Lurker > Kenri

Lopen posted...

Myrrh also has Fury to begin with so she doesn't even really count

oh lmao I had no idea since I didn't manage to pull her, whoops

SSBM_Guy posted...

Also...

https://cdn.discordapp.com/attachments/334839073086636034/433122378331979777/image.png

....Colored bows might be a thing?

Haven't some skills specified "colorless bows" for a while now, implying there'd be non-colorless ones someday? Idk, it's not very surprising to me.

Can't wait for the inevitable Mage Archer Takumi variant!!!
---

Congrats to BKSheikah, who knows more about years than anyone else.

Have any recently released units even wanted Fury aside from Myrrh? I know I haven't really had a use for it recently but also I'm bad at teambuilding in this game so *shrug*
---

Congrats to BKSheikah, who knows more about years than anyone else.

CelesMyUserName posted...

the best part is when Hannity put this "jab" at the top is his website which just made it look like it was about himself

this deserves a darwin award
---

Congrats to BKSheikah, who knows more about years than anyone else.

I mean, yeah. That's exactly my point.

They definitely don't want banks to stay neutral, politically.
---

Congrats to BKSheikah, who knows more about years than anyone else.

As I have publicly stated, I do not believe that the American public wants banks to decide which legal products consumers can and cannot buy.

man they're in for a surprise when it turns out all the loudest voices absolutely want this one way or the other
---

Congrats to BKSheikah, who knows more about years than anyone else.

Menji posted...

it's whatever I think it'll be from a glance out the window in the morning.

---

Congrats to BKSheikah, who knows more about years than anyone else.

That's exactly my point, though -- it's actually not just an instinctual reaction to a gun, but rather something police have been trained (or trained themselves) into doing, influenced by beliefs about those they interact with.

But yeah we can drop it.
---

Congrats to BKSheikah, who knows more about years than anyone else.

Corrik posted...

Mr Lasastryke posted...

Corrik posted...

Notice how he took 1 part of a post, removed all the context around it, to use it to attack a specific part of it that is not valid without all the surrounding context? This is omitting details purposely to spin a response.

literally nothing in the post was relevant to the point you were making in that quote. i wasn't "removing context," i was removing irrelevant shit.

Lmfao. And then you wonder why people shit on your posting.

Good day. Not biting that bait.

he was actually doing you a favor because the context makes you look worse
---

Congrats to BKSheikah, who knows more about years than anyone else.

Mr Lasastryke posted...

Corrik posted...

2. Specifically said do not drop your hands for ANY REASON or they will shoot you. I mean, it is open and shut.

jesus christ, what the fuck is this post?

"if you drop your hands for any reason YOU'RE DEAD LOL. AND THIS IS TOTALLY FINE."

not sure why someone like muffin is constantly shitting on me when people like corrik exist. i can't imagine loving the government so much that you think shit like this is totally fine.

Seriously though. It's topics like this that make me wish we had a legitimate small government party in the US.
---

Congrats to BKSheikah, who knows more about years than anyone else.

StealThisSheen posted...

Kenri posted...

StealThisSheen posted...

Are you asking if it's the reverse, and a cop has a gun aimed at somebody, it's okay to shoot them?

Not really whether it's okay, per se, but whether we should reasonably expect it to happen all the time within our (armed) society. But yeah the role reversal is what I was getting at.

I believe there should definitely be different standards for cops drawing a gun on somebody than there are for normal people

The punishment for misusing that gun should be similar, but weighed with the situation.

We're not talking about the cops though -- I understood your point to be that it's normal human reaction to think someone coming at you with a gun is a threat, and to defend yourself. Yet if civilians can frequently show the restraint not to fire back at cops who approach aggressively with weapons, why should we expect less of police?

Imagine the officer approaching with a gun drawn is plain clothes, if that helps make my point more understandable.

hockeydude15 posted...

You and Kenri both say this but have yet to say when it is ok to shoot someone besides that.

No shit, because if you create a category like that then 100% of shootings will fall into that category. You could say "it's only fair to kill someone if you think they're Hitler's ghost" and we'd have an epidemic of cops calling black children Adolf. No shit I'm not giving a blanket statement of "when it's okay to shoot someone". Why the fuck would I? Who wants that?

How about that one woman cop who was almost beaten to death by someone on K2 who refused to shoot the guy for fear of bad press for everyone involved. Do you think deadly force was ok to use there?

Nobody died so it's a marked improvement, though yeah I'm definitely more okay with using force, even deadly force, against someone who is actually a threat. (This is consistent with what I've been saying all along.)
---

Congrats to BKSheikah, who knows more about years than anyone else.

Corrik posted...

Failure to comply to cops in a manner that could be reaching for a weapon when there is reasonable cause that you are armed and dangerous due to police reports is an automatic shot every time

This is exactly the issue, you're right.
---

Congrats to BKSheikah, who knows more about years than anyone else.

StealThisSheen posted...

Are you asking if it's the reverse, and a cop has a gun aimed at somebody, it's okay to shoot them?

Not really whether it's okay, per se, but whether we should reasonably expect it to happen all the time within our (armed) society. But yeah the role reversal is what I was getting at.
---

Congrats to BKSheikah, who knows more about years than anyone else.

Corrik posted...

"IF YOU DROP YOUR HANDS FOR ANY REASOM I WILL SHOOT YOU".

ah well as long as it was premeditated then it's okay i guess
---

Congrats to BKSheikah, who knows more about years than anyone else.

StealThisSheen posted...

If somebody is aiming a gun at somebody, the assumption should absolutely be that they intend to use it, so trying to "be 100% sure" before reacting is pretty dumb and impossible.

do you apply this standard to people interacting with police
---

Congrats to BKSheikah, who knows more about years than anyone else.

HashtagSEP posted...

This topic is impossible to discuss anything like this with

You've got people like Corrik who go way too far to one side and pretty much absolve cops of any blame whatsoever in almost every situation, and then you've got half the topic on the other side who view everything with 20/20 hindsight and refuse to look at circumstances surrounding the situations in order to blame the cops 100%.

I like to call it being outcome-oriented.
---

Congrats to BKSheikah, who knows more about years than anyone else.

hockeydude15 posted...

No you see the judges are rigged to always be in favor of the cops, so is the DA. Also all the experts that were brought that said it didn't break the law, those must have been paid off. Don't forget when these cases go to a Grand Jury and it doesn't get past that either, the civilians doing their civic duty were also in on the con for cops to kill whoever they want. Perfectly reasonable.

You're right, this sounds exactly like what happens when a civilian shoots someone to death. Definitely proved to me that the system isn't rigged for cops.
---

Congrats to BKSheikah, who knows more about years than anyone else.

Corrik posted...

How could courts be rigged? . . .

It would have never have resulted in a conviction. That is just throwing time and resources away on a losing case. No DA is going to do that.

*thinking emoji*
---

Congrats to BKSheikah, who knows more about years than anyone else.

Corrik posted...

Cop would love that lawsuit afterwards. Charges dismissed upon panel of experts corroborating reasonable cause and wrongfully fired for being innocent of a crime he was fired for. Wowiee would that be a field day for his union.

I mean I'm also assuming the courts aren't hugely rigged in the police's favor in this world where a police officer is actually receiving consequences to begin with.
---

Congrats to BKSheikah, who knows more about years than anyone else.

Fired + charged
---

Congrats to BKSheikah, who knows more about years than anyone else.

Corrik posted...

Seem to be leaving key parts of the context out. Surprising.

Didn't want to seem like I was hating on cops for no reason by pointing out every single thing they did wrong instead of just the biggest things.
---

Congrats to BKSheikah, who knows more about years than anyone else.

Corrik posted...

Of course it is the dispatchers fault. The cops were using the information they had available to them to act. They were not given all the information.

Problem is those arguing the other side have shown continually that they do not wish to acknowledge context.

I'll absolutely acknowledge the context here. The police killed a child for moving his arm and shoulder while they were nearby, before bothering to verify if their information was correct. The context is exactly what makes it awful. Literally no one is ignoring the context except the people saying "it would seem reasonable to you too if you were there"
---

Congrats to BKSheikah, who knows more about years than anyone else.

scarletspeed7 posted...

BowserCuffs posted...

Which is why we're talking about this - in many cases, the defense is as dystopian as the actual reason.

I think my issue is that Kenri 's post fixates on the wrong aspect of the problem. Don't fixate on the objects - that's the weeds. That's wandering away from the issue. Focus on, "When I, as a cop, see a suspicious individual pulling out a foreign object, my response is X."

We can't cure racism, but we can admit where it exists and offer safe alternatives to how these situations can play out, right?

I think I'm fixating on objects the least of everyone considering I said it wouldn't make a difference even if it actually was a real gun.
---

Congrats to BKSheikah, who knows more about years than anyone else.

scarletspeed7 posted...

Do you often see people getting cuffed while in line at the supermarket?

Only after they've been shot like 20 times first.

Anyway yes I feel comfortable calling the arc that my wallet travels from my back pocket to in front of me a "wave", but really if our criteria for when police shootings are acceptable is determined by the sort of action you're making with a harmless item, there's already been a pretty big mistake made along the way.

hockeydude15 posted...

Then i guess you are going to live your life in some irrational fear that police will shoot you for no reason. Not really much else to say.

I live in a completely rational fear that police will kill innocent people every day, even if those people are not me specifically.

Does your system solve this problem or just tell me to be okay with it?
---

Congrats to BKSheikah, who knows more about years than anyone else.

scarletspeed7 posted...

Is there an epidemic of wallet-waving of which I am unaware?

Yes, pretty much any time you need to pay for something or show your ID.
---

Congrats to BKSheikah, who knows more about years than anyone else.

In the US, yes, that is quite literally too much to ask, especially when "things that look exactly like guns" include everyday objects that people wave around in public all the time (wallets, cell phones, etc).
---

Congrats to BKSheikah, who knows more about years than anyone else.

Corrik posted...

ChaosTonyV4 posted...

Thats nice, but thats not what happened.

And for a hypothetical, if a cop tells you to put your hands up and you dont, are they justified in shooting you in case you have a gun?

If a person of your description is reported to have a gun, they ask you to put your hands up, you refuse, and make any sudden movements, yes, they have reasonable cause to shoot.

This is just handing police carte blanche to kill whoever they want. Scary shit.
---

Congrats to BKSheikah, who knows more about years than anyone else.

Corrik posted...

If the guy would have shot that girl .0000001% of the time or 100% of the time, you have to take the shot every single time. You do not fucking gamble with people's lives that are threatened and that you can save.

Me, walking down the street, murdering people that I'm 99.9999999% sure are completely innocent: Can't gamble with people's lives!
---

Congrats to BKSheikah, who knows more about years than anyone else.

Forceful_Dragon posted...

Police do it in response to the threat posed by others. If the person in question wasnt creating the lethal circumstance to begin with then it wouldn't be necessary for the cop to have to intervene.

That's like saying "why is it okay for a construction crew to demolish a building but its illegal when my friends and i try to knock down a building?"

The construction crew is the one with the training and the know how that your average person does not have.

Do you honestly believe that police never initiate/escalate a situation into a "lethal circumstance"?

Also you'll note that construction crews generally aren't allowed to make their own split second decisions about which buildings to demolish.
---

Congrats to BKSheikah, who knows more about years than anyone else.

Forceful_Dragon posted...

Because they are in public and they are pointing a gun at a human being.

That is a decision that they made. To go out in public and to put a human being one finger-pull away from death. They created that circumstance.

Police do this all the time tho so clearly we as a society don't have an issue with this per se.

I'll accept it if that's just your personal moral stance though, it seems fair enough even if I disagree.
---

Congrats to BKSheikah, who knows more about years than anyone else.

Corrik posted...

ChaosTonyV4 posted...

Forceful_Dragon posted...

Kenri posted...

Exactly, no one can know what was going on in the guy's head for sure, yet you're claiming you do know (that he could have been a killer) and you're defending a police officer who thought he knew well enough to kill the guy.

You've already said that you don't think they should have fired even if it was an actual gun, but that doesn't make a lot of sense.

Why do you feel that cops are supposed to assume that people pointing guns won't fire them?

Their (the cops) job is to protect others and themselves. Why is it reasonable to think the safest way to go about this is to imagine that no one is going to fire the gun that they are pointing until after they have already murdered someone?

That seems much less safe compared to instead establishing that pointing guns (or pretending to point guns) at people is something you should NEVER do unless you want to be shot for presenting the appearance of a lethal threat.

In my opinion, it's the idea that all people are entitled to due process of the law and a fair trial, and death removes the chance for that.

If a person is pointing a gun at a 5 year old girl. And a cop is standing there. Does the cop have to wait until the guy shoots the 5 year old girl? Is that the due process and fair trial you want? I mean, you are saying he shouldn't shoot if he is pointing a gun towards a cop...

Better hypothetical: the cop fears for his life but the only way he can deal with the gunman involves killing the girl too. Is he justified to kill them both?
---

Congrats to BKSheikah, who knows more about years than anyone else.

Forceful_Dragon posted...

Why do you feel that cops are supposed to assume that people pointing guns won't fire them?

The same reason anyone might believe that when held at gunpoint? Wishful thinking, mostly?

Why does "I think that this person might shoot me, but I don't know and could be wrong" justify killing them in your world?

Forceful_Dragon posted...

Their (the cops) job is to protect others and themselves.

Yeah thank god they were there in this case to save all those lives.
---

Congrats to BKSheikah, who knows more about years than anyone else.

hockeydude15 posted...

Kenri posted...

Exactly, no one can know what was going on in the guy's head for sure, yet you're claiming you do know (that he could have been a killer) and you're defending a police officer who thought he knew well enough to kill the guy.

Do you think the cops who shot him should be on trial for murder or another crime?

I'm not really qualified to answer that but maybe. Shouldn't be out of the question at least.
---

Congrats to BKSheikah, who knows more about years than anyone else.

hockeydude15 posted...

Kenri posted...

hockeydude15 posted...

Like I don't even get to where you can say you knew the guy wasn't going to kill anyone even if he had a gun, what are you actually basing that on?

Because it's a hypothetical scenario where the only thing that changed is that he has a gun instead of a pipe. Why would just that make him into a killer?

I just don't get why you think you know what was going on in that guys head. I don't know if it was a gun instead that he wouldn't have shot it but for some reason you think you know exactly what was going through the mind of someone who was holding a pipe that was shaped like a gun and pointing it at people in public.

Exactly, no one can know what was going on in the guy's head for sure, yet you're claiming you do know (that he could have been a killer) and you're defending a police officer who thought he knew well enough to kill the guy.
---

Congrats to BKSheikah, who knows more about years than anyone else.

hockeydude15 posted...

Like I don't even get to where you can say you knew the guy wasn't going to kill anyone even if he had a gun, what are you actually basing that on?

Because it's a hypothetical scenario where the only thing that changed is that he has a gun instead of a pipe. Why would just that make him into a killer?
---

Congrats to BKSheikah, who knows more about years than anyone else.

He passed all the tests but couldn't apparate the space ship!
---

Congrats to BKSheikah, who knows more about years than anyone else.

hockeydude15 posted...

Kenri posted...

hockeydude15 posted...

If that threat is something that can be lethal to someone else...uhh yea?

Alrighty then! That's cool and I hope you don't own guns please!

I legit want to know how far someone has to go before you think it is ok to shoot them though. Like I already have said someone with a gun pointed at someone else and you don't yet think it is ok to shoot them. Do they have to have already killed someone? Or maybe just until they are actually shooting the person? I honestly want to know.

I don't believe in a hard and fast rule but "when your life or someone else's is actually in danger (and, indeed as you said, if you shooting won't make the situation worse)" is a good starting point. In this case we know the guy wasn't going to kill anyone, and I don't see any reason to believe that changes if he has a gun instead of a showerhead.

But I also kinda question whether you actually believe that just pointing a gun at someone is enough to justify being killed without there being other extenuating circumstances as well. Like, do you apply the standard to police if they point a gun at an innocent person who is legally concealed carrying?
---

Congrats to BKSheikah, who knows more about years than anyone else.

hockeydude15 posted...

If that threat is something that can be lethal to someone else...uhh yea?

Alrighty then! That's cool and I hope you don't own guns please!
---

Congrats to BKSheikah, who knows more about years than anyone else.

Oh I didn't realize you were following up on my completely hypothetical situation.

Yeah if he actually had a gun he'd be a threat. Should the general response to every person who is a threat be to kill them, or no?
---

Congrats to BKSheikah, who knows more about years than anyone else.

hockeydude15 posted...

Do you honestly believe that someone with a gun pointing it at someone else is not a threat?

We're talking about a man who literally did not have a gun??
---

Congrats to BKSheikah, who knows more about years than anyone else.

hockeydude15 posted...

Unless you are like Kenri who must think the you have to be actively shooting someone first to be a threat

You could be like actively stabbing too but yes generally I require you to actually be a threat in order to be a threat.
---

Congrats to BKSheikah, who knows more about years than anyone else.

trdl23 posted...

I dont know. Usually Im super critical of police, as you guys well know, but looking at that shower head and given the distance... I can see it. I do wonder what would have happened had he been white, of course.

I dunno, personally I don't think it's defensible even if he actually had an actual gun.
---

Congrats to BKSheikah, who knows more about years than anyone else.

Vlado posted...

You see, GOP establishment is not "conservative." GOP establishment is "liberal-lite."

Liberalism is a conservative ideology so this actually kinda checks out.
---

Congrats to BKSheikah, who knows more about years than anyone else.

Some German fuck in the 1930s, probably: I'm not a Nazi, but the Jews have forced me to team up with Nazis just to survive!
---

Congrats to BKSheikah, who knows more about years than anyone else.

Jakyl25 posted...

I ask literally anyone else in this topic if they agree with me that this man is saying gender dysphoria does not exist. Or is Vlado right and I am putting words in his mouth?

it should go without saying but u right
---

Congrats to BKSheikah, who knows more about years than anyone else.

StealThisSheen posted...

Corrik posted...

So the Congress commits bribery every day?

Quite literally yes

Granted, there's a difference between criminal bribery and bribery

Don't worry, Congress commits both kinds on a daily basis
---

Congrats to BKSheikah, who knows more about years than anyone else.

Corrik posted...

Kenri posted...

Corrik posted...

I have two degrees. My other degree has more to do with raising children than my history degree. But, go ahead with your stupid comment.

i don't give a shit about your other degree, i'm questioning your grasp of history if you're unironically going "back in my day, kids respected their elders!"

Thanks for the pointless comment that makes no sense. Anyways.

history joke, you wouldn't get it
---

Congrats to BKSheikah, who knows more about years than anyone else.

Corrik posted...

I have two degrees. My other degree has more to do with raising children than my history degree. But, go ahead with your stupid comment.

i don't give a shit about your other degree, i'm questioning your grasp of history if you're unironically going "back in my day, kids respected their elders!"
---

Congrats to BKSheikah, who knows more about years than anyone else.

Corrik posted...

It used to be if you do something wrong you would be punished for it and doing stuff right was normal.

remind me again, you claim to have a history degree right
---

Congrats to BKSheikah, who knows more about years than anyone else.

SmartMuffin posted...

https://www.wsj.com/articles/germany-struggles-with-an-unfamiliar-form-of-anti-semitism-1522584002

Gee, who would have thought that importing millions of Muslims into western countries where questioning Jews is literally illegal might eventually lead to a problem?

Well it's just a good thing Germany's never had issues with anti-Semitism from its white population I guess.

SmartMuffin posted...

http://www.bbc.com/news/world-middle-east-43619833

They say they fled danger at home and that it is not safe to return to another African country, but Israel considers the majority of African asylum seekers to be economic migrants.

Most of them entered from Egypt several years ago, before a new fence was built along the desert border. This has ended most illegal crossings.

Funny how that works...

If the legality is the important part, there's an easier/cheaper way to completely end all illegal crossings.
---

Congrats to BKSheikah, who knows more about years than anyone else.