search results matching tag: assault

» channel: learn

go advanced with your query
Search took 0.001 seconds

    Videos (430)     Sift Talk (22)     Blogs (45)     Comments (1000)   

MI Senator tells the truth in the face of a hateful lie

luxintenebris says...

FROM THE AP: McMorrow, who said she thought of most of the speech while giving her daughter a bath, said a conservative Christian woman from Texas and a gay man who grew up in rural Indiana were among those who contacted her office to thank her.

Asked why the speech resonated, McMorrow said: “There is a difference between politics and outright hate. I think people are frustrated that elected officials haven’t done enough to call that out, that maybe Democrats are afraid of talking about religion and faith openly and honestly and calling hate what it is. I think we have to.”

Theis, who declined to speak after the session, released a statement in which she did not apologize. (snowflakes melt under heat - only to run away)

Republicans’ use of “grooming” rhetoric comes as one of their own, former state House Speaker Lee Chatfield, is under investigation for allegedly sexually assaulting his future sister-in-law starting when she was a minor. (support for Newt's 'projection' theory)

...and damn it bob you had to get this stuck in me head;
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0igtzMQDpnk

Jim Carrey reacts to Will Smith Chris Rock Slap @ The Oscars

newtboy says...

100% agree. The reaction was more disturbing than the assault.
Haddish reverting to the mindset of the early 80’s to say Chris was calling Jada a lesbian, tacitly excusing Will’s physical attack, Jesus fucking Christ could you do more mental gymnastics!? Remember that little known independent film, Black Panther? Were those bald, fit women thought of as lesbians, or strong warrior women? WTF?!
Also, if she was right, is being called lesbian really an insult to Haddish in 2022? I don’t see it as insulting.

I think Will should see prison/jail time. He should be sentenced to the absolute maximum allowed by law, he, with every advantage and privilege possible, brutally assaulted a 57 year old man with a sucker punch/slap from Muhammad Ali (lest you forget Will’s size and training at throwing punches)...not just in public, but on an international broadcast. Then I think Chris should sue for $500 million for damage to his international reputation and career. It has to be an amount that hurts, not a few weeks work worth of pay.

Does anyone think Will’s bare minimum late apology is sincere, or that he deserves less punishment because of who he is, how much money he has, or because he eventually “apologized”?

Would he think so if Chris had slapped the shit out of Jada in public, then cursed her out during her performance?! (Don’t get all sexist, the size and power difference are similar.).
That should be the measure of damage IMO. If someone did the exact same thing to his loved one, what would Will think is an appropriate punishment? Guaranteed a fine and stern talking to wouldn’t satisfy, so it shouldn’t be on the table.

Will Smith smacks Chris Rock on stage at Oscars Uncensored

newtboy says...

So you’re saying you and your wife are insecure infants and thugs?

Verbal confrontation? If you think physically assaulting someone over a perceived slight is proper, stay out of the south where they can shoot you dead for threateningly advancing on someone like Will did. Also, please avoid comedy shows, because insulting the audience is often part of the show….like here.

If your wife really believes you should put your life at risk (and make no mistake, confronting a stranger puts your life at risk) over such an innocuous joke, she doesn’t love you, you’re her replaceable bodyguard. 🤨

vil said:

My wife thinks it was the right thing to do.

I think the whole thing is fake.

If someone makes fun of my wife in public immediate confrontation is the only option I can think of. Unless drunk or stoned in which case I might laugh at the joke. And get confronted by her.

Will Smith smacks Chris Rock on stage at Oscars Uncensored

newtboy says...

So far Chris has refused to even make a police report, much less a complaint.

Nonetheless, the DA should at least threaten to press charges anyway IMO. A public assault like that shouldn’t be ignored or it sends a clear public message that it’s ok, and it is not.

Edit: The Oscars themselves also bear a huge portion of blame. After this, they didn’t remove Will as they ABSOLUTELY should have, they didn’t strip him of his Oscar as they absolutely should have, instead they continued to honor him, not only awarding him the Oscar but giving him unlimited time to speak (where he didn’t apologize to Quest Love, who Chris was awarding an Oscar, nor the dead who’s memorial was overshadowed and murmured through, nor to Chris who he had just assaulted like the out of control thug racists want to paint him as.)
He just handed white supremacists the biggest gift one person possibly could.
#teamChris
BTW, I notice Will thought the joke was hilarious (:25 he’s laughing at the joke) before deciding it wasn’t. Shouldn’t he slap the shit out of himself too?

BSR said:

I doubt Chris will press charges. I think Will will apologize and realize he was a showoff bully asshole and carry the guilt with him and regret his actions.

If not, he is a good actor and can fake it. Or maybe he watched Bill Maher's latest show and thought he was being the man's man and defending his woman.

What I do know is that he made the Oscars all about him. He stole the show.

Now... if you don't mind, I'm going to Google Bald Jokes.

Ukrainian cocktails made with a splash of Napalm

noims says...

I do agree. However, I would have thought arming untrained civilians with napalm and (as I understand it) assault rifles reduces the chances of survival for them and their neighbours.

vil said:

If you fight a war you have to use everything you have. The only limiting factor is own survival and post war public opinion,[...]

Ummmm

Jordan Klepper Takes On Canadian Truckers | The Daily Show

newtboy says...

90%? You underestimate by 9.99% IMO.

I’ve seen assaults. I’ve seen disturbing the peace in residential neighborhoods 24/7 for weeks on end. I’ve seen what amounts to kidnapping (trapping people in their cars on the street and blockading them in).
BTW, we aren’t India, more money was lost at this one crossing than if you blockaded all of India for the same timeframe. In America, we don’t just let other people block our borders….that’s our thing!

No, the bridge was not part of a recent past long term blockade, no farmer blockade shut down auto manufacturing on both sides of the borders or weeks. You are incorrect.

Protests are acceptable, even if they cause inconvenience. Protests without an issue that last for weeks-months with the only intent being causing economic damage aren’t protests, they’re tantrums. These protesters didn’t know why they were there besides getting the liberal out of power through any means.

These “protesters” deserved nothing but ridicule, their anti vax position is ridiculous, they know it, and it’s moot because the mandates change with the severity of the outbreak, and are from both sides of the border….Trudeau can’t force America to drop our mandates, and border crossers must be vaccinated….period. Notice when the mandates being lifted soon was announced they didn’t leave but just changed their demands. It’s not a protest, it’s an economic blackmail attempt.

The problem there is most of the violence was not part of the BLM protests (despite the lies right wing media produced all 2020), they were often nearby, taking advantage of the lowered police presence outside the protests, and often was violence directed at BLM, not coming from them. The people terrorizing and inciting violence, shooting crowds, planting bombs, lighting fires, shooting police, etc were Proud boys and Boogaloo boys…far right anti protesters. The idiots carried their manifestos explaining the false flag operation when they committed their crimes, and were caught repeatedly.

They should have simply used tow trucks, confiscating every truck involved to be sold at auction to pay for some of the exorbitant costs, far more than all summer of BLM and anti BLM protests, btw.

This was a threat to your sovereignty, and wasn’t being addressed by other laws or means (sounded like the police chief was a fan).

Seizure is perfection, but should include oversight (I bet it really does, you aren’t America where we’ve made it legal for police to commit armed robbery with no oversight). Note- seizure is different from forfeiture. They’re likely freezing accounts, not seizing the funds, right? Details matter.

It’s not just what they’re protesting, they don’t even know that themselves, it’s how and where. That said, the total lack of support among the population counts. I would expect any protest protesting against it being illegal to eat live babies to get shut down fast, no matter how civil they were on the streets.

Lemme guess, a pipeline crossing sovereign native lands under protest? Going over aquifers? Through preserves? Pumping tar sands no one really wants?
Millions in damages are an hour of the truck protests. They’re designed to cost tens of millions per day…costing everyone not just the target of their protest.

No known connection to protesters, but you want there to be one and are upset they didn’t just fabricate one? It sounds incredibly likely they’re involved, but without evidence one shouldn’t assign culpability.

They have the right to say anything, they don’t have the right to silence all other discussion and action while they ramble and party for weeks-months because they have nothing to say, but are loving the disruption they’re causing. A strong democracy doesn’t support one tiny group negating the entire continent’s voice for months. That’s what this is, they said their peace by day 2, now it’s not a protest, it’s an economic attack trying to blackmail a country (nearly a continent) into abandoning public health for a TINY minority of morons who want special privileges.

bcglorf said:

@newtboy,

Finally we're talking about my Canada .

I'm agreed with calling 90% of what the convoy and truckers are protesting as being misguided, ill informed or flat out wrong. That however shouldn't be what the right to protest is based upon.

The extent of the protestors illegal activity seems to have been blocking of roadways and borders. Which in Canada isn't exactly new:
-Blockading of roads to logging work sites to "protect old growth forest"
-Blockading of roads pipeline construction sites
-Blockading of transportation highways and railroads

In the past 2 years alone, those various sites have seen blockades ranging from weeks to months. In virtually every single one of those instances the Liberal government went out to meet and negotiate with the protestors while allowing them to continue for weeks to months. In one of the biggest protests Trudeau himself went to meet with the groups in person. Trudeau has a video of himself praising the farmer convoy and blockades in India, declaring his government will always defend the right of groups to protest.(those groups blocked multiple border crossings)

This time though, Trudeau started out with insulting, ridiculing and belittling the protestors. Within the first day of the protests, politicians and our national news corp in CBC were demanding an immediate end to the protests.

The protests that have seen comparable zero violence to the protests in the US in support of Floyd(which I support), where condemned repeatedly by the CBC and Trudeau as terrorizing the populace and inciting violence. For reference, Trudeau remained steadfast in support of the Floyd protestors right to protest.

The federal government essentially tried insults and ridicule to try and end this protest though, and when that didn't work they invoked a national emergency measures act that requires both:
-A threat to Canada's sovereignty
-A threat that can not be addressed by any other laws or means

The government then proceeded to empower themselves to not merely arrest protestors, but to freeze/seize the bank accounts of anyone considered to be supporting the protest, with no court oversight required.

The difference in how protestors are treated based upon what it is they are protesting is alarming and should be a red flag for anyone and everyone.

For reference, while these protests were going on, a pipeline worksite in BC that has been continually shut down by protests for the last several years was attacked in the night by a mob wielding machetes and axes. The workers and security were chased off and millions in damages were done to the site afterwards. Trudeau didn't feel the need to even address the incident though because he was to busy villianizing the convoy. The CBC media buried the incident under local BC news, and downplayed it as an 'alleged' incident, despite RCMP having responded and even having had an officer injured in the incident. CBC also emphasized there wasn't any verified connection to the ongoing protests against the pipeline...

When you look at the narrative, despite my disagreeing with the vast majority of what the convoy is wanting to say, I am disgusted by the attempt to remove their right to say it and everyone wanting to support a strong democracy with the right protest should feel the same.

bobknight33 (Member Profile)

JiggaJonson says...

https://www.inquirer.com/columnists/attytood/january-6-stewart-rhodes-sedition-oath-keepers-20220215.html

https://www.documentcloud.org/documents/21203387-rhodes-memo-for-detention-reconsideration

ohhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhh they would NEVER overthrow the government...unless trump told them to via the insurrection act. WELL

WELL WELL WELL that's very comforting, i guess you were right after all, nothing to worry about here. Just a buncha guys sittin around with thousands of rounds of ammo, assault rifles, spare parts, and body armor ready to overthrow the gov if ordered. Sittin around havin some breadsticks.

I saw ur comment about you care about everyone blah blah, just not in a public-policy-enforcable kind of way right? Well this concerns all of us. These people were ready to create a dictatorship.

Texas Cop Vapes Confiscated Weed on Cruiser Camera

newtboy says...

Case and point,
If you haven’t seen it yet, this fresh on the job good cop got strangled for stopping her sergeant from pepper spraying a handcuffed suspect already in the cop car….as she was instructed to do.
He’s finally on vacation as of late January (the event happened on November 19, and his supervisory duties were temporarily suspended) and his union is standing by him 100%, as is the police commissioner, whining that the mayor called the sergeant’s actions disgusting, outrageous because he’s not convicted of a crime, and in the same breath whining “ The fact that was a 911 call came over of a piece of shit beating up somebody, and then this is how it all started. That’s the sad part about this. It got thrown onto this and spun in a way so ridiculous right now, it is like beyond,”.
It’s the third official report of his being unnecessarily violent.
Right, ridiculous to investigate a cop on videos committing felony assaults.

Kinda odd they aren’t standing with the cop that stopped a violent abuse of power, and instead back the out of control violent cop that attacked her on camera.



https://wsvn.com/news/local/commission-meeting-looking-into-sunrise-police-sergeant-who-grabbed-female-officer-by-throat-turns-heated/

surfingyt said:

initially some do exist but when their union and coworkers cover up all the time and IA is defunded and simpletons like beeeewb bootlick all day the whole bushel goes. this dolt was probably praised most of his career for his continuous quota busting record, instead it should be a red flag.

Let's talk about altering the Supreme Court....

newtboy says...

That’s called politicizing the court, packing it with obviously hyper partisan activist (drunkard rapist) judges, then bringing otherwise completely invalid lawsuits so they can improperly rule in your favor based on political affiliation, not the law. Their cases had no chance in a fair or balanced court because they have no merit. That is a bastardization of how the law works, and a recipe for the end of the union.
(And your idea that the right doesn’t bring obviously losing cases to court is hilariously ignorant, for just one glaring example, look at the 62 election cases laughed out of court, tried as political theater, never having a snowball’s chance in hell of winning without complicit, partisan judges ruling solely based on who appointed them.)

WRT “the abortion issue” (and the nation destroying ploy to end run the courts rulings),remember, states claiming they can overrule federal law (specifically contradicted in the constitution btw) is EXACTLY what caused the civil war. It’s astonishing trying to overrule federal law with a state law isn’t a felony, it’s definitely unconstitutional.

Previous rulings have been overturned, but never before just ignored with the OK from the highest court. They just ruled themselves out of power, because if their ruling can be circumvented so easily or just ignored by states outright, they might as well close shop and go home….ending the USA.

Newsom is proving that by enacting the same measures against guns in California. If you think that will stop at ghost guns and assault rifles, or that other states won’t follow suit, you’re dumber than I give you credit for.

bobknight33 said:

The fact that cases are now before the court is because some conservatives feel there is a chance to have their cases win.

Why bring these case before the supreme court if you know you would have a high likely to loose. All the cost time and effort.


WRT to the abortion issue .If overturned it just means that the decision goes back to the states.


Overturning a previous opinions has occurred and will occur in the future .

bobknight33 (Member Profile)

newtboy says...

What did I tell you!?! States rights! Suckers! Bwaaaahahahahaha!

“I am outraged by yesterday’s U.S. Supreme Court decision allowing Texas’s ban on most abortion services to remain in place,” Newsom said. “But if states can now shield their laws from review by the federal courts that compare assault weapons to Swiss Army knives, then California will use that authority to protect people’s lives, where Texas used it to put women in harm’s way.” Newsom said he will work with his staff, the Legislature and California Attorney General Rob Bonta to craft a bill that would let citizens sue anyone who “manufactures, distributes, or sells an assault weapon or ghost gun kit or parts” in California. They could seek damages of at least $10,000 per violation plus costs and attorney’s fees, Newsom said.

Read more at: https://www.sacbee.com/news/politics-government/capitol-alert/article256524466.html#storylink=cpy

I told you this would happen.

BTW, the Presidential coup Plan PowerPoint handed over by Meadows pretty much obliterated the lies that 1) it wasn’t an attempted coup 2) it wasn’t expected 3) it wasn’t planned 4) it wasn’t Trump supporters being violent and 5) the white house wasn’t directly involved.
Contemporaneous records of the planning, including texts to organizers and militias claiming that the national guard is poised to protect Trump rioters from arrest or attack….as if any non cultist needed more evidence beyond the live broadcast of the coup attempt, but now there’s publicly available physical documentation/evidence directly from the highest levels in Trump’s cabinet of their own direct involvement in the planning to overturn the certified election by fraud and force.….which I’m certain you will dismiss as fake news with no hint of evidence because your little brain can’t handle facts.

the PowerPoint laid out a plan to effectively use the military to steal the election outright, undeniably. That’s treason.

The plan was to use the military, specifically the national guard, declare a state of emergency, throw out most of the ballots from the 2020 election, and then have the national guard run by people that Trump handpicked himself count only the paper ballots that they deemed to be legitimate. essentially giving them a free ride to throw out any ballots that were for Biden. Only count the ones for Trump and boom, Donald Trump gets all the electoral votes. That's how the coup was supposed to happen. So again, these lawmakers were briefed on this two days before the capital riot. So they knew exactly what Donald Trump was trying to do, what his administration, what his friends, what his allies had suggested to him. There is no indication at all that one of these lawmakers alerted the department of justice, the FBI, local authorities, anyone, they had this information and they did nothing with it.

Any official who knew and didn’t report to the FBI or DOJ should be removed immediately, get the firing squad, and their entire estate (and their spouses estate, and minor children’s estates) seized. That’s a lot of Republicans.

Also, Fox hosts, the same ones who now claim Jan 6 was a peaceful picnic, families calmly touring congress, and it was BLM and ANTIFA and the FBI that perpetrated the violence that didn’t happen, were all frantically trying to reach the president to stop the attack on January 6, outraged he wouldn’t tell his supporters to stop attacking America, explaining how not acting to stop the coup was destroying his legacy and theirs.

Kyle Rittenhouse Trial Week 1 Summary

newtboy says...

So, Bob. What about the victim’s right to defend themself from an armed aggressor who had followed them for blocks and was confronting him with weapon cocked and at the ready? He should have shot Rittenhouse in the head when he allegedly pointed, but didn’t shoot his gun, right? That would have solved everything, no charges to be brought, no lawsuit for pedonazi’s parents, no harm, no foul, right? Pure self defense, not even a need to report it, right?

Rittenhouse hunted him for blocks. Chasing him down with an assault rifle as the victim retreated. Then murdered him when he stopped running away. Just want it on the record, you think that’s fine, as is shooting anyone who tries to stop you from leaving the scene of a murder you just committed. Go on. Say it. It’s fine to hunt and kill people you don’t like.
Now…is it fine if the shooter is black and the victim is a baby faced white Republican boy? Pretty sure I know the real answer already.

Trumpist crowds are dangerous and criminal. If they need to get shot up by liberals who get scared by their aggressiveness….. self defense! Aim for the head, guys, and claim you tried a non deadly area to shoot. There’s nothing up there to hurt.

bobknight33 said:

@JiggaJohnson
@bcglorg

Prosecution's Main Witness ( victim) Admits Kyle Rittenhouse Acted in Self-Defense




Having a illegally owned a gun and self defense are 2 different crimes

as else mentioned" Evidence wise though, it looks like self defense, after breaking many laws and putting himself in harms way, is still factually part of the night.
"

Kyle Rittenhouse Trial Week 1 Summary

JiggaJonson says...

Eh, it's debatable still

Here's the WI state code as that would apply here
https://docs.legis.wisconsin.gov/statutes/statutes/939/iii/48

===================================
Some likely applicable law from that link
From SUBCHAPTER III
DEFENSES TO CRIMINAL LIABILITY
===================================
A person is privileged to threaten or intentionally use force against another for the purpose of preventing or terminating what the person reasonably believes to be an unlawful interference with his or her person by such other person. The actor may intentionally use only such force or threat thereof as the actor reasonably believes is necessary to prevent or terminate the interference. The actor may not intentionally use force which is intended or likely to cause death or great bodily harm unless the actor reasonably believes that such force is necessary to prevent imminent death or great bodily harm to himself or herself.
-------------------------------------------
> It's not up to the witnesses to determine if the actions were reasonable or not, that's a question for the jury.

====================================================
====================================================

"engage in unlawful conduct likely to provoke others to attack"

"Provocation affects the privilege of self-defense as follows:
(a) A person who engages in unlawful conduct of a type likely to provoke others to attack him or her and thereby does provoke an attack is not entitled to claim the privilege of self-defense against such attack, except when the attack which ensues is of a type causing the person engaging in the unlawful conduct to reasonably believe that he or she is in imminent danger of death or great bodily harm. In such a case, the person engaging in the unlawful conduct is privileged to act in self-defense, but the person is not privileged to resort to the use of force intended or likely to cause death to the person's assailant unless the person reasonably believes he or she has exhausted every other reasonable means to escape from or otherwise avoid death or great bodily harm at the hands of his or her assailant.
---------------------------------------------------------------

>excerpted/emphasized (tldnr)
>"engages in unlawful conduct of a type likely to provoke others to attack...is NOT entitled to claim the privilege of self-defense...person is NOT privileged to resort to the use of force intended or likely to cause death to the person's assailant UNLESS the person reasonably believes he or she has exhausted every other reasonable means to escape

============================
============================



He was able to run away... And while someone shot into the air they didn't shoot at HIM or point a gun at him. And the person who shot into the air isn't the one who lunged at him.

Seriously, what kind of world do you want to live in @bobknight33 ?? You want MF 17 year olds to be able to walk around with assault rifles and if you stutter-step at the wrong moment they can vigilante justice your ass ? And if that happens well they can just say



bobknight33 said:

@JiggaJohnson
@bcglorg

Prosecution's Main Witness ( victim) Admits Kyle Rittenhouse Acted in Self-Defense




Having a illegally owned a gun and self defense are 2 different crimes

as else mentioned" Evidence wise though, it looks like self defense, after breaking many laws and putting himself in harms way, is still factually part of the night.
"

Kyle Rittenhouse Trial Week 1 Summary

JiggaJonson says...

He illegally owned a gun, and was doing some vigilante justice (also illegal), and was out as a 17 year old in Wisconsin past curfew

"No minor under the age of seventeen years shall be or remain in or upon any of the streets, alleys, other public places, or any private place held open to the public in the county between twelve o'clock midnight and five a.m., unless accompanied by a parent"

Then he killed several people by shooting them with an assault rifle.

Let's talk about people defeating the Texas tip website....

newtboy says...

I love the idea, echoed by the Supreme Court, that if this methodology is found to be legal, there’s nothing at all stopping states from using it to outlaw things protected by the constitution, like arms, religions, hate speech, anything the state legislature decides is unwanted, and using cash prizes to incentivize citizens into enforcing them. One can only hope Republicans see the truth in that prognostication and quickly move to make these laws constitutionally invalid….otherwise these laws will quickly invalidate the constitution.

Edit: If California decides the bounty on anyone owning an “assault style weapon” is $1000000, what’s to stop them? What’s to stop Austonians and Houstonians voting for the same thing in Texas? Suddenly it doesn’t sound like such a great idea…..right? Republicans only love the constitution when it’s convenient….so we have to make it convenient (or make end running around it unthinkable).



Send this Article to a Friend



Separate multiple emails with a comma (,); limit 5 recipients






Your email has been sent successfully!

Manage this Video in Your Playlists

Beggar's Canyon