REMINDER: THE ARENA PLATFORM, INC. has no obligation to monitor the Forums. However, THE ARENA PLATFORM, INC. reserves the right to review any materials submitted to or posted on the Forums, and remove, delete, redact or otherwise modify such materials, in its sole discretion and for any reason whatsoever, at any time and from time to time, without notice or further obligation to you. THE ARENA PLATFORM, INC. has no obligation to display or post any materials provided by you. THE ARENA PLATFORM, INC. reserves the right to disclose, at any time and from time to time, any information or materials that we deem necessary or appropriate to satisfy any applicable law, regulation, contract obligation, legal or dispute process or government request. Click on the following hyperlinks to further read the applicable Privacy Policy and Terms of Use.
Is this how you treat a member of the armed forces during a routine traffic stop?
- Thread starter hal9000
- Start date
So they insulted you first? Do you even know who started what anymore? It looks like you guys have just chosen up sides and you react to the other "team" with no sense of proportionality or maturity. It's all knee-jerk reaction.
lmao at "whiteknighting" Have I offended King Hal and the Knights of the Children's Table?
Yee gads. I must flee this land!
Such childish anger, lets listen to Moby and bury the hatchet, or not if you enjoy this?
Last edited:
That’s what Moby implied? Who is this Moby troll anyway?
Maybe one of our internet sleuths can go back in time to our first interaction here.
Do not remember, both of us have taken plenty of shots at the other, it can be water under the bridge if you would like?
All one can do is try, although i have offered the olive branch before to have it slapped out of my hand. I guess the usual suspects enjoy the nasty back and forth.
Sharp elbows isn't what started this exchange. You going straight to ad hominems in lieu of engaging with any of the substance of the comment is what returned to you what you were handing out.
Other people do it too, so I'm not singling you out for that. But you cannot expect to get differently than you give.
Cops who shoot unarmed Black people think everything is a gun. Except their own gun.
So, I’m reading about the cop who shot Daunte Wright in Minnesota on Sunday and the police chief who defended her deadly mistake, and I’m wondering if there has ever been a time in the …
www.nydailynews.com
People don't realize how much fight/flight shuts down high level thinking.
This applies to non compliers and the cops who shoot them.
This applies to non compliers and the cops who shoot them.
Nobody would know how often someone was accidentally tazed instead of shot but my guess is that number is nowhere near zero. With that said, I'm sure there's room in the training to explicitly train for taze vs shoot decisions more often, if they're even including that scenario in their practice-practice-practice training programs at all.Cops who shoot unarmed Black people think everything is a gun. Except their own gun.
So, I’m reading about the cop who shot Daunte Wright in Minnesota on Sunday and the police chief who defended her deadly mistake, and I’m wondering if there has ever been a time in the …
These various skills are arguably perishable, so training once at the beginning of a career or sporadically and non-systematically will likely produce inferior results than when compared to regularly training these on a monthly or weekly basis. IMO that's where the "re-imagininig" should start.
Last edited:
To the extent that the public is increasingly coming to understand that these outlets are all pimping their respective biases at the expense of their assertions of impartiality I think that's a good thing. Transparency has it's own utility.
If they're not even going to try to be objective then it becomes dishonest for them to assert otherwise. They don't lose credibility when they take a side; they lose credibility when the say one thing (we don't take sides) but do another (take sides).
As in, lie. We expect politicians and other advocates to lie, whether by omission or commission. Politicians sell their advocacy not any assertion of objectivity; that advocacy is widely perceived as part of their job description. Conversely, we don't expect journos to lie because they ostensibly sell their impartiality and objectivity. If they're going to sell their advocacy - which most definitely sells - then they should just acknowledge that.
If they're not even going to try to be objective then it becomes dishonest for them to assert otherwise. They don't lose credibility when they take a side; they lose credibility when the say one thing (we don't take sides) but do another (take sides).
As in, lie. We expect politicians and other advocates to lie, whether by omission or commission. Politicians sell their advocacy not any assertion of objectivity; that advocacy is widely perceived as part of their job description. Conversely, we don't expect journos to lie because they ostensibly sell their impartiality and objectivity. If they're going to sell their advocacy - which most definitely sells - then they should just acknowledge that.
My answer would be proliferation and admiration of guns and gun culture.
Chances of accidentally getting shot by a cop, or anybody for that matter, in any other developed nation, is close to zero.