Greatoneshere

1 minute ago, finaljedi said:

 

Unfortunately I'm betting enough of the undersexed 20somethings that work in the administration know well enough to get policy implemented.

Yeah - bad policies, which still makes them idiots. But they are in that dangerous spot, I agree. Too stupid/evil to make good policies, but not dumb enough that they can't get their bad policies passed. They can, and that makes them dangerous.

23 minutes ago, skillzdadirecta said:

This is where progressives lose the argument. Saying that there should be absolutely no right to lethal self defense defies not only logic, it defies billions of years of evolution. Again why are we behaving as if we have no ability to adjudicate situations on a case by case basis and apply reasonable levels of justice. Jesus Christ...

 Yep.

2 minutes ago, MarSolo said:

Let's be real, half the people in positions of power in this government don't know what half the shit that @SFLUFAN wrote even means.

I'd argue it's more like 75% don't know. Maybe higher. Yes, I am completely serious. 

1 minute ago, GeneticBlueprint said:

 

Okay that makes more sense. I guess I didn't catch that before.

I may have not been completely clear. All good.

What I'm basically saying is if a guy shoves you to the ground and you pull out a gun in response, that's not reasonable in this context. In others, the exact same situation may be reasonable. That's the distinction I'm drawing.

Either way, it wasn't reasonable here. And firing it?

In this situation, that's murder based on what I am advocating for. In another situation, pulling out a gun and having to kill them really may be in self-defense as proportionate force. That's not the case here so let's stay on target everyone. 

Just now, GeneticBlueprint said:

That's not what I said at all. I specifically said the opposite. 

 

I'm looking at @Greatoneshere's posts about the law in PA saying you need to use equal force in these situations. I'm saying I don't think it's unreasonable to not know what that is since you apparently have to take into account weight, sex, and muscle mass among other things while you are being attacked. I think that's a little unfair to ask of the vast majority of people and I don't think it's unreasonable to use a level of force or threat higher than the one your assailant is using to get them to stop. That does not escalate to purposefully killing.

Well, what you described is what I'm saying though. That's why it's discretionary when being adjudicated in court - a judge or jury can decide if the proportionate force was reasonable or too much. I didn't mean to imply one should have split second calculations in the middle of a heated situation, but the proportionate force has to be reasonable is what I am advocating for. I didn't mean literally equal.

5 minutes ago, Slug said:

Oh yeah not equally poorly by any stretch.  Sorry if I accidentally implied that.

 

Racist asshole, completely no excuse.  Employee, broke company policy and made a low key threat, but it was understandable given the situation.  Company should've taken the provocation into consideration and been willing to go to bat for their employee, but I can also see why they took the route they did.

All good - it's important to get specific because on its face a person could really mean all three were equally bad. See Trump: "good people on both sides". 

I agree overall. I disagree that it's okay for the corporation to go the route they did - we should demand better from our companies.

As for the employee technically breaking company policy, well, sure, maybe he did, but it's, as you said, completely understandable so I wouldn't dock him any points at all. 

The rest, I agree with.

4 minutes ago, Dodger said:

Real life isn't UFC where you are theoretically equally matched in weight and skill class. Like on the surface, I'm a big dude. 6' and 300 pounds. But I'm also extremely out of shape and I've never been in a real fight in my entire life. If you attack me, I'm doing whatever I can to get you to stop. I'd rather be alive and on trial then dead because I let some guy punch me in the right spot and kill me because I wanted to be reasonable about stopping the attack.

I just said that if you aren't the same/equally matched then using a knife would be reasonable and thus proportional, equal to my analogy of two guys of equal qualities shoving each other. Are you being willfully dense here?

But if you overdo it, then yes, you deserve to be put in jail.

1 minute ago, Slug said:

All 3 parties (Home Depot, the employee, and the racist asshole) acted poorly IMO.

Certainly not equally poorly, and provocation certainly needs to be taken into account. Let's not falsely equivocate here.

This fucking guy. 

What's wrong with Florida.

23 minutes ago, SaysWho? said:

 

Cool, let's all just kill ourselves now since you guys have every worst-case scenario mapped out until the heat death of the universe.

@SaysWho? is getting tired of everyone's shit. 

I gotta say I agree with him. There are reasons (though increasingly few) to be optimistic. But it is smart and healthy skepticism to map out every scenario as it would likely play out in our current environment based on, if nothing else, the rules. And ICC would be a problem. 

1 minute ago, SFLUFAN said:

Good for him!

Agreed. Refreshing to see someone actually to stick to their principles. 

18 minutes ago, Dodger said:

I don't agree with that. If you are attacking me, it ain't on me to figure out how far you are willing to go. I should have the right to take reasonable action to defend myself. If you start punching me and I have a knife, and it takes stabbing you to get you to stop punching me, that's fine for me. My response doesn't need to be proportionate to yours, it just needs to be reasonable. Stabbing you 2-3 times to get you to stop punching me, reasonable. Stabbing you 50 times then going over to your dying body and slitting your throat while you're bleeding to death, not reasonable.

 

This guy was fine until he pulled the trigger. The guy wasn't Trayvon Martin'ing him.

Most courts in the United States wouldn't find that reasonable. If a guy just comes up and starts punching you (which isn't a real hypothetical most of the time . . . ) you have to do enough to reasonably defend yourself. 

There are cases where pulling out a knife is warranted - say a small woman against a big man. But that's my entire point: that would be equal to a shove for a shove, which is an example where the combatants are equal in all ways. Where things are unequal between two people, a person should only be legally allowed to do enough to reasonably stop it. If the scenario is such that looking at the context and evidence it made sense for so and so to pull a knife and stab so and so 2-3 times to get them to stop, that is what is reasonable and thus would be equal and thus legal.

We're advocating for the same thing, so we do agree from what I can tell.

If Dan Harmon was joking:

If he wasn't:

It should also be noted that Dan Harmon deals with medical/clinical/severe depression that is on and off (bipolar-levels). He's a fucked up guy. Doesn't mean he's allowed to say and do fucked up things, just making that known. 

17 minutes ago, Slug said:

I generally agree with this, but I have a tough time making that call for other people.  I can see the argument that if you can only respond with equal opposing force, then you run into situations where overwhelming force can applied before you can respond.    You're helpless against an attacker because you had to let it escalate to the point where it was too late before being able to respond with force sufficient to end the attack.  In principle though, I agree.  A shove doesn't deserve a lethal response and a standard of...reasonableness (I don't have a good word here) should have to be met before resorting to deadly force to stop someone.  "I felt threatened" should not be an excuse to kill someone.

Standard of reasonableness is basically the most commonly used term in law and it applies here so you are on point.

Nothing is clear cut, which is why the standard is there and then discretionarily applied to each individual case because no two cases are exactly alike and reasonableness is subjective. 

11 hours ago, mclumber1 said:

He's right though.  Socialists are pansies.  Socialist = man card revoked. 

What about democratic republic capitalism without the crony part of the capitalism? Crony capitalism/hypercapitalsim is the problem. I think socialist bents with regard to public policy would only help, and would at least be worth trying out, separately. 

I've always found the "you may only respond in self-defense with an equal and reasonable amount of opposing force to the force being applied to you" to be the best standard. I believe that is PA's state law on the "standing your ground" issue (when it's not on your property). So if you get shoved, and they continue to be a threat but are just standing there, you can only shove them back. If you pull out a gun in response instead, then it isn't self-defense anymore, you have become the aggressor and now the other person who only shoved you now has the right of self-defense you've given up now that you've pulled a gun out.

Yes, there is the issue of escalation (he pulls out a gun, so I pull out a gun) but that's the entire point of "standing your ground". It's a game of chicken until someone hurts/kills someone else, then a determination of whether it was in self-defense or not is made.

Other states, like here, have much much worse stand your ground laws because right wing and red states basically want to have a legal way for white people to kill who they want. That's literally why there's a legal history of it in those states.

I'm all for Stand Your Ground when it's an eye for an eye in terms of self-defense allowances. But beyond that - violence should be basically outlawed, I think, gun or otherwise. There's always legal, non-violent recourses to achieve justice in your mind. They may not be as satisfactory a conclusion, but that's life.

12 minutes ago, RedSoxFan9 said:

Both were terrible 

Oh, okay. 

Aquaman looked fun . . . but the trailer wasn't very good. The thing was a total rip-off of Black Panther, except replace retro-African futurism with underwater fantasy world. Half-brother, bad king, dethrone him, big final battle of armies - it's Black Panther!

James Wan is a good director though, so we'll see. 

On 7/21/2018 at 11:53 PM, RedSoxFan9 said:

DCEU will be a perfect 7 for 7 with bad movies 

Man of Steel and Wonder Woman say hello. And Justice League was forgettable but fun and funny at least, not much different than a phase 1 MCU movie. 

I thought that trailer was all sorts of B-movie awesomesauce. I can't wait - Split was really fun and Unbreakable is a classic. 

Really fantastic job!!

It stars Joaquin Phoenix and is being directed by Todd Phillips (Road Trip, Old School, Starsky & Hutch remake, School for Scoundrels, The Hangover trilogy, Due Date, and War Dogs). That's some real power and talent behind a film I otherwise think will not be good at all and may not even happen. I won't believe it until at least a trailer. 

23 hours ago, Kal-El814 said:

Part of my issue with MI:II is that they explain the plot in detail over and over and over.

It's not a perfect movie by any means, but it's so John Woo and so operatic I can't help but enjoy it. 

12 hours ago, elbobo said:

Shameless Season 1

 

I having a hard time deciding what to make of this series. Frank is probably the biggest piece of shit character I have ever seen on television surpassing the Always Sunny crew because they are played as over the top monsters while Frank Gallagher is a more plausible drunk waste of human flesh though as the season went on he got more over the top IMO. Fiona is great, Lip and Ian's relationship is good everything else is take it or leave it. This series has a rather shocking amount of under age sex scenes, lot of 15 and 16 year olds getting it on often times with adults.

 

6.5/10

Season 2 of Psycho-Pass is quite divisive, yeah. 

Shameless' next few seasons get even better, then around season 7 it kind of peters out, but it's still good. 

1 hour ago, 2user1cup said:

Wow.

 

Inquisition time.

Don't make me go fatwa on yo' ass.