ulyssessword
No bio...
User ID: 308
ulyssessword
1d ago
Ford. They fixed it in later model years, but still. I'm kind of with you on that now.
ulyssessword
1d ago
For some of the people confused about why Minneapolis is such a big deal still, it's not a scissor event, it's a mask off moment and puzzling how some people aren't just reasonably disagreeing, but out of their fucking minds.
From Sort By Controversial:
If you just read a Scissor statement off a list, it’s harmless. It just seems like a trivially true or trivially false thing. It doesn’t activate until you start discussing it with somebody. At first you just think they’re an imbecile. Then they call you an imbecile, and you want to defend yourself. Crescit eundo. You notice all the little ways they’re lying to you and themselves and their audience every time they open their mouth to defend their imbecilic opinion. Then you notice how all the lies are connected, that in order to keep getting the little things like the Scissor statement wrong, they have to drag in everything else.
You're exactly describing a Scissor Statement. From your view, it's not just true, it's trivially true, and you're pointing at people who are (inconceivably) holding the opposite view.
Everything is no longer fine; the system is breaking; its replacement would only be worse; beware of helping it along.
At least you aren't at this part:
How do you know there’s not an issue out there where, if you knew it, you would agree it would be better to just nuke the world and let us start over again from the sewer mutants, rather than let the sort of people who would support it continue to pollute the world with their presence?
ulyssessword
1d ago
Companies increasingly recognize that any small "lifehacks" or perk can be monetized,
My new car doesn't have cruise control, because I didn't think to check or choose the $2000 upgraded trim package (not that I could. It was used.).
ulyssessword
4d ago
At least Bush had 9/11. That justifies breaking some campaign promises IMO.
ulyssessword
5d ago
Well, not anymore, but you could have maintained a charitable stance right up to the end of his trial.
ulyssessword
5d ago
I mean if you hit somebody with a car you are always gonna be at least in jeopardy...
Then don't do that. Or if it's unavoidable, argue the point and easily win in court.
ulyssessword
5d ago
What's preventing good drivers from avoiding charges? As far as I can tell, the drivers can simply drive well and not get charged with anything.
I'm not seeing it. If you're going to blame the police for creating a speed trap that constrains how people can drive, then you might as well blame construction workers for creating a work zone for the same reason.
ulyssessword
5d ago
they can't convert every situation
That wasn't my claim. I'm saying there's none, ever. Either the suspect chose to assault the officer by their own free will (constrained by the situation, of course), or there was nothing a reasonable person could have done and it wasn't a justified shooting.
ulyssessword
5d ago
Have you ever heard of a situation where a driver was:
- Not at fault in a normal-driving-sense for what they did, and
- Criminally responsible for assault or some similar charge.
That seems completely backwards both for the elements of the offenses and the levels of proof required. Needless to say, I've never heard of it happening, and I'm having a hard time imagining it outside of cartoonish logic.
ulyssessword
5d ago
How many federal countries are there / have there been in history when the federal element had the ability to control the states but refused to do so?
Does fucking around so hard that they completely fail at their responsibilities and the Provinces take over international diplomacy and trade count? That was Canada under Trudeau for a while. Same with Saskatchewan unilaterally deciding it wouldn't pay the Carbon Tax on home heating.
ulyssessword
6d ago
I don't see anything inconsistent with "It was valid self defense, and the person who was shot did not commit a crime to trigger it." It doesn't apply here (she shouldn't have obstructed the street or resisted arrest or fled or drove at the officer), but honest misunderstandings can have tragic outcomes with nobody at fault.
ulyssessword
6d ago
To my eye, it looked like a failed three-point turn. She started forwards with her wheels to the left, but turned them continuously rightwards as she went. This angle (from here) is the best I saw.
and that usually in these situations the LEO has put himself in front of the vehicle.
Did that happen in this case? All three angles are ambiguous, but it looks like he was off to the passenger side, she backed up and lined up with him, then she drove forwards and almost avoided him.
EDIT: nevermind. Fourth angle shows it better.
ulyssessword
6d ago
The problem is that the police can convert actual fleeing into threats to the police through their own actions
No, they can't. They can remove the option of fleeing-without-conflict, but that's all. She chose to drive at the officer when she could've chosen to stop.
Are you going to claim that the police can convert a normal walk to the grocery store into assault on an officer through their own actions as well?
ulyssessword
6d ago
It doesn't even need to be a car. Imagine a suspect is running away on foot. If the officer is off to the side or behind, they aren't justified in shooting. If they're in front, they can probably shoot the person charging at them.
I don't believe that suspects have the right to an escape route or that the police are bloodthirsty enough to manufacture an excuse to kill random people, so I don't have the same conflicted feelings as you.
2000 (with more on the way), or about one per 50-60 illegal immigrants. Compare that to the UK police's one officer per 400 residents, most of whom aren't of interest to the police.
More options
Context Copy link