Lurker > Tenlaar

I sauted asparagus and julienne cut carrots and zucchini in an Italian herb butter with garlic. Made some Italians sausage tofurkey to go with it. Pretty good dinner.

I agree, evading the police or assault/battery should cover any behavior serious enough to warrant another charge without having resisting arrest being this charge that can be slapped on for incredibly minor things that are likely to happen when somebody isnt happy about being arrested.

What is supposed to be suggestive there?

hockeybub89 posted...

if you point no one mad cares about women's sports until it's feigning concern for trans women ruining the fairness.

Well that is an illogical and all around bad argument so you should probably just stop using it.

Gwynevere posted...

Why is it okay to draw conclusions that enact widespread reactionary policies, but not those that say "let's stay the course until more data is present"?

Staying the course until we have more data would be continuing to segregate sports by sex, not gender, as the whole point of womens leagues to begin with was to allow female athletes to compete without being dominated by male athletes.

Robot2600 posted...

my bad u guys CANT read

I was able to read this part of what you linked, why werent you?

Further research is needed to ensure a foundation in sound evidence, a foundation which does not currently exist. Specifically, additional research is needed with sample populations of trained trans women and trained cis women as a comparison group, as current studies tend to focus on sedentary populations.

Maybe it has something to do with the anybody who disagrees with me about anything must be alt right, a Trump supporter, and just generally everything I hate attitude that is so common around here.

I mean, in the last couple of weeks AceMos has said that recording somebody in public is not justification for physical retaliation and CEO is an actual job that requires work are right wing viewpoints because they were posted in response to her stupid takes.

Kloe_Rinz posted...

stop using words incorrectly on purpose

Piracy is theft. Doesnt matter how hard you try to convince yourself otherwise.

The piracy argument always comes down to its different when I steal things.

There is a sex and sexuality
board, go post your pervy shit there.

Closest movie theater is in a mall that seems to be pretty thriving, just outside Atlanta.

Congrats on reaching a new tier of entitlement.

https://gamefaqs.gamespot.com/a/user_image/2/9/6/AAaA_zAAEaDg.jpg

Claiming that anybody who doesnt support the complete dismantling of capitalism is right wing is a big ol steaming pile of bullshit.

FL81 posted...

tfw American

we don't get time off

You think nobody else posting in this thread is American?

Weaponized poverty is pretty popular with some folks.

That looks like an incredibly well done game abouta cop shooting squatters?

I agree with your policy positions but this thread does not lead me to believe that you would be effective in getting them implemented.

I have one of those unlimited PTO with the understanding that I dont take more time off than I can without it negatively affecting my work deals. Though it legitimately is encouraged for people to regularly take time off, and on program staff are actually required to take a 3 day paid break once a month to help combat burnout.

I have enough saved up right now that I could live for about a year and a half, maybe two years. But part of that is saving up to buy a step van and do a conversion so its not all designated emergency fund and I also recognize that if housing was not included with my job for most of the last year and a half I would not have been able to save up nearly as much.

Its not a breed problem, you just have to play with them enough or they might kill people sure is some kind of take.

nononom0use123 posted...

So continue to elect shitty officials who do nothing but follow the same agenda weve been arguing about for 40 years?

Sure does sound like you know what youre talking about lmao

Why the fuck should anybody vote for somebody whos response to being asked about the issues is I dont buy into this issues thing, just trust that I want to make things better for people!

That is a bullshit meaningless dodge of literally the most reasonable question to ask somebody talking about running for office.

Judging by that response to being asked what your positions on major issues are, no.

AsucaHayashi posted...

at the very first glance should look at each other and think "that's a person i could be friends with" instead of he/she being "hot/cute/sweet" etc. basically anything that signifies an attraction since the true platonic friend-"ship" has already sailed at that point.

Thats complete nonsense, you can have platonic friendship with people you find attractive.

I think some posters need to score fake points against imaginary enemies because they need something fulfilling in their lives and its the closest they can get. Ineffectual keyboard warriors trying to convince themselves that theyre making the world better without actually doing anything.

Not being able to see value in the opposite sex outside of sexual/romantic potential is fucked up.

A show about a guy who makes things up about being rich and having a great life on a message board seems pretty sad and boring.

mybbqrules posted...

Lmao, right?

Tenlaar when an unarmed black man is killed by police: *enthusiastic boot leather maintenance*

Tenlaar when a retail worker defends themselves: *finger wags and "tsk tsk tsk"*

Its fine to disagree with me but please dont lie about me. There have been many situations where I have found police conduct unacceptable, especially involving unarmed people.

dave_is_slick posted...

So you read all that and don't see how following someone is a threat in itself.

No, its not.

Kloe_Rinz posted...

youve never and will never post a justifiable response for why people aren't allowed to defend themselves when cornered with nowhere to escape. your dancing around this fact is your gimmick whether you like it or not

I already have, in that I dont believe that the man was actually cornered with nowhere to escape. Like Ive said, the woman had followed him all through the store at that point without physically attacking him and I dont see anything to indicate that this was the point where she was drawing a line and would have physically attacked him rather than just continuing to follow if he had walked by her again.

Dismissing contrary beliefs by calling them a gimmick or lying about the person expressing them must make things much easier in life for you all. Not better, obviously, but easier for sure.

It is weird to me how many of you go full on stand your ground mode where anything can be seen as a threat worthy of physical retaliationbut only in situations where you agree with the attacker.

A_Good_Boy posted...

You actually do get to use force to defend yourself. You don't even need to wait for the other person to inflict harm on you before you do so as long as you have a reasonable belief that the other person is going to cause you harm. And this lady gave the manager ample reason to believe that she was going to cause him harm.

dave_is_slick posted...

Yes you do. Words escalate.

Threatening words can, sure, but there is nothing saying that she became threatening in some way before this happened. Wanting to bitch at a manager is not some inherently threatening behavior. She had followed him all through the store already, what leads you to believe that she was ready to attack him and this was the point where she would have physically stopped him from walking away again?

A_Good_Boy posted...

She followed him from a wide open entryway in front of the store all the way to the office. Does the managers back need to literally be up against the wall before they're able to protect themselves?

Following the manager into the back and refusing to leave justifies having the police called to remove her, not physical retaliation. You dont get to use fists to protect yourself from words.

I think Sephiroth would drop a meteor on the courthouse.

Pretty selfish attitude.

RuneterranSnap posted...

A strange man approaching two woman threateningly is absolutely justification for nonetheless physical retaliation.

An employee of the store the women just stole from with a phone out recording them unloading the stolen goods is not a strange man approaching threateningly. That id an element that some of you are adding into it all on your own.

Supaitwo posted...

Of course someone is defending him.

I assume you mean me, but you are wrong. Questioning people who are misrepresenting events as they are currently known is not defending the man. As Ive already said, I think the man should get charges. Pulling out a gun and starting blasting is very rarely a reasonable proportional response and that includes this situation.

RuneterranSnap posted...

He was following two girls to their car and probably calling out at them. Completely fair.

You sound indistinguishable from a crazy stand your ground defender. Neither walking up to somebody nor calling out to them justify physical retaliation. And recording them loading stolen goods into their car does not either. Why are you so intent on justifying the women attacking the man?

[LFAQs-redacted-quote]

He was there with his phone in his hand, not a weapon.

littlebro07 posted...

The chain of events:

Woman shoplifts
Employee tells manager
Manager sees shoplifter, starts recording
Shoplifter leaves store

See, what is supposed to happen here is that the manager documents the incident, noting details such as shoplifter descriptions, what was taken, etc. and call the police to file a report. But instead what happened was...

Manager violates company policy and follows shoplifter out to her vehicle
Shoplifter uses mace on creepy guy following her
Manager uses deadly force on a pregnant woman

He's 100% in the wrong

He obviously violated company policy, and was already fired for it, but that has nothing to do with the law. Him following them to the parking lot to continue recording their crime as evidence does not justify them attacking him and its pretty bonkers that people would think so, even to the point of trying to twist him going out as creepy or aggressive or whatever else.

RuneterranSnap posted...

I'm not ignoring it. I heard it. It doesn't matter. He had no place following them to their car, nor did he have any place being armed while doing so. They rightfully defended themselves. He escalated further.

Even if he WAS in the right to follow them to their car he stillrespinded to justifiable self defense either lethal force.

No matter how you spin it he's guilty af.

I do agree that he should get charges but I very much disagree that him filming them committing their crime was escalation or aggression justifying physical retaliation. The women were not defending themselves, there was nothing to be defending themselves from.

RuneterranSnap posted...

He got it right. Why he followed them doesn't matter and doesn't justify it.

Your desire to ignore context does not mean it actually doesnt matter.

[LFAQs-redacted-quote]

Yeah, yeah, I know. I should just be used to people being shamelessly dishonest by now and not bother to question it.

[LFAQs-redacted-quote]

Why would you feel the need to blatantly misrepresent what happened this way?

AceMos posted...

its so cute how he thinks he is fooling anyone we all know he is right wing but he throws a tantrum when called out on it

he dont even try and pretend he is not right wing either

I literally call you out for lying about me being a right winger every time you do it. Like now, you are lying. Like the other day, when you said I was posting right wing stuff and then refused to explain what part of filming somebody in a public space does not justify physical retaliation you believe is a right wing belief.