leh-nerd skin-erd

I'm half convinced after the original post, that SUnoUnoUno should meet legal requirements as well. I hate to talk tough, but when requirements require legal, we have to require more legal regardless of the condolences. Don't get me wrong, I'm not advocating for the same punishment for 3 as for Breanna Taylor and dead Trump Rubber bullet guy, I think Biden is spot on nuts right that we can't have people not facing consequences no matter how dead they are.

If I take him at his word, and using simple rules of grammar...has Joe has called for Breanna Taylor to be charged, along with a call for the dead "Trump guy" in Portland to meet the legal requirements? He literally is producing gibberish. He also has that look at around 1min--that look where an old person knows what they want to say, but time and miles on the coconut keep it just hidden out of easy access---they become frustrated, it's quite noticeable, pause about 3 seconds and then either move on or find the word. Today, he found Kenosha, next time, he might pull up his pineapple.

I generally don't think in overly simplistic terms like "hero" with few exceptions, though I can understand it might make the complicated a bit easier to digest for a person with a tendency toward intolerance, limited imagination and the lack of creative thought. In this case, stepping back from the shots fired, I'd think the officers were heroic in that when the aggrieved party called for assistance, they responded with a clear understanding of the risk to themselves. The reality is that most people, overwhelmingly, would not or could not respond much beyond offering opinions from the comfort of their own home well after the fact. Your characterization of my position reflects poorly on you. It's the lazy person's approach to bigotry...to assume that since you lack the ability to see beyond your own limited experiences, anyone holding a differing opinion must therefore have nefarious intent. From my perch, considering what we know and can see with our own eyes, changing the pigment of each involved party still reveals that there was a call, a response, an attempt to deal with it without violence, a rejection of the offer to resole peacefully, a struggle, an attempt to flee or secure a weapon, a weapon and the neutralization of the threat. Putting myself in the shoes of the officer(s) involved, given all that transpired, the only way I would ever know the threat had passed was after the conflict was over. If you, in a similar situation would choose the passive response, allow the other party to secure the knife, threaten you, maybe stick you in the stomach, certainly that is well within your rights. You simply don't have the right to expect others to share the passive response. I have no idea why you're the lazy bigot, the intolerant human being who hides in the crowd yelling out insults and hatred for people not like you. Maybe life treated you badly. Maybe you caught a few bad breaks. Maybe your parents taught you to be intolerant and you never manned up enough to strike your own way. Maybe you're just naturally inclined to hate. The good news is that you can change, you can grow, and you can learn. It's never too late. Or, you can continue to lob insults as you see fit, like the bully on the corner, but like most bullies, that activity is much more likely to reflect insecurity, weakness and pettiness on your part. In the end, I think the police officer who fired the shots is actually a victim. It's possible, of course, that he set out to shoot someone that day. That seems unlikely given that he didn't summarily fire at the suspect until after the scrum ensued and things got every dicey. Using a rudimentary understanding of Psychology, it seems likely that the act of pulling his weapon and firing it into the suspect, regardless of the desire of the suspect to do him/his associates bodily harm, brings with it serious emotional baggage. God bless.

Welcome back!

Actually, I hadn’t thought about that...the melon popping. Excellent point .

Well, it finally happened, you’ve offended my sensibilities. First, if it was “just what it sounds like” it wouldn’t be called a “blow out”, it would be called something like a “Wablodry, which honestly sounds dirtier than the first one. Then, I find out some places supersize this and it’s basically a thruple at a hair salon, which was intriguing, honestly, even for a man of God like myself. Then you go and mention my Grandma(s) and ruin the whole thing totally. My grandmother on my Mom’s side, by the way, used to say Warshington. She was from Pennsylvania, where I’m told that’s pretty common.

I could roust myself off the couch and go upstairs and ask my wife, but the potential for misunderstanding is high during these tense nights on COVIDedness. What’s a “blow out”? Just someone taking a blow dryer to the noggin?

Or, is it possible, in fact, probable ...lTHAT THERE ARE ONLY TWO STEPS IN THE STAIRCASE OF JUSTICE????! (emphasis added for theatrical effect) It would make things a lot easier.

Personally, I think your argument is what I would expect to hear in a 4th grade classroom. Using your logic, the 15th or 20th or 300th time I saw or read about a black male suspect assaulting a white male victim, I would be forced to assume that there is a systemic and societal epidemic of the sort you see with the police. Yet, here I am, 58 years old, not even a cross word from a black male after all this time. Then again, I could make the same argument that pretty much anyone other than me is out to victimize me, at least based on your cell phone tells the story philosophy. As for “a couple smacks with a baton” theory, that argument is sillier than the first. Your argument is best summarized as you magnanimously would risk the lives of each and every officer involved. FYI a couple smacks with a baton can be fatal. You’re an odd little man. I have no idea what this means.

For once, though, I appreciated the honesty of @Kemp in acknowledging what is painfully obvious...it’s impossible to know what is in the violent individual’s hand as he attempts to flee from a scene of domestic violence where police were implored to show up. It’s reasonable to debate what the officer’s response to a violent individual fighting through the police response and grabbing/grasping/holding some foreign object that could be anything from a handgun to a PB&J crustable to a cell phone. What’s not debatable is that the individuals who provided the response we all would hope to see in the event we were confronted by a violent offender had absolutely no idea what that object was, and in dealing with an unpredictable person in a highly tense situation, acted as if their lives depended on it because their lives depended on it.

So, the police were called to a domestic violence scene, where a terrified woman feared more victimization by a man she alleged to have violently assaulted here previously (in a Bidenesque attack, btw), he resists arrest, fights through being tazed 2x, rushes towards his car door and as a violent suspect, has something in his hand, and from your cushy perch in your layZboy you “have no idea what’s in his hand”....and question why people on the scene feared violence against them? Are you of the mind that the police should assume he was holding an ice cream cone? Should they have let him drive off? Not responded? Backed away when he refused to cooperate?

Good Lord, another link to a Vox short story? Last time you did this, it took two clicks to find a second article the novelist wrote contradicting the one you hung your hat on.

It’s not that he’s the best they can come up with, it’s the one they want in office. He is The Chosen.

Man, the blue wall did a bang up job of cleaning up the excessive force of this arrest. Dubbing in “Show me your hands!” like the officer wasn’t looking to just indiscriminately just take a life, editing it all like the officer was shot, and appealing to our humanity by making it sound like a woman was terrified for her life. I think the social worker crowd has this thing buttoned up in about 3 minutes with “Say pal, what’s got you down today?”. You put a low key guy in a soothing blue shirt, sleeves rolled up mid-forearm, and khaki pants with lime green crocs, no way there is any trouble. No raised voices, no hurt feelings, nothing. I see it now. God bless the officers involved.

As I’ve said many times Sect, I’m a simple guy. I reject the notion that I need data beyond what’s readily available to come to a reasonable conclusion. I’m not the harbinger of doom suggesting church gatherings of 15 socially distanced and masked protests create unreasonable risk where gatherings of 25,000 people gathered in close proximity do not, masked or not. I’m not the one suggesting haircuts posed a clear and present danger to humanity, or that thousands of protestors somehow magically appear masked and virus free at a protest. I’ll say it again—- people come to protest via all means of transport, touching and interacting with many people along the way. They talk, they sleep, they eat, they consume, they cry, they rage, they defecate and more than likely urinate wherever possible. They likely boink like the dickens too, mostly because that is what people do. I did not defend Sturgis, I’m not defending Sturgis now. I simply applied the logic that ultimately, to gather or not gather is largely a political decision, not a medical one. That leads to believe we have been bamboozled on a massive scale, or, in the alternative, political leaders in support of shutdowns for gyms but massive protests for individuals are all about culling the herd. If large protests are not dangerous, it stands to reason that large rally’s are not.

Interestingly, he’s willing to risk many, many more lives in pursuit of his own personal gain. He’s one of the architects of a few hundred people getting together repeatedly over 6 months in a blood sport that encourages extremely close contact and the exchange of massive amounts of bodily fluids.

Welp, you made the initial point, in my opinion it was an overly simplistic version of “Why can’t we all just get along” which for most people means “ Do what I want and we’ll get along”. Your question about protests v Sturgis is reasonable, and I’m happy to address it. Had the call for a total lockdown been observed strictly, I would be bagging on the Sturgis crowd. The fact is that long before Sturgis, there were mass gatherings of people across the country. There was precious little outcry at the mass gatherings, while those with the inside scoop suggested a family Memorial Day gathering of 11+ was exceptionally dangerous, and that gathering together to celebrate the life of someone lost was the beginning of the end of civilization. On the other hand, Home Depot and the like we’re wide open for business, subject to a max of 50 so folks could buy their petunias and tomato seeds for the backyard garden. As for the data set, I’m not sure what you’re seeing. Infection rate and death count increased in conjunction with the mass gatherings. Is that not true? Anyway, I’m 100% comfortable with lawful and non-violent protest. I have friends who I disagree with on issues that protest, I respect many of the people who stand for a cause. IMO, though, it seems silly to debate 10,000+ people being extremely dangerous on one hand and suggesting the wings of butterflies above another crowd of 10,000 creates a containment zone that is COVID free.

And...a whole lotta buncha folks who thought they had the moral high ground are lining up to pull the lever for JoeBo. He’s literally the villain Trump was portrayed to be when they were swooning these last several years. It’s absolutely priceless.

I reject your speculation. We’ve never gone full measure, no one supports full measure, and we’ll never know anything about anything because it’s all based on speculation, not reality. Using the logic dictated by the fear mongers, the reality is protestors caused many, many, many deaths, likely the majority of deaths in the country.

Rest easy in the knowledge that The Hero of Humanity will soon be here to save us all. Your boy Joe will shut it all down, mask us all up, and save us all. For the those with guaranteed jobs and income funded by the taxpayer, good fortune will come in the form of business as usual and absent the pesky concerns about how to pay for trivial things like a mortgage, car payment, electricity, and food. For others, those who see businesses and their life work destroyed by the perpetually shifting narrative that COVID kills unless people are outside burning sh:t down, good fortune means that as their financial prospects dwindle, their children go to bed hungry and they become desperate, websites like Craigslist exist for them to dispose of their meager possessions. in that regard, the entitled probably can score some pretty good stuff at pennies on the dollar. The only question Transpy is whether one is a “have” or “have not”. Which one are ya, Transpy?

Not always. She's pretty comfortable with a man sexually assaulting a woman, but only so long as it's the right type of man (rich, powerful, connected and with something to offer her) and the victim is disposable. That's basically politiking in the Kennedy mode, and while it does show progress in the American political landscape in that traditionally disenfranchised people were not afforded that sort of hypocrisy, why on earth would you support that type of progress?

Your assumption is that every interaction between a hostile civilian ends and a police officer ends in death for the hostile civilian? This is beyond moronic. There are a number of variables that are demonstrably different between Blake and the jackass in the video shown. These include, geez, I don’t know...different scenarios, different locations, and different people.

Which points to the whole problem with sending well-intentioned but overmatched social workers to respond to DV complaints. Honestly, I’d think the average local police officer would choose to avoid DV calls 100/100 times save for the ability to help a victim out of a difficult and dangerous situation. The desire to recreate the narrative is really fascinating.

He’s a brilliant entertainer in the sense he pushes buttons and has some folks off quoting him as if it matters. They see his brilliance and recognize that in spite of nearly 4 decades of saying whatever pushes his ratings or furthers his career, THIS time he’s being completely vulnerable and candid. Interestingly, during the 2016 election, when “DJT as President” made people laugh, he spoke highly of him and supported his candidacy. It’s like, suddenly something changed. (Hint: it didn’t, just recognize the pattern) Howard Stern, statesman. ?

Your point as laid out in your original post reflected arrogance typical of bigots throughout history. Your attempt at characterization of the 60,000,000 (and growing) supporters of President Trump ignores the breadth of life experiences, issues of particular importance that may have lead them to support him, and paints a racial profile that works only when you’re communicating with the dim witted. I listened to Howard Stern faithfully back in the days of WNBC. I laughed at many of the jokes, enjoyed it when he pushed the boundaries of good taste, and on occasion shut him off when he went too far for me. One thing I never confused him with was a purveyor of factual information or as a wisened old sage that I should look to for guidance. But, if Houch is your go-to, have at it.