Yep, a comedian on a comedy tour taking a joke picture pretending to assault a sleeping woman who then quit of his own accord is exactly the same as a long term pedophile who enjoys his parties full support and never backs down or apologizes even after losing, or a philanderer who blackmail his mistress by taking naked pictures of her tied up and threatening to make them public then fights removal.

There is no equivalency. There's not a monopoly on one side, no, but there's absolutely not "every bit as much corruption and dishonesty on the Democrat side of politics as there is on the Republican". Republican dishonesty is about selling the country to Russia and raiding the treasury, and hiding or excusing inexcusable behavior and permeates everything they say. Democratic dishonesty is about which email account an email came from and pretending the leadership has no bias, and bowing to hyper sensitivity and disingenuous faux outrage.

For example...
Asked how his tax plan benefits the rich, he replied....
Trump: "No, I don't benefit. I don't benefit. In fact, very very strongly, as you see, I think there's very little benefit for people of wealth."

When asked about his rich friends....
"They can call me all they want; not going to help," he said Sept. 27, 2017. "I'm doing the right thing and it's not good for me, believe me."

When asked about the Trump zero tolerance plan to tear families apart as a political ploy, Trump claimed the Democrats did it and only they can reverse it, then he reversed his plan himself proving both family destroying lies to be lies.

The consistency, levels, and importance of the dishonesty from Republicans is exponentially greater than that from Democrats, who are far from perfect themselves.

Edit: Btw, Mahr has addressed the issue of him running for office repeatedly, he's capable and intelligent enough to be honest and say he's a horrible politician and would probably never run, and he knows he's far more influential exactly where he is than he might be as a freshman representative.....and he's smart enough to see that a candidate that gets out the vote for the opposition (like Clinton) is a horrendously stupid idea.
And Franken worked out great until he caved to false outrage and quit while pedophiles and abusive philanderers were welcomed into the opposing party feigning the outrage over a funny (but disrespectful) picture.

"Inexcusable" is how the port authority described this.
She's a disappointment.
She apparently resigned before they could remove her....the only smart move she made here.
Bye Felicia.

I would love to see the report she filed, it's clear she didn't consider it might be on camera.

What wires do you have crossed that you can't comprehend a simple analogy/simile? You can't be that dense....you just can't, but you come across that way.

So you can understand, I'll break it down to grade school level. Most police, not all, lie in their job (or worse). Most heroin addicts, not all, steal. Just as you would prudently protect yourself from an addict by assuming they might steal, you should protect yourself from dishonest cops by assuming anything they tell you might be a lie.

Jebus Christ, you people are exhausting.

I have nothing to apologize to them for, certainly not for my opinion. If anything, I'm due a few apologies by dishonest powertripping police for their inexcusable behaviors and actions.

That is all, I'm done with this b.s.. Good day, sir.

He opened his door prepared to show ID. The door closed on him. He never "pointed" his wallet (as if that's even possible) at all, he caught it when the door made him almost drop it, then immediately put both hands in the air, showing them both clearly and got shot for it....shot in a way that was totally unsafe for the other citizen approaching from the truck who was almost shot too.

Your take seems to be excusing this shooting, which is inexcusable.

People like to think mind tricks are fun and harmless, but it's really an inexcusable violation.

http://s2.quickmeme.com/img/46/46e1f86f4b514658c9fc30530dc05704a9b5fa3eb6c17ee1a21abbd02d06ed2c.jpg

Can we please apply this logic to everything?
'We've been doing it that way for generations' is hardly an excuse for any inexcusable behavior or for ignoring the results of your behavior.

Wow, I thought it was going to be less than 1, and rounded down, that's just inexcusable that they're allowed to round 4 down to 0.

Though, in practice a drink sweetened with splenda will have fewer calories than one sweetened with sugar, because you need less of it to achieve the same perceived sweetness. A single sugar packet is around 20 calories.

Yes....that.

If I were black, I would certainly feel that the police are people to fear and avoid at all costs, not there to protect or serve me. It's incontrovertible that there is NOTHING a black man can do to be safe. There is no level of surrender, clear lack of arms, absolute lack of movement, or ANYTHING they can do to ensure they won't be 'mistaken' for a perpetrator and shot....usually shot dead. It's also clear and incontrovertible that, even when they've done absolutely nothing wrong, and the police agree they've done nothing wrong and they are in no way threatening, the police will still shoot them...and then not give them medical attention, in fact they will handcuff them and try to think of a charge they can make up to excuse their inexcusable deadly actions.
When it's a life or death situation, civilized behavior and respect for authority hardly outweigh a drive for self preservation....it does one no good to have been civilized if that causes one's death. It's for that reason that I say that I would never convict a black man of murdering a police officer...it's reasonable to think it would be self defense under any circumstance just because it was a black man and a police man, just as much as if it was an armed Klansman. They should not have to wait to be attacked before defending themselves, they don't have equipment or training to withstand an attack and respond, their only option is to shoot first if they want a chance to live, unlike police.
Clearly, that's not the situation in every instance, and not all cops are killers, but enough are that it's reasonable for a black man to assume any random officer may well act murderously, and so reasonable to protect one's self from them pre-emptively. That is a horrendous situation, but one I put squarely on the doorstep of the police, and it's up to them to change that perception with actions, not excuses and deflections. They have failed miserably thus far, which is why I have little sympathy for their recent losses. If you pick a fist fight and lose a tooth in the fight, that's YOUR fault....the same reasoning goes for gunfights, IMO.

Well, the level of incompetence required for this to be 'accidental' is SOOO incredibly high that it's not reasonable to assume the police are that incompetent....but if they are, that's intentional on the part of their supervisors, no? So still the responsibility of the police as a whole.

There IS doubt that they could have killed him and made it look unintentional. He shot 3 times, and only hit once. Clearly, he's not a good enough shot to kill on the first shot, because cops ALWAYS shoot to kill, and he failed, no matter which target he was aiming at.

We can assume that because he said "I don't know" when asked why he shot the caregiver....not "I missed", or "I wasn't aiming at you" or any other mitigation. If, as you suggest, he was firing at the sitting, unarmed, severely mentally challenged man (also completely inexcusable, btw) then the negligence in discharging his firearm with an innocent victim between him and the target is not just gross negligence, it's intentional negligence. Shooting someone because you don't care that they are between you and your target makes you an attempted murderer. Period.

Um....if a cop was shot in the foot, medical care would be instant, there would be no handcuffing, much less TRIPPLE handcuffing. What was reported was they didn't call for medical attention for >15 minutes while the victim lay handcuffed bleeding in the street (probably with officers standing on top of him). Medical care was provided while the shootings were still happening in Dallas, so "the scene wasn't secured yet, we couldn't allow medics in safely" falls completely flat as an excuse anymore and won't even be considered by me.

That level of incompetence from a police officer MUST, by definition, be intentional. They are well trained and equipped to avoid exactly this kind of fiasco. Ignoring that training is intentional, and that must be prosecutable if there is to be any effect. I don't have to ascribe intent to murder to claim culpability. That is not the metric by which the law is applied. If your actions are grossly negligent and end in near death of another, which is the absolute least criminal possible interpretation of the actions of this officer, that's criminal attempted murder/manslaughter1. Because (inappropriately) using a firearm is not unintentional, and officers ONLY use them to kill, this was not attempted manslaughter, which only applies when the intent is NOT to kill, it was an attempted murder.
Either way, that's a question for a jury to answer, not his superior, not the DA that he works with daily.

You can say the exact same thing about Christians or Jews. Violence in the name of religion is what a "true believer" does, because any non-believer is an agent of evil, so sub-human and not worthy of empathy or understanding.

It's not the particular brand of religion that's the problem, it's religion itself.

I'm pretty sure that all major religions in one form or another instruct believers to attack non-believers with violence and/or death. Most also contradict themselves by saying violence is wrong, leaving the "rules" open to interpretation, ostensively making all religions nothing more than excuses for atrocities that would otherwise be clearly inexcusable.

What utter tosh.

I enjoyed the open beta and I'm looking forward to release, but ohmygod if they could please inject just a little humour into these characters instead of these angsty seriousface dullard cliches... They aint all like that, but characters called "Reaper" that mumble things like "Death Comes" are totally inexcusable unless you are 12yrs old.

I quoted the specific examples I was referring to in my original post.

"Every time a parent takes the kids side over the teachers,
or asks a child where THEY want to go to dinner,
or doesn't say 'be quiet' when adults are talking,
you are creating the Donald Trumps of tomorrow"

Again, those aren't creating Trumps, those are treating a child like human being, and possibly even one you like.

As you said yourself, it was poorly said. And given that Mahers entire fucking job is saying funny shit that his writers came up with, "poorly said" is pretty inexcusable.

They care.
If it could absolutely not be justified and was instead clearly, strictly forbidden under any circumstance by their chosen religion, most of them would not be involved.

It's actually not a distorted interpretation, it's a literal one. The same can be said for nearly all major religions, certainly for all Judeo-Christian religions (and Islam is one). When interpreted literally, most religions call for murder of infidels and proselytization by force. It's just that most people only give their religion lip service unless it's supporting what they want at the time, at which time they become strictly religious and excuse the inexcusable by claiming their religion requires "X", so it must be tolerated because GAWD.
I say the intolerable must not be tolerated, no matter what the excuse. Society has determined that murder is intolerable. If your organization's written rules call for murder (whether those rules are regularly followed or not), your organization is a violent criminal organization and should be eradicated immediately. That goes for all major religions in the same way it goes for other organized criminal organizations...I simply can't ever understand why we don't act that way as a society.

There will be autonomous or at least semi-autonomous combat robots and there is no stopping it. For one thing, they've already been in use since the early 80's. Cruise missiles are autonomous killer robots. The only difference is that they don't come back when the job is done, but that's a trivial point. More importantly, having a human always in the loop makes current drones massively less effective weapons and giving a potential enemy such a huge opening for that advantage is unwise. You also really can't ban them because they're simply an assembly of extremely useful civilized tools.

That said, she does hit on a very important point though regarding the application of modern drones, which is that they're being used as terror weapons, which we should not be comfortable with. Having drones loiter day in and day out over civilian populated areas is an inexcusable act of cruelty.

Most police officers are good, therefore bad cops aren't a problem = BULLSHIT

Even if most officers are good, it doesn't excuse the behavior of rogues. If someone acted like an inexcusable and physically abusive dick around me and I were his peer, I would go help out the person whose property was mishandled. Why is that not the case in the law enforcement industry?

That's straight up BS on the part of every authoritarian and authoritarian sympathizer out there. This type of groupthink should NOT occur. It wasn't even the one cop, it was the whole bunch at this scene who witnessed the crime occur and failed to bring it under control.

It's pathetic alpha male surrounded by acquiescing beta males. That's the main problem right there. It's a systemic problem, not a single bad apple here and there type of social issue.