*** The Official MAGAposting thread ***

[Poopadoop]

Fuck's sake you're so fucking left wing you won't even call me a grammar Nazi.

I'm just being sensitive to your right wing heart. Or, are you saying you WANT to be called a Nazi?

[Poopadoop]

Also, calling an Austrian "Mozart" is surely racist? Sorry, xenophobic. What if I called you Pedro?

Pedro? lol what has a Spanish name have to do with me?

Are you offended by being called Churchill? Or some other great British name? Seems like a compliment to me.

Oh yea, I guess you'd prefer Adolf.

[OngBonga]

I'm just being sensitive to your right wing heart. Or, are you saying you WANT to be called a Nazi?

A grammar Nazi, sure. I am a grammar Nazi. I'm not a fucking gammar police officer. I do have some shame.

Pedro? lol what has a Spanish name have to do with me?

Sorry Jean-Pierre, I was simply trying to mock Canada, by pretending to get it confused with Mexico.

Are you offended by being called Churchill? Or some other great British name? Seems like a compliment to me.

Winston, please.

Oh yea, I guess you'd prefer Adolf.

Grammar Adolf, please.

[OngBonga]

I think morals are necessarily built on reciprocity... actually I don't think that's true, but it sounds good.

There's probably something profound here if only I could be bothered to think about it.

[OngBonga]

How many famous Canadians are there? These are the ones I can think of...
Celine Fucking Dion
Bryan Fucking Adams
Sir Trey Parker
Professor Matt Stone
Alanis Morisette
That skater boy bitch
Paul Peschisolido
Greg Rusedski

Actually I'm doing better than I expected here...

Anvil Latrine, that's the skater bitch.

Wan't Gilles Villneuev Canadian? Or was that his son, Jaques?

And the de Guzman Brothers, Julian and Jonathon.

Yep I'm done.

[OngBonga]

That poker twat... Dan Negranu...

Obviously...

[OngBonga]

Oh yeah there was that wanker of a snooker player who cried when Ronnie O'Sullivan played left-handed against him.

He was Canadian.

[OngBonga]

When Candians play snooker.



Watch it all. Be proud.

[Poopadoop]

How many famous Canadians are there? These are the ones I can think of...
Celine Fucking Dion
Bryan Fucking Adams
Sir Trey Parker
Professor Matt Stone
Alanis Morisette
That skater boy bitch
Paul Peschisolido
Greg Rusedski

Don't forget Justin Bieber

here's some more:

Shania Twain
Pamela Anderson
Linda Evangelista
Frederick Banting
Marshal McLuhen
Oscar Peterson
Glenn Gould
William Shatner
Mike Myers
Jim Carrey
Michael J. Fox
Drake
Dan Akroyd
Seth Rogen
The Rock
Neil Young

[Poopadoop]

When Candians play snooker.

Watch it all. Be proud.

Back at ya. Here's something equally entertaining.

[Poopadoop]

Seriously, who watches snooker when you can watch a real sport?

[Poopadoop]

This was last week from the World Championships. Most of our best players are still playing in the playoffs in N. America.

And my God what a shitty team you have. It's like playing against kids.

[OngBonga]

Oh no, we're not very good at playing a girl's sport on ice. Did we cry when Canada played good?

Seriously, who watches snooker when you can watch a real sport?

Me. I like snooker, while hockey is shit. I'd rather watch the girls playing in the field, at least the wear nice little skirts.

[Poopadoop]

I bet you like watching golf too. And bowling. Tbh I'm surprised you're not still watching that paint drying video I posted.

[OngBonga]

I bet you like watching golf too. And bowling. Tbh I'm surprised you're not still watching that paint drying video I posted.

Nope and nope.

I watch snooker, cricket, football and occasionally rugby. Sometimes motor sport, and I'll watch the Olympics when it's on.

I turn off American football, basketball and basketball, though I can watch hockey because it's a decent sport, despite my mockery. It's definitely the best North American sport.

[OngBonga]

I don't hate tennis either, but I'll often get bored. It's better if it's someone cute in a skirt.

[Poopadoop]

I'll go along with your tennis watching rules.

Cricket is even more boring than snooker, which isn't easy to do. I'd rather watch the paint drying myself.

Football and rugby are ok, but hockey is better. Eggball is pretty good too. Basketball meh. Motorsport meh. I'd rather play a video game where I'm racing a car than watch real people race in real cars.

[Poopadoop]

Anything you'd rather play yourself than watch should not be a spectator sport. That includes golf and snooker right there.

Cricket I wouldn't want to watch or play, unless there was a KFC-sized bucket of beer in my hands. And even then I'd question why I was there.

[OngBonga]

Cricket is fucking great to play, at least from a batsman's pov. Smacking the shit out of a ball is fun. I never enjoyed bowling, and fielding is a bit boring. Watching it can be boring, depends who's playing and at what standard. When it's England vs Australia in the Ashes, it's awesome. That's happening later in the summer. Fucking sweet.

Snooker is a chill sport, I watch it while smoking weed and maybe doing other stuff. It's tactical and skillful, like chess with sticks and balls. It's REALLY hard to play well, much harder than pool.

Golf is definitely a playing sport rather than watching.

[oskar]

Word of the day:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=y04GnSRhoP4

[Poopadoop]

Only the best people.

[oskar]

Is it really a bad day for him? A bad day for the quick witted, dignified Ben Carson? The honorable Ben Carson? The totally not phoning it in for donor money Ben Carson?

[oskar]

8 major school shootings so far in 2019, but it's ok because 8 people unsuccessfully defended themselves against tyranny, which was their INALIENABLE RIGHT!

[oskar]

This guy is lucky to be alive:
https://www.nbcnews.com/news/us-news...e-his-n1006851

Full body cam footage:

[Poopadoop]

That cop was in mortal danger of having his nose picked with that garbage grabber thing.

[oskar]

https://youtu.be/tYachnFjylA?t=748 watch officer hero-man move in to neutralize the threat!

I'm sure I'm the first one to make the joke that if you're trash, then I guess you can claim that a clamp and bucket mean mortal danger.

[MadMojoMonkey]

IDK the laws in Boulder, CO, but according to the link, the cop "violated 2 dept. policies," (unstated) and the (a?) city attorney said it "does not represent the professionalism of the Boulder Police Department."


This is a stupid waste of tax dollars and a cop making a stupid decision. If the cop thought there was a problem, he should have opened by cuffing, patting down the guy and detaining him.

"Why are you coming onto my property and asking me questions when I didn't to shit?"
is a valid question for the guy to ask... especially after the first minute of the video when the cop had, IMO, every reason to believe the guy's story.
1) He's answered the cop's questions re. the cop's stated reason for beginning the conversation.
2) He's offered to take the cop inside the building the cop's questioning whether or not the guy lives in. (I mean... no way should the cop do that, but it was, in retrospect an honest offer, not indicative of any trap or ambush.)
3) He's handed the cop his student ID, and presumably the cop knows that's a student dorm... so the story checks out so far. The kid doesn't have a state ID or Driver's License on him. That's more common than not among college students.

Odds the guy was trespassing and is cleverly covering his tracks with a quickly drawn Student ID, and a handily placed bucket and grabby tool? Basically nil. He's a student. That's a dorm. Move on.

At this point... I'd say the cop has everything he needs to drop his initial suspicion. At this point, there's a new thing going on where the cop DOESN'T drop that suspicion, and the guy gets that. Now there's the part where the guy protests that his rights are being violated. (When he stands up, gets his tools and gets back to work)

Someone not wanting to have their rights violated is not suspicious behavior, nor indicative of criminal behavior.


I mean... the guy should have complied and then gotten a lawyer to press charges, but we both know that's a waste of time and money and the city will never lose that lawsuit.
Maybe he took a risk with his life to show what he considers criminal police harassment to the world. It's a pretty "college student" thing to do, after all.

That's his call. I don't fault him for realizing that his rights were being abused and standing back up to continue his day, ignoring it. That's admirable in a way... if it wasn't a cop abusing his rights, I think that's a good move most of the time.

[Poopadoop]

Too bad for the kid he didn't have a gun of his own to fight the tyranny with.

Oh wait, then he'd be dead.

Never mind.

[Poopadoop]

https://youtu.be/tYachnFjylA?t=748 watch officer hero-man move in to neutralize the threat!

I notice he took the bucket too so the first cop had somewhere to dump his career.

[MadMojoMonkey]

Too bad for the kid he didn't have a gun of his own to fight the tyranny with.

Oh wait, then he'd be dead.

Never mind.

Your refusal to understand an adult who has an opinion different to yours is ignorant vanity.
Your voluntary ignorance is no reflection of my beliefs.

[Poopadoop]

Your refusal to understand an adult who has an opinion different to yours is ignorant vanity.
Your voluntary ignorance is no reflection of my beliefs.

I don't refuse to understand your opinion, I refuse to agree with it.

[MadMojoMonkey]

I don't refuse to understand your opinion, I refuse to agree with it.

All evidence to the contrary. Your prior post in point. If you think I said that guy "should" have had a gun and drawn it on the cop, then you're actively ignoring what I've said. It's all there. You can go read it again.

C'mon. That's not your bar for tyranny, and it's not mine, either.

[Poopadoop]

That was tyranny by most definitions.

cruel, unreasonable, or arbitrary use of power or control

Just because it's only one cop pointing a gun at him doesn't make it any less serious.

And yea, i know what you said. The kid had an inalienable human right to have a fiirearm (at least) to protect himself against tyranny.

[oskar]

MMM, 90% of what you've been saying on this topic is that you have been very smart and very well spoken and have made great points, and that everyone who doesn't agree with that is too dim to understand. You haven't actually made a single argument against stricter gun laws that I haven't addressed. But instead of giving me a counter argument you simply dismiss it by claiming I misunderstood, or that you've addressed this in the past. You have never addressed the question whether or not you want less strict gun laws and why. This is possibly the single most important question for me to understand your position.

You say that the price you pay for lax gun laws is worth paying because you need guns to defend yourself against tyranny. You can't name me a single historic example of people fighting a tyrannical government with weapons, you simply move on to say: oh lol u so dumb you can't read, I said defend, not successfully defend! - Ok then. If that is your argument I will make fun of you until the end of times for saying something so unbelievably stupid.

[OngBonga]

Both of those guys are idiots. At first, when the guy refused to give his address, it seemed like he was an illegal and was trying to evade detection. It's completely understandable that the cop persisted. Should the cop have backed down? That would be weak as fuck. Guy says he's not doing anything wrong and refuses to cooperate, cops simply accepts that? Not at all. Cop rightfully will be asking himself why this guy is so uncooperative. Was there racial profiling going on? Maybe, idk, would the cop have challenged a white guy? I haven't got a clue, and neither has anyone else. Only the cop knows if he's looked at the guy and thought "he's black, let's question him". I doubt that's what the cop thought, but maybe he did, idk.

The cop is an absolute wanker though when he starts threatening to tase him and pulls the gun out, saying the guy's litter picker is a fucking weapon. What a prick.

Cop should simply follow the guy until backup arrives, and then leave the questioning to his colleagues. That would show a desire to diffuse the situation while still doing his job without backing down.

[Poopadoop]

To give the cop some credit he never raised his voice. Most of them on videos I've seen start shouting orders right off the bat. He still had no reason to draw a weapon though. The guy wasn't going to impale him with a garbage picker from twenty feet away ffs.

Also, the guy doesn't have to prove he's not doing anything wrong by picking up garbage in front of a building. Is that illegal? Even if he didn't live there, is cleaning litter off someone else's boulevard trespassing? Cop had no reason to approach him whatsoever imo. Is a cop going to just start demanding explanations from everyone he runs into on the street? Fuck off.

OTOH, the guy knew his rights and was right to be pissed off, but so what? Just cooperate with the prick with the gun and get it over with. That's what I always did. It could have been over in less than two minutes instead of the twelve minutes it took on the video. You don't have to fight with every asshole you meet.

[OngBonga]

Also, the guy doesn't have to prove he's not doing anything wrong by picking up garbage in front of a building.

Of course this isn't illegal, but the cop wasn't there because of reports of a guy picking litter. He was investigating trespass. That's not a crime in the UK, but maybe it is a police matter in this state. Whatever, the cop was doing his job asking this guy what he was doing. Now, this guy was uncooperative, and the cop in turn grew suspicious, so the cop persisted and refused to back down. No problem here.

Cop had no reason to approach him whatsoever imo.

You're basically arguing that a cop doesn't have the right to approach and question an individual. That's crazy.

Is a cop going to just start demanding explanations from everyone he runs into on the street? Fuck off.

No, but if he's been called to a location to investigate a report of a crime, and somebody is there,that somebody is going to be questioned. Why is that a problem?

OTOH, the guy knew his rights and was right to be pissed off, but so what? Just cooperate...

Yeah, exactly why I think this guy is a dick, too. I can only guess that this guy is immediately playing the race card... he thinks he was approached because he's black, not because he's present at a location the cops were called to. It's not out of the question that the person who called the cops gave a description to police that said "black", in which case the cop is even more within his rights to question this guy.

Just cooperate. Admittedly, once the cop draws the gun, or even threatens to use the taser, I can totally understand why this guy switched to megadick mode, but up to that point, he was just being a dick needlessly. Respect the fact the cop has a job to do, and cooperate.

[Poopadoop]

Of course this isn't illegal, but the cop wasn't there because of reports of a guy picking litter. He was investigating trespass. That's not a crime in the UK, but maybe it is a police matter in this state. Whatever, the cop was doing his job asking this guy what he was doing. Now, this guy was uncooperative, and the cop in turn grew suspicious, so the cop persisted and refused to back down. No problem here.

Assuming the cop didn't just make that whole trespassing shit up...or that the trespassing in question was six months ago.

Do you think the cop is going to admit it if he's just having a bad day and saw some guy he thought he could push around? Like, "I'm stopping you 'cause I felt like it. Now put the garbage grabber thing down or I'll blow your head off."

You're basically arguing that a cop doesn't have the right to approach and question an individual. That's crazy.

It's not crazy.

The cop has to see the guy doing something wrong to detain him afaik. He can't just go up to people and say "hey there was a crime around here some time. Are you a criminal?" when they've given him no reason to suspect they are.

No, but if he's been called to a location to investigate a report of a crime, and somebody is there,that somebody is going to be questioned. Why is that a problem?

He can ask questions but the guy is not obligated to answer them. He can't then keep asking questions and giving orders like he did.

Yeah, exactly why I think this guy is a dick, too. I can only guess that this guy is immediately playing the race card... he thinks he was approached because he's black, not because he's present at a location the cops were called to. It's not out of the question that the person who called the cops gave a description to police that said "black", in which case the cop is even more within his rights to question this guy.

You're sure giving the cop a lot of benefit of the doubt. Just as likely (not more likely, but just as) he's the type to do his own racial profiling and use it as an excuse to wave his dick around. The fact he's willing to pull his weapons on the guy suggests he doesn't quite have his head on straight in general.

Just cooperate. Admittedly, once the cop draws the gun, or even threatens to use the taser, I can totally understand why this guy switched to megadick mode, but up to that point, he was just being a dick needlessly. Respect the fact the cop has a job to do, and cooperate.

Was with you up to here, but yeah I agree cooperating is much easier and safer. I'm not going to provoke a jerk with a gun.

[Poopadoop]

p.s. No cop ever admitted to me he was stopping me just to be a dick. Some of the excuses I got were "Just a random check." (on someone walking down the street?) or "We had a report of a break and enter." (I'm sure you did. So why are you stopping me and no-one else walking down the street?) or "Someone reported their walkman missing. Is that yours? Do you have a receipt?" (yea, cause I carry around a receipt for everything I own just to prove I didn't steal it. Hold on, it's in my wallet next to my receipt for my underwear. Fuck off).

[Poopadoop]

btw, the cop says at the beginning "I saw you sitting on the patio behind the building and I also saw a no trespassing sign. So I just wanted to make sure you belong here."

So he wasn't called there to investigate a crime, and he had no reason to think the guy was trespassing. Fucking Inspector Clouseau.

[OngBonga]

Assuming the cop didn't just make that whole trespassing shit up...or that the trespassing in question was six months ago.

That's quite an assumption. Sure it's possible, but I'm inclined to give the cop the benefit of the doubt here. If he was making up shit, I'd have expected that to be reported. And why would he ask for backup? He'd then have to hope his colleagues didn't have a problem with him lying in order to question a random guy.

The cop has to see the guy doing something wrong to detain him afaik.

Something wrong? So a cop can only approach an individual if he catches him red handed breaking the law? A cop can't use his discretion to decide if he considers the guy suspicious? I don't like overpolicing at all, but asking someone what they're doing when they're present at a location that he has been sent to, that's reasonable.

He can't just go up to people and say "hey there was a crime around here some time. Are you a criminal?

Some time? I'm assuming the last half an hour at most. In which case, yes he can go up to people and ask what they're doing. That's his job, it's why he was sent there to investigate.

He can ask questions but the guy is not obligated to answer them. He can't then keep asking questions and giving orders like he did.

Agreed, but herein lies the problem. If you refuse to cooperate with a cop when he asks what you're doing, chances are it will perk his suspicion, warranting further questioning. And so the situation can deteriorate into a standoff quickly.

You're sure giving the cop a lot of benefit of the doubt.

There's no reason not to.

Just as likely (not more likely, but just as) he's the type to do his own racial profiling and use it as an excuse to wave his dick around.

This is the polar opposite of giving him the benefit of the doubt, and is no better than racial profiling. Why would you default to "cop is an asshole" when he's simply asking normal cop questions? Why is that any better than defaulting to "criminal" when you see a black person? Is it ok to discriminate against white cops? Is that what you're saying?

p.s. No cop ever admitted to me he was stopping me just to be a dick.

I've been pulled before for no apparent reason. It happens. Maybe it happens more to minorities, and that is a problem, but a bigger problem would be police feeling like they can't do their job out of fear of being labelled racist.

btw, the cop says at the beginning "I saw you sitting on the patio behind the building and I also saw a no trespassing sign. So I just wanted to make sure you belong here."

So he wasn't called there to investigate a crime, and he had no reason to think the guy was trespassing. Fucking Inspector Clouseau.

This does put a different context on to it, but it doesn't confirm that he wasn't called out. He does say "we've had some stuff going on here". Whether that's true or not is open to debate, but if it is, then the cop is well within his rights to question this guy.

[OngBonga]

I'd definitely like to know why the cop is there.

[Poopadoop]

I don't see why you're giving this particular cop the benefit of the doubt when he's obviously shown he's a complete retard.

The cop can truthfully say "we've had some stuff going on here" about any neighborhood. They can say that whether there's been stuff going on or not. How are you going to know if it was something three blocks away that happened 4 years ago?

Now, for this specific incident: If you see someone sitting on a patio where there's a no trespassing sign, that alone is not very suspicious. You should think 99% chance he lives there or is working there. Then, if you for whatever reason decide it is suspicious (maybe there's a trespassing epidemic going on in that town, who knows), and then go up to him and see he's picking up garbage around the place that should tell you he's 99.999% not a trespasser. He's fucking working, duh!

At that point the cop should have put 2+2 together and said 'have a nice day, sir' and fucked off. Instead he decided to go on a power trip and try to boss the guy around a bit.

Once the cop's committed to his 'investigation' though, it's pretty unlikely, even if he realizes how dumb he's being, that he's going to just stop and go 'sorry my mistake.' The chance he will do that is even less than the chance the guy he's harassing is actually a trespasser. So the kid should have realized it was pointless to argue with Seargeant Shithead and just let him have whatever little orgasm he gets from playing Kojak.

[OngBonga]

I don't see why you're giving this particular cop the benefit of the doubt when he's obviously shown he's a complete retard.

Because the evidence he's a complete retard only became apparent to me after I had written out my post.

How are you going to know if it was something three blocks away that happened 4 years ago?

Well I won't know, but his superiors will.

If you see someone sitting on a patio where there's a no trespassing sign, that alone is not very suspicious.

Agreed.

At that point the cop should have put 2+2 together and said 'have a nice day, sir' and fucked off. Instead he decided to go on a power trip and try to boss the guy around a bit.

I agree with this if the cop has no reason to be there.

[Jack Sawyer]

This guy is lucky to be alive:
https://www.nbcnews.com/news/us-news...e-his-n1006851

Full body cam footage:

This is perfect for the gun nuts.

A handgun (also sniper/assault etc rifles, machine guns etc) is by definition a weapon. There is nothing else it can be. A handgun is by definition not a tool, unless you consider its function as a tool that of killing people.

A machete is a tool, which can also be used as a weapon. Its main function is to cut down stuff, like tall grass, sugar canes, trimming trees, etc. It can also be used to chop people's heads off and otherwise maim, but a lot of force, determination and courage are required to do that.

What this dude had in hand is not a weapon. What the officer had in hand was. Funny how the officer told this dude to "drop the weapon". So scared of a long stick to pick up trash.

[MadMojoMonkey]

Something wrong? So a cop can only approach an individual if he catches him red handed breaking the law? A cop can't use his discretion to decide if he considers the guy suspicious? I don't like overpolicing at all, but asking someone what they're doing when they're present at a location that he has been sent to, that's reasonable.

In general, police officers have wide leeway to make on-the-spot decisions about what they are suspicious, but they still need a justifiable reason to be suspicious in order to stop and question a civilian.
They can ask you to stop all day. They can talk to you all day.
They can't order you to stop and be subject of their investigation without reasonable suspicion, though.

Some time? I'm assuming the last half an hour at most. In which case, yes he can go up to people and ask what they're doing. That's his job, it's why he was sent there to investigate.

It's a fuzzy line, but the police aren't allowed to pick someone and follow them around until they commit a crime. Even when the person is in a public space. At some point, it's police harassment. They need a justifiable reason for being suspicious in order to investigate.

If he was "sent there" to investigate by a judge's warrant, then that certainly qualifies as a justified reason.

Agreed, but herein lies the problem. If you refuse to cooperate with a cop when he asks what you're doing, chances are it will perk his suspicion, warranting further questioning. And so the situation can deteriorate into a standoff quickly.

Being mouthy and/or disrespectful to a cop is ill-advised, but not against the law.
If a cop asks to search your vehicle or bag or whatever... that's because they need your permission. I.e. they do not have the right to do so. You refusing them that voluntary search is never suspicious in and of itself. If some stranger asks you what's in your pockets, they can fuck off. If the cop isn't acting out of their professional duty, justified by their reasons, then you can tell them to fuck off, too.
Again, it's ill-advised, but the cop cannot say, "He told me to fuck off, and I found that suspicious."

If a cop orders you to let them search your stuff, then that's different. However, as I've noted, they can't order you unless they're already suspicious (or more certain, due to a warrant or whatever). Whether they're asking or ordering makes all the difference in the world.

[OngBonga]

Yeah I mean I don't disagree with anything there. It's just that I can understand why the cop became suspicious. I did, I figured this guy was trying to hide something. If I were a cop, I'd want to keep questioning him. Whether I should have approached him in the first place, that's a different matter.

[Poopadoop]

Yeah I mean I don't disagree with anything there. It's just that I can understand why the cop became suspicious. I did, I figured this guy was trying to hide something. If I were a cop, I'd want to keep questioning him. Whether I should have approached him in the first place, that's a different matter.

Again, without wanting to condone the kid's behaviour:

The cop doesn't get to decide what the kid's rights are. The kid did not have to answer any questions, full stop. The cop had no reason to think the kid was committing a crime or about to commit a crime. So, the law is that the kid doesn't have to answer if he doesn't want to. Moreoever, his refusal to answer doesn't change that law. The cop can't decide that if someone is refusing to volunteer information he's not required by law to give, the law has suddenly changed so that he is required to give information.

Sure, the cop might feel more suspicious about the kid if he seems uncooperative, but that doesn't change what the law says the kid's rights are. In this situation, the kid is perfectly within his rights to tell the cop to fuck off.

[boost]

This is perfect for the gun nuts.

A handgun (also sniper/assault etc rifles, machine guns etc) is by definition a weapon. There is nothing else it can be. A handgun is by definition not a tool, unless you consider its function as a tool that of killing people.

A machete is a tool, which can also be used as a weapon. Its main function is to cut down stuff, like tall grass, sugar canes, trimming trees, etc. It can also be used to chop people's heads off and otherwise maim, but a lot of force, determination and courage are required to do that.

What this dude had in hand is not a weapon. What the officer had in hand was. Funny how the officer told this dude to "drop the weapon". So scared of a long stick to pick up trash.

This needs to be called out more for exactly what it is. It's a cynical preemptive legal argument for the individual cop's lawyers and the police department's lawyers. Similarly "stop resisting!" is used while people being pinned down by multiple officers are beaten/tazed as a form of instant "justice." If video of the incident ever makes it to court, a jury will be predisposed to see the person as the bad actor because the audio is laced with a pro cop biased narrative.

I am not anti-cop. You won't hear me saying "ACAB!", I think there are problems inherent to the profession that they can do a much better job of mitigating, but I'm happy I live in a place with a professionalized police force that is relatively free of corruption. That being said, these live narrations by cops for an intended jury audience are disturbing.

That all being said, while I understand the guy's frustration, he was really walking on the edge when he heard the cop refer to the picker-upper thing as a weapon, and then continued to aggressively point it at the cop. The cop was like a bull giving all the signals that he was readying to charge, and the guy did almost all the wrong things to keep from getting mauled. If a cop tells you to "put down the weapon", you should do everything you can to make clear that you are not a threat. If you want to continue walking away, do so with your hands up and slowly while calmly stating that you are not armed, because what he is doing is justifying shooting you, to himself as well as a future jury.

[Poopadoop]

So Mueller has come out in a public press conference now and said, basically "Read the fucking report. We couldn't indict him because he's a sitting president. We also couldn't clear him (hint, hint, wink, wink). Obstruction of justice is a serious offense. Congress, do your fucking job."

[MadMojoMonkey]

"There were multiple, systematic efforts to interfere in our election"
-Mueller

"There were multiple, systematic attempts by the Russians to interfere in the 2016 election"
Some spin doctor blow hard who literally just misquoted the guy less than a minute after showing us the actual quote.

FFS, American journalism is dead.

[OngBonga]

Correction, Western journalism is dead. It's exactly the same here. Remember Novichok? Something like "the sample was pure", meaning "impossible to have come from a door knob having been there for days in rain", spun as "military grade of the type developed by Russia".

I'm glad you see through the bullshit Mojo.

[Poopadoop]

Not sure what movie you guys are watching. The Mueller Report specifically mentions Russian interference. I mean, the reporter may have added that word where Mueller hadn't specifically said it at that moment, but really? You think that is fake news?

If you're outraged by that, you're gonna be apoplectic when you watch this:

[oskar]

"There were multiple, systematic efforts to interfere in our election"
-Mueller

"There were multiple, systematic attempts by the Russians to interfere in the 2016 election"
Some spin doctor blow hard who literally just misquoted the guy less than a minute after showing us the actual quote.

FFS, American journalism is dead.

WHAT?
You are giving me migraine. Do you actually think Mueller meant to say there was interference by... who the fuck do you think - when the "Mueller Report" he's been working on for the past two years lays out multiple instances of russian election interference, names the actors and handed out indictments for said actors, actually meant to say there was election interference - in general... never mind the 200+ pages of case after case of russian election interference. What the fuck is this? What are you doing? Journalism is dead because they contextually interpret Mueller to talk about russian election interference... One of just two things he was tasked with looking into. What you're saying is so insane it's physically making me feel dizzy.

[oskar]

Correction, Western journalism is dead. It's exactly the same here. Remember Novichok? Something like "the sample was pure", meaning "impossible to have come from a door knob having been there for days in rain", spun as "military grade of the type developed by Russia".

I'm glad you see through the bullshit Mojo.

WHAT?!
What the fuck do you think is wrong with inferring Robert Mueller was talking about russian election interference. There's no way any of you two has read even the summary of the report... which I don't mind if you're living on an island, but for an american citizen to not have read even the fucking introduction to the Mueller report is neglecting your duty as a voter... you know what, I don't even care if you're an american and you can't be bothered to read 4 pages, but then to go ahead, shit your pants, fall on your ass and proclaim journalism is dead because you completely missed the boat on what's going on... that's insanity.

[oskar]

I am not anti-cop.

Let me fix that:

https://www.vice.com/en_us/article/8...1kafNIBoITxC-A

[OngBonga]

I can't be fucked to read it, I don't even care if he obstructed justice or whatever, but any talk of Russia is complete an utter bollocks. Anything I read in the MSM about Russia is immediately dismissed as propaganda, and I'm right at least 95% of the time.

[MadMojoMonkey]

@Oskar: lol. You're still fabricating paper tigers to be afraid of.
No one said the MR wasn't about election interference and specifically Russian involvement.

I pointed out that the reporter misquoted MR seconds after hearing the quote. The reported editorialized the quote, he spun it.

Mueller in that comment took time to specifically talk about the MR's statements about the sitting POTUS. He said what we've all been saying all along. That the report could never, under any circumstances indict or give evidence to support indictment of any sitting POTUS. He could not even keep evidence against the sitting POTUS under seal until the POTUS was no longer sitting, as he explained that violates their rights.

For the reporter to inject the "clarification" that Mueller was specifically talking about Russia, and not that other thing he mentioned moments before is spin. Mueller read a prepared report. If he meant to specifically say "Russia" in his closing statement, he'd have said, "Russia."

He didn't.
And it's still interesting.

[oskar]

What election interference do you think he was talking about?

[oskar]

I can't be fucked to read it, I don't even care if he obstructed justice or whatever, but any talk of Russia is complete an utter bollocks. Anything I read in the MSM about Russia is immediately dismissed as propaganda, and I'm right at least 95% of the time.

For example?

[OngBonga]

Novichok

[MadMojoMonkey]

What election interference do you think he was talking about?

Don't change the subject. My thoughts on election interference are not the topic.


Who's talking about election interference? Mueller.
What did Mueller say? (watch the vid)
What did the reporter say Mueller said? (watch the vid)
Are those word-for-word the same?

No.

Ergo, the reporter was editorializing, or spinning the statement.

[oskar]

Novichok

We're not doing this again. Nobody outside of bumfuck Wiltshire even knows what the fuck this is about.

[oskar]

Don't change the subject. My thoughts on election interference are not the topic.


Who's talking about election interference? Mueller.
What did Mueller say? (watch the vid)
What did the reporter say Mueller said? (watch the vid)
Are those word-for-word the same?

No.

Ergo, the reporter was editorializing, or spinning the statement.

What possible election interference other than russian election interference could Mueller have been talking about?
I'm not saying there isn't other election interference, there most certainly is, but which one of those do you think Mueller could have been talking about?

[oskar]

If you're saying that yeah, of course he was talking about russian election interference, duh, I'm not retarded over here... but the reporter is "editorializing, or spinning the statement" to the extent that prompts you to proclaim "western journalism is dead" because he described the content of the statement rather than quoting him verbating... huh? That is how the press dies? By adding a word that doesn't change the meaning?

[oskar]

Novichok

I would point to the mueller report actually corroborating most wapo and nyt stories that were previously dismissed as left wing hysteria but actually turned out to be correct or mostly correct.

[MadMojoMonkey]

What possible election interference other than russian election interference could Mueller have been talking about?
I'm not saying there isn't other election interference, there most certainly is, but which one of those do you think Mueller could have been talking about?

My thoughts on election interference are not the topic.

[OngBonga]

Yeah I'm glad you can't be fucked to argue about Novichok because I can't either. It's obviously a crock of shit. There's nothing more to add.

In case anyone is interested in the Assange case...
https://www.craigmurray.org.uk/archi...lenting-state/

[oskar]

My thoughts on election interference are not the topic.

Yeah they are if you're going to say the reporter spun the story by quoting Mueller to say russian election interference, when Mueller clearly was talking about russian election interference. That is not spinning the story. To know how that qualifies as spinning the story, I need to know what you think it was spun from.

[oskar]

Yeah I'm glad you can't be fucked to argue about Novichok because I can't either. It's obviously a crock of shit. There's nothing more to add.

In case anyone is interested in the Assange case...
https://www.craigmurray.org.uk/archi...lenting-state/

Dude, it's ok dun wurry. If the US tortures him and Chelsea Manning to death, the constitutionalists will come out of the woodwork and bangbang their way out of tyranny!

[Poopadoop]

My thoughts on election interference are not the topic.

They're exactly the topic if you're going to accuse someone of putting a spin on Mueller's comments.

[Poopadoop]

Seriously, that attack on the journalist for inserting the obvious context into Mueller's words is quite possibly the dumbest thing I've ever read on this forum, with the possible exception of the following post by Ong congratulating you for seeing the light.

head-exploding.jpg

[MadMojoMonkey]

What did Mueller say? (watch the vid)
What did the reporter say Mueller said? (watch the vid)
Are those word-for-word the same?

No.

Ergo, the reporter was editorializing, or spinning the statement.

.

[Poopadoop]

Then you must not know what "spin" means. It means putting a biased interpretation on a story. There's nothing 'spinny' about mentioning that Mueller was referring to Russian interference. That's what half the report was about. Everybody knows that.

"Spin" would be saying the report exonerates Trump because it doesn't indict him, giving the impression that he wasn't indicted because he was judged innocent, rather than that he wasn't indicted because it was against policy to indict a sitting POTUS.

[boost]

Let me fix that:

https://www.vice.com/en_us/article/8...1kafNIBoITxC-A

I don't understand your goal here. This quote is from the context of me criticizing this police officer for participating in a wide spread systemic issue in policing. To bolster my point, I make it clear that I'm not an ACAB drooler. Being anti-cop is nonsensical. No one actually wants to live in a society without police. You might say the words, you might think you mean them-- but when you get down to the nuts and bolts, when you actually understand the implications, it's not what you want.

Being anti-cop is a childish response to a serious set of issues. It's akin to the people who hear about a rapist going to prison and proclaim their hope that they themselves get raped. It's dumb. Mulling it over for half a second makes it abundantly clear how dumb of a position it is.