Lurker > _RETS_

legendary_zell posted...

_RETS_ posted...

legendary_zell posted...

_RETS_ posted...

legendary_zell posted...

I'm glad Rets and karl are putting their bigotry out in the open. And that's what it is, bigotry. Lots of people here may agree with you, but your language and views are wrong and reflect badly on you as people.

Bigotry? Is that your fallback every time you don't have an argument or are you making a special exception? I in no way am judging this person for being a transgender, nor do I believe she should be discriminated against based on that fact. She should, however, be discriminated against for the absurd conduct shown in the video.

You're not fooling anybody, man. We can all see what you wrote, you were being a horrible person throughout this and other topics. You attacked her appearance in a blatantly transphobic way, anyone with eyes can see that. You can deflect to her behavior when called out all you want, but that doesn't erase your actions.

Actions? I think I've found your fatal flaw. You don't know the difference between words and actions.

I "attacked" her appearance because her behavior justifies it. The left does this with Trump literally every day. If they call Trump a fat piece of shit they aren't fat shaming. If I saw a guy who didn't identify as a chick dressed the same way and said the same thing after seeing them act like an ass hole, would that also be transphobic? The answer is no.

You are just on the losing side of this issue so have to fall back on "waaaahhh bigotry". Here is a key bit of advice you should take with you moving forward to prevent yourself from looking like a fool. Saying something negative about an individual trans person (or black person or Mexican or whatever) is not transphobic/racist/whatever ism. It is commenting on an individual based on the specific context of the situation.

I'm not accusing you of punching someone, I'm accusing you of taking the action of typing transphobic statements. That's an action. And it's transphobic because you are misgendering and insulting the appearance of a person you know is in fact transgender and you are targeting their transgenderness in doing so. It's no different from seeing a video of a black person robbing a store and making derogatory statements about their skin color and hair, instead of just saying robbery is bad. What you've done here is the very definition of transphobic. I'm not a bad person or a victim for pointing that out to you.

You're not a bad person, just not a smart one.

I am not attributing her look or her actions to her transgenderism. Like is I said, if she acted the same, dressed the same, but didn't identify as a woman as was just a guy dressed like that, I would have said the exact same thing. You not understanding this is confounding.

I am also not going to delude myself into believing that some dude with a cock and balls is a woman. That is the lunacy hill the left seems so desperate to die on. That said, that doesn't mean I'll oblige them directly out of common decency and respect. It also doesn't mean I think they should be discriminated against, abused, hated, etc. I am only commenting on this one stupid ass hole you seem so desperate to defend.

Agnostic420 posted...

As long as your comfortable with the other side also determining what words they consider to be justification for violence. But I don't think you have the integrity or moral consistency enough to support that as well.

Your rant is that of a fatherless, uneducated individual.

Conflict posted...

powerman1426 posted...

Conflict posted...

I still like how people keep making this really stupid post thinking every single transgender person does this and no cisgender people ever make scenes and break shit in public

Did he blame it on them being trans? He said mentally ill, which if you're making a scene like that in public, there's something wrong up there

SK8T3R215 posted...

Mentally ill person has a melty due to mental illness.

WizardPowers posted...

And people say it's not a mental illness?

omega cookie posted...

Mentally ill person turns out to be mentally unstable. Next up, water? Wet?

Yes I'm entirely sure these people (especially the second person) aren't referring to them being transgender at all

_RETS_ posted...

Nevermind the fact that no one at all has said what the second half of his post suggests. What dishonest horse shit.

Do you know what an "implication" is? Are you really not capable of figuring out how suggesting transgender people are prone to doing this implies cisgender people aren't quite as prone? Or are you just not able to figure out what they were very obviously referring to when they said "mental illness"

Nearly half of transgenders suffer from mental illness even if you don't consider transgenderism itself a mental illness (which, btw, even if it is doesn't deserve stigmatization just like any other mental illness), so the "implication", Dennis, is based on wildly disproportionate stats. So I'm not entirely sure wtf you're whining about. It's Friday, stop crying.

He didn't suggest transgendered people are prone to doing this, just the subset of them that are mentally ill. Just like mentally ill cis people are more prone to doing it. But alas, it isn't a cis person in the video threatening violence, vandalizing, and generally making a huge dip shit of herself.

powerman1426 posted...

Conflict posted...

I still like how people keep making this really stupid post thinking every single transgender person does this and no cisgender people ever make scenes and break shit in public

Did he blame it on them being trans? He said mentally ill, which if you're making a scene like that in public, there's something wrong up there

Nevermind the fact that no one at all has said what the second half of his post suggests. What dishonest horse shit.

legendary_zell posted...

_RETS_ posted...

legendary_zell posted...

I'm glad Rets and karl are putting their bigotry out in the open. And that's what it is, bigotry. Lots of people here may agree with you, but your language and views are wrong and reflect badly on you as people.

Bigotry? Is that your fallback every time you don't have an argument or are you making a special exception? I in no way am judging this person for being a transgender, nor do I believe she should be discriminated against based on that fact. She should, however, be discriminated against for the absurd conduct shown in the video.

You're not fooling anybody, man. We can all see what you wrote, you were being a horrible person throughout this and other topics. You attacked her appearance in a blatantly transphobic way, anyone with eyes can see that. You can deflect to her behavior when called out all you want, but that doesn't erase your actions.

Actions? I think I've found your fatal flaw. You don't know the difference between words and actions.

I "attacked" her appearance because her behavior justifies it. The left does this with Trump literally every day. If they call Trump a fat piece of shit they aren't fat shaming. If I saw a guy who didn't identify as a chick dressed the same way and said the same thing after seeing them act like an ass hole, would that also be transphobic? The answer is no.

You are just on the losing side of this issue so have to fall back on "waaaahhh bigotry". Here is a key bit of advice you should take with you moving forward to prevent yourself from looking like a fool. Saying something negative about an individual trans person (or black person or Mexican or whatever) is not transphobic/racist/whatever ism. It is commenting on an individual based on the specific context of the situation.

Caution998 posted...

No, it's moderated.

I got moderated for saying "he" when the "he" was referring to the male employee. Reading comprehension though

legendary_zell posted...

I'm glad Rets and karl are putting their bigotry out in the open. And that's what it is, bigotry. Lots of people here may agree with you, but your language and views are wrong and reflect badly on you as people.

Bigotry? Is that your fallback every time you don't have an argument or are you making a special exception? I in no way am judging this person for being a transgender, nor do I believe she should be discriminated against based on that fact. She should, however, be discriminated against for the absurd conduct shown in the video.

legendary_zell posted...

_RETS_ posted...

legendary_zell posted...

It's very clear that the real issue here is that a lot of CE is blatantly transphobic or believes that all transpeople are mentally ill, or delusional, or cross dressers. That's why people are going out of their way to call her a man here.

CE will take any excuse to voice these opinions.

Don't think I'm defending a violent outburst or threats, those were definitely wrong. But many on CE straight up don't care about and actively encourage misgendering as a type of social power play.

Nope. No one is celebrating that the employee misgendered her. Just pointing how how completely justifiable it was given the situation.

It would be a different if it was a family member or someone who had a calm conversation with the guy who asked to be called ma'am or she or whatever. But that isn't what happened. He had a red faced ass hole screaming, borderline unintelligible at that, that she was a ma'am. In no way is the anger or outburst justified.

She was angry because she is too stupid to understand policy, whether she agrees with the policy or not, and decided she had to be a victim no matter what.

This post is absolutely insane. You're one of the people I'm talking about. Just in this topic, you've balled her a male, a dude, a clear male, a guy in drag, and a hooker. You pointedly misgendered her multiple times. Sorry if I have a hard time believing you have a problem with misgendering and that your "it's about the tone" and "stress" arguments aren't secondary to that.

I'm assuming the "balled" typo was a topical pun. Anyways, that is clearly a man. And she does look like a hooker in drag.

I've had transgenders politely tell me they are transitioning or have already and would like to be called X and I gladly obliged. The employee in the video would have likely done the same. But that isn't the context in which he was told what the person preferred. It was screamed at him with a threat of violence so even a "fuck you" wouldn't have been completely unjustified outside of her being a customer.

DoubleDare posted...

_RETS_ posted...

legendary_zell posted...

It's very clear that the real issue here is that a lot of CE is blatantly transphobic or believes that all transpeople are mentally ill, or delusional, or cross dressers. That's why people are going out of their way to call her a man here.

CE will take any excuse to voice these opinions.

Don't think I'm defending a violent outburst or threats, those were definitely wrong. But many on CE straight up don't care about and actively encourage misgendering as a type of social power play.

Nope. No one is celebrating that the employee misgendered her. Just pointing how how completely justifiable it was given the situation.

It would be a different if it was a family member or someone who had a calm conversation with the guy who asked to be called ma'am or she or whatever. But that isn't what happened. He had a red faced ass hole screaming, borderline unintelligible at that, that she was a ma'am. In no way is the anger or outburst justified.

She was angry because she is too stupid to understand policy, whether she agrees with the policy or not, and decided she had to be a victim no matter what.

Blondie may have already asked calmly before the video.

I ain't no liberal, but I could see after blondie makes it clear to be called ma'am, the gamestop saying sir right after it clearly set blondie.

Woman customer is fine, since she didn't appear in video, so no witchunt on who she is from the left can happen.

Maybe, but given her conduct in the video it is reasonable to doubt it.

legendary_zell posted...

It's very clear that the real issue here is that a lot of CE is blatantly transphobic or believes that all transpeople are mentally ill, or delusional, or cross dressers. That's why people are going out of their way to call her a man here.

CE will take any excuse to voice these opinions.

Don't think I'm defending a violent outburst or threats, those were definitely wrong. But many on CE straight up don't care about and actively encourage misgendering as a type of social power play.

Nope. No one is celebrating that the employee misgendered her. Just pointing how how completely justifiable it was given the situation.

It would be a different if it was a family member or someone who had a calm conversation with the guy who asked to be called ma'am or she or whatever. But that isn't what happened. He had a red faced ass hole screaming, borderline unintelligible at that, that she was a ma'am. In no way is the anger or outburst justified.

She was angry because she is too stupid to understand policy, whether she agrees with the policy or not, and decided she had to be a victim no matter what.

A_Good_Boy posted...

_RETS_ posted...

Prove it was more than the couple times shown in the video. The couple completely understandable times.

If all you're going to do is defend the employee escalating the encounter no matter what then why am I even bothering continuing to talk to you? You've already said that there's no circumstance where you'll recognize the employee constantly making matters worse.

Please quote where I said what you just alleged.

And the first part of your reply is a way of pussying out of providing any proof of what you are claiming. At least have some integrity. CyricZ posted...

Too early in the morning to be arguing with transphobes.

Yes, anything but glowing positivity about the conduct of a transgender is transphobia.

Look, if I think my name is Bill, but my name tag in a room of people who don't know me says Paul, I have absolutely no right to threaten violence and vandalize if they call me Paul a couple times, even if I say otherwise, especially in an argument if the only other identifier they have for me is what is plainly visible to them.

This seems to be a case of some idiot throwing a fit over clear store policy that the employee can't change and when they are realize they are losing grasping at straws to maintain victimhood. Nevermind the fact that we are watching the video with a clear understanding of the situation going in. Having a dude scream "ma'am" in an outrage might not immediately register, especially if it is already a high stress situation.

A_Good_Boy posted...

_RETS_ posted...

gunplagirl posted...

FluttershyPony posted...

If you cant even put the EFFORT of looking feminine or at least ambigous you have no right to get mad if people accidentally misgender you.

he looks like a linebacker with a rockstar hairstyle, no shit people aint gonna assume hes a woman at first glance

Ah yes because there's tons of men in girl jeans, with a pink shirt and hoody that's for show and not warmth, and earrings, and long styled hair.

What's more, the employee was corrected more than a few times.

The video depicts a man with girl jeans, a pink shirt , and a hoodie that's for show.

That's the excuse for the first time. Not the 10th.

Prove it was more than the couple times shown in the video. The couple completely understandable times.

You believe the raging lunatic simply because you consider them to be untouchable. If some red faced dude is screaming at you, the vast majority of people woild default to saying sir.

They were polite, didn't raise their voice, didn't threaten the her as she did them, and said ma'am when corrected against second nature. Her frothing rage at what she perceived to be less than a full accommodation of her delusion is uncalled for.

gunplagirl posted...

FluttershyPony posted...

If you cant even put the EFFORT of looking feminine or at least ambigous you have no right to get mad if people accidentally misgender you.

he looks like a linebacker with a rockstar hairstyle, no shit people aint gonna assume hes a woman at first glance

Ah yes because there's tons of men in girl jeans, with a pink shirt and hoody that's for show and not warmth, and earrings, and long styled hair.

What's more, the employee was corrected more than a few times.

The video depicts a man with girl jeans, a pink shirt , and a hoodie that's for show.

A_Good_Boy posted...

Esrac posted...

A_Good_Boy posted...

Esrac posted...

DoubleDare posted...

Person clearly has mental illness.

Also the person could clearly just look up gamestop's corporate number on their cell phone.

Sure. But he doesn't want to just look up the number, he wants to humiliate the clerk for insulting him.

Asking an employee for a corporate number is a part of any customer service job. Providing that number is what the employee is supposed to do, but he refuses to stop misgendering her and wasn't even making a motion for that number.

Yes he was. The video ends shortly after the clerks says he's getting the number for the customer, but the customer storms out first threatening to tell the whole LGBT community.

And he switched back to "ma'am" again. You're being disingenuous if you're trying to frame it as a clerk refusing to use preferred pronouns. He is clearly trying to, but having trouble with when the 6'+ masculine looking individual is yelling at him.

You are entirely full of shit here.

I'm not alleging anything, it's right there in the video. Everytime she's telling and screaming at him to stop its preceded by him referring to her as a male.

Because she is clearly a male and calling a male sir is second nature even in a low stress situation, much less one where you're more likely to default to the same innocuous verbiage you've been using your whole life.

And "you guys" is not referring to her as a male.

A_Good_Boy posted...

_RETS_ posted...

A_Good_Boy posted...

_RETS_ posted...

RickyTheBAWSE posted...

rikasa posted...

I don't think that person was being an asshole at all. It's good to stand up for yourself when someone is directly insulting you and fuck anyone who disingenuously applies phony rules of politeness on someone who's being publicly humiliated.

the people trying to pretend like they're above this are people who are currently benefiting from people standing up for themselves and others in the past. sometimes verbally, sometimes physically, sometimes with an army. what privilege or freedoms did these disingenuous critics win for anybody? I wish one of them could answer that.

this person stood up for themselves. as hilarious as the shit was, the outrage was legitimate.

No It wasn't. Threatening to beat up some nerdy kid and vandalizing his place of work over arguably unintentional pronoun misuse when you look like a male hooker in drag and no real person's first thought would be that you are a lady is not legitimate.

She was being misgendered long before she started kicking over the store. Seems like you'll just defend her being insulted no matter what happens.

Being insulted by a nerdy kid is not justification for threats of violence and vandalism. Seems like you're in a rush to defend simply because it's a situation involving a transgender. If it was a regular white guy being insulted and went on to trash the store this wouldn't even be a topic.

And is there other proof of further misgendering outside of this video other than what the "victim" claims?

Btw, it's pretty easy to accidentally say "sir", even multiple times, in a heated exchange if you've been saying sir your whole life to people who are clearly men. Especially in customer service when it is a polite title to diffuse a situation in which someone with a deep guy voice is yelling at you.

I'd defend any person that walks into a store, gets insulted by the employees, and continuously asks them to stop despite the employee refusing to use basic manners. Her flipping out seems par for the course for being continuously insulted. If you don't want angry customers trashing your store then stop going out of your way to bash your customers and get them upset.

And why would I need proof of her being misgendered before the video starts rolling? If there's video of the altercation starting over something else, then we can talk about that thing once the video is posted.

Because you keep alleging the employee intentionally insulted her multiple times before the recording, which you have no proof of. They didn't "go out of their way". Saying "sir" to what is clearly a man is second nature.

And outside of that, people are responsible for their own actions. Threatening violence against words, especially as innocuous as what is shown in the video, is not right no matter how much your pretend it is justified.

A_Good_Boy posted...

_RETS_ posted...

RickyTheBAWSE posted...

rikasa posted...

I don't think that person was being an asshole at all. It's good to stand up for yourself when someone is directly insulting you and fuck anyone who disingenuously applies phony rules of politeness on someone who's being publicly humiliated.

the people trying to pretend like they're above this are people who are currently benefiting from people standing up for themselves and others in the past. sometimes verbally, sometimes physically, sometimes with an army. what privilege or freedoms did these disingenuous critics win for anybody? I wish one of them could answer that.

this person stood up for themselves. as hilarious as the shit was, the outrage was legitimate.

No It wasn't. Threatening to beat up some nerdy kid and vandalizing his place of work over arguably unintentional pronoun misuse when you look like a male hooker in drag and no real person's first thought would be that you are a lady is not legitimate.

She was being misgendered long before she started kicking over the store. Seems like you'll just defend her being insulted no matter what happens.

Being insulted by a nerdy kid is not justification for threats of violence and vandalism. Seems like you're in a rush to defend simply because it's a situation involving a transgender. If it was a regular white guy being insulted and went on to trash the store this wouldn't even be a topic.

And is there other proof of further misgendering outside of this video other than what the "victim" claims?

Btw, it's pretty easy to accidentally say "sir", even multiple times, in a heated exchange if you've been saying sir your whole life to people who are clearly men. Especially in customer service when it is a polite title to diffuse a situation in which someone with a deep guy voice is yelling at you.

RickyTheBAWSE posted...

rikasa posted...

I don't think that person was being an asshole at all. It's good to stand up for yourself when someone is directly insulting you and fuck anyone who disingenuously applies phony rules of politeness on someone who's being publicly humiliated.

the people trying to pretend like they're above this are people who are currently benefiting from people standing up for themselves and others in the past. sometimes verbally, sometimes physically, sometimes with an army. what privilege or freedoms did these disingenuous critics win for anybody? I wish one of them could answer that.

this person stood up for themselves. as hilarious as the shit was, the outrage was legitimate.

No It wasn't. Threatening to beat up some nerdy kid and vandalizing his place of work over arguably unintentional pronoun misuse when you look like a male hooker in drag and no real person's first thought would be that you are a lady is not legitimate.

A_Good_Boy posted...

_RETS_ posted...

A_Good_Boy posted...

mattnd2007 posted...

A_Good_Boy posted...

That employee was just begging to get punched. Good on her for holding herself back in the face of that dude continuously being antagonistic and misgendering her.

Poe's law

Wouldn't be the first coy internet kiddy that can't connect their conduct with why they're picking themselves up from the ground, and wouldn't be the last.

Misgendering someone, if you consider it to be purposeful, justifies violence. I agree

Doesn't exactly justify it, but in that situation it wouldn't be an ass kicking that just snuck in out of nowhere.

Yes it would. He didn't purposely misgender her. The one chick said sir because it looks 100% like a dude in drag, and the kid behind the counter said "you guys", which is exceedingly common no matter what gender you're talking to. If the kid said sir, you have absolutely no way of proving it was intentional given he is being screamed at by a red faced ass hole and looks to be about 6 years old, yet for you it's understandable if an adult attacks him.

A_Good_Boy posted...

mattnd2007 posted...

A_Good_Boy posted...

That employee was just begging to get punched. Good on her for holding herself back in the face of that dude continuously being antagonistic and misgendering her.

Poe's law

Wouldn't be the first coy internet kiddy that can't connect their conduct with why they're picking themselves up from the ground, and wouldn't be the last.

Misgendering someone, if you consider it to be purposeful, justifies violence. I agree

Should be arrested for vandalism and threatening violence. Looks like a dude, speaks like a dude, and is somehow surprised and offended when a confused high school looking employee erroneously calls them a sir.

It 100% is. Outside of the setting, decorations, and the music it is about family reuniting over the holiday, overcoming thieving crunches, and giving the gifts of bullets and fists.

Abruptly pull out

I would first ask if I'm eligible for back pay from 2016

Ving_Rhames posted...

_RETS_ posted...

How does a bitch get that fat in just 24 short years?

Well...She had a child.

3 years ago...

How does a bitch get that fat in just 24 short years?

Anyway, publicly torture and kill the guy. No reason for him to live.

@CharlesBronson posted...

_RETS_ posted...

Fortunately though, you never have to pay your entire medical bill and there is a pretty high degree of flexibility.

lol enjoy getting your 100k bill in the mail, calling customer service and trying to explain to muhammad that you want your bill reduced only to get hung up then enjoy getting your subpoena in the mail if you don't live in texas

To clarify, I am talking about when the hospital still owns the debt. I explicitly said this in an earlier post. Debt collectors typically have absolutely zero flexibility.

darkphoenix181 posted...

_RETS_ posted...

CharlesBronson posted...

_RETS_ posted...

CharlesBronson posted...

_RETS_ posted...

After 7 years, the debt will disappear as long as she makes no attempt to pay them.

complete lie if you don't pay your bill they take it out of your paycheck until it's paid

That is a possibility, but not an inevitability. At least in Texas. I had debt from a broken lease sent to collections, did nothing, nothing happened, and it disappeared as if it was never there. The only downside other than the obvious temporary ding on my score was making it harder to rent because it was in the same category. That's it.

enjoy trying to get a credit card

I edited the post I was replying to you in to elaborate more.

And most people don't need credit cards. In fact, it is probably a horrible idea for most people to have a credit card.

To buy stuff on the internet you do.

Haha what? No you absolutely do not. You do know there is a difference between credit and debit cards right?

Chicken posted...

This wouldnt be a problem if you lived in a first world country.

The entire world benefits from our medical advances and innovations. There is a cost to all that and unfortunately our own citizens bear the burden. Fortunately though, you never have to pay your entire medical bill and there is a pretty high degree of flexibility.

CharlesBronson posted...

_RETS_ posted...

CharlesBronson posted...

_RETS_ posted...

After 7 years, the debt will disappear as long as she makes no attempt to pay them.

complete lie if you don't pay your bill they take it out of your paycheck until it's paid

That is a possibility, but not an inevitability. At least in Texas. I had debt from a broken lease sent to collections, did nothing, nothing happened, and it disappeared as if it was never there. The only downside other than the obvious temporary ding on my score was making it harder to rent because it was in the same category. That's it.

enjoy trying to get a credit card

I edited the post I was replying to you in to elaborate more.

And most people don't need credit cards. In fact, it is probably a horrible idea for most people to have a credit card.

CharlesBronson posted...

_RETS_ posted...

After 7 years, the debt will disappear as long as she makes no attempt to pay them.

complete lie if you don't pay your bill they take it out of your paycheck until it's paid

That is a possibility, but not an inevitability. At least in Texas. I had debt from a broken lease sent to collections, did nothing, nothing happened, and it disappeared as if it was never there. The only downside other than the obvious temporary ding on my score was making it harder to rent because it was in the same category. That's it.

Looked it up. Didn't think that it was a state-by-state thing but it is true where I live. From google:

"The state of Texas is unique among states when it comes to wage garnishment laws. ... Generally speaking, the only debts for which a debtor's wages can be garnished are unpaid student loans, taxes, child support, and alimony. Wage Garnishment Defined. In Texas wage garnishments are commonly referred to as wage attachments."

TC may live somewhere with the same law, but admittedly I don't know. But if it does, since it is medical debt it wouldn't qualify for wage garnishment.

After 7 years, the debt will disappear as long as she makes no attempt to pay them. If she agrees to pay anything, the 7 years resets.

But when it comes to medical debt, you pretty much NEVER have to pay what's on the bill. Tell the hospital it is an impossible cost for you, and negotiate down to a way lesser price and for payment. Whatever payment you agree to is likely higher than what the collections agency would pay for the debt.

catboy0_0 posted...

Prometheus was like that. It sucks tho imo.

There is a fan edit of Prometheus that trims some far and includes some deleted scenes that is legitimately an amazing sci to movie. It changes a lot of the problems that you have when watching that made me think "damn, if it wasnt for these problems the movie would be amazing".

But I'm also a rare bird that like Prometheus and Covenant

Hairistotle posted...

id rather be in a less innovative country if it meant the citizens were protected and cared for tbh

Pretty easy to say when you reap the benefits of another country's innovation...

Fuck that. Save the mother. You don't even know the kid yet.

I loved Black Panther and it was one of the best MCU movies for sure.

But comic book movies don't really deserve the best picture nom. This didn't, Dark Knight didn't, Avengers 4 won't.

Truly great movies are just on another level. Moonlight was on another level than BP.

Asherlee10 posted...

Yes, those are a lot of the reasons why I love it here.

I spend a lot of time outdoor and love trying new foods and music. I also don't get sideways looks for wanting to exercise.

I run town lake in silky dick shorts and I'm still not the weirdest person on the river walk. It's pleasant

Asherlee10 posted...

_RETS_ posted...

Asherlee10 posted...

Some fucknut decided to try to cross I35 the other day and got hit by a truck and caused major traffic delays.

Why the fuck does this seem to be happening every other week? Are they all crazy homeless people or just run of the mill morons?

I think it was just an average idiot.

My wife thinks that if you cause a wreck on I35 you should have to be put in the stocks on the side of the road and let people cuss you out as the slowly drive by in the traffic jam.

No fines or tickets, you just have to endure the social lashing.

Traffic blows for sure, but I'll take the city as a whole, the lower crime, the Alamo Drafthouses, the food, the music, the outdoors, and the fitness culture in ATX as a trade off.

I agree though, idiots who cause wrecks and rubberneckers should be spat on by all passing motorists.

Asherlee10 posted...

Some fucknut decided to try to cross I35 the other day and got hit by a truck and caused major traffic delays.

Why the fuck does this seem to be happening every other week? Are they all crazy homeless people or just run of the mill morons?

Houston has a much higher crime rate than Austin, so there's that.

The only reason you should ever own pit is if you got it as a newborn and raised it from virtually day 1.

If you get a pit from a shelter, you are asking to bury your headless kid.

Maybe it is the owners, but that just means that pit bulls are the dog of trash people.

Writing a novel, even a short one, is a hell of an undertaking. Do you have an outline? Are you stressed to start?

Is it too soon to rage over this or do we wait until literally anything other than "she was at that camp" is verified.

She didn't die in the camp contrary to the topic title. The lawyer is alleging negligence, which has yet to be proven.

Why not wait at least a little to get the necessary info?

LordMarshal posted...

_RETS_ posted...

LordMarshal posted...

Then you agree there had to be shots fired by at least one of the officers.

So you agree they had to murder the hostage?

I can do that too.

Do you agree that at least one officer had to shoot?

BTW, words mean things. They didn't "murder" the hostage.

LordMarshal posted...

Then you agree there had to be shots fired by at least one of the officers.

LordMarshal posted...

_RETS_ posted...

LordMarshal posted...

_RETS_ posted...

LordMarshal posted...

apocalyptic_4 posted...

It's pretty easy to look at this video and criticize this when in reality if anyone of us were there this situation wouldn't of ended up any better.

Heat of the moment thing

If only they were trained.

To do what? Explain what you think the course of action should have been.

NOT shoot the hostage.

Its ok. Its not like this is their literal job.

That wasn't anyone's plan to shoot the hostage. The only immediately clear option was to shoot, she was unfortunately hit. Maybe the other cops shouldn't have fired, but shots needed to be fired.

Yeah, if it was a fucking sniper. They said fuck it, shoot em both and call it a day.

At least one officer had to shoot. What other option was there?

A_Good_Boy posted...

_RETS_ posted...

A_Good_Boy posted...

_RETS_ posted...

LordMarshal posted...

apocalyptic_4 posted...

It's pretty easy to look at this video and criticize this when in reality if anyone of us were there this situation wouldn't of ended up any better.

Heat of the moment thing

If only they were trained.

To do what? Explain what you think the course of action should have been.

Not shoot when the only view you have is of the hostage would be a pretty good place to start. I don't see why the only cop with a view shouldn't be the only one to pull the trigger. What were the other cops even trying to do? Curve their bullets?

Okay, so we agree that shooting was the right call and that all these "should have backed off and gotten a negotiator, should have tried to reason with him, should have rushed him" points are bull shit.

I think you're putting words in my mouth. The camera is absolutely not clear in what was happening when the dude held the knife up to his throat cause it was shaking even worse than a b-movie. The only thing that was clear was that he held it to her throat. I don't see where anyone is seeing the dude actually draw it across her throat. Unless anyone can post that part of the video slowed down, or any other statements saying that she was indeed actively having her throat slit at that exact moment, I don't see why there wasn't any room to back off and call for a negotiator.

And even if she was actively having her throat slit, I don't understand why it was necessary for all but one of those cops to even pull the trigger anyways. The one with the cam was pretty much the only officer with a clear shot. The other cop that was there could see pretty much nothing but the hostage. I can understand why the cop with a clear view shot, but why did the other one? What was his objective, to kill the hostage himself and deprive the man with the knife the pleasure of doing it himself?

I wasn't suggesting you said what I put in quotes, sorry if it seemed that way. Others ITT have.

LordMarshal posted...

_RETS_ posted...

LordMarshal posted...

apocalyptic_4 posted...

It's pretty easy to look at this video and criticize this when in reality if anyone of us were there this situation wouldn't of ended up any better.

Heat of the moment thing

If only they were trained.

To do what? Explain what you think the course of action should have been.

NOT shoot the hostage.

Its ok. Its not like this is their literal job.

That wasn't anyone's plan to shoot the hostage. The only immediately clear option was to shoot, she was unfortunately hit. Maybe the other cops shouldn't have fired, but shots needed to be fired.

A_Good_Boy posted...

_RETS_ posted...

LordMarshal posted...

apocalyptic_4 posted...

It's pretty easy to look at this video and criticize this when in reality if anyone of us were there this situation wouldn't of ended up any better.

Heat of the moment thing

If only they were trained.

To do what? Explain what you think the course of action should have been.

Not shoot when the only view you have is of the hostage would be a pretty good place to start. I don't see why the only cop with a view shouldn't be the only one to pull the trigger. What were the other cops even trying to do? Curve their bullets?

Okay, so we agree that shooting was the right call and that all these "should have backed off and gotten a negotiator, should have tried to reason with him, should have rushed him" points are bull shit.

LordMarshal posted...

apocalyptic_4 posted...

It's pretty easy to look at this video and criticize this when in reality if anyone of us were there this situation wouldn't of ended up any better.

Heat of the moment thing

If only they were trained.

To do what? Explain what you think the course of action should have been.