Tarquinn2049

For some reason, they couldn’t find what a ‘member’ of Antifa looked like.

Peaceful protest is what is meant, instead of violent protest. Peaceful doesn’t mean doing nothing.

It’s just the hyperbole. It wouldn’t matter which specific word they used if it more closely matched the level of intensity of what actually happened.

In this instance, even a cliché, overused term like ‘jabs’ would be fine.

Are guns working for the states?

Well, to be fair, I’m assuming a little French Revolution will be part of the current system burning down.

The only hope at this point is that it’s so broken by the end that no amount of “tweaking” the current plan/formula is worth doing. Would at least be nice if the light at the end of the tunnel is that a whole new modern way of life will be possible to rebuild from the ashes. Even without trump breaking it further, the current plan wasn’t going well, long term. It’s going worse now, but in an unsustainable way. The old plan would have taken much longer to get this much worse.

If they’re old enough to have kids that are old enough to not be kids, they’re not kids.

Yeah, they think we are lying when we say we don’t want to hurt them, even though we disagree with them. There is a reason they always think they are being threatened, cuz they would be threatening if they were in the same position, so they see our actions through that filter.

Right after the article mentions their rules of engagement in that situation being that they should have backed away from the moving car, it then states that the action would likely be considered justified due to the officer being in danger… from choosing to hold on to the moving car? Like his injuries are clearly because he didn’t let go of the car until it was going fast enough that he fell off and skidded… that seems like his choice and not something the driver did.

They are not authorised or recommended to use force to prevent a “suspect” from fleeing.

Yeah, if we know anything about Canada and Australia, it’s that they are definitely the bad guys…

It’ll be petroleum chambers this time, gotta find some new uses for that stuff to justify the continued production.

They have a child’s understanding of the concepts… which is not particularly surprising, you don’t get to be a dictator by being well-educated, in fact it almost requires being shut off from as much knowledge as possible. They tend to be unable to hear the truth and basically force their underlings to gaslight them.

It just means they don’t even need to consider if it could have been in self defense because it was ruled out at step 1. Not that if it passed step 1 it would be guaranteed that it was.

They just want to head off that entire line of defense from the get go.

Yeah, considering the image already shows 7 of them…

I will say, I’m a little surprised Trump didn’t use just the headline without the article to claim crime is down because of the deportations. I know he wouldn’t be able to back it up with data, but when has that mattered to him?

I guess the illusion of crime being up is still more important to him than pretending he can pat himself on the back.

As you can see from your image, they corrected you on their name.

In fact, it’s very clear his entire intent is to try to make it impossible for them to claim he was reaching for something. And they still claimed it… like, if he had complied and reached to take off his seatbelt, they probably would have shot him…

I wouldn’t be surprised if that was some sort of loophole created by deregulation though. They are still horrible too for taking advantage of it if that is the case.

Yeah, that is actually one of the other points people sometimes use to refute the atom bombs being a war crime. That they didn’t kill as many civilians as firebombs or carpet bombing… I know you aren’t, just brought it to mind. But yeah, that only makes those other types of bombs also war crimes. Hehe.

Does he not know that using the atom bombs to kill civilians was kind of considered a bit of a no-no?

The justification that “it ended the war early, actually ‘saving’ lives” is moot, killing civilians to save soldiers, is pretty much strongly considered the opposite of the point. It is a war crime.

Not having been charged with it, isn’t something you want to go poking at. Everyone has kind of loosely agreed to leave it in the past. But that doesn’t have to stay the case if you make people upset enough like that.