It's interesting because
The nooticing is coming from inside the house.
SHIT, NOW I AM NOOTICING THINGS. IT'S TOO LATE FOR ME.
It's interesting because
The nooticing is coming from inside the house.
SHIT, NOW I AM NOOTICING THINGS. IT'S TOO LATE FOR ME.
Ah yes, an executive director of a church writing an opinion piece on why we need more fossil fuels burning the earth faster and filled with hyperbole on the way we've thrown open Canada's doors to all the immigrants who are stealing our houses and health care. Such quality.
The Beaverton has more valid takes.
"Please be The Beaverton, please be The Beaverton, please be the Beave... FUCK!"
Believing police in the USA are anything near well trained or disciplined is naive at best.
Correct, which is why it's not an opinion I expressed.
My statement was that giving untrained, undisciplined people weapons is a bad thing. The point was to address the whataboutism of "they're out there shooting us right now," not to defend the absolute joke that is police in the United States.
Now that I've discovered the rest of the article beyond the wall of ads, I agree. I had partial information, and wrongly believed it was all the information, as the blob of ads on my mobile device was a whole screen. That, combined with being on the way out the door in the morning, led me to believe I had read everything and everyone in this thread is insane. Thenn, someone made a specific reference to something I hadn't read and I was prompted to go look, discovering there is much more article beyond our corporate sponsored break.
I legit thought they scared a dude with a rifle into fleeing, and then shot at him instead of letting him get away.
The dude with the rifle was running. That whole argument is fine when someone is draw weapons and making threats, but they shot at someone trying to flee the scene after causing no harm and killed an innocent. Everything else is imaginary justification.
EDIT: Wondering where the hell everyone else got so much more information, I reloaded the article, scrolled past the ad wall and found the rest of the text, which makes clear that the dude with the rifle pulled his gun into a firing position on the crowd. Fair enough, I was wrong and the citizen was right to have taken the shot. I blame the ad wall for convincing me that the news article was over.
Sorry, how many protesters were shot and killed by law enforcement this weekend?
Listen, I take your point, but the killing of random civilians isn't better.
Exactly. The level of cultural brainwashing in this thread is insane. You don't just let any random volunteer perform jobs like this.
Volunteers were told not to carry a weapon because of outcomes like this. They're not trained professionals, and they're definitely not action heroes. And now someone has to explain to a child, a parent, a partner, etc., that the civillian death here was just an unfortunate outcome of a wonderful American citizen protecting his country. It's actually fucking despicible.
I did miss that bit in the full article, so fair enough. It certainly could be more clear though: they're burying the lede pretty badly by opening with the wording that insinuates we don't know.
You just replace prisons with "work camps," and suddenly the US is as great as China.