: Nerds. Nerds EVERYWHERE...
-
- .
- Posts: 1925
- Joined: Sat Mar 23, 2013 6:07 am
Re: Nerds. Nerds EVERYWHERE...
According to the 911 tape, Martin took off running when he saw Zimmerman watching from his car. As I said, he lived only two hundred yards away. Please explain the ensuing events if it were Zimmerman doing the stalking. I assume you're not suggesting that a doughy guy in his 30s ran down a black teenager with a head start...katamari Damassi wrote:Are you sure you got the stalking order right? Zimmerman trailed in his car, a guy walking by himself at night. He provoked an altercation. IIRC there were jurors who said they would've convicted on a lesser count if given the option.bovarchist wrote: Well, not really...it's hard to make a case that Zimmerman murdered Martin when Martin stalked Zimmerman and pounded on him for over a minute before Zimmerman even attempted to draw his gun. Do me a favor, and look at your watch for a full minute. A long time to be pounded on.
That entire altercation took place for one single reason: because Martin wanted it to. If he was afraid of Zimmerman, all he had to do was go home. It was only 200 yards away, after all.
Re: Nerds. Nerds EVERYWHERE...
Did PZ just prove Anita Sarkeesian wrong in one simple move?The best way to explain it is via video games. You like playing as a medieval knight but I am sure you would be lot less enthralled by being gutted by a sword.
Re: Nerds. Nerds EVERYWHERE...
Does this mean that other people are free to mug him, too? Should he travel downtown and freely offer himself to muggers?Tony Parsehole wrote:
Is he victim-blaming himself? Is such a thing even possible?
-
- .
- Posts: 1495
- Joined: Tue May 20, 2014 9:09 pm
Re: Nerds. Nerds EVERYWHERE...
From a legal perspective, in terms of right of self-defense, there's little qualitative difference between an officer of the law and an ordinary citizen. However, An officer is generally given a lower threshold of determining what is a threat to life or severe bodily injury. Zimmerman was claiming self-defense, and the evidence was all but conclusive that he was receiving a beating at the time that could reasonably be interpreted as a threat to life and limb. So the cases have a lot of similarity.katamari Damassi wrote:It shouldn't be. Martin was a guy walking home from the store when confronted by some dude with a Dirty Harry complex. The DA bungled that case because it let public pressure make it over reach with a murder 2 charge when it could've gotten a manslaughter conviction.Tony Parsehole wrote:Aw fuck. This is going to be the Zimmerman debate all over again.
Brown was a violent thief who fought with an officer of the law. The only thing these cases share is the race factor.
I don't think there's much demand for a rehashing of the Zimmerman case, but I'll state that there's no evidence that Zimmerman confronted Martin. He was following, and while we will never know exactly what happened, it appears likely that Martin did the confronting and started the fight. Even if you don't believe this was the likely course of events, it easily falls under reasonable doubt. And while a manslaughter conviction would have been more plausible than murder 2, it was far from a given. If jurors believed that self-defense was a reasonable doubt, as they had to to find him not guilty of murder, the only additional possibility for conviction under manslaughter is that he started the fight which he knew or should have known would entail the significant possibility of death or severe bodily injury to himself which may necessitate the use of deadly force. That's a tough sell.
-
- .
- Posts: 4024
- Joined: Sat Oct 06, 2012 3:44 pm
Re: Nerds. Nerds EVERYWHERE...
I think you'll find that quote is by that other idiot savant: Avi "I have a day job, except not really because I work for free" Cenna.Kirbmarc wrote:Did PZ just prove Anita Sarkeesian wrong in one simple move?The best way to explain it is via video games. You like playing as a medieval knight but I am sure you would be lot less enthralled by being gutted by a sword.
-
- .
- Posts: 6658
- Joined: Wed Oct 03, 2012 8:16 am
- Location: Middlesbrough
Re: Nerds. Nerds EVERYWHERE...
[youtube]Y3-aAx4SOn0[/youtube]jugheadnaut wrote:From a legal perspective, in terms of right of self-defense, there's little qualitative difference between an officer of the law and an ordinary citizen. However, An officer is generally given a lower threshold of determining what is a threat to life or severe bodily injury. Zimmerman was claiming self-defense, and the evidence was all but conclusive that he was receiving a beating at the time that could reasonably be interpreted as a threat to life and limb. So the cases have a lot of similarity.katamari Damassi wrote:It shouldn't be. Martin was a guy walking home from the store when confronted by some dude with a Dirty Harry complex. The DA bungled that case because it let public pressure make it over reach with a murder 2 charge when it could've gotten a manslaughter conviction.Tony Parsehole wrote:Aw fuck. This is going to be the Zimmerman debate all over again.
Brown was a violent thief who fought with an officer of the law. The only thing these cases share is the race factor.
I don't think there's much demand for a rehashing of the Zimmerman case, but I'll state that there's no evidence that Zimmerman confronted Martin. He was following, and while we will never know exactly what happened, it appears likely that Martin did the confronting and started the fight. Even if you don't believe this was the likely course of events, it easily falls under reasonable doubt. And while a manslaughter conviction would have been more plausible than murder 2, it was far from a given. If jurors believed that self-defense was a reasonable doubt, as they had to to find him not guilty of murder, the only additional possibility for conviction under manslaughter is that he started the fight which he knew or should have known would entail the significant possibility of death or severe bodily injury to himself which may necessitate the use of deadly force. That's a tough sell.
Re: Nerds. Nerds EVERYWHERE...
jugheadnaut wrote:
From a legal perspective, in terms of right of self-defense, there's little qualitative difference between an officer of the law and an ordinary citizen. However, An officer is generally given a lower threshold of determining what is a threat to life or severe bodily injury. Zimmerman was claiming self-defense, and the evidence was all but conclusive that he was receiving a beating at the time that could reasonably be interpreted as a threat to life and limb. So the cases have a lot of similarity.
I don't think there's much demand for a rehashing of the Zimmerman case, but I'll state that there's no evidence that Zimmerman confronted Martin. He was following, and while we will never know exactly what happened, it appears likely that Martin did the confronting and started the fight. Even if you don't believe this was the likely course of events, it easily falls under reasonable doubt. And while a manslaughter conviction would have been more plausible than murder 2, it was far from a given. If jurors believed that self-defense was a reasonable doubt, as they had to to find him not guilty of murder, the only additional possibility for conviction under manslaughter is that he started the fight which he knew or should have known would entail the significant possibility of death or severe bodily injury to himself which may necessitate the use of deadly force. That's a tough sell.
My take has always been that Zimmerman was legally in the right but morally wrong. He shouldn't have been stalking that kid but once Martin attacked him, he had the right to defend himself. I didn't like the outcome of the case but I understand why it had to be that way and would have voted the same way. I would say that Zimmerman has to live with what he did but from what I have seen he is just pleased as punch with himself.
Once again life shows how unfair it is.
-
- .
- Posts: 6658
- Joined: Wed Oct 03, 2012 8:16 am
- Location: Middlesbrough
Re: Nerds. Nerds EVERYWHERE...
What sort of fucking idiot closes his hotel bar when Rebecca Watson is staying? Is he allergic to money?
-
- .
- Posts: 6658
- Joined: Wed Oct 03, 2012 8:16 am
- Location: Middlesbrough
Re: Nerds. Nerds EVERYWHERE...
I'd have asked for he credit card and hooked her up to a drip full of vodka. To start with.
-
- .
- Posts: 6658
- Joined: Wed Oct 03, 2012 8:16 am
- Location: Middlesbrough
Re: Nerds. Nerds EVERYWHERE...
never forget:Pitchguest wrote:I think you'll find that quote is by that other idiot savant: Avi "I have a day job, except not really because I work for free" Cenna.Kirbmarc wrote:Did PZ just prove Anita Sarkeesian wrong in one simple move?The best way to explain it is via video games. You like playing as a medieval knight but I am sure you would be lot less enthralled by being gutted by a sword.
http://www.grapheine.com/bombaytv/publi ... ce926.html
Bhoytony's finest moment.
Re: Nerds. Nerds EVERYWHERE...
Nah, next thing you're on FfTB with a rape-enabler moniker on your hotel chain.Tony Parsehole wrote:What sort of fucking idiot closes his hotel bar when Rebecca Watson is staying? Is he allergic to money?
-
- .
- Posts: 6658
- Joined: Wed Oct 03, 2012 8:16 am
- Location: Middlesbrough
Re: Nerds. Nerds EVERYWHERE...
I'm nicking that one.Lsuoma wrote:Well spotted. Missed that one, mesel'...Tony Parsehole wrote:"James Russell". HAHAHAHAHA!didymos wrote:Lol. Over on Pizzle's Ferguson thread, jamesrussellthe3rd actually suckered in the geniuses over there with the Navy SEAL copypasta. He also offered to fight them because he's a 5th Dan in Tae Bo, and not a one of those brilliant souls picked up on that either. Of course, he got banned, so the original comments are gone, but the responses are still there.
-
- .
- Posts: 1925
- Joined: Sat Mar 23, 2013 6:07 am
Re: Nerds. Nerds EVERYWHERE...
For the last hour or so I've had the strangest feeling that something wasn't right. Then it hit me: I've been defending Wilson and Zimmerman on the Internet and nobody has been calling me names or yelling at me. Just want to say thanks to the Pit for proving that it's still possible to have polite arguments.
Think I'm done for a while though.
Think I'm done for a while though.
Re: Nerds. Nerds EVERYWHERE...
I didn't read the title of the blog, just "Pharyngula". My bad.Pitchguest wrote:I think you'll find that quote is by that other idiot savant: Avi "I have a day job, except not really because I work for free" Cenna.Kirbmarc wrote:Did PZ just prove Anita Sarkeesian wrong in one simple move?The best way to explain it is via video games. You like playing as a medieval knight but I am sure you would be lot less enthralled by being gutted by a sword.
The point still stands, though. If Avi is right, and video games violent fantasies are harmless, what's the point in Anita's rants in "Tropes Vs. Women"?
Re: Nerds. Nerds EVERYWHERE...
Pardon my slowness, but "James Russell" -> "Jimmy Russell", right?Tony Parsehole wrote:I'm nicking that one.Lsuoma wrote:Well spotted. Missed that one, mesel'...Tony Parsehole wrote: "James Russell". HAHAHAHAHA!
Re: Nerds. Nerds EVERYWHERE...
From the comments of "I was mugged, and I understand why" article:
Mugging apology!Rachel wrote:When given the choice, people desperate for resources, or those who might have been socialized at a young age (maybe by being victims of crime themselves) to see stealing as a fact of life, choose to steal from those they are more confident will have money, nicer phones, and will be able to replace them more easily. While this makes more “economic sense†as you point out, it also points out how the “us†and “them†creates and is furthered by these acts and our responses to them.
Maybe seeing this “exchange of phone†as an economic event and not a human one is the problem, maybe seeing it as an event with people on either end of it with humanity that’s value extends beyond their participation in the economy, you can begin to solve issues, not throw away people and their worth as a person for one act (or multiple) acts they commit
-
- .
- Posts: 6658
- Joined: Wed Oct 03, 2012 8:16 am
- Location: Middlesbrough
Re: Nerds. Nerds EVERYWHERE...
Yes. Did not knowing rustle your jimmies, my child?dogen wrote:
Pardon my slowness, but "James Russell" -> "Jimmy Russell", right?
http://fc06.deviantart.net/fs71/f/2012/ ... 4xgsy8.png
Re: Nerds. Nerds EVERYWHERE...
So just about any black person can walk up to that guy and say 'Give me all of your money and your cellphone,' and he will think that it is OK.Tony Parsehole wrote:
At a certain point, it kind of ceases to be a crime to take money from him as he has already publicly given them permission. I am OK with this for him.
-
- .
- Posts: 1335
- Joined: Sat Nov 03, 2012 10:50 am
Re: Nerds. Nerds EVERYWHERE...
Sure, we could do with a laugh about now.comhcinc wrote:So does anyone want to see my penis?
-
- .
- Posts: 1495
- Joined: Tue May 20, 2014 9:09 pm
Re: Nerds. Nerds EVERYWHERE...
Yes, arguing that the officer was somehow incompetent because the use of his gun resulted in death rather than incapacitation is absurd. The reason why police are given guns is to have a method of lethal force, period. Of course, one can legitimately argue against the policy of police being equipped with weapons of lethal force. But if an officer is equipped with a gun and justifiably uses it in self defense, it's not his fault that death is the outcome.bovarchist wrote:Son, if you don't mean to kill, a gun is the wrong weapon to use.feathers wrote:That implies he meant to kill, rather than maim by shooting in the arm or leg. Ok.bovarchist wrote:
I actually argued the opposite, that Officer Wilson did some tight shooting.
-
- .
- Posts: 1925
- Joined: Sat Mar 23, 2013 6:07 am
Re: Nerds. Nerds EVERYWHERE...
Spoke too soon. Getting into it with Dana Gould, one of the original Simpsons writers.
Re: Nerds. Nerds EVERYWHERE...
deLurch wrote:So just about any black person can walk up to that guy and say 'Give me all of your money and your cellphone,' and he will think that it is OK.Tony Parsehole wrote:
At a certain point, it kind of ceases to be a crime to take money from him as he has already publicly given them permission. I am OK with this for him.
Masochism runs deep.
Robert Fisk on why Robert Fisk deserved a good kicking:
http://www.counterpunch.org/2001/12/10/ ... ilthy-war/They started by shaking hands. We said “Salaam aleikum†— peace be upon you — then the first pebbles flew past my face. A small boy tried to grab my bag. Then another. Then someone punched me in the back. Then young men broke my glasses, began smashing stones into my face and head. I couldn’t see for the blood pouring down my forehead and swamping my eyes. And even then, I understood. I couldn’t blame them for what they were doing. In fact, if I were the Afghan refugees of Kila Abdullah, close to the Afghan-Pakistan border, I would have done just the same to Robert Fisk. Or any other Westerner I could find.
That's Robert Fisk, a twat so twattish they named Fisking after the point by point refutation of everything he writes.
Re: Nerds. Nerds EVERYWHERE...
It isn't available on amazon.com but is available from amazon.co.ukbovarchist wrote:
So unless someone here owns or knows someone who owns Happy Trumpets by Pedro Gonzales and his Mexican Brass, it looks like I'm going to have to think of another present for my sister.
Re: Nerds. Nerds EVERYWHERE...
It's pretty much impossible to merely "maim" someone with a gun by choice. No matter what the movies or TV told us, there's no such thing as "only a flesh wound". Plenty of people die because they've been shot in the arm or leg.jugheadnaut wrote:Yes, arguing that the officer was somehow incompetent because the use of his gun resulted in death rather than incapacitation is absurd. The reason why police are given guns is to have a method of lethal force, period. Of course, one can legitimately argue against the policy of police being equipped with weapons of lethal force. But if an officer is equipped with a gun and justifiably uses it in self defense, it's not his fault that death is the outcome.
On the other hand it's almost pretty much impossible to incapacitate a threat someone with a single shot. People have lived and acted for minutes after being shot multiple times. When someone charges at you with an intent to kill you if you want to protect yourselves from death or bodily harm and you have a gun you have to shoot the person who is attacking you quickly and with as much bullets as you can.
From the evidence at our disposal it's easy to see that officer Darren Wilson had every reason to believe that Michael Brown was a danger for his life, and he acted in a perfectly lawful way.
You can question whether it is legitimate to give guns to the police, as jugheadnaut said, or you can question whether the police's account of the incident is accurate, although given the amount of evidence that corroborate their story this strays into the conspiracy theory territory.
But if it's legitimate for police officers to use guns in self-defense and if Darren Wilson told the truth it's very, very hard to argue that Michael Brown was killed for any reason other than his own choices.
-
- That's All Folks
- Posts: 2669
- Joined: Tue Jul 03, 2012 8:05 pm
- Location: New Westminster, BC, Canada
Re: Nerds. Nerds EVERYWHERE...
Kirbmarc said:
But anyway, I rewrote Avi's post to highlight its reverse-parallels with Sarkeesian's bullshit, but they were having none of it: http://freethoughtblogs.com/amilliongod ... nt-1457918
Yes, well, young Kirbmarcer, you're a wee bit behind the times. I posted this about that ... um, it's comment, here at the Pit, # 63950, but because of the general weirdness of the coding here, I cannot link to it (it skips to the next page).The point still stands, though. If Avi is right, and video games violent fantasies are harmless, what's the point in Anita's rants in "Tropes Vs. Women"?
But anyway, I rewrote Avi's post to highlight its reverse-parallels with Sarkeesian's bullshit, but they were having none of it: http://freethoughtblogs.com/amilliongod ... nt-1457918
-
- .
- Posts: 1495
- Joined: Tue May 20, 2014 9:09 pm
Re: Nerds. Nerds EVERYWHERE...
There's an old saying that a conservative is a liberal who has been mugged. But the closed-minded tenaciousness of SJW's grants them some self-preservation: an SJW who has been mugged is still an SJW.Tony Parsehole wrote:
-
- .
- Posts: 1925
- Joined: Sat Mar 23, 2013 6:07 am
Re: Nerds. Nerds EVERYWHERE...
Found, ordered, and I love you. :hankey:Seymour wrote:It isn't available on amazon.com but is available from amazon.co.ukbovarchist wrote:
So unless someone here owns or knows someone who owns Happy Trumpets by Pedro Gonzales and his Mexican Brass, it looks like I'm going to have to think of another present for my sister.
Re: Nerds. Nerds EVERYWHERE...
What if she drinks her usual quota and then says to the bartender, "You cannot charge me, I'm Rebecca Watson, opressed and harassed individual, Elevatorgate, Richard Dawkins was mean to me, blah blah I'll totally tweet about you fucking face and say you groped me in an elevator you virgin neckbearded fuck blah blah blah"?Tony Parsehole wrote:What sort of fucking idiot closes his hotel bar when Rebecca Watson is staying? Is he allergic to money?
-
- .
- Posts: 1495
- Joined: Tue May 20, 2014 9:09 pm
Re: Nerds. Nerds EVERYWHERE...
Looks like he deleted the tweet, which was something along the lines of "you can't say Michael Brown was attacking because of the presumption of innocence, which Brown deserves as much as Bill Cosby". I'm guessing he deleted it because it could be read as a defense of Bill Cosby, rather than because it betrays an ignorant misunderstanding of the presumption of innocence.bovarchist wrote:Spoke too soon. Getting into it with Dana Gould, one of the original Simpsons writers.
-
- .
- Posts: 1925
- Joined: Sat Mar 23, 2013 6:07 am
Re: Nerds. Nerds EVERYWHERE...
That's too funny. Anybody get a screenshot?jugheadnaut wrote:Looks like he deleted the tweet, which was something along the lines of "you can't say Michael Brown was attacking because of the presumption of innocence, which Brown deserves as much as Bill Cosby". I'm guessing he deleted it because it could be read as a defense of Bill Cosby, rather than because it betrays an ignorant misunderstanding of the presumption of innocence.bovarchist wrote:Spoke too soon. Getting into it with Dana Gould, one of the original Simpsons writers.
-
- .
- Posts: 1422
- Joined: Thu Aug 21, 2014 9:41 am
Re: Nerds. Nerds EVERYWHERE...
I'm done with Andy "not Adam" Andy. Pathetic little worm, couldn't come up with a way off the hook in three hours; better off as Zebrafish-food, anyway. In any event, if any of you were holding off, thank you and the pool is back open.
-
- .
- Posts: 1925
- Joined: Sat Mar 23, 2013 6:07 am
Re: Nerds. Nerds EVERYWHERE...
The pool may be open, but the pee is still there ;)
Re: Nerds. Nerds EVERYWHERE...
bovarchist wrote:The pool may be open, but the pee is still there ;)
If the pee is in the pool but no-one feels its warmth, is it still warm? :ugeek:
(Insert old Orange UK wise-man-in-jacuzzi advert here).
-
- .
- Posts: 1925
- Joined: Sat Mar 23, 2013 6:07 am
Re: Nerds. Nerds EVERYWHERE...
The pee ain't yellow, it's chicken.
Now THAT'S epic callback!
Now THAT'S epic callback!
-
- .
- Posts: 3222
- Joined: Sat Jan 26, 2013 5:23 pm
- Location: UK
Re: Nerds. Nerds EVERYWHERE...
At least Andy does not go off on demented diatribes and he seems to possess a sense of humour, rare amongst SJW's. I also feel he may be trolling. He has Oolon written all over him but it is impossible to tell with them so it does not really matter.
As far as I am concerned it is Myers who needs to address Nugents points outside an environment he can't control but he is a coward so he won't. I do not give a damn about Myers though. I like what Nugent is doing because it exposes the moral bankruptcy of SJW's in general.
As far as I am concerned it is Myers who needs to address Nugents points outside an environment he can't control but he is a coward so he won't. I do not give a damn about Myers though. I like what Nugent is doing because it exposes the moral bankruptcy of SJW's in general.
-
- .
- Posts: 2181
- Joined: Wed Jul 04, 2012 3:13 am
Re: Nerds. Nerds EVERYWHERE...
6ft4, 292lb. You're right, Ferguson should have led him home by the ear and told his parents.feathers wrote:Combat?!? An eigtheen-year-old versus a trained police officer is now combat? The heavens forbid that your army should ever have to go to war.AndrewV69 wrote:Something tells me that someone has never fired a gun in a combat situation.
Re: Nerds. Nerds EVERYWHERE...
But if your only resort seems to be lethal force, soon everyone becomes a target. And dead.jugheadnaut wrote:Yes, arguing that the officer was somehow incompetent because the use of his gun resulted in death rather than incapacitation is absurd. The reason why police are given guns is to have a method of lethal force, period. Of course, one can legitimately argue against the policy of police being equipped with weapons of lethal force. But if an officer is equipped with a gun and justifiably uses it in self defense, it's not his fault that death is the outcome.
-
- .
- Posts: 1925
- Joined: Sat Mar 23, 2013 6:07 am
Re: Nerds. Nerds EVERYWHERE...
Yeap, Dana Gould has now deleted EVERY tweet we exchanged, around twenty in all. Guess I can cross kicking the ass of a Simpsons writer off my bucket list.
My favorite part was when he said that I quit watching Simpsons after three seasons because that was when they started using big words. Yeah, people quit watching because the show got too smart. Is pulling my leg considered rape nowadays?
My favorite part was when he said that I quit watching Simpsons after three seasons because that was when they started using big words. Yeah, people quit watching because the show got too smart. Is pulling my leg considered rape nowadays?
-
- .
- Posts: 1422
- Joined: Thu Aug 21, 2014 9:41 am
Re: Nerds. Nerds EVERYWHERE...
Weird question: if I were to tell Andy "not Adam" Andy that every post that he aims at me on MN's blog will be replied to with something making fun of PZ, would that be considered to be something like doxxing?
-
- .
- Posts: 1925
- Joined: Sat Mar 23, 2013 6:07 am
Re: Nerds. Nerds EVERYWHERE...
You make it sound like he saw Wilson jaywalking and just opened fire. For the record, I'd be against that.feathers wrote:But if your only resort seems to be lethal force, soon everyone becomes a target. And dead.jugheadnaut wrote:Yes, arguing that the officer was somehow incompetent because the use of his gun resulted in death rather than incapacitation is absurd. The reason why police are given guns is to have a method of lethal force, period. Of course, one can legitimately argue against the policy of police being equipped with weapons of lethal force. But if an officer is equipped with a gun and justifiably uses it in self defense, it's not his fault that death is the outcome.
Re: Nerds. Nerds EVERYWHERE...
Ruth Hunt of Stonewall on how teh gays in Brunei prefer Sharia:
- Shatterface
http://www.theguardian.com/theguardian/ ... ght-policeWhat gay people in Brunei tell Stonewall, Hunt explains, is that sharia law is in fact much easier for them, because you need witnesses, so fewer will be prosecuted than under the old law. “The important campaigning issues around sharia law in Brunei are actually about women. So posh, rich, white western gays saying: ‘What about the gays in Brunei?’ is singularly the most unhelpful thing we could do.†Activists in Brunei are carefully focusing their campaign against the stoning of women, and the last thing they wanted, Hunt says, was a western gay lobby trying to make Brunei “solely about LGBT issuesâ€. It might have made gays in London feel good about themselves. But all it did in Brunei was “perpetuate the idea that ‘gay’ is a western affliction, and distract from the campaigning goal, which was about stoningâ€. If you can explain that, she laughs drily, “without making me look like Neville Chamberlain, that would be greatâ€.
- Shatterface
-
- .
- Posts: 1422
- Joined: Thu Aug 21, 2014 9:41 am
Re: Nerds. Nerds EVERYWHERE...
My impression is that most of us agree on the if...then statements concerning the use of lethal force, both in Ferguson and Florida. The dispute is whether the trigger conditions (as it were) had been met in each case.
Between getting some work done and replying to Andy "not Adam" Andy, I did a bit more reading - that I should have done before - and I'm coming around to the position that, in Ferguson, there appears to be no convincing evidence against this claim (which is usually sufficient when a cop did the shooting) and there's actually decent positive evidence that the conditions were met. I'd try to use the excuse that I fell for the story that the "mainstream" media was selling, but that would just add another error on top of my first.
Between getting some work done and replying to Andy "not Adam" Andy, I did a bit more reading - that I should have done before - and I'm coming around to the position that, in Ferguson, there appears to be no convincing evidence against this claim (which is usually sufficient when a cop did the shooting) and there's actually decent positive evidence that the conditions were met. I'd try to use the excuse that I fell for the story that the "mainstream" media was selling, but that would just add another error on top of my first.
-
- That's All Folks
- Posts: 2669
- Joined: Tue Jul 03, 2012 8:05 pm
- Location: New Westminster, BC, Canada
Re: Nerds. Nerds EVERYWHERE...
I posted this over at Avi's wee home of intellectual delights (http://freethoughtblogs.com/amilliongod ... nt-1467964). It reflects my current theory regarding the thought processes, as it were, of SJWs.
:think:It is SOP for FTB folks, and most other SJWs, to misrepresent Dawkins (and all other enemies of the SJL state). He is, after all, old, white, cis, rich, and THE ENEMY, and he is also successful, popular, active, influential, intelligent, and a host of other things that most SJWs only dream about ever being.
I used to think that the misrepresentation was simply a reflection of a myopic and profoundly stubborn ideological difference. I have rather recently changed that opinion.
What I now suspect is really going on is that the general SJW mindset is similar to what is posited in some of the recent theories on religiosity, which suggests that there may in fact be some kind of brain damage or mys/malfunction, somewhat related to OCD, that precludes the ability to think clearly, logically, and critically, and thereby actually comprehend what THE ENEMY is actually saying. The damaged mind is beset by chthonic nightmares of a sort of paranoid delusion that, when it once encounters any form of disagreement (and/or encounters an in-group meme of emotional importance), harkens back to a preset group of memes, tropes, and other sets of immovable personal truths and assumptions and in-group socio-cultural definitions.
Of course, I have no proofs, or citations, or other evidences of this theory; it is simply a personal theory based on observation.
-
- .
- Posts: 4740
- Joined: Mon Dec 31, 2012 6:39 pm
Re: Nerds. Nerds EVERYWHERE...
My personal theory, based on my personal feelies, is that you're all bronies.
Re: Nerds. Nerds EVERYWHERE...
I am.another lurker wrote:My personal theory, based on my personal feelies, is that you're all bronies.
http://ih0.redbubble.net/image.12088083 ... 360.u1.png
This page just became 10% cooler.
Re: Nerds. Nerds EVERYWHERE...
I had friends who were police and they are taught not to try to shoot to incapacitate because you will invariably miss and also with (in Australia at least) the low calibre guns police use people tend not to stop when shot they keep coming. Aim for the body and you will hit something.jugheadnaut wrote:Yes, arguing that the officer was somehow incompetent because the use of his gun resulted in death rather than incapacitation is absurd. The reason why police are given guns is to have a method of lethal force, period. Of course, one can legitimately argue against the policy of police being equipped with weapons of lethal force. But if an officer is equipped with a gun and justifiably uses it in self defense, it's not his fault that death is the outcome.bovarchist wrote:Son, if you don't mean to kill, a gun is the wrong weapon to use.feathers wrote:
That implies he meant to kill, rather than maim by shooting in the arm or leg. Ok.
Re: Nerds. Nerds EVERYWHERE...
I had friends who were police and they are taught not to try to shoot to incapacitate because you will invariably miss and also with (in Australia at least) the low calibre guns police use people tend not to stop when shot they keep coming. Aim for the body and you will hit something.jugheadnaut wrote:Yes, arguing that the officer was somehow incompetent because the use of his gun resulted in death rather than incapacitation is absurd. The reason why police are given guns is to have a method of lethal force, period. Of course, one can legitimately argue against the policy of police being equipped with weapons of lethal force. But if an officer is equipped with a gun and justifiably uses it in self defense, it's not his fault that death is the outcome.bovarchist wrote:Son, if you don't mean to kill, a gun is the wrong weapon to use.feathers wrote:
That implies he meant to kill, rather than maim by shooting in the arm or leg. Ok.
-
- .
- Posts: 2118
- Joined: Fri Sep 06, 2013 5:14 pm
Re: Nerds. Nerds EVERYWHERE...
I agree with both of you.katamari Damassi wrote:That's why I trust the grand jury decision. They had information that I and the rioters, protestors, and SJW's did not. Except for PZ because Carrie Poppy told him that Wilson totally raped Brown, before shooting him.Skep tickle wrote:Like any situation in which 2 sides differ vehemently on what happened, there may be at least a grain of truth in each's version. I don't feel like I know enough about the shooting of Michael Brown to come to a conclusion one way or another.
Sure seems like body cameras on cops would allow for a more objective view, after the fact, for both sides or all sides to examine & at least have something firmer to hold onto when trying to discuss what happened.
The privacy intrusion aspect does concern me, though (esp for passersby, those found not to be in violation of any law, etc). There's a discussion planned soon at work about this, as some patients arrive with a police escort, & before too long those escorts may be wearing cameras.
[anecdote so take this with a grain of salt] I recall a traffic stop in Texas that made the news a few years ago. A sweet little old grandmother had gone on TV news to tell the sad tale of how she'd been unjustly assaulted by a police officer...only it turns out the officer's dash-cam had been on the whole time and showed the situation escalating over about 15 minutes as the woman refused to cooperate: she argued with the officer, refused to comply with his requests, threatened to get out her gun (but didn't), then got out of her truck & tried to walk away along the side of the highway, then (as I recall) pushed him when he tried to stop her. At each step he maintained a polite professional demeanor and appeared to only do what he had to do to maintain safety, to try to get her to cooperate, & to use the least force needed to subdue her when she got physical with him. I found the video to be quite impressive in its ability to convey the fly-on-the-wall's view of the event as it unfolded. (And of course it would just as readily have shown the version she told on TV to be accurate, if that's how it had really happened.) [/anecdote]
Body cams seem like a good idea, protects the public from rogue cops and protects cops from accusations of brutality.
Skep tickle is (as usual) right on the money here. There can be truth to multiple sides of the story.
There are several witnesses who saw more or less the whole thing go down, and they essentially agree on the basic order of events but disagree in their interpretations of Wilson's and Brown's intentions.
For example, witnesses agree that when Brown first turned around to face Wilson after being told to "stop," he made some sort of gesture with his hand at his side. Wilson's description of that gesture was that Brown tucked his hand under his shirt at his waist. One witness said that it looked like Brown was maybe pulling his pants up. Another witness's description makes it seem like Brown's gesture had to do with examining or nursing his hand. That last possibility makes the most sense to me, since his thumb had been grazed by a bullet seconds earlier during the tussle at the car. But given everything that had just transpired, it makes perfect sense that Wilson would have taken the gesture as a threat, regardless of Brown's intention.
Witnesses also agree that Brown started moving toward Wilson before Wilson opened fire. Was he "charging"? Or was he approaching slowly as if to surrender? Witnesses disagree on that point, but they agree that Brown started to move forward once again after Wilson's first volley of shots. Was Brown's second (and final) approach "charging"? Or was he stumbling forward because he'd just been shot? I'd guess the latter, but witnesses aren't on the same page with each other about that. The witnesses agree, however, that both of Wilson's volleys came after Brown started moving toward him upon being ordered to stop.
Were Brown's hands up as he approached Wilson? That's unclear, too. Some witnesses say that his hands were "up," but not "all the way" up. But he'd been shot, too, so maybe he was trying to put them all the way up but couldn't? Or maybe he really was "charging" and had his arms in front of him (i.e., not "up")? The conflicting testimony doesn't resolve this.
My guess is that from the grand jury's perspective, Brown's actions leading up to his death (strong-arm robbery, altercation with Wilson at the car) gave Wilson every reason to be on red alert when in pursuit and to interpret Brown's ensuing actions (the gesture, and then approaching Wilson when told to stop) as threatening. Witness testimony supports Wilson's chronology but leaves a lot of room for interpretation of what certain actions meant. And Brown's DNA was all over Wilson's gun, which lends credence to Wilson's description of the events in the car.
I'm pretty ignorant about how grand jury investigations go, though. It's clear that there's not nearly enough evidence to convict Wilson of a crime of malice, so as a non-lawyer I "get" the decision not to prosecute for such a crime. The grand jury's decision suggests that there's not nearly enough evidence to convict him of any actus reus, either, but that leaves me scratching my non-lawyer head a little. When Wilson fired his first volley of shots outside, Brown wasn't very close to him. Witnesses agree on that. I'm kind of surprised that that fact alone doesn't constitute "probable cause" to prosecute Wilson for something—using deadly force unnecessarily. Then again, I don't know the law.
I only hope that the grand jury's decision was based on the evidence and the evidence alone. And I wish more people felt that way.
-
- .
- Posts: 4740
- Joined: Mon Dec 31, 2012 6:39 pm
Re: Nerds. Nerds EVERYWHERE...
I want to shovel snow and install my new SSD, but my kitty is sitting on my neck and I can't move as a result.
Re: Nerds. Nerds EVERYWHERE...
FT ProTip: don't install your SSD in shoveled snow. This has been a public information announcement.another lurker wrote:I want to shovel snow and install my new SSD, but my kitty is sitting on my neck and I can't move as a result.
That is all. Thank you.
-
- .
- Posts: 4740
- Joined: Mon Dec 31, 2012 6:39 pm
Re: Nerds. Nerds EVERYWHERE...
Stop mansplaining!!!!Lsuoma wrote:FT ProTip: don't install your SSD in shoveled snow. This has been a public information announcement.another lurker wrote:I want to shovel snow and install my new SSD, but my kitty is sitting on my neck and I can't move as a result.
That is all. Thank you.
I have to replace my year old SSD - Samsung 840 - because I am getting endless CRC errors and windows won't boot without extensive repair. The confusing thing is, Samsung Magic and SMART report that the drive is 100% healthy. I am at a loss, and not even sure I can RMA it if there are no detectable problems!
-
- .
- Posts: 1422
- Joined: Thu Aug 21, 2014 9:41 am
Re: Nerds. Nerds EVERYWHERE...
Boo hoo. MN has had enough of my fun and games and is now moderating my posts. Oh, well. It was fun while it lasted.
Re: Nerds. Nerds EVERYWHERE...
Greta blocks a black atheist who has an opinion about Ferguson... haha. She's as bad as PZ these days. God damn, I hate these people.
http://barrierbreaker.hubpages.com/hub/ ... evelopment
http://barrierbreaker.hubpages.com/hub/ ... evelopment
-
- .
- Posts: 1422
- Joined: Thu Aug 21, 2014 9:41 am
Re: Nerds. Nerds EVERYWHERE...
Or is a "SJW" a trigger word for Mr. Nugent?
Re: Nerds. Nerds EVERYWHERE...
The drill for anyone with a weapon and serious intent is to "aim for the centre of the seen mass"Michael J wrote: I had friends who were police and they are taught not to try to shoot to incapacitate because you will invariably miss and also with (in Australia at least) the low calibre guns police use people tend not to stop when shot they keep coming. Aim for the body and you will hit something.
Not peripheral appendages.
This too is wisdom from the ages.
-
- .
- Posts: 1495
- Joined: Tue May 20, 2014 9:09 pm
Re: Nerds. Nerds EVERYWHERE...
I'm not sure how you define "very close", but the witness testimony and other evidence all seem to indicate he was no more than 20 feet away when he started moving towards Wilson, and about 4 feet away when the final bullets him. That's easily close enough for Brown to be an immediate threat. I think the idea that the shootings occurred from a significant distance were based on the reports that they occurred a significant distance from the police car. I guess people assumed Wilson was shooting from in or near the car. But he wasn't. He was following Brown ordering him to stop.Guestus Aurelius wrote: When Wilson fired his first volley of shots outside, Brown wasn't very close to him. Witnesses agree on that. I'm kind of surprised that that fact alone doesn't constitute "probable cause" to prosecute Wilson for something—using deadly force unnecessarily. Then again, I don't know the law.
-
- .
- Posts: 1422
- Joined: Thu Aug 21, 2014 9:41 am
Re: Nerds. Nerds EVERYWHERE...
Yep. Followed by: if two in the chest do not put him or her down, switch to the face ... might be wearing a vest.Brive1987 wrote:The drill for anyone with a weapon and serious intent is to "aim for the centre of the seen mass"
Re: Nerds. Nerds EVERYWHERE...
I've no sympathy really, watching them all turn on each other.John D wrote:Greta blocks a black atheist who has an opinion about Ferguson... haha. She's as bad as PZ these days. God damn, I hate these people.
http://barrierbreaker.hubpages.com/hub/ ... evelopment
From the comments below:
It's all about who feels the deepest.Greta established a clear boundary, based on her emotions toward a situation. You chose to violate that boundary. I am surprised that you feel you should be able to do this without consequence. You too have become very emotional over a situation and have expected people to trend lightly around you while you dealt with these emotions.
- Shatterface
-
- That's All Folks
- Posts: 2669
- Joined: Tue Jul 03, 2012 8:05 pm
- Location: New Westminster, BC, Canada
Re: Nerds. Nerds EVERYWHERE...
Oh my. Avi is going on again about being pre-emptively blocked from the Pit. Jesus, when he gets a lie between his papadums, he just cannot let go.
link: http://freethoughtblogs.com/amilliongod ... nt-1468053
link: http://freethoughtblogs.com/amilliongod ... nt-1468053