search results matching tag: run away

» channel: motorsports

go advanced with your query
Search took 0.003 seconds

    Videos (113)     Sift Talk (1)     Blogs (7)     Comments (729)   

Bear in the garbage in Colorado

CNN anchor reads Survivor's Statement on air

bareboards2 says...

I have also linked this in the description, so people don't have to read the comments to find this link:

http://www.dailykos.com/story/2016/6/6/1534962/-The-daunting-and-powerful-statement-a-Stanford-victim-reads-to-her-rapist-in-court-goes-viral

Here is part of the full statement that was excised for time -- part of where she responds to the defendant's statement, point by point:

You said, Being drunk I just couldn’t make the best decisions and neither could she.

Alcohol is not an excuse. Is it a factor? Yes. But alcohol was not the one who stripped me, fingered me, had my head dragging against the ground, with me almost fully naked. Having too much to drink was an amateur mistake that I admit to, but it is not criminal. Everyone in this room has had a night where they have regretted drinking too much, or knows someone close to them who has had a night where they have regretted drinking too much. Regretting drinking is not the same as regretting sexual assault. We were both drunk, the difference is I did not take off your pants and underwear, touch you inappropriately, and run away. That’s the difference.

You said, If I wanted to get to know her, I should have asked for her number, rather than asking her to go back to my room.

I’m not mad because you didn’t ask for my number. Even if you did know me, I would not want be in this situation. My own boyfriend knows me, but if he asked to finger me behind a dumpster, I would slap him. No girl wants to be in this situation. Nobody. I don’t care if you know their phone number or not.

You said, I stupidly thought it was okay for me to do what everyone around me was doing, which was drinking. I was wrong.

Again, you were not wrong for drinking. Everyone around you was not sexually assaulting me. You were wrong for doing what nobody else was doing, which was pushing your erect dick in your pants against my naked, defenseless body concealed in a dark area, where partygoers could no longer see or protect me, and own my sister could not find me. Sipping fireball is not your crime. Peeling off and discarding my underwear like a candy wrapper to insert your finger into my body, is where you went wrong. Why am I still explaining this.

Your Kid's Not Susceptible to Child Abduction... Right?

How Likely Is A Hillary Clinton Indictment?

MilkmanDan says...

At about 9:54, the dude on the right asks:
"But why are you assuming that we would find out about it [something / anything shady] then [just before the general election]?"

Because that is when it would cause the most damage, duh. It is well possible that some parties on the right already have something, considering that Guccifer probably DID hack into her server. If any such people DO have anything (or if they get anything new), they are well motivated to hold their cards until revealing them would have the most impact -- ie., AFTER she's locked up the nomination, but just BEFORE the general election.

Cenk and other democrats are 100% right to be absolutely terrified by this. I don't know that I think it is *likely*, but the democrat establishment just glossing over it seems bizarre and shortsighted.

Also, I seriously doubt that Biden would ever attempt to pick up Clinton's hypothetical fumble and run away after the DNC. I figure the GOP bigwigs that are suggesting it just want to make it look like the democrat side is in just as much disarray as the republican side.

But if either party actually does any "contested convention" shenanigans, all they will accomplish is to bring up serious and legitimate questions about their legitimacy within their core base of supporters. This election is proving that large segments of BOTH parties are NOT going to be blindly loyal to their party line and the status quo. In that environment, pushing their luck by inserting some handpicked golden child as their candidate would be suicidally stupid for either party.

11 Year Old Shoots Intruder

newtboy says...

What?!? The kid didn't start shooting until the robber was outside the home and running away...and he's NOT being charged with attempted murder? WTF?!?
You can't shoot someone who's fleeing in the back. Period. Even in Florida. By the time the kid started firing wildly into his neighborhood, missing with 11 the first shots, he had absolutely no legal right to be shooting at all. This wasn't a stand your ground or threatening intruder situation when he started shooting.
This kid needs to be prosecuted, as does his family for leaving loaded firearms where children can get them.
I agree with @Januari , this entire story is disgusting.

iaui (Member Profile)

Man shot while live streaming on Facebook

newtboy says...

Try reading the article linked by @eric3579. I can see how you might think this could be fake if you don't look for any verification either way, but it was there to see before you commented.

http://www.fox32chicago.com/news/crime/115140626-story

According to the article, he was shot repeatedly while running away, he dropped his phone and ran. Stupid, but not a hoax.

Shepppard said:

..I think the internet may just be making me completely cynical.

Honestly.. I just, if this is real, I feel bad. But it just seems fake. Everything about it, we hear one gunshot, camera drops. Somehow, miraculously lands upright, not pointed at the ground. Then, we get a PERFECT shot of the gunman standing just on top of the perfectly angled camera shooting well off-screen.

That's also the biggest thing for me, apparently the guy gets shot and as he falls drops his camera, but the gunman is CLEARLY shooting at something in the distance, and not at the ground.

omg!... omg!... omg!...HOLY SHIT!

The Most Costly Joke in History

transmorpher says...

That's just the nature of battle, there is no magic bullet weapon. Everything has some weakness. That's why there are so many variations working together. Tanks being support by infantry, infantry being supported by air, and so on. Light vehicles, heavy vehicles. Every aspect is covered. They are all made for different reasons and nothing is left to chance.
It was also a very unlikely hypothetical situation. A squadron wouldn't have to "drop everything and run in". They would be assigned as over-watch or what used to be known as top cover. Which is done in every section of the armed forces. From planes to infantry.

The F-35 is faster, and that is what matters in a beyond visual range combat. As soon as a missile is launched from up to 100KMs away, you will be "running away" because you don't want to take the chance that your ECM and Chaff might have not been effective. You will use every tool available to keep you alive, and one of the best ways is to drag out the enemy missile long enough for it to run out of energy before it can reach you. Since a snaking path is longer than a straight line, the enemy missile will have to fly further.

There really aren't any compromises except for the acceleration and maneuverability which I mentioned in my response to Newt is not really relevant. The other reason is that the F-16 is already at the physical limits of acceleration and maneuverability. Any more and the pilot would die. So the key is senors, weapons and stealth. Unless of course we start using fighter drones as instead of pilots. Then you could probably get away with some additional performance. But otherwise human piloted plane performance was already maxed in the 70s.

Asmo said:

Erm, most dog fighting was catching someone by surprise and bouncing them while retaining energy. All things being equal, the plane with the superior energy and no other intervening factors (1v1) will win purely because the opponent always ends up lower and slower, and can't make up that difference. The jet engine significantly increased the available energy to a plane, but the F35 won't be jousting against prop driven fighters...

You say the F35 is faster, but that is irrelevant (unless it's running away), energy is a heck of a lot more than max speed, and that's where the F35 is a turkey. Lift, drag, power to weight etc all factor in. The F35 is a classic Frankestein's monster, asked to do far too many things, and in that process compromising and contradicting itself constantly.

It's kinda telling that you say as soon as this plane get's in trouble, a squadron has to drop everything to run in and help it... For this sort of money, the plane shouldn't need help, particularly not from the grandpa's of the fleet.

The Most Costly Joke in History

Asmo says...

Erm, most dog fighting was catching someone by surprise and bouncing them while retaining energy. All things being equal, the plane with the superior energy and no other intervening factors (1v1) will win purely because the opponent always ends up lower and slower, and can't make up that difference. The jet engine significantly increased the available energy to a plane, but the F35 won't be jousting against prop driven fighters...

You say the F35 is faster, but that is irrelevant (unless it's running away), energy is a heck of a lot more than max speed, and that's where the F35 is a turkey. Lift, drag, power to weight etc all factor in. The F35 is a classic Frankestein's monster, asked to do far too many things, and in that process compromising and contradicting itself constantly.

It's kinda telling that you say as soon as this plane get's in trouble, a squadron has to drop everything to run in and help it... For this sort of money, the plane shouldn't need help, particularly not from the grandpa's of the fleet.

transmorpher said:

What I mean by dog fighting is a one on one engagement where each plane is trying to furiously out maneuver the other. That is a rare occurrence. There is a WW2 era video that explains the tactics used that make the one on one style dog fighting obsolete. https://youtu.be/C_iW1T3yg80?t=530

The planes have a system where as soon as one plane is engage by an enemy, then your wingman, or a spare clean up squadron comes and mops it up, since the enemy makes it self an easy target when engaging a friendly.

Cop Harassing The Wrong BMX Bikers Gets Shut Down

robbersdog49 says...

When they're exposed to the median risk of workers in America then I'll agree with this.

But they aren't. It's their job to deal with the most dangerous people, the most dangerous situations. This cop in the video is a bit of a dick to these kids but maybe he's been watching them get in the way of other people and make a nuisance of themselves, who knows? Maybe he goes about talking to them a bit wrong, but to be fair I don't see an awful lot wrong here.

But if a fight breaks out nearby and someone pulls a gun everyone else there gets to run away. But that guy in the blue uniform is expected to get involved and sort it all out. That's not a median wage task.

mtadd said:

Why the hell is a cop getting paid $200k a year? At best, they should be paid US median salary which is a small fraction of that.

Where are the cops when you need one?

dannym3141 says...

Would you like to have a 2% chance of being mugged at knife-point/punched or a 1.5% chance of mugged at gunpoint? I'll go with the knife/fist as i'm in pretty good shape to run away. Thank god we have a chance of surviving our violent crimes.

A very carefully cherry-picked statistic from the journalistic equivalent of the u-bend in your toilet, the Daily Fail. If you're going to post something to support your argument, don't go for the right wing gutter press - go for something more neutral that use facts over hysteria, such as a statistics office or charity group.

Mordhaus said:

Yep, you sure do end up with a lot of violent armed crimes in a country filled with guns.

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1196941/The-violent-country-Europe-Britain-worse-South-Africa-U-S.html

Pig vs Cookie

transmorpher says...

I'll disagree that's it's perfectly fine food. Bacon is a type 1 carcinogen. Which means there is no doubt that it causes cancer. Non processed pork, is a type 2 carcinogen, which means it causes cancer, but they need more data to confirm it.
The risks aren't quite as high as with cigarettes but it's an extra set of dice I'm not going to roll. That's information from the W.H.O.

I'm not sure if this method would work in Hawaii, but they've had a lot of success in Europe with stray animals by using a catch a release program http://carocat.eu/the-catch-neuter-and-release-approach/. It's a little slower, but not that much since cats and dogs have a pretty short life-cycle when they are stray. I think you could make a few alterations and, the invasive boars instead of running away from hunters, would begin to approach them instead, and you could register, and neuter them.

Damn you blew my cover. I'm am indeed a pig, hence my bias in this thread. Here's a picture of me and my boat driver in the bahamas http://www.tecnologia-ambiente.it/wp-content/uploads/2013/11/maiale-isola.jpeg

newtboy said:

Well, if you think wasting perfectly fine meat/food is OK because you don't want to get in the habit of killing your food, yes, our definitions vary. To me, once it's dead anyway, wasting it is definitely bad for no reason, and using it is good.
Also...bacon! If that's not good to you, you're not a real human being, and I accuse you of being a pig that has learned to type.

Vampire Rabbit?

Welcome to Park



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