While I was grade 9, I tackled a fellow 2 years my senior (G11), he must be 5~6 inches taller than me (me being 5'6" in my adulthood, while he was one of the tallest in school, though not muscular), I dislocated his shoulder TWICE, during practices. First time he was hospitalized for 4 days, the second time was kind of funny. When I dislocated his shoulder again (with an audible "pop"), the guy next to me floored him and put his shoulder back in place (with an audible "click/sploosh"-y sound, hard to describe). Obviously he was in pain, and was twisting and tossing himself, but when the pain subsided a little bit and opened his eyes and saw me just standing there, he screamed "you again!?" All I could do was thinking of those Mel Gibson "dislocating shoulder" scenes in the Lethal Weapons movies.

So, it's not about size, really, it's to know where & how to tackle a big boi.

I guess the guy in the video can bust the zip tie with his obvious strength. However, I doubt most of the people in Congress can do that. Besides, even if a Congressperson can free him/herself, what happens after? Would I bet those seditionists don't carry lethal weapons? I wouldn't bet on it.

So they're basically remaking Lethal Weapon 1 but longer?

Hopes are not high

Cop lovers disgust me. Go ahead and say "love all people". It's a safe bet that you don't truly. Cops are not heroes. They're only special if they do special things. Just signing up to be a cop doesn't make you anything but a person who chose a career path. Picking a shitty low paying career path doesn't entitle you to sympathy or respect. It means you are likely not very smart yet permitted to wield a lethal weapon and force your rudimentary interpretation of the law onto others.

Meh, I don't think he's the Donald Trump of the Esplanade, more Danny Glover in Lethal Weapon "I'm too old for this shit" lazy.

OK. I concede that sometimes the later parts of a series can be better than the second one. ;-)

But among the three Nolan Batman Movies, the second one is by far the best.

And nobody would argue the Terminator 2 is better than 3, 4 and 5 (and in my opinion even 1).

Star Trek 2 (The Wrath Of Khan) is still one of the best Star Trek movies.

> Die Hard 3 was WAY better than the snooze fest sequel.
> Samuel L. Jackson, man.

Back then I thought that DIe Hard 3 was more part of the Lethal Weapon series than a real Die Hard movie, but after 4 and 5, the majority rule makes it clear that Die Hard and Die Hard 2 are not part of the Die Hard series. ;-)

Weird, you mention "black Nick Fury" but Heimdall, the nordic black dude, isn't "black Heimdall"? He wasn't black until Idris Elba was cast. Sam Jackson was cast because a later iteration of the Fury character was based upon him.
And what's this stuff about Hulk being the "black Bruce Banner"? Because he has remarkable pigmentation or because he's really angry?
You have a weird way of making a point about token black friends. You shall go watch all Lethal Weapon movies as punishment.

I say fail to the tard who stands in front of one of the most lethal weapons in human history...

@dirkdeagler
What can I say?

Zimmerman was told to stay in his car. He didn't follow directions. He had a gun in his pocket. He approached first.

Did he approach because he felt invincible with a gun in his pocket?

Zimmerman set up the confrontation. And Trayvon died.

As soon as he stepped from his car, he abdicated "Stand Your Ground" as a defense, as far as I am concerned. He was adjudged not guilty under the Stand Your Ground law.

I don't see any holes in my logic. I don't see the word black or racist anywhere in my statements.

A gun is not a toy. It is a lethal weapon. Zimmerman approached a person with a lethal weapon in his possession, and that person died. Stand Your Ground, my ass.

I find it terribly funny how everybody gets upset at this. Did you really expect your justice system to be fair? America is the world leader in jailing its own population and yet even the most obvious criminal behaviour (yes, I'm looking at you, Wall Street) isn't even investigated.
It doesn't matter who's at fault here. It's doesn't matter if hoodies are lethal weapons or listening to the police is a bad idea. The fact is that laws that allow these killings to happen in the first place are wrong, that's what matters. Like in many other cases we discuss the people involved in a problem, not the problem itself. I don't give a shit about George Zimmerman, he has blood on his hands one way or another. I don't care where Ed Snowden is hanging out right now either. I care about laws that give others easy excuses to murder me, I care about the invasion of my privacy. I care about the issues not the people bringing them to our attention.
If I gave a shit about Zimmerman, I'd tail him until he notices and confronts me and then I'd blow his brains out. "I was scared, I thought he was armed and would shoot me, so I shot first. Stand your ground."
But he's just a diversion.

It really puts the "lethal" in "non-lethal weapon."

No sarcasm. I clearly explained the difference between design and use. I'm sorry if you don't get it - it's an engineering thing.

The fact that people use it mainly for paper shooting is totally relevant. It's what people use them for. Dismissing millions of firearms users as being irrelevant because they use it for paper is ridiculous. The onus is on you to show us millions of firearms users who shoot paper and believe it is relevant that it is irrelevant.

Simple comparison: knives are designed to cleave matter. A knife's current most popular use is chopping food. In times previous it was the ultimate killing weapon (for several thousand years). What it is designed for and used for are different concepts. What it is currently used for is important.

Yes they are lethal weapons, and yes people need to treat them with respect - but that's just paraphrasing what I've already written so I don't know why you're trying to write it back to me.

Are you being sarcastic? A gun's primary purpose and design is to kill (through means of a explosively propelled projectile), just like a bow and arrow, although a bow and arrow doesn't accidentally go off when simply holding it. The fact the vast majority of people in the States for simple target practice is so utterly irrelevant I'm surprised you brought it up. They are lethal weapons, and people need to handle them with some goddamn respect or it will kill you or others.

If you cannot maintain a sense of non-complacency when operating a lethal weapon, you deserve to get shot... or not have it. One or the other.

>> ^GeeSussFreeK:

Ironically, I think the police would be less violent if the only weapon you gave them was a nuclear warhead.


You are not alone.
Stephen Coleman: The moral dangers of non-lethal weapons