The robber was fighting him until the 5th stab, and the stabbing stopped as soon as he went limp/stopped fighting. To me it seemed only the last stab penetrated, that’s, I assumed, why you see no blood at all. Once he penetrated and subdued, he stopped immediately. To me, that’s proportional.

Also he said he assumed they had guns like the other earlier robbers from the open and backwards backpack, and wasn’t giving the thief a chance to become a murderer. As soon as he jumps the counter I say all bets are off, the owner doesn’t have to wait to defend himself and his employees from a proven violent thief.

He may be charged, but I think he has a good chance of winning any case, he only needs one jurist to see it that way, and almost any small business owner will.

Way to conflate homosexuality with pedophilia despite all studies showing the opposite is true.

https://lgbpsychology.org/html/facts_molestation.html
https://psmag.com/social-justice/do-gay-men-have-more-sexual-interest-in-children-than-straight-men-do-62127

Because I know you won't read either study, let me quote....
"Using phallometric test sensitivities to calculate the proportion of true pedophiles among various groups of sex offenders against children, and taking into consideration previously reported mean numbers of victims per offender group, the ratio of heterosexual to homosexual pedophiles was calculated to be approximately 11:1." If homosexuals were even equal in child molesting, that would be closer to 9:1.
I guess you now agree that heterosexual teachers shouldn't be in the classroom because they are more likely to be child molesters, because scientific fact overrides prejudicial opinion.

Mr engineer, when there are two parties, sentence structure demands you use plurals….both sides have THEIR share of undesirables. An engineer should see grammar as a clearly defined structure that follows simple rules and just get it. Spelling is different, but grammar should be a no brainer….why is it so hard for you? Have you never seen it that way, or was engineering incredibly difficult for you too?

The difference being one side is all undesirables, and the level of undesirability. One side openly calls for an end to American democracy, death for their political rivals, death for anyone who disagrees with today’s talking point. One side has no party platform, no stated goals, and exists solely to stop any legislation the other side puts forth, even when it was something they want or that would benefit them. They are the same side.

We found another point of agreement.

Term limits are a must, and will never happen because our system does put the regulatory onus on those who need regulating….absolute insanity. It also lets them set their own salaries, ethics, and benefits.

Divestment is another must. Perhaps a bigger must. Total divestment across the board. Not just blind trusts that aren’t really blind, and absolutely not what we have now…the “honor” system run by the honorless. Allowing legislatures to write horrific laws because they can personally financially benefit is a recipe for disaster. That should (but never will) change.

Campaign finance is a third must. Corporations should have the same donation limits individuals have, which should be more like $100 each so every person can afford to have a voice, and we should return to an equal time on broadcast tv for free situation and deny the media as a political platform to give candidates a boost….no more Fox News interviews indistinguishable from campaign commercials, no more media smear campaigns, with severe penalties for violations, like $10 mil the first time, $25 mil the second, loss of fcc license the third. Another non starter….but needed badly.

PACs should be outlawed, or regulated into obscurity.

Some reasons often brought up in opposition to term limits can be traced back to Maddison who wrote "[A] few of the members of Congress will possess superior talents; will by frequent re-elections, become members of long standing; will be thoroughly masters of the public business, and perhaps not unwilling to avail themselves of those advantages. The greater the proportion of new members of Congress, and the less the information of the bulk of the members, the more apt they be to fall into the snares that may be laid before them,"

I think we have proven at this point the cons of self serving representatives legislating for personal gains outweigh the benefits of professional legislators, especially seeing as we have the internet and huge staffs to ostensibly level the playing field of knowledge.

One fix would be the creation of an ethics branch, completely non partisan, not self regulatory, with rules against former candidates (winners and losers) and lobbyists too from serving and strict rules about how they operate, and bans from running for office or being a lobbyist afterwards so it doesn’t become a campaign platform or tool for industry. Maybe even ban close family members from the same. Won’t happen, only the best people intentionally limit their powers, and they are few and far between in Congress….all but absent on your side.

Yes that is a thing.

Not all russians have phones. Plus they are anyway mostly sitting in vehicles stuck on roads sometimes without gas or food. It is a tactical mess of Trump-like proportions.

Also ukranian drones are still able to fly. The russians are advancing by the sheer mass of their bodies as usual, no brains or preparation involved.

Unfortunately the Russian army is 10 times stronger than the Ukrainian.

Clearly fails to meet the criteria for a citizens arrest….they had no personal knowledge he had committed a crime (and indeed he had not). They did not stop him immediately during the commission of a crime or immediately afterwards. The crime they suspected him of committing was not a felony, so they could not follow him or arrest him after the fact, the law requires immediate apprehension. The force used in a citizens arrest must be proportional to the crime, it wasn’t.

Because it wasn’t a legitimate citizens arrest, by stopping him and aiming guns at him they became the initial aggressors, and the instigator of violence cannot claim self defense when his victim defends themselves….by law.

But they’re white, at least one was in law enforcement, the victim is black, and it’s Georgia. Don’t get your hopes up even such a blatantly obvious cut and dry murder case will end with a fair outcome.

Ironically, the defense just asked again for a mistrial because black men are driving around the protests carrying rifles, and they say that’s an intimidation tactic meant to terrify the jury (while admitting the jury is unaware of them)…but when their clients did that and went on to use those guns, that was a civic duty, a community service they were performing. Um….

if youre on the other side an argument with sesame street you are a loser of epic proportion

Trump saluted a North Korean general. If you still like that traitor after that you're a f-ckin loser of epic proportion.

They are waiting for the FDA to certify as something other than Emergency Use Authorization ("EUA")--Although they don't HAVE to wait for that; they could.

One thought? If you push the anti-vaxxer folks out of law enforcement--and this is just conjecture--I wonder if you would also be pushing out a certain proportion of folks with particular political and behavioral beliefs...

When someone tries to bite you, you or they can absolutely slug them. Self defense is a legitimate defense. His taser was holstered and his help wasn't helping. Once she tried to do him physical harm, she invited them to do harm to her....proportional harm, which I think one punch definitely is, a human bite is incredibly dangerous. I think he'll be fine job wise, but harrassed publicly for hitting a woman because sexism.

I think the female might be in the most danger of reprimand if not firing. She not only didn't help either male, both having obvious serious trouble controlling their arrestees, but saw they also had trouble with the hostile crowd and instead of shielding them from it she hid behind them.

Newt, you don't know the half of it. The reason they need a bail-out? Two words, my friend: stock buybacks.

Back in '16, good ol' AA was ~$20 BILLION in debt. Yes, their DEBT was larger than the GDP of some nations. Bad situation, right? What to do, what to do -- HEY! I got it! Let's spend NINE FUCKING BILLION on stock buybacks. In doing so, they turned $5b in reserve cash into $550 million. Trump himself couldn't have fucked this up worse if he tried.

It gets worse. Here, I will quote from Forbes:

"The numbers boggle the mind. American Airlines spent nearly three times its current value on stock buybacks over the last six years."

It gets even worse from there.

Over the last ten years, AA spent ~$13b on stock buybacks. You know what their free cash flow was over the same 10-year period?

-$7,935 million.

That's not a typo. Their free cash flow, unique among all major airlines, is NEGATIVE. The number on their -negative- cash flow is greater than the -positive- cash flows of Jet Blue and Alaska combined.

Guess where that money went?

Shareholders? Nope.
Employees? Nope.
Improvements to the business as a whole? Nuh-uh.

If you guessed "The CEO's pocket", you win a $4 Snickers bar. If you also suspect that any bailout will end up in the same place, I'm throwing in a free Baby Ruth or an Abbazabba (your choice).

That's right: your tax-paying American ass is going to bail out these cocksuckers not to save jobs -- no fucking chance in Hell that's going to happen -- but to make Doug fucking Parker, an asshole of utterly legendary proportions who made $11.5 MILLION in 2019 thanks to those buybacks, even fucking richer.

There's not enough Prep-H in the world to compensate for that level of ass-fucking. And you WILL smile when you're getting raped, otherwise it's getting stuffed in your mouth afterwards.

(BTW: when they started this financial cocksuckery, AA was ~$60 a share. On Friday, it closed just below $13. Dough Parker still made money. The funds, including pension funds, who invested in AA @ $60? Not so much.)

Your video, Mismatch of epic proportions, has made it into the Top 15 New Videos listing. Congratulations on your achievement. For your contribution you have been awarded 1 Power Point.

This achievement has earned you your "Pop Star" Level 466 Badge!

*quality and terrifying

If they were expressed as a proportion of the then-population of Earth they affected, it might have been even scarier.

I think it kind of depends on what he means by 16,000x louder? If he's talking in decibels, then it's already a logarithmic scale, so 16,000x times higher output amplitude is about 84db? higher (which is no joke) not quite sure on the maths there. 16,000db higher is basically impossible unless we are talking a supernova or something.

That puts it at over 204db which is apparently the same volume as the Saturn V launch. Which would definitely kill you, but maybe not 8000 times over... I mean once really does the trick.

If he's talking about the energy input, it seems that's a different thing according to wikipedia, and would result in an increase of 42db, which puts it at 162db, which is about the same as a 12-guage.

He may also mean that the sound is that loud at source, but as the guy was probably trying to say as he was squirming, the distance matters. The sound energy will be dissipated over a 2D shell and so I'd guess it drops off proportional to distance squared plus some extra for loss as it goes.

All of that is in air, it's quite a different matter in the water as I think the force is transmitted more efficiently.

Either way, every 10 seconds for months? No thanks.

You might have missed my original statement where the entire tax code was abolished. Income taxes go away. There are no loopholes, breaks, tax credits or deductions, etc. Rich people/businesses purchase more goods and services than poorer so they would pay more taxes proportionally (in sum not percent). I am not looking for wealth equality I am looking for taxation equality. Look at Amazon's taxes again this year.

Sure. Imo, fear only works to control a population until they are given hope for the possibility of something better....usually hope of a successful coup or escape. Power held by terror must constantly defend against revolt by the terrorised. The torturousness of the treatment is inversely proportional to the amount of hope required to start a revolt because when your life is nothing but torture, risking your life to change that is far more appealing. Truly hopeless people are easy to control.