Blake was under lawful arrest, and was fleeing, which makes him a fleeing felon. Police can use lethal force to protect themselves or the public from immediate harm.
There were children in the car, and Blake was holding a knife. If the police has not used force to stop Blake, he could have taken the children hostage, or he could have used the knife on the children.
While this is right, it doesn't fully explain it. Police can use lethal force to protect themselves or the public from immediate harm if they're carrying a weapon or something along those lines to show that they have the ability to commit such harm. Given the fact that he was holding a knife and entering a car with children, I think it'd be fair to say that he could have presented harm to them. People discussing the amount of shots or anything like that don't understand what you're supposed to do when you're shooting someone. You NEVER shoot to wound, you shoot to kill. You continue to shoot until the person stops moving. That's how this goes. We'll see how this plays out in the court though. I think the officers will be let off (if charges arise, not sure if they have yet though) |
|
|
|
It's equally crazy how I've debunked your "I can't breathe" nonsense about 10 times yet you keep repeating it as if it holds any weight. Floyd screeching he couldn't breathe before he even went to the ground makes his words meaningless. We have the video and the autopsy. He was screaming at the top of his lungs for 6 minutes and lifting his head up numerous times. He could breathe.
Symptoms leading to a cardiac arrest may include chest pains and shortness of breath. Sure Floyd wasn't able to diagnose himself perfectly and called it how he felt it ("I can't breathe") but it's quite ridiculous to call it meaningless. Flailing and screaming in these circumstances is not surprising and I'm sure all this will be looked at during the trial, including what effect the restraint had on it. Dismissing anything he said or did outright because Floyd was a "criminal" (suspect really at that point... suspected of passing a fake note) is wrong. +1 to that. Not sure why people are fine with saying 'well he had priors and he was a shitty person in his everyday life' While that may be true, it's not a reason to murder someone. Like shit imagine if you had the misfortune of commiting a crime when you were younger, maybe even something heinous, and now you're trying to get your life back on track. You end up getting pulled over for a traffic violation and are taken out of the car and murdered b/c of your priors and whatever. You shouldn't be able to be killed by a LEO for doing nothing. I understand instances of self defense and things along those lines, but this wasn't self defense. This was murder. No amount of justifying will change that. |
|
|
|
Climate change is real, and is caused by man. The evidence is overwhelming. I think most people (and many forum members) do believe this, it's just that the evidence is so overwhelming, that relatively few bother to engage with climate-skeptics. Similar to how relatively few people try to argue with anti-vaxxers or flat-earthers. The question has been settled. Those who can't see the evidence or disagree with it will never be convinced by data, empirical evidence, facts. The thing that I find strange is that they view whatever crap the fossil-fuel lobbyists come out with as unbiased and impartial. There is close to a universal consensus amongst climate scientists - 97% agree that humans have caused recent global warming. For those who don't want to look at the data, or prefer extremely selective evidence that confirms their own viewpoint, then the EDF has a simple nine point summary of how we know that humans are the cause: - Simple chemistry – When we burn carbon-based materials, carbon dioxide (CO2) is emitted (research beginning in the 1900s).
- Basic accounting of what we burn, and therefore how much CO2 we emit (data collection beginning in the 1970s).
- Measuring CO2 and other greenhouse gases in the atmosphere and trapped in ice to find they are increasing, with levels higher than anything we've seen in nearly a million years (measurements beginning in the 1950s).
- Chemical analysis of the atmospheric CO2 that reveals the increase is coming from burning fossil fuels (research beginning in the 1950s).
- Basic physics that shows us that CO2 absorbs heat (research beginning in the 1820s).
- Monitoring climate conditions to find that the air, sea and land is warming, as we would expect with rising greenhouse gas emissions; as a response, ice is melting and sea level is rising (research beginning in the 1930s).
- Ruling out natural factors that can influence climate like the sun and ocean cycles (research beginning in the 1830s).
- Employing computer models to run experiments of natural versus human-influenced simulations of Earth (research beginning in the 1960s).
- Consensus among scientists who consider all previous lines of evidence and make their own conclusions (polling beginning in the 1990s).
+1 to a lot of this. People don't engage with climate skeptics b/c of the sheer amount of data they'd have to provide to refute their points. It's just not something that people want to do when they can quickly just say -- the EARTH IS ROUND AND VACCINES DONT GIVE YOU AUTISM. I personally am not sure, at this point, if we'd be able to walk back some of the issues relating to pollution by instantly changing now -- but I do think it is important to note that all of this is happening. Not sure how crazy society would have to change to bring us to no more warming too. |
|
|
|
The whole lockdown thing is being used to change society in different ways. It is NOT being used to protect against a virus pandemic.  Yes, it is NOT being used to protect against the pandemic. Most of people will have contact with the virus in any way. The purpose of lockdown is unloading of medicine system. Isn't that a way to protect against the pandemic though? Open up slowly to take the pressure off of the healthcare system, and open up smart while keeping science in mind. We also learn more and more as we open slowly. We learn what exactly makes COVID spread, who is the most at risk, and what should be done to ensure that while we're reopening people are safe. So yeah, I don't think there is anything wrong with opening up slowly after a pandemic came in and infected/killed tons of people. |
|
|
|
Interesting? Yes. Memorable? Yes. Controversial? Totally. Is it going to happen? Totally not. The intelligence community would kill him faster then they killed Kennedy. The last thing the IC wants is people being emboldened to talk about all the horrible shit that they do all the time without any oversight. He's not going to do it, it's just a regular Trump think of having breaking news be so crazy all the time that we have fatigue. |
|
|
|
What Trump has done is nothing more than the continuation of a completely different policy towards China than the one that existed before. Those who follow this board know that India has done the same thing, with the difference that they banned as many as 59 Chinese apps. Conflicts between great powers have always existed, and what is actually changing is the way they play out - and now it is more than clear that the war has moved into the digital domain. As far as I am concerned, it is much better than a conventional war where people lose their lives, lose their property or become refugees.
On the other hand, if it turns out to be true that some US companies really want to buy these apps, then the policy directly helps to reduce the value of those companies before the sale happens. Again, from the position of a remote observer, I don't see much logic in banning such apps - except perhaps banning their use in places important to national security (security agencies, the Ministry of Defense, the White House).
The average Joe who uses TikTok at school, a fast food restaurant or in his apartment can't really endanger national security.
I think the problem for a country like the US is what China would be able to do with American data and what they would use that for. Would they potentially use it to sway Presidential elections or to push pro china policies in the US as they have the eyes and ears of the American voter? (I mean at least the younger generation on TIKTOK) So that's the reason that the Trump admin is pushing them out of the US, collecting data on US people is something that the US only wants done by OUR companies. Another addition to this thread, seems like a few more companies have joined into the bidding for TikTok. Microsoft, Walmart, Twitter, and some others. |
|
|
|
Let the free market handle it and keep the government out of it..
I wonder how many government incentives and laws their are there making the wind turbines even remotely competitive..
AFAIK US federal subsidies for wind power are being phased out and even without subsidies wind farms are typically competitive with natural gas and cheaper than solar or coal. Natural gas has subsidies too BTW. So much for free market. Still waiting for big boy nuclear to begun being used again. If everyone was able to think rationally we'd be able to have power for such a cheap cost it'd be disgusting, but no -- that's not going to happen ever since everyone watched that Netflix documentary about Chernobyl. But here's some info on subsidies for different parts of the energy sector - https://blogs.ei.columbia.edu/2019/09/23/energy-subsidies-renewables-fossil-fuels/ - renewables have been risen and then fallen drastically over the last 10 or so years. I'm not personally too sure on the claims of renewables (in your example, specifically wind) being able to compete with Natl Gas and so on. But yeah, seems like renewables are going to have to innovate b/c the tap on government money has stopped (and will most likely stay stopped if Trump stays in office) |
|
|
|
Again with this shit against private businesses. If Goodyear wants to mandate certain attire standards they can. If they wanted everyone to wear MAGA hats that'd be fine too. If some MAGAts want to "boycott" Goodyear while simultaneously bitching about cancel culture - more power to them. The tire shop will probably put Dunlop on and charge them extra for the privilege.
Totally agree with that. If a private business wants to do something like this, they have the right to as they want to control what exactly their customers see and what their customers associate with the brand. Might not be the best idea for your employees to be wearing all different political affiliation hats and leaving a bad taste in customers mouths b/c they think that Goodyear is okay with this. But yeah, private can do as they please. But boycotting them is fine too. Nothing wrong there. I'm pretty sure this whole situation didn't come down from corporate. Unless I read something wrong here, totally possible. |
|
|
|
Can you please explain why someone would not vote for someone because they don’t like sharks?
They're killing the seals because the sharks are coming to eat the seals and end up eating some people as well. It seems like he read a couple sentences of a report or only had part of the situation explained to him, and then kind of made up the rest in his head and then decided to speak about it publicly. He does that kind of thing often, unfortunately, and I think it's one reason Biden is emerging as the a presidential candidate with the most bipartisan support in modern history. I don't think the Biden campaign is going to end up as the most bipartisan in modern history once the election comes around. This race is going to continue and continue to tighten as people start to notice -- oh shit, this is actually happening. It'll continue to tighten as Trump is having some things work for him. The stock market is roaring back again, meaning that the big 401k group of voters are going to vote for him again -- they're happy as they're back on track for retirement. Places are opening up and people are going back to work, which means the economy is pulling itself back together. Not sure why Trump made this statement though, kinda dumb. Not sure who the fuck cares about what someone thinks about sharks. |
|
|
|
Always some opinion hit piece to counter anything and everything positive Trump.. They employ a lot of people making sure if it..
You could argue the opposite of that as well. If you are to go to Fox, WSJ Opinion, The Blaze, and so on you'd find tons of OP-ED'S saying that every move Trump does is good and every move that the Dems make is bad. sThat's the opinion section for the WSJ, the rest of the site I respect as being fine though. People in news pander to their audience, on both sides of the aisle. |
|
|
|
Trump tries to cancel Goodyear, Backfires, Biden campaign releases ad capitalizing on the situation. Thoughts? Where I heard of the story: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=m6JyFb3_85E(Secular Talk on YouTube, Kyle Kulinski Show and one of my favorites. Kyle is honest, funny, and very sharp. He is extremely progressive and probably to the left of most people here on the forum) I think that this gives biden a little advantage, but it's all still up in the air. If you asked me who'd win 6 months ago, I'd say Trump vs Biden, Trump would win. Trump vs Bernie, Bernie would win. But now I'm not so sure. I think Trump is slightly more likely to win than biden by a hair. My takeway is that Trump really likes to play up conspiracy theories. He is exposing himself as a hypocrite right here. He talks about fake news but he is lying to the American people all for his own benefit and against American interests. It borders on treasonous. If the details are the way I understand them, Goodyear has to sue Trump for defamation or whatever. Edit: Forgot closing parenthesis ")" Looks like Goodyear wants to have their cake and eat it too. They affirm the policy that BLM is okay but ALL or BLUE LIVES MATTER is not allowed. Rather, Goodyear said in the aforementioned statements that its “zero tolerance” policy allows workers to express support on equity issues, but also that it asks employees not to express support for political campaigns or to advocate for issues that fall “outside the scope” of equity issues. https://www.snopes.com/news/2020/08/19/goodyear-forbid-maga-gear/They won't get my business. Hm. Within this very source it seems like Goodyear Corporate wasn't the one who put out this information regarding BLM is acceptable but not MAGA. There is some info here talking about how federal employees could support BLM (by wearing a BLM shirt) but not wear a MAGA shirt, at work, as it is obviously a political slogan. The memo (from snopes) references that the same treatment would've been present if a federal employee wore a shirt with a slogan of Clinton 'Forever Together' Not really sure what exactly is being argued about here. There were allegations against Goodyear and they seem to be unsubstantiated. |
|
|
|
You left out the fact that he was waiving a knife around.
Not a fact. At least not as of right now. The officers could be heard telling Blake to drop the knife. That alone is strong evidence he had a knife. I'm honestly curious, why do you keep doing this? I know that you're intelligent and more than capable of thinking and behaving logically. When you said "You left out the fact that he was waiving a knife around.", did you actually believe it was a fact? Do you really think your response to nutildah justifies your claim that it was a fact? It seems like you're doing this kind of thing more and more frequently. You have my word, if you ever admit you said something inacurate for whatever reason, I'll just drop it. Stuff like Never bring it up again. Everyone messes up and things are complicated right now - adding more bullshit on top won't fix anything. (And I'm not talking about trolling or being sarcastic) Agree with all of this. It is NOT a fact at all that a knife was being waved around. There are reports of a knife being found in his car after it was searched, but that is all that is being found as of right now. This investigation will continue, and another angel of reporting may come out so that'd be interesting as well. - https://www.fox6now.com/news/doj-identifies-officer-who-shot-jacob-blake-says-knife-was-recovered-from-floorboard |
|
|
|
Perhaps democrats are out of touch but I find it interesting that Don Lemon of CNN just now recognizes that polling number show people don't support these rioters and looters. As if we needed poll numbers to confirm this. https://thehill.com/homenews/media/513742-cnns-lemon-warns-of-democratic-blind-spot-on-riots-it-shows-up-in-the-pollingI'll be fair and make a good faith assumption that most democrats obviously don't support these rioters and looters, but I haven't seen democratic politicians condemn them on strong terms either, or act on whatever condemnation they given with substantive action (like supporting law enforcement in arresting these rioters and providing them the resources to do so). Makes sense, this is actually something that the GOP is trying to capitalize on right now with suburban voters which is the group of voters that they have been losing for sometime now. 2018 showed that the GOP needed better messaging or they were going to not have much of a chance against the Dems in the coming years. This is the point that they're going to drive home, and this is something that reasonates with people. Talk about the horrible crime that occurs, get some videos and display them of people being knocked out by rioters, show burning buildings / cars, etc. That sort of storyline is what they're aiming to go down this election cycle, they want suburban voters to think that if Biden is elected then this sort of madness will spread from the urban areas into the suburban areas -- a very scary thing to tell voters. Poll numbers agree with the GOP here, and if they do proper messaging on this then they may walk away with a win in November. It's more a matter of Republicans successfully spinning it than Democrats not actually caring. Trumps just using the old 'say it over and over again till eventually people will believe you and start to repeat it' trick, and it's working. Protests = Riots, Dems support protests therefor Dems support Riots therefor if Biden wins the whole country will look like Afghanistan in 2005 so Vote for Trump unless you want that to happen. In reality Democrats have denounced many of the things Trump says they support, Biden has been explicitly against the whole defund the police movement from the beginning, and Trump is going out of his way to piss people off. I don't know if I fully agree with the fact that Democrats are denouncing the rioters (not disagreeing with the Trump allegations though) It seems as if they want to ignore the fact that there are some rioters in the midst of these protesters, using this as a time to destroy / steal as much as you possibly could. Republicans are spinning it, yes, like anything else. They're trying to make it seem worse then it actually is, but some of those horrible videos do truly speak for themselves in regards to seeing how horrible some of the destruction is and how devastating it is to people / businesses. Showing those videos is a way to get voters to come out and vote. But that's just my view on all of this, heh. |
|
|
|
Perhaps democrats are out of touch but I find it interesting that Don Lemon of CNN just now recognizes that polling number show people don't support these rioters and looters. As if we needed poll numbers to confirm this. https://thehill.com/homenews/media/513742-cnns-lemon-warns-of-democratic-blind-spot-on-riots-it-shows-up-in-the-pollingI'll be fair and make a good faith assumption that most democrats obviously don't support these rioters and looters, but I haven't seen democratic politicians condemn them on strong terms either, or act on whatever condemnation they given with substantive action (like supporting law enforcement in arresting these rioters and providing them the resources to do so). Makes sense, this is actually something that the GOP is trying to capitalize on right now with suburban voters which is the group of voters that they have been losing for sometime now. 2018 showed that the GOP needed better messaging or they were going to not have much of a chance against the Dems in the coming years. This is the point that they're going to drive home, and this is something that reasonates with people. Talk about the horrible crime that occurs, get some videos and display them of people being knocked out by rioters, show burning buildings / cars, etc. That sort of storyline is what they're aiming to go down this election cycle, they want suburban voters to think that if Biden is elected then this sort of madness will spread from the urban areas into the suburban areas -- a very scary thing to tell voters. Poll numbers agree with the GOP here, and if they do proper messaging on this then they may walk away with a win in November. |
|
|
|
...
It feels like a conundrum trying to figure out what's really going on when it comes to Israel or Muslims in the middle east.
...
It 'feels' pretty straightforward to me: Zionists are engaged in ethnic cleansing of the 'promised lands' roughly in accordance with the 'Yinon plan'. Using their various influence in the U.S. they are shaking us down for money and bullet-stoppers in order to do it. Until your last post I would've thought you'd be more inclined to go with xenophobic anti-muslim rhetoric. At the end of the day the people in power on both sides are spreading hate and doing really shitty things causing millions of innocent people to suffer. Israel is the one getting what they want for the moment thanks to Trump, so I have more empathy for the Palestinians getting treated like a punching bag. I think it's important for us to all note that Trump isn't doing out of the kindest of his heart about people in Israel, he's doing this because he knows Evangelical voters want Israel to be an empowered nation. This isn't a play for Jewish voters, this is Trump trying to cement the same base group of supporters (Evangelicals) who helped him get into the WH in 2016. Same reason that Pence was picked as the VP. But ya know, the next President (if it isn't Trump) will do whatever their voters want / whatever will give them the best chance of being reelected and ensuring that their dynasty can have power for as long as possible. In this case I don't mean another Trump becoming president or anything like that, I'm talking about the Trump family still having power in government once they leave their official positions in Washington. |
|
|
|
The police have the right to use deadly force to prevent a person from committing a felony who is currently in the process of doing so.
According to the supreme court, if an officer uses deadly force when not reasonably necessary - they can be charged criminally. Not all felonies require deadly force therefore, your statement is not true. You also cannot attempt to go into a building or a car, where a weapon may be located while you are being arrested. Just because a gun could be in a car or building that someone who just committed a felony is trying to enter does not give a police officer the right to use deadly force. In 1985 the supreme court rules that it's a violation of the 4th amendment to use deadly force on a non violent person fleeing a crime scene that is unarmed. Note: Entering a building or car that may have a gun in it is not the same as being armed. This is not in response to the Jacob Blake case, I'm just pointing out that your statements are objectively untrue according to the Supreme Court. I'm pretty sure that the Supreme Court would side with the police officers in the case of Jacob Blake. Going into a car where officers are unaware of what you have in it opens up a potentially life threatening point for law enforcement. Whether I agree with this or disagree with this doesn't matter, this case would be an open and shut one of the SC. If he was just running away from them and hadn't fired a weapon, pointed it at officers, or anything along those lines -- then shooting this particular person would not hold up. But in this case, I think the line is a bit more gray. There's too much unknown right now, if shooting 7 rounds into the guys back was justified, something must have happened or been said leading up to what we saw on video. If the cop told gave him an order to lay down on the ground and he said 'fuck you I'm taking my kids home, don't touch me asshole' or something like that, emptying a clip into his back is pretty unreasonable. Totally a ton of unknowns right now. Pretty sure the cops in question weren't wearing bodycams, so that's not something that we're going to get at any point. I've seen a few reports of the police union (and the city that they were in) had continued to delay the usage of bodycams by law enforcement. Would be very helpful right now to have that audio and video, and I do think those should be mandated / heavily incentive to get more police forces to use them. Whenever you're shooting something you're shooting to kill, not to wound -- and you're shooting at the area of the body with the most amount of mass where you have the best shot of connecting (which is obviously the back chest area) I do want to see more information come out about this, that'll change a few variables here that are VERY important. |
|
|
|
You can't be serious -- you're giving me a link to a website called ' The New Arab' here's a quote regarding them: In January 2015, Fadaat launched Al Araby TV Network as a counterweight to Al Jazeera, which is viewed by some to hold a pro-Muslim Brotherhood bias.[3] I don't think it really makes a lot of sense in regards to credibility of your source to send a clearly biased source regarding Israel. Don't you think that this would come up from another source, or be brought to light during an oversight committee hearing if this was substantiated? New Arab doesn't seem that bad: https://mediabiasfactcheck.com/the-new-arab/ The name sounds weird because Americans tend to use 'Arab' as derogatory, but it's not much different than something like 'The New Englishman". But yeah, it doesn't make sense to go to an Arab run media company to figure out what's going on between America and Israel. It feels like a conundrum trying to figure out what's really going on when it comes to Israel or Muslims in the middle east. The tensions have been so high for so long it's basically impossible to not come off as having a bias. Actually now that I think of it, it's like that in America too. Although I recently got into PBS News hour, it's definitely the least bias Media outlet that I've found. They manage to make things sound boring which is kind of nice and it's all on youtube: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UWw1SESkzSk /ramble Oh that wasn't me saying that Arab as a term was the reason for it being wrong, nor was I trying to say that this was a derogatory term. Though I think it would be fair to say that the Arab world isn't too fond of Israel (and with that, Israels relationship with the US) I quoted their potential (alleged) relationship with the Muslim Brotherhood as a problem with using them as a source. It's just like I wouldn't use RT as a source to see how the US and Russia relationship is going. Makes sense, eh? |
|
|
|
You can't be serious -- you're giving me a link to a website called ' The New Arab' here's a quote regarding them: In January 2015, Fadaat launched Al Araby TV Network as a counterweight to Al Jazeera, which is viewed by some to hold a pro-Muslim Brotherhood bias.[3] I don't think it really makes a lot of sense in regards to credibility of your source to send a clearly biased source regarding Israel. Don't you think that this would come up from another source, or be brought to light during an oversight committee hearing if this was substantiated? |
|
|
|
its not about avoiding cursing.
it protects the teeth not just from oncoming punches from an opponent
but also lets the fighter bite down on something so he can be more enraged without grinding his own teeth or biting his own tongue as he fights back
those without a mouthguard are more cautious to avoid getting hit. and also dont enrage themselves because they dont want to grind their own teeth or risk biting their tongue
+1 to all of that. I don't think anyone in the ring is going to care that much about tossing some curse words at your opponent. At the end of the day you are literally two humans in a square ring fighting like animals, so it'd make sense for some foul language to get used. Nothing wrong with this happening in a professional sport. If you'd ask 100 professional athletes if they cursed at one another while playing they'd say yes. That's why the players aren't all mic-ed up all the time. If they were, we'd have an interesting situation on live televison. |
|
|
|
If he was collecting medicine for her, then that probably killed her, or the disease that required the medicine. It wouldn't be the virus, although many people try to blame all deaths on the virus
The husband was a taxi driver or something, there were evidences that the man contracted the disease first, and later spread it to his wife. The man was healthy before the disease, and was later healed. But the wife had pneumonia, as well know such disease (pneumonia) likely can make covid-19 to have its way until the victim is dead. The man even wishing for forgiveness from his dead wife. Horrible to see. There's really nothing that can be done for someone that works in an industry like that to properly protect his/her family though. The best thing is to ensure that you have the little Plexiglass barrier between the front and back, use hand sanitizers, and make the people in your cab wear a mask as it's not possible to socially distance in a cab. Even though this person thought it is a hoax (was a hoax I guess for that matter) it's still horrible to see someones loved one die either way. But even if they didn't think it was a hoax, it's impossible for a cab driver to work from home so they'd be forced to work either way. It's either that, or make no money -- and that's not a possibility. |
|
|
|
|
Show Posts
