|
flakeloaf posted:Someone could say it, but the argument would be utter crap. A piece of paper's not going to stop me from choosing the appropriate use of force option to deal with whatever my Trying to pretend 'bad guy' is non-judgemental would be funny if it wasn't honestly disturbing. Just call them suspects or even criminals if you must but don't try and make such an utterly absurd claim. Was Sammy Yatim a 'bad guy' or was he sick? Is somebody who pulls out their cell phone in the dark, has it mistaken for a gun, and gets shot a bad guy? It isn't really about hurting people's feelings its about the way the cop's try to create an emotional separation between themselves and the population at large. Yes, even the criminal elements of that population who have made the bad decisions that are the reason we need cops in the first place.
|
#
?
Dec 16, 2013 02:22
|
|
BAD GUY
|
|
| # ? Jun 2, 2024 20:15 |
|
|
Paper Jam Dipper posted:I tend to be of the viewpoint in which every time a gun is used, even pulled out of the holster, an investigation should be opened. If it was decided that it was appropriate for the situation at hand, nothing happens. If it's decided that it was excessive force, we look into punishing the officer for excessive force and proceed with looking into whether or not they are capable of being a level headed, sane police officer and should maybe be fired. Every investigation made public. You're deciding use of force policy based off your feelings over videotaped police situations from different municipalities, departments, and hell even countries. Videos also don't show the entire picture, despite what some armchair analysts will tell you. Also, just so you know, the hand on holster thing is slowly being trained out of most Police officers for the reasons you stated. The current model is the "t-rex arms" with hands folded across your chest (crossed arms are seen as hostile and so is hand on your belt) or the inquisitive model (one hand on your chin like you're listening intently. Establishes rapport but still protects you from sucker punches). quote:Trying to pretend 'bad guy' is non-judgemental would be funny if it wasn't honestly disturbing. Just call them suspects or even criminals if you must but don't try and make such an utterly absurd claim. Its just jargon, get over it, honestly. Everyone here is suddenly a psychological behavioural analyst because they seem to be able to establish peoples intent and mindset based off either what they wear (OH MY GOD, they are wearing BLACK gear) or what they say.
|
|
#
?
Dec 16, 2013 02:31
|
|
|
Helsing posted:Trying to pretend 'bad guy' is non-judgemental would be funny if it wasn't honestly disturbing. Just call them suspects or even criminals if you must but don't try and make such an utterly absurd claim. It's pretty obvious that its a coping mechanism. Guilt has a strong a correlation with PTSD and it's a lot easier to justify shooting a Bad Guy than shooting an mentally disturbed teen. edit: Literally in an arm chair while I write this.
|
|
#
?
Dec 16, 2013 02:38
|
|
|
swagger like us posted:Its just jargon, get over it, honestly. Language, by its very function, creates meaning and defines our world. "A person was shot by a police officer," and, "A bad guy was shot by a police officer," are two fundamentally different sentences because there is an assumption underlying the second (that a "bad guy" deserved it, because he is bad) that does not exist in the former. There's a reason things like racial epithets tend to gain ground, since they define an oppressed group as being "different" and can immediately turn opinion against them by relating the epithet to presuppositions ("niggers are lazy," "micks are always drunk," etc.).
|
|
#
?
Dec 16, 2013 02:41
|
|
|
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=X4xyFwLi4rQ
|
|
#
?
Dec 16, 2013 02:41
|
|
|
swagger like us posted:
Sure, lets just pretend language is completely neutral and that there isn't a long history of people in authority using it to justify their behaviour.
|
|
#
?
Dec 16, 2013 02:48
|
|
|
"Subject" is both dictionary-correct and dehumanizing enough to allow any "member" who shoots one of those things to sleep soundly. (This is sarcasm.) Can we please talk about something more interesting now? swagger like us posted:Also, just so you know, the hand on holster thing is slowly being trained out of most Police officers for the reasons you stated. The current model is the "t-rex arms" with hands folded across your chest (crossed arms are seen as hostile and so is hand on your belt) or the inquisitive model (one hand on your chin like you're listening intently. Establishes rapport but still protects you from sucker punches). I always felt goofy not knowing what to do with my hands. Landmarking my equipment (hands on mag pouches and handcuff case in front of me) was my default position, but notebook-out gave me the dual advantage of being ready to write things down and having my hands in a ready position without actually having to put 'em up every time I wanted to talk to somebody. Some guys would rest their hands on their firearms or batons, or worse, eff around with their OC while the can was still in the holder (and yes, I do know guys who've sprayed witnesses like this), but the one that drives me irrationally loving bazoo is the guy with his thumbs tucked into the armpits of his vest like a loving hillbilly. Howdy pardner, ready to sprain yer thumbs when the poo poo goes down? How bout we grab ya by them two big ole handles runnin over yer shoulders and solve me two problems at once? It's impossible for me to take someone standing like that seriously.
|
|
#
?
Dec 16, 2013 02:48
|
|
|
Silver bullet for all of our woes - make civics a mandatory class with an expanded curriculum every year from grade 7 to 12. Fold useless standalone law and philosophy classes into it. Make it basically an introduction to public administration, with bits of economics and such at the higher levels.
|
|
#
?
Dec 16, 2013 05:01
|
|
|
PT6A posted:I think that would probably take up a lot of police time investigating things that probably don't need investigation. For example, my RCMP officer friend has unholstered (and even fired) his gun in order to dispatch an deer that had its leg broken by a car, in accordance with RCMP policy. That doesn't really need to be investigated, even though bullets were actually fired. Investigation: police officer unholstered and fired shots to dispatch deer, in accordance with RCMP policy. Decision: Officer following RCMP policy, no further briefing required. JoelJoel posted:Very much agree but I would add that the investigations be undertaken by not cops, not ex cops, and not anyone that has any tie to cops beyond being the investigators into their actions. Absolutely agree. I don't see why the investigations can't be taken care of by lawyers. I'm sure there's enough out there. swagger like us posted:You're deciding use of force policy based off your feelings over videotaped police situations from different municipalities, departments, and hell even countries. Videos also don't show the entire picture, despite what some armchair analysts will tell you. I'm more deciding it based on James Forcillo, David Cavanaugh, Randy Martin and Rick Shank. An officer should not take our their gun unless they have the INTENT to use it. If the situation doesn't serve that, it shouldn't be loving out. PT6A's example would be something easily taken care of that doesn't involve the situations that are being more spoken about. For example, not every drug bust needs a gun pulled.
|
|
#
?
Dec 16, 2013 05:27
|
|
|
poo poo like this makes me so angry I want to vomit http://thetyee.ca/News/2013/12/09/Dismantling-Fishery-Library/ quote:Last week the Department of Fisheries and Oceans, which is closing five of its seven libraries, allowed scientists, consultants and members of the public to scavenge through what remained of Eric Marshall Library belonging to the Freshwater Institute at the University of Manitoba. This is this governments real legacy, trashing the data and methods to capture it so thoughly that it will takes years and millions of dollars to start rebuilding it
|
|
#
?
Dec 16, 2013 05:36
|
|
|
Paper Jam Dipper posted:Investigation: police officer unholstered and fired shots to dispatch deer, in accordance with RCMP policy. So, how do you make sure that each case is properly and thoroughly investigated, especially in the absence of witnesses. Surely you'd believe a police officer could lie? Alternatively, we could just do exactly what we're doing now, and have a review body investigate any officer-involved shooting or death. The body that does it in Alberta is called ASIRT, I don't know if there's an equivalent in other provinces.
|
|
#
?
Dec 16, 2013 05:46
|
|
|
Ontario has the Special Investigations Unit (SIU) which is called in every time someone is injured (sufficiently seriously) or killed by police, or a cop is alleged to have committed sexual assault. That much I don't have an issue with. One problem is that there have been some cases where the police didn't contact the SIU for a while after the incident and they don't suffer any penalty for not doing so. Another issue is that the SIU is has little investigative power or ability to compel testimony, which allows police to simply not talk to them or to compare notes and develop a story before doing so. Finally, one allegation I've heard (but I have no evidence to back this up) is that many SIU members are former police officers who just rubber stamp every incident anyways unless it is very egregious.
|
|
#
?
Dec 16, 2013 05:51
|
|
|
Paper Jam Dipper posted:For example, not every drug bust needs a gun pulled. How do you decide if a drug bust require a gun pulled or not? You make a review of it after the fact while sitting in an arm chair and then decide "this one won't require it because the suspects appear to cooperate"? Are they supposed to know in advance how whoever is potentially in there will react to the bust?
|
|
#
?
Dec 16, 2013 06:35
|
|
|
BattleMaster posted:Finally, one allegation I've heard (but I have no evidence to back this up) is that many SIU members are former police officers who just rubber stamp every incident anyways unless it is very egregious. The reason you hear this is because people who pay attention to the things the police are accused of in Ontario are saying this. But of course nobody can prove anything because the SIU can't compel the evidence that would drat the process, so the presumption of innocence and benefit of the doubt rule the day.
|
|
#
?
Dec 16, 2013 06:44
|
|
|
Alctel posted:
Future generations will refer to the "Harper Hole".
|
|
#
?
Dec 16, 2013 07:31
|
|
|
flakeloaf posted:The reason you hear this is because people who pay attention to the things the police are accused of in Ontario are saying this. But of course nobody can prove anything because the SIU can't compel the evidence that would drat the process, so the presumption of innocence and benefit of the doubt rule the day. Well I've seen the apparent rubber stamping but I don't know for a fact that any of the members of the SIU are former cops. I find it believable though.
|
|
#
?
Dec 16, 2013 07:33
|
|
|
supersnowman posted:How do you decide if a drug bust require a gun pulled or not? You make a review of it after the fact while sitting in an arm chair and then decide "this one won't require it because the suspects appear to cooperate"? Are they supposed to know in advance how whoever is potentially in there will react to the bust? Well the meta argument is that our laws pertaining to this issue are horrible. In a case-by-case reality the police should be the responsible parties and do their best to be a part of the community, not enforcers that justify force for whatever reason. Again, though, it's hard to assign blame when we wilfully vilify people for things that absolutely don't justify a violent recreation.
|
|
#
?
Dec 16, 2013 07:34
|
|
|
BattleMaster posted:Well I've seen the apparent rubber stamping but I don't know for a fact that any of the members of the SIU are former cops. I find it believable though. I feel like at least some of the members would have to be current or former cops, because they are the ones who know best what would be reasonable in a given situation based on experience. As lovely as it would be to have a body that's completely impartial, I expect that an SIU consisting only of people who've never worked in law enforcement really wouldn't have the capability to make informed judgements. There should equally be a number of laypeople, and some number of people advocating for the victim, but I think removing all law enforcement officers from the SIU or similar bodies would be problematic.
|
|
#
?
Dec 16, 2013 07:37
|
|
|
http://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/hamilton/news/cops-better-get-used-to-being-on-film-experts-say-1.2463496 Article excerpt: quote:That’s the case for the video of the two officers subduing the Hamilton suspect, Bryan says. “If not for the camera, that’s a simple arrest,” he said. “She’s playing it up for the camera.” Comments excerpt: quote:A 220 lb man and a 230 lb woman cop attack a 130 lb girl and then scream at her to stop resisting. She was not resisting . The cops use this tactic of yelling "Stop resisting " to justify the use of unreasonable force. That's another thing I hate about how police do things. They'll be rough with you and justify it by yelling STOP RESISTING when you're not resisting, and if you cry out and tell them to stop hurting you they just say "oh you're putting on a show for the crowd/camera to get attention" Haven't had it happen to me thank goodness, but I've seen it happen a few times in person and many times on video.
|
|
#
?
Dec 16, 2013 07:40
|
|
|
BattleMaster posted:http://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/hamilton/news/cops-better-get-used-to-being-on-film-experts-say-1.2463496 At the very beginning of the video, the officer keep telling her to put her hands behind her back and she does not do it. She also try to not get into the car as you can see her pulling the other way. I have nothing against people being mad if there is abuse of force but FFS help your own god drat case by doing what the officers ask you to do. If the video show you are doing as they ask and still usie force, then you will have all the point on your side. If you just keep yelling "they are hurting me!" while not doing what the officer says, how can you say you didn't resist? "I didn't do what the officer told me to but that's not resisting."
|
|
#
?
Dec 16, 2013 08:24
|
|
|
BattleMaster posted:http://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/hamilton/news/cops-better-get-used-to-being-on-film-experts-say-1.2463496 Is there a reason you're aiming your comments at this article? There are certainly a lot of examples of unreasonable force and poor treatment from police, but this seems like an example of a pretty well handled arrest. This isn't a case of the police officer yelling 'stop resisting' while striking a suspect or something. The officer was trying to get her hands so he could handcuff her and she was struggling to avoid it. He was pretty calmly asking her to stop resisting while sitting on her to keep her immobilized. As soon as he gets the other hand, he gets his weight off of her and tries to read her her rights. Something goes wrong with the handcuffs and they struggle a bit more, she ends up face down but once again once she stops struggling the officer takes his weight off of her. Then the officer talks to the onlookers, she tries to get up and he pins her hands and legs. Then they take her to the car. Through all that, the officers were calm, didn't get angry, generally controlled things by restraining their suspect and waiting her out rather than trying to get compliance by striking her. The arresting officer also did a good job of communicating with the onlookers. He wasn't yelling at them or trying to get them to go away. He spoke calmly to them and tried to answer them when he wasn't otherwise occupied and then had a reasonable conversation at the end. He made it clear that people well within their rights to film things. He got a bit defensive at the very end, but I can't really fault him too much for it I don't think. I think he did a pretty good job of trying to deal with everything. For the most part, this seems to be "Officers do good job, police chief is a little cranky about the people who made the video tape but restates that his department has no problem with being taped." It's not exactly what I'd like to hear in a perfect world, but it's pretty good as far as police departments go.
|
|
#
?
Dec 16, 2013 08:27
|
|
|
You're posting the video of that Hamilton Police Arrest as an example of a poorly done one? All I have seen it is as an example of a good one. Explain to me how an officer can legally effect an arrest, when a suspect refuses to comply with being handcuffed or going with him? Verbal judo only goes so far but everyone seems to think that every single case can be solved with just talking nicely. Sometimes, Police are enforcers and not just community members, and to do this they have to be able to effect arrests. This video is an example of a really well done arrest. She was resisting every attempt at arresting her, I don't understand your point at all. He didn't feed her punches or kick her.
|
|
#
?
Dec 16, 2013 08:38
|
|
|
I was just pointing at that attitude since it is topical, it comes comes out every time there's an arrest no matter had happened during that arrest, and this just so happened to be the arrest video of the day. It's predictable enough that I can safely say that if it was really and truly unjustified in the video then the response would be "oh the video doesn't show the whole story." It's like clockwork and the fact that the exact same justification comes out no matter what is exactly why people are getting tired of it. Edit: My favourite ones are the ones that are truly brutal with the subject not resisting, and the police say "the video doesn't show what happened before recording began" as if anything could justify what was shown. Edit 2: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4n9wNZWKnjA That one is one that I remember (first that came to mind) that is more like what I am describing so I probably should just have linked it instead. I can't find the raw version of it but she's yelling that she's not resisting for most of it. Cops alledged that she resisted and took a swing at the cop contrary to witness reports and video footage ((source). The SIU was called in and said nothing funny happened and decined to press assault charges on the officer in spite of the protestor's heavily battered face and broken bones (source). A comment on that video claims that charges were dropped (typical in these situations) but I haven't seen word either way in the news or on social media. This is just the one example that I felt like digging up and sourcing before bed but I've witnessed a few more like it plus they're not all that uncommon in the news. I'm tired enough of these "stop resisting" "I'm not resisting"/charged with assault on a cop/charges dropped cases that I stopped trusting the police during use of force events by default. BattleMaster fucked around with this message at 09:42 on Dec 16, 2013 |
|
#
?
Dec 16, 2013 09:24
|
|
|
Meanwhile, in places that have less of a militarized police force. Iceland police shoot someone for the first time. Ever. They also apologise profusely that it had to end up like that, and everybody gets grief counselling. If that'd have happened here the suspect would have had 30 bullets in him and the police force cheering a job well done.
|
|
#
?
Dec 16, 2013 09:42
|
|
|
less than three posted:Meanwhile, in places that have less of a militarized police force. What that is right there is what the use of deadly force should look like. They tried de-escalating it first, then used deadly force when the man presented himself as a deadly threat, and handled the aftermath a hell of a lot more sensitively than "oohrah we popped a bad guy." Edit: As I said earlier, though, I also think that if the subway shooting went down as police described then it was a proper use of deadly force, but I don't trust their word unless it's backed up by third-party evidence. Edit 2: Bad uses of deadly force: Man walking "zombie-like" with scissors in hand (isn't that why tazers were invented? Like, I'm not saying cops have to fight people tazer vs gun but these were scissors, come on) The streetcar shooting (which was so bad that it actually resulted in second-degree murder charges, but only because of a quantity of cell phone video contradicting the police story) So what I was trying to say with that first link is that police tell the same identical story after every use of force and it turns out to be false enough of the time that I don't think it be taken at face value. PT6A posted:I feel like at least some of the members would have to be current or former cops, because they are the ones who know best what would be reasonable in a given situation based on experience. As lovely as it would be to have a body that's completely impartial, I expect that an SIU consisting only of people who've never worked in law enforcement really wouldn't have the capability to make informed judgements. There should equally be a number of laypeople, and some number of people advocating for the victim, but I think removing all law enforcement officers from the SIU or similar bodies would be problematic. Not laypeople, but certainly there should be several lawyers in top positions there. There should be former police on hand as experts but I feel like there's too much chance of bias leaking in if former police run the show. BattleMaster fucked around with this message at 10:08 on Dec 16, 2013 |
|
#
?
Dec 16, 2013 09:46
|
|
|
less than three posted:Meanwhile, in places that have less of a militarized police force. and In America they'd have used a drone! 
|
|
#
?
Dec 16, 2013 10:52
|
|
|
BattleMaster posted:Edit 2: Bad uses of deadly force: Man walking "zombie-like" with scissors in hand (isn't that why tazers were invented? Like, I'm not saying cops have to fight people tazer vs gun but these were scissors, come on)  jesus christ torontoNot only were they scissors, they were scissors being carried by someone who was not only nonviolent (not that you can trust a mentally ill person to stay that way) but completely on another planet. I wasn't there, but did this guy doesn't have a back you can walk up on? Something wrong with your batons? A foam practice baton is more than good enough to knock something out of someone's hand, a real one would've ended this situation quite effectively, in my armchair view. There is no justifiable reason why police should not have cameras pointed at them at all times. If these situations unfold as the members involved keep saying they do, the video will do just as much to protect them as they would to protect the rest of us. I always carried the mic from my dash cam and knowing it was there made me more confident I could justify anything I did. That's what they're teaching in a lot of UOF programs - Justification. Anything's okay as long as you can justify it afterward. What's in your use of force model and the things you learn from your Approved Training Guy are the baseline for what is automatically acceptable. If you're inarticulate or kept poor notes, the farther you deviate from that framework to ensure your physical survivability, the harder it will be for you to explain what you did to ensure your legal and psychological survivability. That line of thinking is a necessary evil because the training can't cover every possible situation, and sometimes you need to deviate from the official techniques (which do not include punching people in the face, by the way). And again, that's totally fine IFF the situation calls for it. Your notebook's not a weapon, but if your guy's choking you and you end up slashing his cornea with it, are you going home tonight? They don't teach you to shoot at unarmed people, but is someone standing thirty feet away, stomping on a guy's head not "liable to cause death or grievous bodily harm"? Guys have been investigated for clubbing subjects with their service weapons, causing injury with various martial arts holds and throws, cutting people with personally-owned knives carried on the person, just about anything you can think of someone doing in a fight. In nearly all of these cases, it came down to the member's ability to explain what happened in the situation leading up to the use of force*, how the moment actually went down, and what the member did to de-escalate the situation once the force was no longer necessary. "The totality of the circumstnaces" is a phrase you'll hear a lot in these situations. The thing is, the "If you can justify it, you can do it" line of thinking only works if there's an objective, critical thinker on the other end who's fact-checking the things you say. If your report is "reviewed" by a cohesive echo chamber that's already decided to approve of anything (*There was a case, whose details are a bit fuzzy in my memory and apparently to Google as well, where a member ended up killing a subject in custody during a fight that started with the subject pulling the member into his cell, taking his pepper spray and emptying the can into his face. That member was properly convicted because his negligence allowed the initial assault to take place. If he hadn't put himself in a position where the prisoner could've attacked him and stolen his weapon, there would have been no need to resort to force of any kind, never mind deadly force.)
|
|
#
?
Dec 16, 2013 15:18
|
|
|
There was a mentally ill homeless guy in toronto many years ago who pulled out a hammer on a bus and the cops shot him dead. I knew him because he spent a lot of time panhandling near where I lived at the time and I would chat with him now and then. He was generally a nice guy but if he was having "an episode" or whatever you want to call it, he would be a different person and yell and shout at you, seemingly not recognizing people from the 'hood that he knew. If you heard him yelling, you'd just give him some distance and hope that he would go and see his counselor soon. I guess he was having one of those bad days when he was on the bus, maybe he was even traveling to go to see his counselor, but I remember being heartbroken when I heard about what happened to him, if I had been there, or anyone from my neighbourhood who knew the guy had been there, I feel things would have ended differently. Maybe I am being naive but I don't think I could live with myself for killing with a gun a guy who was brandishing a hammer. I'd rather get hit with the hammer as I tackle him than live with that for the rest of my life. Weren't there more pedestrians run over and killed by cars this year than there were gun related homicides?
|
|
#
?
Dec 16, 2013 16:31
|
|
|
Paper Jam Dipper posted:"Cash strapped justice system" Some parts of the system are chronically underfunded, to the detriment of all parties involved.
|
|
#
?
Dec 16, 2013 16:37
|
|
|
Seriously, guys, always-on shoulder cameras should be mandatory for all police doing things outside the station. They're already being trialled in places like Vancouver and Los Angeles, and have apparently been tried in Toronto as well. In today's high-tech world there's absolutely no reason not to do this, and it would not only provide video evidence of every incident involving police, it would help a lot in defusing situations because the police would know that they have to be accountable for whatever actually happens, and not make up a story about it, and people interacting with the police would know there's a video record of whatever happens so that both the police are accountable for their actions, and the civilian has to know that there's a clear record of whatever they say and do.
|
|
#
?
Dec 16, 2013 16:45
|
|
|
Justin Trudeau posted:That's what I got out of it too. It's possible that the first thing Mulcair did when elected leader was chew Hyer out for his vote, but I think it's more likely he's pissed that Mulcair didn't give him a shadow cabinet position. Actually the first thing Mulcair did when he was leader was lift the sanctions Turmel had placed on Hyer and Rafferty for their C-19 votes. It should also be remembered that Hyer ended up backing Mulcair for the leadership after Cullen was out, so he didn't start off hating him. It's not really a mystery, Hyer straight up said the straw that broke the camel's back for him was not ending up in the shadow cabinet. If he hates Mulcair now it's because after putting out a press release that he was abandoning the Party he seemed to genuinely regret the snap judgement and thought he could walk it back if Mulcair would only negotiate away some concessions to him. I really don't think Hyer thought through his decision at all or had any appreciation of the basics of how a Parliamentary Party with 100+ MPs functions.
|
|
#
?
Dec 16, 2013 17:15
|
|
|
jet sanchEz posted:Weren't there more pedestrians run over and killed by cars this year than there were gun related homicides? There always is, but cars are considered a necessity so any statistic of them being bad should be ignored.
|
|
#
?
Dec 16, 2013 17:18
|
|
|
Industry minister James Moore supports starving young children:quote:It's not up to the federal government to help out children who don't have enough to eat, Industry Minister James Moore said in Vancouver. Yeah, I can't wait to read what the context was for "it's not the government's job to feed children". Even if he was just saying that it's not a federal responsibility at first, the rest of the quotes sound nothing like that at all.
|
|
#
?
Dec 16, 2013 18:22
|
|
|
Listened to the whole thing in context and I agree with James Moore.
|
|
#
?
Dec 16, 2013 18:30
|
|
|
Kafka Esq. posted:Listened to the whole thing in context and I agree with James Moore. So you think school breakfast programs are a bad idea or what? Note it's only at the beginning of the clip that he says it's under provincial jurisdiction, his later statements are unqualified. Precambrian Video Games fucked around with this message at 18:44 on Dec 16, 2013 |
|
#
?
Dec 16, 2013 18:40
|
|
|
And now for your two minutes' hate, here's the Ottawa Sun.Almost journalism posted:
So there's a growing, insignificantly small minority whose opinions on government policy are obviously racism against Francophones, so we must act now before Facebook becomes too mean? Or something? Can the wind blow in three directions at once? Is it racism to call someone racist for suggesting the government adopt a racist policy? I'm not even sure how that works. I wonder if they realize that the internet has [group]-ist comments about literally every possible label you could put on someone. The sad part is that, being the Sun, the comments section will likely become a petri dish for exactly the kind of comments this "report" is handpicking from the big bad internet.
|
|
#
?
Dec 16, 2013 18:44
|
|
|
Sovy Kurosei posted:A taser has poor range, poor accuracy and typically only one shot per gun compared to a pistol. It is so ridiculously outclassed that it isn't even a reasonable option. The only solution is to issue all police with hand held Electrolasers, aka stun rays  http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Electrolaser
|
|
#
?
Dec 16, 2013 18:45
|
|
|
Kafka Esq. posted:Listened to the whole thing in context and I agree with James Moore. So yeah here's my transcription of the lead-up: James Moore posted:How one certainly scales and defines poverty is not quite an apples-to-apples comparison all across the country. There's no question prosperity is up, unemployment is down in every region in this country if you look over the past few years, it's slightly up but if you look at where it was two and three years ago more Canadians are working now than there ever were before. A million net new jobs have been created across this country and through economic growth obviously you create more prosperity, more opportunity for everybody. We've never been wealthier as a country than we are right now. Never been wealthier. Basically he's saying that we're "good enough" when it comes to economic prosperity and should dispose of the social safety net entirely? That if your neighbour's suffering, it's their own fault and their own problem for not cashing in on this super-sweet economic boom-time? Or possibly he's arguing on the sly for a guaranteed minimum income that would "empower" families to feed their own children?
|
|
#
?
Dec 16, 2013 18:50
|
|
swagger like us posted:Its just jargon, get over it, honestly. Everyone here is suddenly a psychological behavioural analyst because they seem to be able to establish peoples intent and mindset based off either what they wear (OH MY GOD, they are wearing BLACK gear) or what they say. Okay swagger like us I've decided to identify you as "A blithering retard, incapable of coherent thought or intelligent opinions" but it's okay because it's just jargon for "a person who disagrees with me". It's hilarious that you're bringing up the black clothing thing because of the multitude upon multitude of studies showing that yes that actually does make people more aggressive, but thanks for trying to dismiss the entire field of psychology because it makes you feel kind of weird.
|
|
|
#
?
Dec 16, 2013 18:51
|
|
|
|
| # ? Jun 2, 2024 20:15 |
|
|
flakeloaf posted:And now for your two minutes' hate, here's the Ottawa Sun. Not to mention, their examples regarding their language policy and the charter of values are basically saying "These people are intolerant of our right to be intolerant!" It's like Christians claiming persecution when reasonable people tell them that they can't spread anti-gay hate.
|
|
#
?
Dec 16, 2013 18:51
|
|