US Politics Thread

[Kieran]

Actually, "assault with a deadly weapon" would be determined by a judge/jury. If she intended to hit him, it would be that. If she didn't, it would more likely be "reckless endangerment," and you did say above, I believe, that maybe yes, maybe no? If you're going to argue this in the court of the internet, at least try to understand the law. As to the 3 shots, and your comment above that it "can be argued." It likely will be, along with her intent, in a court, unless the Fed buries it, which is at LEAST as likely as it going to trial. But, as a few posters, and a lawyer whose comments I posted above, have said, the 2nd and 3rd shots are the ones that are going to be a lot harder to defend.

I’m sure you’re very familiar with the law, though I suspect you’re not so impartial in interpreting it. Perhaps the unfortunate officer should have waited until she stood up in court and reliably asserted the truth of her benevolent intentions when she recklessly hit him with a car, before shooting her?

However, he was hit by the reckless driver who had clearly seen him before she moved and ran into him regardless of his safety. Make of that what you will, and I know what you will make of that. He had good reason to believe that her intention was to escape and if she had to go through him, then f**k him, he’s only law enforcement. They’re subhuman Nazis, to the left.

As for his three shots, that indeed will be argued, including his intentions, which I’m sure will include the ensured safety of others, including his fellow agents.

But more importantly, do you agree with me about the word AGREE which you blatantly misinterpreted above but haven’t addressed, that we agree that this one will run forever, or do you agree that you still disagree, but don’t agree you’ll point out why?

 

[Moxie]

I’m sure you’re very familiar with the law, though I suspect you’re not so impartial in interpreting it. Perhaps the unfortunate officer should have waited until she stood up in court and reliably asserted the truth of her benevolent intentions when she recklessly hit him with a car, before shooting her?

However, he was hit by the reckless driver who had clearly seen him before she moved and ran into him regardless of his safety. Make of that what you will, and I know what you will make of that. He had good reason to believe that her intention was to escape and if she had to go through him, then f**k him, he’s only law enforcement. They’re subhuman Nazis, to the left.

As for his three shots, that indeed will be argued, including his intentions, which I’m sure will include the ensured safety of others, including his fellow agents.

But more importantly, do you agree with me about the word AGREE which you blatantly misinterpreted above but haven’t addressed, that we agree that this one will run forever, or do you agree that you still disagree, but don’t agree you’ll point out why?

Dude, read what you just wrote above, and tell me I'm the one who's not impartial. All I did was clarify for you that by hitting him she didn't automatically commit aggravated assault. I'm no lawyer, but I know there is a difference, and the measure is intent. And which point, with Federberg, if you didn't agree, you did back off. All I ever get from you is attack, guns blazing. Even when all I point out is something technical, as above. TBH, it hurts my feelings. That was my point.

 

[Kieran]

Dude, read what you just wrote above, and tell me I'm the one who's not impartial. All I did was clarify for you that by hitting him she didn't automatically commit aggravated assault. I'm no lawyer, but I know there is a difference, and the measure is intent. And which point, with Federberg, if you didn't agree, you did back off. All I ever get from you is attack, guns blazing. Even when all I point out is something technical, as above. TBH, it hurts my feelings. That was my point.

Sorry, @Moxie that’s the opposite to what I was trying to achieve here. Let’s call pax and leave it there, ok? We have too much in common in important things - tennis, films, culture, places we’d been - to irritate each other senselessly over the most senseless thing of all, politics.

 

[Federberg]

 

[Federberg]

oh FFS!

 

[Federberg]

set aside the politics... that statistical adjustment is INSANE!!

 

[Moxie]

set aside the politics... that statistical adjustment is INSANE!!

Did you make any effort to find out if it was actually true?

 

[Federberg]

Did you make any effort to find out if it was actually true?

Is this a roundabout way of telling me it's not true?

 

[mrzz]

Countries I bet that have a higher murder rate than the us (excluding war thorn countries), from the top of my head giving almost zero thought to it:

Brazil
Haiti
South Africa
Bolivia
Philippines
Venezuela
Mexico
Honduras
Morroco

After I compiled the list I checked a few sources, I got it most of them right, but one thing one can see is that there are a lot of different numbers out there. Any list that excluded Brazil I considered unreliable. Brazil is historically violent, places like São Paulo and Rio have statistics that compare to war thorn countries. This is one of the few things that left and right agree about here. Nobody would believe anything different, anyways.

Having said that, I believe the argument that US statistics would be heavily tilted by the big cities, which I guess it is the case all over the world. I wouldn't say that it is gun ownership that drives this, but actually that this model of giant megalopolis is a recipe for disaster. Of course, soft approaches to crime contribute to the disaster.

 

[Federberg]

hmmm...

 

[Moxie]

Is this a roundabout way of telling me it's not true?

No, it was a straightforward question, since you did declare it "insane." Mrzz was exploring it, a bit. Just curious, as there are probably several ways to compare those statistics, wherever they got them.

 

[Federberg]

No, it was a straightforward question, since you did declare it "insane." Mrzz was exploring it, a bit. Just curious, as there are probably several ways to compare those statistics, wherever they got them.

happy for you to refute it if you think it's wrong. The rest is just tiresome to be honest. I didn't even make it about politics. Just the stats. Seemed insane to me I actually thought Memphis was one of the most dangerous cities, but what do I know... or frankly care

 

[Federberg]

Sadly I don't believe they have the balls...

 

[Moxie]

happy for you to refute it if you think it's wrong. The rest is just tiresome to be honest. I didn't even make it about politics. Just the stats. Seemed insane to me I actually thought Memphis was one of the most dangerous cities, but what do I know... or frankly care

If you don't care, then why post it? Memphis IS one of the top 3 cities with the highest per capita murder rate. That claim they made was not just "insane," it was untraceable, and if one does try to delve into it, probably just wrong. You say you didn't make it about politics, but the guys who were podcasting it obviously were, so you might have taken that as a red flag. I've tried to explore it from a few angles, but there isn't even a statistic where I can find the US as the 3rd highest, so it's hard to know where they are coming from. I know you're better than to just go for every bit of "click bait." This one was really poor.

 

[Federberg]

If you don't care, then why post it? Memphis IS one of the top 3 cities with the highest per capita murder rate. That claim they made was not just "insane," it was untraceable, and if one does try to delve into it, probably just wrong. You say you didn't make it about politics, but the guys who were podcasting it obviously were, so you might have taken that as a red flag. I've tried to explore it from a few angles, but there isn't even a statistic where I can find the US as the 3rd highest, so it's hard to know where they are coming from. I know you're better than to just go for every bit of "click bait." This one was really poor.

I’ve told you before you’re not the queen of this place, get over yourself. Any reasonable person would just have said they didn’t believe the clip, but you just can’t help yourself

 

[Federberg]

This is incredible!

 

[lomaha]

This is incredible!

The man refuse på listen to reason and facts. The Norwegian Government has nothing to do with choosing the recipiants of the Nobel Prize ffs.
And does he think Denmark is a part of Norway or?

 

[Moxie]

I’ve told you before you’re not the queen of this place, get over yourself. Any reasonable person would just have said they didn’t believe the clip, but you just can’t help yourself

Oh, now you're just being pissy because you couldn't see through what was obviously a biased POV, and probably made-up stats.

 

[Moxie]

The man refuse på listen to reason and facts. The Norwegian Government has nothing to do with choosing the recipiants of the Nobel Prize ffs.
And does he think Denmark is a part of Norway or?

He probably doesn't know there's a difference. LOL.

But seriously, he really does talk like a mafioso. '...Since you didn't give me that Nobel Peace Prize, I've really got no reason to be peaceful anymore, now do I?' (paraphrasing)

Also, he doesn't seem to get the irony of the President of the United States asking anyone what right do they have to "ownership" of their land.

That ambassador must have been mortified to have to convey that message.

 

[Federberg]

Oh, now you're just being pissy because you couldn't see through what was obviously a biased POV, and probably made-up stats.

nope. Sorry but no. Not in the least bit pissy. I actually find your school monitor mode hilarious, or let me be a bit clearer, I find your inability to stop doing it funny. I enjoy calling it out. Step away from yourself