Found the video sickening even though it's nothing new for police to totally botch welfare checks. At least they didn't shoot her.

Police should not be involved in welfare checks other than as backup. They are not trained for it. Mind you I have no fucking idea what these goons trained for if 7? of them can't physically lift a restrained child into a car without bitching and resorting to spray.

The female officer was trying to de-escalate and may have got somewhere if the raging thundercunt had let her do her job.

"Who said protests have to be peaceful?"
-Chris Cuomo

The acts of Jan 6 were a little predictable given the police and public responses to riots the last 6 months. People tried to burn down the federal courthouse in Portland, and the worst they got was teargas. Same with burning the church just blocks away from the capitol. No bullets fired at any point. I don't think there was any expectation of getting shot by anyone going in unarmed, the cops seemed satisfied to resist with a shoving match in many cases, even those carrying full-auto assault rifles were remarkably restrained. I think they recovered 5 guns total by people inside?

It looks like there were enough cops to hold the crowd back if they concentrated at the doors, they made a mistake trying to have a large perimeter, which is why we have videos of them taking barriers down because they were just gone around and useless, not because cops were letting them in. There were about 50 full on riot cops with shields who seemed to hold the rear of the building just fine.

No, no bets, thank you. I thought this was a shining example of why Trump being president should bother people. He really is stupid and obnoxious and uneducated to that level.

I have a vague memory of 2016 Trump boasting that he could be very "presidential", was very clever, and had "the best words". What has that come to? This video basically.

Frankly at that time I was still convinced Obama was a puppet - a black intellectual fullfilling the role that a party needed fulfilled, a token black president. Retrospectively he was (is) a very intelligent, eloquent person excercising extreme self-control in the face of trolls like Bob. He was constantly walking a tightrope of trying to rebuff idiots without insulting them. And tried to promote some reasonable policies.

Trump could not summon the effort to self control, but mainly he does not understand why he should restrain himself. He is like a travesty show performer, as long as he is billed in this performance as "president" he can do anything, no matter how stupid, and there will be people cheering.

What intrigues me is that in the US tradition past presidents are given a "respected" status for life. Should be fun.

Sorry,but someone who's identity is supporting gun carriers isn't likely to give an unbiased report, but I'll read the Newsweek.

It makes zero sense that he's somehow blocks away from the parking lot he went to protect when he shot the man that threw a plastic bag in the head. How on earth did he get chased from his well armed group? I read reports that he was loudly arguing with the man he shot first, among others.

Shot fired in the air....so he didn't know who shot, from where, at what. Nothing. Might have been his fellow militia trying to chase away the crowd, right?

I've seen the video of him running, pointing his gun randomly, falling, shooting, and people risking their lives trying to take an active shooters weapon. Stomping someone running and gunning from a murder is acceptable imo. Shooting him with a handgun is ok if he doesn't submit to citizens arrest.

I have to agree with Bosuie. You do not have a right to murder people who are trying to stop you from fleeing a murder you just committed.

If he hadn't continued to try to flee, armed and aiming randomly, they wouldn't have had the need to use physical force to detain him. He did, they were all being good citizens trying to stop a murderer, imo. Restrained and totally within their legal rights.

So, the illegal firearm was on militia boys side, and militia boy used his.

Militia kid went looking for trouble, found it, panicked, murdered a few people and tried to kill a third, and fled the state without telling the police. He was not trying to do the right thing running towards police, he was trying to escape the crowd he had just shot at.

I don't think I said the mass looting and rioting were all fake antifa, I'm saying many of those starting it are. The ones who wander into peaceful protests and start smashing glass or starting fires, swinging at protesters that try to stop them, and running. The ones doing drive bys on police and crowds of protesters. The multiple cases of groups caught with bombs planning to blame blm for bombing police or schools or government buildings. Those are fake antifa boogaloo boys, right wing terrorists. They are nation wide, and they are trying hard to instigate rioting and looting, usually successfully.

In Kenosha, the violent killers were right wing. The looters, not so much. In that instance, no boogaloos needed to spark rioting, just more unarmed black men shot 7 times in the back feet from their children served nicely, the unarmed black man murdered by police near there 10 years ago didn't even get investigated, just ignored.

Again, chasing an active shooter and trying to disarm him is bravery and honorable. Shooting a baggie tosser isn't

The glok, not sure why you think it being loaded gets you excited, they don't work unloaded, wasn't used, and obviously should have been in self defense.

He was defending himself, against being caught. He wasn't defending himself when he left his defensive position to go blocks away and shoot an unarmed man with a plastic bag.
He put himself in a dangerous position, made it far more dangerous by murdering someone because he got scared over a baggie, then murdered his way out. I say he was 100% wrong from the moment he left home looking for trouble he could solve with his rifle, and made every bad decision he could from there, resulting in two dead men and a third injured.

Yes, I never expect you to make things up, but you took a position that seems deluded, based on facts I have not heard mentioned one bit, and that were mostly irrelevant, just throwing dirt at the victims. I see that some of what you said is corroborated by reports, but not that any of it excuses one bit of his behavior or makes the protesters in the wrong one whit. Thanks for the links.

If he was looking for help from police, why didn't he ask for any when he reached them? Why didn't he report the shooting? No, he went home and hid, hoping no one could identify him.

Again, doing whatever is necessary to apprehend a violent felon by citizens arrest is legal and proper, which is why I say emptying the glok would have been the right move until he was disarmed and subdued. Hitting him with a skateboard, 100% proper and legal.

Know just enough to wonder:

1) She just announced she owns guns and where she keeps them with pictures of the gun safe. Ok, pros and cons to that.
2) She passed through line of fire of her husband/partner instead of getting the subject flat or circling around the other side. I think that's a no-no.
3) Why take him in the house in confined spaces instead of outside on the lawn when he exits? And then way too many people enter the house before the guy is restrained.

Security don't seem trained for that sort of thing at all. They took maybe 2.5-3mins to respond then stood around for a while before doing SFA. They even let the "attacker" who had been restrained by the public walk right up to the woman he had just assaulted which could have easily turned violent again.

I believe the only real solution is to recognize that the role of a police officer is one that is inherently unstable. As history shows, it is impossible to expect one small group of people to deal with all the violence, anger, punitive actions, and force for all of society.

But without this group of mentally and morally unstable people, then each person in the populace at large would need to individually learn how to deal with violent offenders, restrain someone, know when to use lethal force, adjudicate their punishment, carry out their punishment, handle traffic accidents, dead bodies, emergencies, and so much more. The culture at large already expects every person to delegate these tasks, and if an individual does not immediately call the cops there may actually be punitive action taken against that individual.

I have no solution to this societal problem. But then again, I don't feel obligated to solve the problem for society. In fact, the eventual destruction of the society (that so delegates) may be the eventual "solution" that inevitably comes without collective individual change. I'm content having a solution fit for myself, my family, and for those who other souls who come to me personally for a solution (to varying degrees).

Fuck you, feels! I told you we're separated! I'm getting a restraining order!

*quality

As someone who watches a LOT of kid's movies with my daughter, I notice an alarming regularity of torture in children's media.

You like Pixar movies, right? Pick a Pixar film, ALL of them have a torture scene. It's bizarre.

It's late, so I'll be succinct about these, but let's define torture as follows:
Torture - noun - the act of deliberately inflicting severe physical or psychological suffering on someone by another as a punishment or in order to fulfill some desire of the torturer or force some action from the victim

Fair?

This is a short list I can think of off the top of my head

Toy Story
Sid tortures Woody "Where are your rebel friends NOW?" as he burns his forehead

Toy Story 2
Stinky Pete tortures Woody "You can go to Japan together or in pieces. Now GET IN THE BOX!"

Toy Story 3
Buzz gets put in the "time-out chair" with a burlap bag put over his head and is forced to turn on his friends

Monster's Inc.
Mike is put in the "scream extractor" and is interrogated "Where's the kid?" as the extractor inches towards his face.

Wreck it Ralph
Ralph asks "What's going on in this candy coated Heart of Darkness?" Sour Bill tries to run away but Ralph picks him up and threatens to lick him. "I'll take it to my grave" "Fair enough" and Ralph pops Sour Bill in his mouth "Had enough?" "OKAY OKAY I'LL TALK!"

Cars 2
The green-gasoline in his tank, the spy car is put in front of the radiation shooting camera and is interrogated about who the other spy is and who has the information about the green gas he recovered that could unravel their plan to get revenge for being discriminated against for being "lemons." His engine explodes (he's killed?) in spite of giving up the information.

The Incredibles
Mr. Incredible is restrained via some black goop and asked about his family's whereabouts on the island.

Finding Nemo
Near the end of the film when Dory finds Nemo but Marlin has wandered off thinking Nemo was dead, they need to know which way Marlin went and come across the little crabs sitting on the pipe "heyyyyyyyyheyyyyyyyyyyheyyyyyyyy" "Yeah I saw where he went, but I'm not telling you, and there's no way you're gonna make me." Dory lifts him up and threatens to feed him to the seagulls sitting on a small rock until he starts screaming "OKAY ILL TALK ILL TALK HE WENT TO THE FISHING GROUNDS!!!"

I could go on, but I hope to make this simple point:
These films do NOT have to include a torture scene. It's simply odd to me that it appears so often, instilling the idea early on that torture works for getting information or cooperation out of people.

Finally, I point to one of many pieces of research on the matter https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC5325643/

From Wikipedia's Man catcher page's section on China:

"A type of locking man catcher is available for staff at train stations and airports in China to capture and restrain individuals in a non-lethal manner.

"In some junior and middle schools, security guards are equipped with non-locking variants designed to seize a person's waist or prevent them from advancing. It is essentially a two-pronged fork, a U-shape projecting from a pole."

What "facts"? Your opinion? That's just, like, your opinion, man.
Edit: Facts that Trump said aren't facts? That's the best indicator today that they are factual.
I'll take the dozens of convictions and guilty pleas based on those facts as proof enough they are true and well vetted. People don't agree to years in prison based on nonsense that's been proven false....especially not people with money like these people have.

As the exalted leaders #1 choice for (mis)information that becomes policy and platform for the right, and part of the right wing triad ministry of truth, you simply can't leave Jones out of any media discussion, particularly one where someone paints the BBC as having an (anti?)American political bias, and not just a bias for reality.

Yes, it's all fine and dandy. Any investigation of an investigation by the subject being investigated (or their proxies) is patently ridiculous and a clear political ploy to satiate your need for corroboration of what you want to believe, fact based or not. They knew they couldn't write the investigation's findings, nor could they accept the truth being made public, the only option left is to discredit the investigation, something they've been trying since before it began. I find it incredibly sad that so many are so thoroughly indoctrinated that you buy that obvious, self serving ploy to discredit the entire FBI and intelligence community in favor of a consummate narcissist and convicted fraud's self serving and baseless stated opinion about himself.
I guess you believe mob bosses who claimed they were framed and are just legitimate businessmen too, tapes and other evidence of them planning crimes and committing them are nothing in the face of their denials, right?

Yes...yes he did say that about central American immigrants....are you just parsing the fact that he didn't specifically say EACH AND EVERY ONE IS A RAPIST, while not acknowledging what he did say...."They're sending people that have lots of problems, and they're bringing those problems with us. They're bringing drugs. They're bringing crime. They're rapists. And some, I assume, are good people."? Strictly read, he's saying they're all rapists, but some are good people anyway....just like some Neo Nazis are good people in his opinion. You're attempts at rectifying oldthink (rewriting history) only work with people who have no memories. I watched him say it and I can remember yesterday without big brother telling me what to remember.

I can't dive into your paranoia to decipher what you're feeling. If you can't hear "accosted" and gather they likely arrested her aggressively and instead read that as some hidden agenda to.....well, you didn't articulate what the motive would be...., perhaps reading comprehension isn't a strong suit.

ac·cost. /əˈkôst,əˈkäst/ verb
past tense: accosted; past participle: accosted
approach and address (someone) boldly or aggressively.

I disagree with your characterizations. Considering the constant vitriolic, dangerous, demonizing, now blatant terroristic threats from Trump directed at all non right wing propaganda outlets that won't spread his propaganda and stroke his ego, amplified through his right wing minitrue and interpreted by his base that he's trained to hear his dog whistling, and in the face of the same, they display a mature, composed, restrained, unbiased, and inhumanly patient character, including the three you listed.
Yes, they are mature and reasonable adults under constant attack from a serial con man/cult leader and constant threats against their lives, not one Fox host, Jones host, or OAN host is 1/4 as mature, honest, or unbiased as the worst you can mention from CNN.....and no, CNN is not my preferred news source, but they are infinitely better than anything the evil trinity of right wing propaganda produces, including the totally dishonest smear campaign against all news organizations that you are part of now, willingly or not.

That's what the ministry of truth does. They get you to repeat their lies until you believe them enough to be the enemy of anyone still believing fact and reality. It clearly worked.

Btw, still waiting on the names of CNN reporters who have gone on the campaign to stump for the left, like Fox hosts did on the right. You insanely claim CNN is more biased than Fox, you should be able to name at least 4 off hand then.

Normally I would ask you to refrain from personal attacks, even those couched as opinion........


....... but imo Bob really went trolling hard, begging for attacks this time. Personally I have a real hard time asking people to remain civil and restrained in the face of such a disgustingly provocative zealator* who's being disrespectfully vile to a recently deceased, not yet buried American hero (one I rarely agreed with but almost always respected).

That said, it's better if we don't dig holes to get down to his level of discourse and thinking.

But that's just, like, my opinion, man.

*a zealous defender or supporter, one who zealously furthers the cause...

Really? WE sponsored a VIOLENT coup? So you take the purely Russian viewpoint.
Wiki-
After the breakup of the Soviet Union, Ukraine endured years of corruption, mismanagement, lack of economic growth, currency devaluation, and problems in securing funding from public markets.[38][39] Successive Ukrainian governments in the 2000s sought a closer relationship with the European Union (EU).[40][41] One of the measures meant to achieve this was an association agreement with the European Union, which would have provided Ukraine with funds in return for liberalising reforms. President Yanukovych announced his intention to sign the agreement, but ultimately refused to do so at the last minute. This sparked a wave of protests called the "Euromaidan" movement. During these protests Yanukovych signed a treaty and multibillion-dollar loan with Russia. The Ukrainian security forces cracked down on the protesters, further inflaming the situation and resulting in a series of violent clashes in the streets of Kiev. As tensions rose, Yanukovych fled to Russia and did not return.[44]

Russia refused to recognize the new interim government, calling the overthrow of Yanukovych a coup d'état, and began a military intervention in Ukraine. The newly appointed interim government of Ukraine signed the EU association agreement and agreed to reform the country's judiciary and political systems, as well as its financial and economic policies. The International Monetary Fund pledged more than $18 billion in loans contingent on Ukraine's adopting those reforms. The revolution was followed by pro-Russian unrest in some south-eastern regions, a standoff with Russia regarding the annexation of Crimea and Sevastopol, and a war between the Ukrainian government and Russia-backed separatists in the Donbass.



The thing to remember about Crimea is it WASN'T PART OF RUSSIA, so no it didn't hold Russia's only black sea port not ice blocked in winter, it held a Ukrainian port Russia LEASED for use by it's black sea fleet from the Ukraine.
It's utter bullshit that Russia found a democratic way to invade and annex Crimea, they militarily invaded, seized and dissolved the democratically elected government by force, created and installed a new pro Russian sham government, then IT signed fake illegal treaties with Russia in violation of international laws and multiple binding treaties.
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Annexation_of_Crimea_by_the_Russian_Federation

Russian masked troops invade and occupy key Crimean locations, including airports and military bases, following Putin's orders.[2][3]
The head of Ukrainian Navy, Admiral Berezovsky, defects, followed later by half of the Ukrainian military stationed in the region.[4][5][6]
Russian forces seize the Supreme Council (Crimean parliament). The Council of Ministers of Crimea is dissolved and a new pro-Russian Prime Minister installed.[7][8]
The new Supreme Council declares the Republic of Crimea to be an independent, self-governing entity, then holds a referendum on the status of Crimea on 16 March, which results in a majority vote to join the Russian Federation.[9]
Treaty signed between the Republic of Crimea and the Russian Federation at the Kremlin on 18 March to formally initiate Crimea's accession to the Russian Federation.[10]
The Ukrainian Armed Forces are evicted from their bases on 19 March by Crimean protesters and Russian troops. Ukraine subsequently announces the withdrawal of its forces from Crimea.[11]
Russia suspended from G8.[12]
International sanctions introduced on Russia.

You sound distinctly Soviet or ridiculously ignorant in your misrepresentation of the situation. They militarily attacked, invaded, and seized their neighbor, so not a bit restrained, they were not invited in by the government and welcomed....or would you insist they are also exceptionally restrained for not attacking and retaking Anchorage Alaska, their only non winter ice bound port in North America, a port clearly more strategically important than Sebastopol and just as Russian?

Lest we forget that Crimea started when we sponsored a violent coup in Ukraine, right on Russia's doorstep. How provocative is that?

The thing to remember about Crimea is that it holds Sevastopol which is a strategically vital port for Russia, it is their only port that isn't ice locked during winter. We knew full well they would have to keep hold of it one way or another, and thankfully Russia found a democratic way of doing it instead of violent.

Under the circumstances I think Russia deserves credit for being so restrained.

Possible, but I don't really think so. I think that the Medical minds of the time thought that physical shock, pressure waves from bombing etc. as you described, were a (or perhaps THE) primary cause of the psychological problems of returning soldiers. So the name "shell shock" came from there, but the symptoms that it was describing were psychological and, I think precisely equal to modern PTSD. Basically, "shell shock" became a polite euphemism for "soldier that got mentally messed up in the war and is having difficulty returning to civilian life".

My grandfather was an Army Air Corps armorer during WWII. He went through basic training, but his primary job was loading ammunition, bombs, external gas tanks, etc. onto P-47 airplanes. He was never in a direct combat situation, as I would describe it. He was never shot at, never in the shockwave radius of explosions, etc. But after the war he was described as having mild "shell shock", manifested by being withdrawn, not wanting to talk about the war, and occasionally prone to angry outbursts over seemingly trivial things. Eventually, he started talking about the war in his mid 80's, and here's a few relevant (perhaps) stories of his:

He joined the European theater a couple days after D-Day. Came to shore on a Normandy beach in the same sort of landing craft seen in Saving Private Ryan, etc. Even though it was days later, there were still LOTS of bodies on the beach, and thick smell of death. Welcome to the war!

His fighter group took over a French farm house adjacent to a dirt landing strip / runway. They put up a barbed wire perimeter with a gate on the road. In one of the only times I heard of him having a firearm and being expected to potentially use it, he pulled guard duty at that gate one evening. His commanding officer gave him orders to shoot anyone that couldn't provide identification on sight. While he was standing guard, a woman in her 20's rolled up on a bicycle, somewhat distraught. She spoke no English, only French. She clearly wanted to get in, and even tried to push past my grandfather. By the letter of his orders, he was "supposed" to shoot her. Instead, he knocked her off her bike when she tried to ride past after getting nowhere verbally and physically restrained her. At gunpoint! When someone that spoke French got there, it turned out that she was the daughter of the family that lived in the farm house. They had no food, and she was coming back to get some potatoes they had left in the larder.

Riding trains was a common way to get air corps support staff up to near the front, and also to get everybody back to transport ships at the end of the war. On one of those journeys later in the war, my grandfather was riding in an open train car with a bunch of his buddies. They were all given meals at the start of the trip. A short while later, the track went through a French town. A bunch of civilians were waiting around the tracks begging for food. I'll never forgot my grandfather describing that scene. It was tough for him to get out, and then all he managed was "they was starvin'!" He later explained that he and his buddies all gave up the food that they had to those people in the first town -- only to have none left to give as they rolled past similar scenes in each town on down the line.

When my mother was growing up, she and her brothers learned that they'd better not leave any food on their plates to go to waste. She has said that the angriest she ever saw her dad was when her brothers got into a food fight one time, and my grandfather went ballistic. They couldn't really figure out what the big deal was, until years later when my grandfather started telling his war stories and suddenly things made more sense.


A lot of guys had a much rougher war than my grandfather. Way more direct combat. Saw stuff much worse -- and had to DO things that were hard to live with. I think the psychological fallout of stuff like that explains the vast majority of "shell shock", without the addition of CTE-like physical head trauma. I'd wager that when the docs said Stewart's father's shell shock was a reaction to aerial bombardment, that was really just a face-saving measure to try to explain away the perceived "weakness" of his condition.